DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

Volume I

The True Religion
by Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.
From the Fifth Edition Edited by
REV. J. P. VERHAAR, S.T.D.

Translated and Revised by
John J. Castelot, s.s., s.t.d., s.s.l.,

William R. Murphy, s.s., s.t.d.

THE NEWMAN PRESS

Westminster, Maryland

1961

First published 1955
Second printing 1959

Third printing 1961
The present volume is a translation of the 5th edition of Msgr. van Noort’s
Tractatus de Vera Religione, edited by J. P. Verhaar. Because of the extensive
revision made by the translators the English translation may be called the
6th edition of Msgr. van Noort’s dogmatic treatise.
Nihil Obstat: Paul F. Genovese,
Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur:

s.s., s.t.d.

Edward Cardinal Mooney
Archiepiscopus Detroitensis
die 6 Julii 1954

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or
pamphlet is free of doctrinal and moral error. No implication is contained
therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and imprimatur agree
with the opinions expressed.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 55-10552
Copyright,© 1955, by The Newman Press

Printed in the United States of America

Preface
People occasionally complain that it is difficult to find a complete,
up-to-date, scientific course of dogmatic theology in English. It is
our sincere hope that the present translation of Monsignor Van
Noort’s series of dogmatic textbooks will meet the need implicit in
that complaint.
All priests know of many excellent manuals of theology in
Latin. Many, however, confess that their long years in the ministry
have seen them lose their mastery of that language and, as a
consequence, the urge to pick up their seminary textbooks is not
too strong. Our own teaching experience forces us to admit that
many seminarians whose knowledge of Latin is insufficient fail to
derive all that they should from their course in theology. Then, too,
with the recent growth of interest in theology, a considerable
number of nuns, brothers, and educated laymen who wish to study
theology scientifically find the door barred to them because they
do not know Latin. We sincerely hope that this work will make
available to all interested students a full course of dogmatic
theology in English.
In our translation we have tried to render the text into modem
English and at the same time preserve the meaning of the original.
In those instances where we have found consecrated phrases very
difficult to translate, we have put into parentheses, alongside the
English expedient, the familiar Latin formula.
Although many excellent Latin manuals are available, we have
selected Van Noort’s for these two reasons: 1. the work is most
faithful to the theology of St. Thomas; 2. the author, a teacher of
long experience, shows extraordinary clarity, open-mindedness, and
sound judgment in his presentation of theological problems. Van
Noort has a peculiar ability to expose the heart of a problem suc­
cinctly and to define it in sharp outlines. He never avoids deep
problems; yet in his treatment he omits useless subtleties which
might be of interest to specialists, but which would only bewilder
novices. He is equally proficient in speculative and positive the­
ology and combines both harmoniously. It is this over-all sense of
(v)

PREFACE

proportion, of clarity, and of balance that makes his text one of
the finest manuals available.
In our revision of the work, we have maintained the substance
of the original. Revisions have been made only when called for by
more recent pronouncements of the Church, or by the growth due
to recent scholarship in Scripture and the other branches of positive
theology. Most of these revisions will be found in the notes. The
original bibliography upon which the work was built has been
retained, but we have made additions in various places.
The original marginal numbers of Van Noort and the additions
made by Verhaar have been retained. We have thought it wise to
add a detailed outline at the beginning of each article for peda­
gogical purposes. A completely new index has been made.
In the present volume the most notable changes will be found
in the “Introduction to the Entire Field of Theology” and in “Reli­
gion in General.” In these sections recent scholarship has enabled
us to amplify and certify some points which Van Noort omitted or
advanced in tentative fashion only. In the second appendix we
have added a few remarks to clarify his treatment of the involved
question of the Parousia.
Since some complain that dogmatic theologians and scriptural
scholars are uncooperative, we thought it wise to have a professor
of Scripture and a professor of dogmatic theology join forces in
bringing Van Noort’s work to the English-speaking world. As an
exegetical discussion of all the scriptural texts involved would have
rendered this volume exceedingly cumbersome, we have been con­
tent to incorporate the conclusions of such discussion. For a full
treatment of scriptural questions we refer the reader to A Catholic
Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Thomas Nelson and
Sons, Ltd., 1953). Scriptural quotations in the present work are
taken from the Douay version of the Old Testament, except for
Genesis to Ruth and Psalms, where we have used the new Con­
fraternity Translation, and for Isaias, where we used that of
Monsignor Kissane. All New Testament citations are from the
Confraternity Translation.
All footnotes, whether German, French, Latin, or Dutch, have
been translated. Such translations are original save in those places
where credit is given others.
We warn any non-professional reader that he will find the
opening chapter on the nature and history of theology technical

( vi)

PREFACE

and heavy. To avoid unnecessary difficulties, he would do bettei
to begin with the brief introduction to fundamental theology.
We wish to thank all who have contributed in any way to the
preparation of this volume, in particular the Revs. James Kava­
naugh, James Cusack, and Richard Van Mullekom.
Any criticisms or suggestions by our readers will be welcomed
gladly.
The Translators:
John J. Castelot, S.S.
William R. Murphy, S.S.
St. Johns Provincial Seminary
Plymouth, Michigan

( vii )

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the following publishers for permission to quote
from their publications:
THE AMERICA PRESS, New York

The Church and Modern Science, 1951.
BROWNE & NOLAN, LTD, Dublin

The Book of Isaiah, translated from a critically revised Hebrew
text with a commentary and critical notes, by Msgr. Edward J.
Kissane. Volume I, 1941; Volume 2, 1944.
THE BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY, Milwaukee

Outlines of Moral Theology by Francis J. Connell, C.Ss.R., 1953.
THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, London

Studies in Comparative Religion, edited by Ernest C. Mes­
senger. Volume I, 1934.
DESCLEE ET CIE, Paris

Manual of Patrology by F. Cayré, A.A., translated by H. Howitt,
A.A. Volume I, 1936.
DODD, MEAD & COMPANY, New York

Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, 1909.
THE GRAIL, St. Meinrad

Rome and the Study of Sacred Scripture.
B. HERDER BOOK COMPANY, St. Louis

The Mysteries of Christianity by Matthias Joseph Scheeben,
translated by Cyril Vollert, S.J., 1946.
NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE, Washington

Translation of Pope Pius XHs encyclical, Humani Generis,
1951.
THOMAS NELSON & SONS, Edinburgh

A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1951.
THE NEW AMERICAN LIBRARY OF WORLD LITERATURE, INC.,
New York

Man Makes Himself by Gordon Child, Mentor Edition, 1951,
The Meaning of Evolution by George Gaylord Simpson, Mentor
edition, 1951;
(«)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Science and the Modern World by Alfred North Whitehead,
Mentor edition, 1951.
THE PAULIST PRESS, New York

The Question Box by Bertrand Conway, C.S.P., 1929.
SHEED & WARD, INC., New York

Primitive Man ami His World Picture by Wilhelm Koppers,
translated by Edith Raybould, 1951;
Social Origins by Eva J. Ross, 1936.
XAVIER UNIVERSITY PRESS, Cincinnati

Christian Origins by Arthur P. Madgett, S.J. Volume I, 1948.

t

V \

List of Abbreviations
AAS

....................... Acta Apostolicae Sedis

ACW .

............Ancient Christian Writers

ASS.......................... Acta Sanctae Sedis

AtAb....................... Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen

Bibl...........................Biblica
Bibl Zf.................... Biblische Zeitfragen
BiZ........................... Biblische Zeitschrift

CCHS..................... A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture
DAFC..................... Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique

DB........................... Denziger-Bannwart-Umberg,
Enchiridion Symbolorum
DTC........................ Dictionnaire de théologie catholique

ETL........................ Ephemerides Theologicae Locanienses

Greg........................ Gregorianum

HE.......................... Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius)

MG.......................... Migne, Patrologia Graeca
ML.......................... Migne, Patrologia Latina

NRTh

.....................Novelle revue théologique

NtAb........................Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen

PhJ.......................... Philosophisches Jahrbuch des Gorresgesellschaft

RAp

....................... Revue apologétique

RBibl.........................Revue biblique
RCF......................... Revue du clergé Français

Rev. de philosoph . . Revue de philosophie
RJ............................. Rouët de Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum
RpA

....................... Revue pratique d’apologétique

(xi)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

RSPT....................... Revue des sciences philosophiques et théo­
logiques
R SR ....................... Recherches de science religieuse

RSS.......................... Rome and the Study of Sacred Scripture
S.C.G.......................... St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles

S.Th............................ St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae
STS........................... Strassburg Theologische Studien

ThGl....................... Théologie und Glaube
ThLZ....................... Theologische Literaturzeitung

ZkTh....................... Zeitschrift fur katholische Théologie

(xii)

Contents
Page

Preface .....................................................................................

Acknowledgments
Introduction to

v

...................................................................ix

the

Entire Field of Theology

xv

Introduction to Fundamental Theology.............................. xlvii
SECTION I

A Scientific Analysis of Religion
in the Abstract
I.

On Religion in General.............................................

1

Article I. The Objective Foundation of Religion and
the Obligation to Practice It.................................... 11
Article II. The Unity of the True Religion ...
23
II.

Revealed Religion........................................................... 33

Article I. Revelation Is Possible........................................ 34
Article II. The Necessity of Revelation ....
48
Article III. The Recognizability of Revelation ...
57
SECTION II

The Truth of the Christian-Catholic Religion
I.

II.

The Sublimity of

Christ Had

a

the

Christian-Catholic Religion

111

Divine Mission........................................... 127

Article I. Christ’s Extraordinary Holiness Proves His
Divine Mission............................................................. 137
Article II. Christ’s Prophecies Prove His Divine Mission 147

( xîü )

CONTENTS

Page
Article III. Christ's Miracles Prove His Divine Mission
1.54
Article IV. Christ’s Resurrection Proves His Divine
Mission................................................................................. 165

III.

The Divine Origin of Christ’s Work or of the Chris­
tian-Catholic Religion............................................... 189

Article I. The Divine Origin of the Christian-Catholic
Religion Is Proved by Physical Miracles ....
191
Article II. The Divine Origin of the Christian-Catholic
Religion Is Proved by Its Marvelous Spread and
Conservation............................................................... 200
Article III. The Divine Origin of the Christian-Catholic
Religion Is Proved by Its Perennial Fruitfulness in
the Field of Holiness.................................................. 220
Article IV. The Miraculous Steadfastness of the Mar­
tyrs Proves the Divine Origin of the ChristianCatholic Religion........................................................ 229
IV. God Foretold Christ and His Work................................. 241

Article I. The Existence of Messianic Prophecies .
243
Article II. A Summary Exposition of Messianic
Prophecies.......................................................................... 252

Conclusion to

the

Entire Treatise........................................ 272

Appendix I. Revealed Religion before Christ....

279

Appendix II. Christ’s Teaching

285

on the

Parousia

Scriptural Index.......................................................................... 303
Index of Authors.......................................................................... 309

General Index................................................................................. 317

( xiv )

Introduction to the Entire Field
of Theology

I.

The Concept of Theology:

Etymological meaning and real definition:

1. a science;
2. a supernatural science;
3. treating of both God and creatures.
II.

Connections Between Dogmatic and
Fundamental Theology and Faith:

1. dogmatic theology differs from funda­
mental;
2. dogmatic theology differs from faith,
but is closely bound to it.

III. Division of Theology:

1. by subject-matter;
2. by method.
IV. A Brief History of Systematic Theology:

1. patristic era;
2. scholastic era;
3. modem era.
V. Modern Authors of Theology:

a selected bibliography.

Introduction to the Entire Field of Theology

Preliminary Remarks
If you were to tell the average American that theology is a
science, he would probably be startled. In his vocabulary, science
means physics, chemistry, biology, medicine and other branches of
learning whose methods are mainly empirical. Theology, in his
vocabulary, is a nebulous word standing for anything from myth­
ology to mysticism.®
This failure to realize that theology is a highly specialized field
accounts for much of the popular irritation that rises when a
theologian innocently employs such terms as circumincession,
hypostatic union, or ex opere operato. A lawyer may remark that
he is holding a deed in escrow, or a doctor that he has just per­
formed a pre-frontal lobotomy, and each will be listened to
respectfully by the layman. Should a theologian lapse into such
technical terms, a layman may be irritated. The real cause of the
irritation is a failure to grasp that theology is a special science
having a perfect right to its own technical jargon.f
That is why it seemed useful to open this entire dogmatic series
with a technical discussion of the nature, methods, resources, and
divisions of the science of theology. The beginner in theology is
then in a position to understand what distinguishes this science
from all other sciences, what its own special methods of demon­
stration are, and, finally, how to appreciate the validity of its
conclusions.

I. The Concept of Theology t

The term “theology” is derived from two Greek words, theos,
which means God, and logos, which means word, discourse, or
study. Even in its etymological sense, theology means the science of
e Many people, for example, mistake a purely rational treatise on the
existence of God, or the immortality of the soul, as “theology.” Others think
that any scientific study of the Bible, or any excursion into the field of com­
parative religion is “theology.”
f Undoubtedly the Protestant Reformation, with its contempt for scholastic
terminology and its naive insistence that any man could read the Bible and
( x™ )

THE TRUE RELIGION

God, knowledge about God. One can acquire knowledge about
God and tilings related to Him either by the light of reason alone,
or by the aid of divine revelation; each type of knowledge can be
either popular or scientific in nature. In professional usage, sanc­
tioned since at least the thirteenth century, theology in the strict
sense of the term, or dogmatic theology, means scientific knowledge
about God and matters related to Him that has been derived
from revelation. Theology, therefore, may be defined as a super­
natural science which treats of God and of creatures in their rela­
tionship to God.
1. Theology is a science. Dogmatic theology has the following
functions: 1. from the sources of revelation it demonstrates the
existence of various truths about God; 2. it explains and illustrates
those revealed truths insofar as it is possible to do so; 3. it defends
those truths against the attacks of opponents; 4. it deduces con­
clusions from those revealed truths; and 5. it assembles those
truths, together with the conclusions drawn from them, into one
harmonious system. Such activities are clearly scientific in char­
acter; and the systematic arrangement of truths which results from
them definitely deserves the name of science.1
2. A supernatural science. All other sciences use as their
objective principles of demonstration (the principles from which
knowledge is deduced) either intrinsic evidence, or experimenta­
tion, or human authority. They use as their subjective principle
( the principle by which the knowledge is deduced ) exclusively the
light of human reason. Since all these principles are natural, the
sciences resting upon them are properly described as natural
sciences.
Dogmatic theology, on the other hand, uses as its objective
principle of demonstration, God’s revelation. (The revelation is
contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition and is proposed to us
by the Church.) It uses as its subjective principle, reason enlight­
ened by the gift of faith. Both these principles are obviously beyond
the domain of mere nature. Consequently the science which rests
upon them is called a supernatural science.*
I
find it lucidly clear, played a large role in building up a hostile mentality
to the science of theology in Anglo-Saxon countries.
I A great deal has been written about the nature, development, and extent
of the science of theology during the last thirty-five years. One topic for
debate, for example, is the definibility of “theological conclusions.” For modem
works concerning theology as a science see the special bibliography on
pp. li-lii.

( xviii )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

That is why theology, in the strict sense of the tern., differs
vastly from theodicy.2 Theodicy is simply a branch of philosophy.
It treats of God not insofar as He is knowable by revelation and
faith, but merely insofar as He is knowable from the created
universe by the unaided light of human reason. Even though
theology and theodicy touch partially upon the same problems (for
example, God’s foreknowledge and the problem of evil ) they are
radically distinct sciences because: "a diverse aspect of know­
ability (diversity of formal object) produces diverse sciences.”
(St. Thomas, S.Th., la, 1, 1 ad 2.)
3. Theology treats of God and of creatures. Here we con­
sider the subject matter, technically called the material *object,
of theology. This material object is twofold: primary and secondary.
The primary material object is God Himself and His mysteries;
the secondary material object * * is creatures in their relationship
° The material object of any science is simply the thing or subject studied;
the formal object is the special aspect under which the material object is
viewed and studied by a particular science; it is that aspect of the subject
with which the science is primarily concerned and to which it refers all else
that it may have to study merely as background material. Thus the formal
object of mathematics is quantity; of medicine, health. Each science has its
own distinctive principles by which it reaches and scrutinizes its formal
object: the light cast on the formal object by these distinctive principles is
called technically that science’s special medium or special light (lumen sub
quo, objective formale quo). Note that the same material object may be the
formal object of different sciences. For example, man can be studied by such
sciences as medicine, anthropology, psychology, moral theology, etc. Each
studies man ( the same material object ) under diverse aspects ( formal object )
and, employing distinctive scientific principles, apprehends man in a special
medium or light. See J. Maritain, An Introduction to Philosophy (New York:
Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1947), pp. 102—03; 106-07.
00 G. Thils has written a provocative article on the secondary material
object in ETL (April-September, 1953): “Le’objet matériel secondaire de la
théologie,” pp. 398-418. He objects that theologians overly restrict, at least
in theory, the field of the secondary object by confining it to a consideration
of efficient and final causality, or things as they come from Cod and tend
toward God. They seem to neglect the aspect of exemplary causality. He
tentatively suggests a broader definition of the field of the secondary object:
"all creatures in all the relations which they have with and in the entire
supernatural world.” We feel that this broader definition is unnecessary and
confusing on at least two counts: first, the standard theological description
which views all creation as proceeding from God (efficient causality) and
returning to God (final causality) implicitly and necessarily includes the
aspect of exemplary causality; secondly, and more importantly, the definition
tentatively proposed would make the field of theology literally limitless. Only
God Himself can know the billion-fold relationships intertwining all created
reality with “the entire supernatural world." This definition seems to confuse
God’s knowledge with God’s testimony. Theology is not concerned with all
( xix )

THE TRUE RELIGION

to God. Theology studies both God Himself and His creatures
but it studies creatures primarily in their relationship to God. Since
all matters treated in sacred doctrine are viewed under the
aspect of deity, either because they are God Himself, or because
they have a relationship to God as their beginning or goal, it
follows that God is in very' truth the subject-matter of this
science (St. Thomas, op. cit., q. 1, a. 7).
The phrase, under the aspect of deity;' shows us the formal
object, or the special aspect of the subject matter which exclusively
belongs to the science of theology. God as known from creatures
and studied by the light of reason is the formal object of theodicy;
God as known to Himself alone and as manifested to creatures by
revelation is the formal object, the special study, of theology alone:

Sacred doctrine essentially treats God viewed as the highest
cause; for it does not treat of Him only with reference to what
is knowable about Him through creation—the way the phil­
osophers know him ... ; but it also treats of Him with
reference to what He alone knows about Himself and com­
municates to others by revelation (St. Thomas, op. cit., q. 1,
a. 6).

II. Connections Between Dogmatic Theology, Fundamental
Theology, and Divine Faith
From what has been discussed thus far it is evident; 1. that
dogmatic theology differs from fundamental theology, and 2. that
dogmatic theology differs from divine faith, though closely con­
nected to it.
1. Dogmatic theology differs from fundamental theology.
Dogmatic theology, since it uses as its objective principle God’s
revelation, presupposes the actual existence of that revelation as
something already known. It presumes as proved that God has
actually spoken and that the truths He has revealed are infallibly
preserved in the Catholic Church. These facts, therefore, must be
that God knows about the relationships obtaining between created reality and
the entire supernatural world; it seeks »o discover what God has deliberately
chosen to make known by His revelation.

(xx)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

already established before dogmatic theology begins. Establishing
them is the task of fundamental theology.
Fundamental theology, then, derives its name from the fact
that it demonstrates the principle, the foundation on which all
theology rests, namely, the divine communication of truth.
*
Thus,
fundamental theology acts as an introduction to dogmatic. Since
it is customary to speak of the introduction of any science as part
of that science, just as the foundation of a house is part of the
house, so fundamental theology can rightly be called a part of the­
ology, even though it differs from dogmatic theology in many ways.
For example, it is different from dogmatic theology in a. its
material object (the thing or object which it investigates). In
dogmatic theology the material object is God and creatures insofar
as they are related to God; in fundamental theology the material
object is the divine revelation itself and the faithful preservation
of that revelation by the Church.5 b. It differs also in its formal
object (the object by which, or the special aspect under which,
the material object is viewed). The formal object of dogmatic
theology is divine revelation, insofar as the revelation itself fur­
nishes proof of dogmas and offers an understanding of theological
conclusions. In fundamental theology, on the other hand, the
formal object is twofold.
It is twofold in the sense that it includes two facts: the actual
existence of a divine message, and the preservation of that message
by the Church. Now, the divine message is an historical fact. As
such, it can be demonstrated from history and by the principles
of reason. The infallible preservation of this divine message, on the
other hand, is a fact which can be known either by revelation or
by reason. It can be known by revelation, because Christ Himself
has revealed to us both the way in which it was to be preserved
( namely, by an infallible Church ) and the characteristics by which
that Church can be recognized. The preservation of that divine
message may also be known by reason: reason can demonstate, on
historical grounds, that the Church has always and clearly pro­
claimed herself the guardian of a divine revelation, and reason can
also demonstrate, on historical grounds (by means of miracles and
other arguments of credibility), that the Church’s assertion is true.
It follows, then, that the formal object of fundamental theology,
when it is proving the existence of revelation, is the natural know­
ability or the historico-philosophical knowability 6 of that revela­
tion. When it is demonstrating the infallible preservation of the
( xxi )

THE TRUE

RELIGION

revelation by the Church, its formal object may be either the
revelation itself (a supernatural knowability), or natural reason
(an historico-philosophical knowability).7
Finally, if one but consider that a more complete knowledge
of divine realities stirs a man voluntarily to love God more fer­
vently, he will realize that St. Albert the Great has practically
summed up the whole grandeur of theology in this axiom: “Theol­
ogy is taught by God, teaches God, and leads to God.”H
2. Theology differs from divine faith; yet it is most closely
bound up with faith. Theology differs from faith: it differs a.
from the point of view of its material object. Faith contains only
revealed truths, whereas theology contains many additional truths
connected with revelation, b. From the point of view of its formal
object. The formal object of faith is the divine revelation as moving
the intelligence to give firm assent to the authority of God reveal­
ing. In theology the formal object is that same revelation insofar
as it demonstrates the existence of various revealed truths and
offers an understanding of the conclusions that flow from them.
Faith simply embraces the revealed truths with a firm assent, but
does not make use of argumentation or discursive reasoning; neither
does it draw up an orderly presentation of these truths, or seek to
defend their truthfulness—in a word, it does not proceed in a
scientific fashion. That is why St. Augustine says:

A great many of the faithful are not equipped with that
science even though they are richly equipped with faith itself.
For it is one thing simply to know what truths a man ought to
believe in order to gain heaven, but it is quite another matter
to know how to feed the faithful those same truths and how to
defend them against infidels (De Trinitate, bk. 14, 1, no. 3).

c. Theology differs from faith in its certitude. The certitude
given by faith is the highest possible type, because it rests on God’s
own authority; the certitude of theology, because it blends reason­
ing with revelation, is much inferior.
Theology and faith are closely bound together, a. Theology
presupposes faith and builds upon it. The revealed truths, with
which theology is mainly concerned and from which it scientifically
draws its conclusions, simply would not hold up unless accepted
by faith. Consequently, were one to remove faith, there would
remain in theological subject matter no sure knowledge of truth,
( xxii )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

and hence no science of theology, no theology at all.’ This finds
expression in the well-known scholastic axiom of St. Anselm: “I
believe in order to understand.” 10
b. Theology renders great assistance to faith. By theology, as
St. Augustine bears witness, "saving faith which leads to true
happiness is bom, nourished, defended, and strengthened” ( De
Trinitate, loc. cit.).
III. The Divisions of Theology

Even though theology is strictly one science because of the
unity of its formal object,” one can make various divisions of it
from the point of view either of the matter studied, or of the
particular method of procedure used in its study.
1. From the point of view of the matter studied. It has already
been said that fundamental and dogmatic theology do not blend
together into one complete theological course, or into one and the
same theological book as though they were simply two equal
halves of one homogeneous whole. Rather, they are two distinct
disciplines, one of which is essentially preparatory to the other.
It is only with this restriction that theology (taken in a wide sense)
is said to be divided into fundamental and dogmatic theology.
Fundamental theology deals with the very foundations on which
all theology and even religion itself rest: namely, the actual exist­
ence of revelation, the channels through which the revealed truth
comes to man, and the means by which he receives it.12
Dogmatic theology, on the other hand, deals separately with
each of the revealed truths proposed and explained by the Church.
It takes its name from the word "dogma.” This term, taken in itself,
may describe either practical norms for action or truths primarily
of the intellectual order (speculative truths).
*
More modem usage
reserves the term “dogma” exclusively to revealed truths of the
intellectual order.
Dogmatic theology is subdivided into theoretical and practical,
or moral. Theoretical theology deals with those truths which are
not directly concerned with setting up a code of morals, but are
primarily intellectual in character. Practical, or moral, theology
deals with normative truths, those truths which a man is to accept
° The phrase "truths of the intellectual order” is used here deliberately to
alert the reader to the fact that "speculative truths” does not mean guess­
work, a connotation frequently carried by the English term.

( xxiii )

THE TRUE RELIGION

not merely intellectually, but that he is to put into practice in his
daily life.
*
The following special sciences belong to practical
theology: a. inoral theology strictly so called, which deals with the
Commandments, with what is right or wrong; b. ascetical theology,
which treats of the perfection of the Christian life, the evangelical
counsels, and all the ordinary means which lead one to Christian
perfection; c. mystical theology, which treats especially of both
the theory and the practice of the contemplative life; 13 d. pastoral
theology, which looks to the guidance and governance of souls;
and, finally, e. canon law, which deals with the laws laid down by
the Church.
The foregoing division from the point of view of the matter
studied is summarized in the following two schemas:

1. Fundamental:
I. Theology
(in a wide
sense)
2. Dogmatic:
(various indi­
vidual truths
contained in
Revelation )

II. Dogmatic
Theology

a. Demonstration of ChristianCatholic Religion.
h. The Church of Christ.
c. The sources of Revelation.
d. Divine Faith
a. Theoretical: truths primarily of
the intellectual
order.
b. Practical:
truths directly
looking to a code
of conduct.

1. Theoretical: God: Unity and Trinity, Creation, Griginal Sin, Incarnation, Redemption, Mariology, Grace and Sacraments, Eschat­
ology.
a. Moral (strictly so-called):
Right and wrong.
b. Ascetical: Christian Perfection.
2. Practical
c. Mystical: Contemplative life.
d. Pastoral: Care and government
( Various
of souls.
special
e. Canon Law: Laws of the
sciences )
Church.

• Practical ( moral ) theology is related to dogmatic theology as a part to
the whole. That is why the scholastics and St. Thomas treated all revealed
truths, both speculative and practical, in the same theological “summa.”
If, therefore, modem authors frequently juxtapose practical ( moral ) theology
to dogmatic theology, this manner of speaking is by no means meant to
signify that moral theology is not an intrinsic part of dogmatic theology. It
follows that practical theology should be treated in such a way that its
connection with the rest of dogmatic doctrine, and its dependence upon it,
can be clearly noted. See Van Laak, De theologia generatim, p. 21.

( xxiv )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

2. From the point of view of method.'4 According to the man­
ner in which the subject matter is handled, theology may be divided
into positive and speculative.
Biblical
Patristic
Credal (Conciliar)
Dogmatic
r ( 1 ) Pastoral
b. Moral:
| (2) Ascetical
1(3) Mystical

a.
h.
c.
a.

1. Positive:
Theology

2. Speculative
or
Scholastic

Positive theology accurately demonstrates the existence of the
various truths of the faith by collecting and organizing the
various statements of Sacred Scripture and the documents of Tradi­
tion. Its task is to show that such and such a truth really is con­
tained in revelation. Positive theology, then, takes its name from
the fact that its very method leads it to be almost exclusively con­
cerned with the valid demonstration (Latin: ponere) of the actual
existence of such or such a revealed truth.15
Positive theology is subdivided in accord with the emphasis
it places on one or another source of revelation. It is called Biblical
theology if it bases its arguments almost exclusively on Sacred
Scripture. If it draws its arguments mainly from the Fathers of the
Church, it is called patristic theology. If, finally, it draws mainly
on the creeds and other official documents of the Church, it is
called credal or conciliar theology. Akin to positive theology is
polemical theology, whose purpose it is to defend individual
revealed truths against the attacks of non-Catholics.16
Speculative or scholastic theology makes use of philosophy for
the following purposes: 1. to offer a deeper and fuller understand­
ing of the meaning of religious dogmas; 2. to harmonize dogmas
with the principles of natural reason; 3. to illustrate dogmas by

F. J. Connell, C.Ss.R., an eminent American moral theologian, is careful
to note the same point. “The earlier theologians usually treated both dogmatic
and moral theology as two aspects of the one science of theology. Since the
seventeenth century there has been a tendency to discuss them separately, so
that the impression is given that they are two distinct sciences. This is incor­
rect; for theology, whether speculative or practical, is one science insofar as its
formal object or motive is the same. However, because their material objects
are very different (what we should believe, what we should do), we treat
them in different courses in our seminaries and universities.” Outlines of
Moral Theology (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1953), p. 4.

( «V )

THE TRUE RELIGION

analogies drawn from the world around us; 4. to make clear the
bonds of union existing between the various dogmas and between
the dogmas themselves and natural truths; 5. to deduce various
conclusions from the dogmas—some of which conclusions are not
readily apparent from the first examination of the dogmas. Finally,
speculative theology seeks to organize all sacred doctrine into one
harmonious system. To sum up, it seeks to draw out some under­
standing of God’s revealed truth, by investigating, as far as the
frailty of human intelligence permits, precisely what a given thing
is and why it is so.
St. Thomas describes the purpose of both methods, namely,
positive and scholastic, as follows:
A [theological] discussion may be conducted with either of two
aims in view. One type of discussion aims at removing doubts
as to whether a thing be true or not. In this type of discussion,
one should have recourse above all to authorities, who are
acknowledged by those taking part in the discussion. But there
is another type of discussion used by teachers in the schools.
It aims not so much at removing error, as at instructing the
listeners in such a way that they will be led to an understanding
of the truth that [the teacher] is trying to get across. In this
type of instruction one must adduce reasons which analyze the
core of the truth and which make known how the thing under
discussion is true. Otherwise, if a teacher solves a problem by
a naked appeal to authority, his audience will be assured that
the thing is so, but they will gain no scientific knowledge or
insight into it and will depart empty-handed (Quodlibetales,
IV, q. 9, a. 18).
The very character of speculative theology gives it its name,
for it reasons about revealed truths in a philosophical fashion
(Latin: speculari). Because the scholastics, or learned men of the
Middle Ages, laid special emphasis on speculative theology, it also
goes by the name of scholastic theology.17
It should be clear, then, that speculative and positive theology
are not two parts of theology, but only two different methods of
approach to the same subject matter. In fact, the two cannot be
altogether separated. Speculative theology presupposes the work
of positive theology and rests upon it: it begins where that leaves
off.1* And positive theology, if it were to be completely separated
from speculative theology, would not deserve the name of science.

( xxvi )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

But one or the other method of approach can predominate.
That is why in the Middle Ages, when men enjoyed the peaceful
possession of Catholic truth, they paid so much attention to specu­
lative theology. But from the time of the Council of Trent (1545—
1563) the very necessity of defending Catholic dogmas against
the attacks of the early Protestants forced theologians to study
positive theology with greater diligence. Things grew even worse
in the eighteenth and in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Quite a few people bitterly criticized scholastic theology as if it
consisted of nothing but a mountain of useless problems and idle
quibbling. Some even accused it of building a smooth highway
leading straight to rationalism. Such people, confusing the science
itself and a rational, moderate use of its method with the unfortu­
nate excesses of some of the later scholastics, quite frequently
caricatured a science of which they were really ignorant.
But the Church has always defended scholastic theology; in
fact, she has paid tribute to it with the highest praise.’9 As St.
Pius X had to defend speculative theology against the attacks of
the Modernists, so too, in our own day, Pius XII has had to insist
once more on its great value against the danger of “dogmatic
relativism.” He writes:

Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and
such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and
perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with
no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant
supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and
leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the
Faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may
be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and
unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the
flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow;
this is supreme imprudence and something that would make
dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for
terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians
leads of itself to the weakening of what they call Speculative
Theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true
certitude because it is based upon theological reasoning.
Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from
despising Scholastic Theology to the neglect of and even con­
tempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which
gives such authoritative approval to Scholastic Theology
( xxvii )

THE TRUE RELIGION

(Humani Generis, NCWC Translation, 1950, pp. 8-9. sections
23-24).

Modem authors are careful to blend together harmoniously both
positive and scholastic theology. This is definitely the best proce­
dure, advocated by the Church herself :
Certainly, more attention must be paid to positive theology
than in the past, but this should be done without any detriment
to scholastic theology, and they should be disapproved of as
showing modernist tendencies who exalt positive theology in
such a way as to seem to despise scholastic theology (Pius X,
Pascendi Dominici Gregis).
IV. A Brief Historical Outline of Systematic Theology *

The history of theology is usually divided into three major eras:
1. the patristic era: ( 1st—8th centuries) ’"
up to St. John Damascene (d. 749);
2. the scholastic era: ( 12th—16th centuries)
from St. Anselm (d. 1109) to the Council of Trent (15451563);
3. the modern era: ( 16th-20th centuries )
from the Council of Trent to the present day.

In between the end of the patristic era and the beginning of
the scholastic age there is a transitional period, today commonly
labeled pre-scholastic (8th—12th centuries). But, inasmuch as
theology, prior to the 12th century, was not yet synthesized into
one organic unit, the patristic era and the pre-scholastic period will
be described only briefly.
1. The Patristic Era. Patristic theology is characterized by
the production of excellent monographs on individual points of
doctrine. The Fathers did not write these monographs merely out
of an academic desire to present Christian doctrine in an orderly
fashion: they wrote them to defend Christian truths against the
violent attacks of heretics.21
Monographs written in defense of the doctrine of the Trinity
are:
St. Augustine’s De Trinitate in twelve books;
• See the bibliography, pp. 1-li.

( xxviii )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

St. Athanasius’ Contra Arianos orationes 1-3;
St. Basil’s Adversus Eunomium in three books and De Spiritu
Sancto; and
St. Hilary’s De Trinitate in twelve books.
Monographs written in defense of the doctrine of the Incarna­
tion are:
St. Ambrose’s De incarnationis dominicae sacramento;
St. Gregory’s (Nyssa) Adversus Apollinarem;
St. Leo the Great’s Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum;
Pope Gelasius I’s De duabus naturis in Christo.
These works were directed against the heresies of the Arians, the
Apollinarists, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, and the Mono­
thelites.
In addition, St. Augustine wrote numerous works against the
Pelagians in defense of the doctrines on grace and original sin.22
For the rest, the Fathers of the Church taught the contents of
Christian doctrine to their catechumens without scientific appara­
tus, or explained it to the faithful in sermons. Thus we may say
that they prepared the way for, rather than produced, a systematic
presentation of the whole field of theology.
Even in the patristic era, however, a few Fathers did attempt
such a systematic presentation. These Fathers were of the Alex­
andrian school and produced a synthetic exposition of Christian
doctrine as an antidote to offset heretical Gnosticism.23
In constructing a kind of Christian gnosis the following Fathers
gave a rather systematic presentation of theology: Clement of
Alexandria (d. 211-216) in his trilogy: 1st part, Protrepticus
(a refutation of pagan errors and a demonstration of Christian
truth); 2nd part, Paedagogus (moral regulations for Chris­
tians ) ; 3rd part, Stromata ( a theoretical exposition of the Chrisian Faith). Origen (185-253) also composed a large systematic
work as a kind of Christian gnosis entitled Peri archôn ( a trea­
tise on fundamental doctrines, translated into Latin by Rufinus
under the title De principiis). This work was composed of four
books: 1. On God, His attributes, the Trinity, and on the angels;
2. the creation of matter, Divine Providence, man and freedom,
sin, redemption, final consummation; 3. the moral life; 4. the
inspiration and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. It should be
noted that Origen and some other theologians of the Alex­
andrian school, in their eagerness to reach a deep understanding
of Christian revelation, went astray on some points of Catholic

( xxix )

THF. TRUE RELIGION

Faith (Diekamp, Theologiae dogmaticae manuale, 3rd edition
1949. I, 93).

Several centuries later, and with far better success than the
theologians of the Alexandrian school, St. John Damascene
(c. 675-749) 14 wrote a large systematic work of theology entitled
De fide orthodoxa (An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith). Dama­
scene produced in this work not his own personal views, but an
orderly summary' of the traditional theology of the Greek Fathers.25
An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith [De fide orthodoxa]
comprises 100 chapters that have been divided into four books
by' the Latins, corresponding to the four books of Peter Lom­
bard’s Sentences. Book I (ch. 1-14) is a treatise “De Deo Uno
et Trino.” Book II ( ch. 15-44 ) treats of the works of God ( crea­
tion, angels, world, man) and of Providence. Philosophy and
natural sciences also find a fairly large place here. Book III
(ch. 45-73) explains the doctrine of the Incarnation by com­
paring it with heretical aberrations. Lastly, Book IV (ch. 74100) deals with subjects that had found no place in the first
three books (faith, sacraments, mariology, Scripture, veneration
of the saints, and images), sometimes touches on matters
already treated and comes to an end with a consideration of
the Last Things (Cayré, Manual of Patrology [Tournai: Desclée
& Cie, 1940] II, 332).
Of all the Fathers of the Church, none was better equipped
by way of native genius and of theological knowledge to produce
a complete, systematic treatment of theology than St. Augustine
(d. 430). Yet he did not do so: he presented an outline rather than
an actual elaboration in two of his works: De Doctrina Christiana,
and the Enchiridion. In the first he presents a brief summary of
dogmatic theology in this order: the Trinity and the divine nature,
the Incarnation of the Son, the Redemption, the sanctification and
consummation of man. In the second he makes a division according
to the three theological virtues, faith, hope and charity, and under
each of these headings he inserts major Christian truths. Even
though Augustine did not produce a work analogous to the Summa
of St. Thomas, he rightly holds first place among all the Fathers;
for, by his many writings, he touched on almost all points of doc­
trine and illuminated them by his genius, laying a vast foundation
for all future theological development.
( xxx )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

Transitional Period ( pre-scholastic) :
Between the death of the last Father of the Church, St. John
Damascene (d. 749), and the writings of St. Anselm (d. 1109)
there stands a transitional period, now commonly labeled pre­
scholastic.During this period there was no formal study of the­
ology such as it is known in medieval or modem times:
When one speaks of the theological instruction furnished by
the Carolingian schools, it would be a great delusion to conjure
up a program of studies or a method of instruction such as were
offered by the universities of the 13th century or the seminaries
of the 17th century. There is scarcely any evidence that would
allow us to assign to the theological teaching of this epoch any
other scope than explanatory reading of the Bible, a few works
of some Fathers, and the explanation of liturgical rites and
prayers (J. de Ghellinck, Le Mouvement Théologique du XIIe
Siècle, 2nd edition, 1948, p. 10).

The same state of affairs continued during the next century,
“the century of iron,” and in fact became even worse. The instruc­
tion of the clergy was extremely elemental and geared almost
entirely to an immediate preparation for saying Mass, administer­
ing the sacraments, and other practical duties of their ministry.27
One important contribution of this whole period was the col­
lecting and organizing of manuscripts by the monks. The monastic
copyists performed an immense service, both for theology and for
learning in general, by preserving for posterity both the works of
the Fathers and classic Latin literature.2S
Yet even during this transition period there were a number of
men like Alcuin, Hincmar of Rheims, John the Scot, Paschasius
Radbert, Lanfranc, Guitmond, and others, who did excellent work
in defending and explaining particular points of doctrine.
Thus, for example, Alcuin (d. 804) wrote a treatise of three
books entitled De fide sanctae et individuae Trinitatis in which
he discussed the Trinity, creation, the Incarnation, and escha­
tology. Even more noteworthy are the works of Paschasius of
Radbert, abbot of Corbie (d. 860), and of Ratram, a monk of
Corbie (d. after 868); both works were entitled De corpore et
sanguine Domini. Inasmuch as the Fathers of the Church had
not left any monographic productions on the doctrine of the
Eucharist, and inasmuch as these men did not possess the

( xxxi )

THE TRUE RELIGION

highly technical theological vocabulary of later theologians,
their attempt to treat the subject of the Eucharist is quite
remarkable.29
Again, John the Scot, who was “the most brilliant of the
ninth century scholars, and surely the best educated, knowing
Greek as well as Latin,” 30 produced a number of theological
works, like De Divina Praedestinatione and De divisione
naturae. Some of his ideas were, however, unorthodox.31
Finally, it should be noted that these men are called pre­
scholastics because they prepared the way for the mature scholas­
ticism of succeeding centuries by their application of what they
learned from the seven liberal arts (as covered in the trivium and
quadrivium) to the study of the Bible,32 and by their growing
interest in dialectics.33
2. The Scholastic Era. The characteristic note of this era is
the production of summae of theology, which, unlike monographic
productions, aimed at presenting a synthesis of the entire field of
theology. The method followed was scholastic, which meant that
the theologians of this era deliberately employed the tools of
Aristotelian logic and metaphysics to order, analyze, and defend
the entire body of revealed truth. They sought to penetrate the
meaning of mysteries as far as human intelligence could.
One point that should also be noted is that these scientific
presentations of revealed doctrine were bom not from any need to
ward off heretical attacks, but from a love for speculation. Aristo­
telian philosophy, which had but recently penetrated medieval
Europe,34 was as exciting a subject in that day as nuclear physics
is to the twentieth century student. Medieval students took this
new tool of learning and applied it to the field of knowledge they
esteemed above all others: the revealed knowledge given by God
—in order to comprehend more deeply and to defend more ably
the gift of revelation.

a. Beginnings of Scholastic Theology:
In the 11th century St. Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109), with
his motto, “faith seeking understanding,” inaugurated scholastic
theology. Walking in the footsteps of St. Augustine, he expounded
major theological themes in the following works:

the Monologium and Proslogium, which both deal with God
Himself (the second contains his famous ontological argu­
ment for the existence of God);
( xxxii )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

the Cur Deus Homo, in which he answers the question, Why
did God become man?” by developing the theme of Christ’s
vicarious satisfaction;
the De conceptu virginali et originali peccato, in which he
gives what was to become the classic definition of original
sin, namely "the privation of original justice";
the De concordia praedestinationis et gratiae cum lihero
arbitrio.

Although St. Anselm is usually rated the “Father of Scholastic
Theology,” more attention is being paid recently to the large role
played by Peter Abelard (d. 1142) in the formation of scholasti­
cism.35 Abelard it was who first introduced the term “theology to
the study of sacred doctrine, which up to that time had been called
simply “sacra pagina.” 30 Although Abelard went astray badly on a
number of points of doctrine, such as the Redemption and original
sin,37 and was condemned for his errors, he actually was not a
“rationalist,” as many for a long time erroneously considered him.38
His spur to scholastic theology lies, however, not so much in
his theological synthesis, as in his formulation of method. To Abe­
lard goes credit for introducing, in all probability, the first summa
of theology, his De unitate et Trinitate divina (c. 1118),39 which
he would later expand into his larger work, Theologia Christiana.
In his Sic et non, which was an arsenal of conflicting patristic
views, designed as a workbook for reconciling40 these divergent
opinions, and in his Theologia Christiana he developed his dialec­
tical method by introducing into theology the quaestio, which
would eventually become a standard part of the scholastic method
of treating theological questions.41
Although Abelard introduced the first summa of medieval the­
ology, it was Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141) 42 who saved the new
method by his own moderation and balance. In his Didascalion
he had proposed drawing up some such summary manual of
theology for beginners, to keep them from getting lost in a welter
of opinions, such as were found in current patristic anthologies. He
carried out this design in his great work, De sacramentis. Hugh
was, however, more a mystical than a dogmatic theologian. In fact,
he is often looked on as the Father of Medieval Mystical Theology.
Following Hugh of St. Victor came a number of scholastic
theologians who gathered the teachings of the Fathers and
organized them systematically into Collections of Opinions (Sum­
mae sententiarum ) for the use of students. Notable among them
were the following: Robert Pulleyn (d. 1153), Robert of Melun
( xxxiii )

THE TRUE RELIGION

(d. 1167), Roland (Pope Alexander III. d. 1181), Peter of Poitiers
(d. 1205), and William of Auxerre (d. 1230).
Far surpassing any of the above mentioned authors of jumnuze
for his immense medieval influence was Peter the Lombard
(d. 1164), called the “Master of the Sentences.” His work, The
Four Books of the Sentences (Libri quattuor sententiarum) achieved
a fame in medieval days that is difficult to understand if the work
is examined solely in the light of its intrinsic merits, without refer­
ence to the theological era in which it appeared.
The Four Books of the Sentences has come down to us
“with an escort of more than 500 commentators.” St. Thomas
himself wrote and published a commentary on the Lombard’s
work before he had himself become a magister in theology. The
Lombard’s work was used as the standard theological textbook
in all the medieval universities and was not supplanted by the
Summa theologica of St. Thomas until as late as the end of
fifteenth century (J. de Ghellinck, L’essor de la littérature
Latine, I, 76).
The immense vogue enjoyed by the Libri quattuor sententiarum
was due neither to its depth, nor to its originality, but rather to
its lack of these qualities. Peter the Lombard was very dispassion­
ate, very impersonal in his approach to theology. He considered all
the opinions of his contemporaries, borrowed from them selec­
tively, and presented their divergent views with scientific precision.
It was precisely this dispassionate approach, this calm sifting of
many opinions, and their orderly presentation which made the work
of Peter the Lombard such a fine pedagogical manual.

b. The Golden Age of Medieval Scholasticism (13th century):
The characteristic note of the scholastic period was the produc­
tion of summae of theology in which the authors gave a synthetic
exposition of the entire field of theology and deliberately employed
the resources of logic and metaphysics to attain a deeper penetra­
tion and a more orderly exposition of revealed data.
The immediate causes 43 of the immense growth of scholastic
theology in its golden age are assigned as three: 1. the recovery
and translation of the complete works of Aristotle; 2. the Arabic
and Jewish studies of Aristotle which touched on many religious
questions and raised new problems which had to be solved by the
scholastics; 3. the rise of the new religious orders from which came
most of the great theological masters of the era. These men,
( xxxiv )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY
penetrated by a deeply religious spirit, entered the rising univer­
sities and found one outlet for their own religious ardor in the field
of theology.
Old Franciscan School:
In the 13th century, Alexander of Hales, an Englishman
(d. 1245), who already held a chair in the University of Paris
before entering the Franciscan Order, inaugurated the old Fran­
ciscan school of theology. Alexander, who was called the "Irre­
futable Doctor,” produced the first great theological summa of the
era by his commentary on the work of Peter the Lombard. Even
more important than Hales in the development of this school of
theology was St. Bonaventure (d. 1274). St. Bonaventure, who was
known as the “Seraphic Doctor,” in addition to producing com­
mentaries on the Lombard and many philosophical and exegetical
works, wrote his Breviloquium theologicae veritatis, in which he
gave a truly beautiful exposition of mystical theology. This school
is characterized by an affective approach to theology.

Dominican School:
In the same 13th century, St. Albert the Great (d. 1280) and
*
St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) founded the Dominican school of
theology. This school is characterized by its predominantly intel­
lectual approach to theology. St. Albert, who was known as the
“Universal Doctor” because of his enormous erudition, rescued
Aristotelian philosophy from the corruption of its Arab com­
mentators and used it as the faithful servant of Christian revelation.
St. Thomas, as Pope John XXII testified, “contributed more to
the illumination of the Church than all the other doctors put
together.” His chief theological works are the following:44
a. The Commentary on the Four Books of the Sentences;
b. Summa Theologiae;
c. Summa Contra Gentiles;
d. Quaestiones Disputatae;
e. Opuscula.
a. St. Thomas’ Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences is
divided in this manner: the commentary on each distinction in the
Sentences includes several questions, and the questions in turn are
subdivided into articles.
b. The Summa Theologiae, written at the height of St. Thomas’
powers, is unquestionably his greatest work. It embraces three
parts. The First Part considers “God and the origin of creatures
( xxxv )

THE TRUE RELIGION

from Cod”; the Second Part deals with "the movement of the
rational creature towards God,” that is, the goal of man and the
means whereby he may attain that goal; the Third Part envisions
"Christ, who, insofar as He is a man, is the way for us in our jour­
ney towards God.” The Second Part includes two treatises, called
the First Part of the Second Part and the Second Part of the Second
Part. In the former St. Thomas considers our goal and the means
to acquire it in a general way; in the latter treatment is given of
that goal and means in particular.45 There is also a Supplement to
the Third Part, not completed by St. Thomas himself (death pre­
vented that task), but by Reginald of Piperno,
*®
who drew his
material from St. Thomas’ Commentaries on the Four Books of
Sentences.
c. The Summa Contra Gentiles is properly translated as Λ
Defense of the Catholic Faith against the Pagans (“pagans” includ­
ing Aristotelian Arabs, learned Mohammedans, and Talmudic
Jews). This work is divided into four books and each book is
divided into several chapters. The scope of the work is as follows:
in the first three books St. Thomas demonstrates by philosophic
arguments the validity of the religious tniths which fall within the
grasp of unaided human reason; in the fourth book he demonstrates
that revealed mysteries are not contradictory to reason.
d. The Quaestiones disputatae is a collection of many smaller
works. Among these the major ones are De potentia, De malo, and
De veritate.
e. Finally, there are St. Thomas’ Opuscula: the Compendium
theologiae (incomplete); Expositio in Boetium de Ss. Trinitate; De
articulis fidei et Ecclesiae sacramentis. The second part of the lastnamed work was incorporated almost bodily by Pope Eugene IV
into his Decree for the Armenians.

New School of Franciscan Theology:
In the same century one finds the new school of Franciscan
theology, inaugurated by John Duns Scotus (d. 1308). Duns
Scotus was known as the “Subtle Doctor.” With extraordinary acute­
ness he subjected the work of his predecessors, and of St. Thomas
in particular, to critical evaluation and parted company with both
Aquinas and St. Bonaventure on numerous points. The character­
istic note of Scotistic theology is the primacy it gives to the will
over the intellect.

( xxxvi )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

The Christian knows that love is the goal of all things, that
God Himself only knows Himself in order to love Himself, and
that our theology, whether it be that section which has as its
object the necessary mysteries of God, or that which has as its
object the things willed contingently by God, is a practical
science (DTC 15.1, Col. 403).
Scotus held that theology did not fulfill the Aristotelian notion
of a science in the full sense of the word. His school differs from
the old Franciscan school in that it eliminates its affective approach
and considers theological matters in an even more formalistic and
dialectical fashion than that of St. Thomas.
Scotus’ main works are two commentaries on the Lombard.
The one is quite lengthy, the Opus Oxoniense ( 1300-1304 ), and
the other more limited in scope, the Reportata Parisiensia ( 13061308). To the Scotistic school of this period belong: Francis Mayron (d. 1327), Anthony Andreas (d. 1320), Peter of Aquila
(d. 1361).47
c. Period of Decline of Medieval Scholasticism
(14th-15th centuries):
During the 14th century scholastic theology underwent a trying
period. Scientific analysis deteriorated into mere quibbling and
subtleties. This was due mainly to the school of nominalism
inaugurated by William of Ockham (d. 1349), who attacked the
theology of both Thomas and Scotus. The nominalists were so
called because they denied the validity of universal ideas and held
that they were merely names (Latin: nomen'). The nominalists,
furthermore, took the Scotistic principle of the primacy of the will,
but so exaggerated it that they conceived of God’s Will as being
totally arbitrary. Because the nominalists denied the validity of
universal ideas, they concluded that theological reasoning was
useless and that Scripture is the only source of knowledge about
God and His will. This doctrine, which underestimated human
reason and claimed Scripture as the sole authority, really laid the
foundation for Lutheranism.48 The major names in the nominalist
school, in addition to Ockham, are Peter of Alliaco (d. 1420) and
Gabriel Biel (d. 1495).
d. Period of Resurgence of Scholastic Theology
(15th-16th centuries):
Although no gigantic strides were made in the field of theology

( xxxvii )

THE TRUE RELIGION

during the period from the 14th century to the Council of Trent,
still there were quite a number of theologians, who, by returning
to the doctrine of St. Thomas, resumed the interrupted scholastic
tradition of the golden age. These theologians returned to the
medieval scholastic treatment of theology not only as regards its
scholastic principles, but even as regards the choice of theological
*
problems.
9
Among these men we find the following: Aegidius Romanus
(d. 1316), the master-general and most famous theologian of the
Augustinian school; John Capreolus (d. 1414), whose Defensiones
earned him the title of “Prince of the Thomists”—he defended the
doctrine of St. Thomas against nominalists and Scotists;50 Francis
Sylvester of Ferrara (d. 1528), noteworthy for his commentary on
the Summa contra gentiles; Cardinal Cajetan (Thomas de Vio,
d. 1534), the greatest commentator on the Summa theologiae (his
commentary is included in the Leonine edition of that master­
piece)—noted especially as the great defender of the distinction
between essence and existence;51 Nicholas of Cusa (d. 1464);
Dionysius the Carthusian (d. 1471).52
During this whole period the theologians, in their treatises, put
almost all their efforts into speculative theology. Positive theology
was not, however, completely neglected,® for the outstanding the­
ologians did a great deal of work on the interpretation of Scripture.
With regard to patristic theology, they were usually content with
simply using existing anthologies of the Fathers, which were not
critical editions. This failure to utilize patristic theology is suffî* In the DTC 15.1, col. 412, no. 2, is the following interesting remark:
Certainly the texts, both of the Bible and of the Fathers, were far from being
ignored by scholasticism; in fact, it has been remarked that the humanists,
often enough, did no more than put into print the manuscripts of the Middle
Ages. But in this return to texts and recourse to authors the generation of 1500
did bring a new point of view. That generation inaugurated a study of texts
not from a timeless and abstractive viewpoint, but from an historical one,
from a viewpoint which was no longer that of an acquired tradition, but
critical and heuristic. And first of all it was necessary to be sure of the purity
of the text and the authenticity of its author. From such a viewpoint flowed
a whole labor of textual and literary criticism, of editions, and of critical
interpretations by recourse to historical context, philology, etc. This is what
makes the difference, in the craftmanship of approaching the Biblical text
itself, between a Nicholas of Lyra, who was exclusively anxious about the
theological sense, and a Laurent Valla or J. Colet or Erasmus. Erasmus rose
up in protest particularly against theologians who lifted passages out of Scrip­
ture and accommodated them to their doctrine, without bothering about the
context of these passages and their meaning within that context.

( xxxviii )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

ciently explained by considering that there was great difficulty in
finding the works of the Fathers and that there was little necessity
at the time for a defense of the theology of the Fathers.

Appreciation of Medieval Scholastic Theology:
The value of scholastic theology has been so authoritatively and
repeatedly stressed by the Church herself that one need here make
but a few salient points. Scholastic theology, in the hands of its
great medieval doctors, is especially noteworthy for its organic and
synthetic approach to God’s revelation. The intrinsic harmony exist­
ing between the various dogmas of the Catholic Faith, the harmo­
nious inter-working of faith and reason, and above all the panoramic
view of the continuity of God’s work in both the natural and super­
natural orders, such as it is exhibited in the works of the great
medieval doctors, has never been equalled. In the hands of men
equipped with both tremendous faith and native genius, the
scholastic approach to the data of revelation—"faith seeking under­
standing”—produced a harvest of theological learning which has
not been fully absorbed to this day.
Still, there lay inherent in the method of scholastic theology
some seeds of danger which, in the hands of less able men, could
sprout into weeds that would slowly throttle the science of
theology. These seeds of danger may be listed as three: 1. the
excessive preponderance of a method too exclusively rational and
dialectical; 2. the danger of useless subtleties; 3. the tendency
towards a crystallization of theology into petrified systems.53
These deficiencies in method needed correction by a correlative
growth in positive theology. Such a development of positive the­
ology was to take place, it will be noted, after the Council of
Trent. It is this counterbalancing of speculative method with posi­
tive historical research that is characteristic of the golden era of
modem theology.
3. The Modern Era (16th-20th centuries). A number of
famous controversialists who defended the Catholic Faith against
the attacks of heretics during the sixteenth century are worthy of
note. These are: John Eck (d. 1543); Albert Pighius of Campia
(d. 1542); Ruard Tapper (d. 1559); St. Peter Canisius (d. 1597);
Thomas Stapleton (d. 1598); St. Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621);
Cardinal Duperron (d. 1618); Jacob Gretser (d. 1625); and the
Van Walenburg Brothers, Peter (d. 1675) and Adrian (d. 1669),
of Rotterdam.

( xxxix )

THE TRUE RELIGION

It would be well to point out some of the differences that
marked pre- and post-Tridentine theology. Systematic theology
after the Council of Trent differs from earlier theology in the fol­
lowing three ways. a. The attacks of heretics forced theologians to
give more attention to positive theology and unite the findings of
that study to scholastic speculations, b. The Summa Theologiae of
St. Thomas gradually replaced Peter the Lombard’s Libri quattuor
sententiarum as the source-book for theological lectures. This action
resulted in a purer and deeper system of doctrine and a clearer
method of presentation, c. Practical conclusions and applications
of doctrine, previously presented in the same works along with
theoretical questions, began to be treated separately and thereby
wrought the division of theology into dogmatic and moral. The
theologians who treated moral theology exclusively, or almost so,
are omitted from the list of theologians which follows.
The first period after the Council of Trent ( 1550-1660) was the
golden age of modem scholastic theology. During it appear the
following famous theologians:
In the Dominican school: Francis of Vittoria (d. 1546); Dominic
Soto (d. 1560); Melchior Cano (d. 1560); Dominic Bafiez
(d. 1604), who, the Molinists declare, is the “inventor of Thomism” and of physical premotion; Peter of Ledesma (d. 1616);
Diego Alvarez (d. 1635); John of St. Thomas (d. 1644); Vincent
Contenson (d. 1674), whose work, Theologia mentis et cordis, was
a harmonious treatment of ascetical and mystical theology; John
Gonet (d. 1681). Ranked as members of the Thomistic school are
also William Estius (d. 1613); Francis Silvius (d. 1649), whose
commentary on the Summa deserves consultation even today; and
the Salmanticenses, of the Order of Carmel, whose Cursus in
Summam theologiae has been called the most definitive work of
all Thomists (1679).
In the Jesuit school: Cardinal Francisco Toledo (d. 1596); Louis
Molina (d. 1600), the foremost defender and advocate of the
scientia media; Gregory of Valencia (d. 1603); Gabriel Vasquez
(d. 1604); Francis Suarez (d. 1617), rated above all others as “the
outstanding doctor”; Leonard Lessius (d. 1623); Martin Becanus
(d. 1624); John Martin de Ripalda (d. 1648); Cardinal John de
Lugo (d. 1660), who specialized, however, in moral theology.
In the Scotistic school: Theodore Smising (d. 1626), and John
Bosco (d. 1684).
During this period of theological history, the following did
excellent work in the field of positive theology: Denis Petavius,
(xl)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

S.J. (d. 1652), John Morin (d. 1659); and Louis Thomassin
(d. 1695). The latter two were members of the Oratorian Order.
The following century (1660-1760) might be called the Age
of the Epigoni. Even though this period is lacking in great
genius, it nonetheless gave rise to a number of theologians whose
works are commendable for their solidity and clarity of doctrine
and for their relative brevity. Among them we may mention the
following:
Dominican school: Cardinal Vincent Gotti (d. 1742); René
Billuart (d. 1757); Bernard Maria de Rubeis (d. 1775).
Jesuit school: James Platel (d. 1681); Paul Antoine (d. 1743);
John Baptist Gener (d. 1781); the authors of the Theologia Wircehurgensis (Holtzclau, d. 1783; Kilber, d. 1782; Neubauer, d. 1795).
Franciscan school: Claude Frassen (d. 1711), whose Scotus
academicus is rated the best and most lucid work of the Scotist
school; Thomas of Charmes (a Capuchin, d. 1765).
Augustinian school: Laurence Berti (d. 1766).
Oratorian school: Casper Juénin, (d. 1713), whose writing is
tinged with Jansenism.
Sorbonne scholars: Charles Witasse (d. 1716, who was also a
Jansenist), and Honoré Toumely (d. 1729).
There follows the Period of Decadence (1760-1840). During
this period both philosophy and scholastic theology hit an all time
low. Positive theology brought forth practically no fruit, and even
the Catholic mentality grew sick and feeble. Some of the men of
this period, who were ignorant of ancient scholastic teaching and
imbued with a false philosophy, yearned to produce a deeper
exposition of theology. Thus Baader, Hermes, and Günther became
teachers of error, because they had never learned the truth.
But better times were in the making. Men who did the spade­
work for the rise that was to come were the following: Bruno
Liebermann (d. 1844); Henry Klee (d. 1840); Francis Staudenmaier (d. 1856); Henry Denzinger (d. 1883); and, more than any
other, John Perrone (d. 1886) and Joseph Kleutgen (d. 1883),
both of the Society of Jesus.
From the time of the Vatican Council there began a happy
rebirth of scholastic theology.
V. Modern Authors of Theology
It may be useful to give a list, even though very incomplete,
of authors who in our own time (that is, from the time of the
(xli)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Vatican Council to the present) have produced works of systematic
theology. Those theologians who have written only on specialized
questions or particular tracts of theology will not be mentioned
here.

The following authors have written on both fundamental and
dogmatic theology:
L. Billot, S.J.: De Ecclesia Christi: vol. I, De credibilitate
Ecclesiae et intima ejus constitutione, 5th ed., 1927; vol. II, De
habitudine Ecclesiae ad civilem societatem, 2nd ed., 1922; De
inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae, 4th ed., 1928; De immutabilitate
Traditionis, 3rd ed., 1922; De Deo Uno et Trino, 7th ed., 1926;
De Verbo Incarnato, 9th ed., 1949; De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, vol.
I, 7th ed., 1931; vol. II, 8th ed., 1947; De personali et originali
peccato, 5th ed., 1924; De virtutibus infusis, 4th ed., 1928; De
gratia Christi, 4th ed., 1928; Quaestiones de novissimis, 8th ed.,
1946.
F. Egger: Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae generalis, 5th ed.,
1913; Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae specialis, 9th ed., ( revised
by A. Mayer) 1928.
J. B. Heinrich: Dogmatica theologia, 10 vols., 1881-1904. (The
work from volume seven on was completed by C. Gutberlet. )
H. Hurter, S.J.: Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, 3 vols.,
11th ed, 1903.
L. Lercher, S.J.: Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, 4 vols, 3rd
ed, 1939 ff.
J. Lottini, O.P.: Introductio ad sacram theologiam, 1 vol.; Insti­
tutiones Theologiae dogmaticae specialis, 3 vols, 2nd ed, 1911ff.
P. Mannens: Theologiae dogmaticae institutiones, 3 vols, 2nd
ed, 1910-1915.
C. Manzoni: Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 3rd ed,
1920-1922.
H. Mazzella: Praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae breviori cur­
sui accomodatae, 4 vols, 5th ed, 1919.
P. Minges, O.F.M.: Compendium theologiae dogmaticae gen­
eralis, 2nd ed, 1923; Compendium theologiae dogmaticae specialis,
2nd ed, 1922.
D. Palmieri, S.J.: De Romano Pontifice cum praeleg. de Ec­
clesia; De Deo creante et elevante; De peccato originali et immac­
ulata conceptione; De gratia actuali; De poenitentia; De matri­
monio.

(xlü)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

Chr. Pesch, S.J.: Praelectiones dogmaticae, 9 vols., 5th-6th ed.,
1925 ff.; Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 4 vols., 6th ed.,
1941-42.
M. J. Scheeben: Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik, 4 vols.,
Neudruck 1925 (vol. 4 written by L. Atzberger).
Th. Specht: Lehrbuch der Apologetik oder F undame ntaltheologie, 2nd ed. (revised by G. Bauer), 1924; Lehrbuch der Dog­
matik (revised by G. Bauer), 2 vols., 3rd ed., 1925.
Adolph Tanquerey, S.S.: Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, 3 vols.,
26th ed., 1949 (vol. I revised by J. B. Bord; vols. Il & III by R. de
Geoffre ).
G. B. Tepe, S.J.: Institutiones theologiae, 4 vols., 1894.
Tromp, S., De Revelatione Christiana, 6th ed., 1950.
Tromp, S., De Sacrae Scripturae Inspiratione, 5th ed., 1953.
Zapelena, T., De Ecclesia Christi (Pars Apologetica), 5th ed.,
1950.
Zapelena, T., De Ecclesia Christi (Pars Dogmatica), 2nd ed.,
1954.
G. Zaccherini: Theologiae dogmaticae speculativae cursus, 1919.
The following authors produced works dealing exclusively
with fundamental theology:
A. D’Alès, et al.: Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Cath­
olique, 4 vols., 4th ed., 1913-1928.
A. Bougaud: Le Christianisme et les temps présents,5* 5 vols.,
7th ed., 1901.
J. Brunsmann, S.V.D.: Lehrbuch der Apologetik, 1 vol., 1924.
G. Casanova, O.F.M.: Theologia fundamentalis, 1899.
Cotter, A.: Theologia fundamentalis, 1940.
Cardinal Dechamps: Entretiens sur la démonstration cath­
olique, 1856.
A. Dorsch: Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis, 2 vols., 2nd
ed., 1928.
Duilhé de Saint-Projet: Apologie scientifique de la Foi chré­
tienne, revised edition (by Sanderens), 1921.
H. Feeder: Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis, 2 vols.,
1920.
J. V. de Groot, O.P.: Summa apologetica de Ecclesia, 3rd ed.,
1906.
C. Gutberlet: Lehrbuch der Apologetik, 3 vols., 4th ed., 1922.
F. Hettinger: Lehrbuch der Fundamental-Theologie, 3rd ed.

( xliii )

THE THUE HELÎG1ON

(revised by S. Weber), 1913; Apolagie des Christcntums, 5 vols.,
10th ed. (revised by Muller), 1915.
Ph. Kneib; Handbuch der Apologetik, 1912.
A. Michelitsch; Elementa Apologcticae sive Theologiae fundamentalis, 1925.
N. M. Neguerulea: Lecciones de Apologética, 2 vols., 2nd ed.,
1927.
Norbertus A. Tux, O.F.M., Cap.: Compendium theologiae funda­
mentalis ope scriptorum p. Alberti a Bulsano, 2 vols., 1890.
J. Ottiger, S.J.: Theologia fundamentalis, 2 vols., 1897-1911.
G. Reinhold: Praelectiones de theologia fundamentali, 2 vols.,
2nd ed, 1915.
P. Schanz: Apologie des Christentums, 3 vols, 4th ed, (revised
by W. Koch), 1910.
A. Schill: Theologische prinzipienlehre, 4th ed. (revised by H.
Straubinger), 1914.
A. Stôkl: Lehrbuch der Apologetik, 2 vols, 1895.
A. Stummer, O.F.M, Cap.: Manuale theologiae fundamentalis,
1907.
S. Szydelski: Prolegomena in theologiam sacram, 2 vols,
1920-21.
C. Vosen: Das Christentum und die Einspriiche seiner Gegner,
5th ed. (revised by Weber), 1905; Der Katholizismus und die
Einspriiche seiner Gegner, 3rd ed. (revised by Briill), 1885.
S. Weber: Der alte und neue Glaube, 3rd ed, 1911; Christliche
Apologetik in Grundzügen für Studierende, 1907.
A. Weisz, O.P.: Apologie des Christentums vom Standpunkte
der Sitte und Kultur, 5 vols, 4th ed, 1905.
W. Wilmers, S.J.: De religione revelata; De Ecclesia; De Fide;
1897-1902.
Th. Zigliari, O.P.: Propaedeutica ad s. theologiam, 4th ed,
1906.”

The following authors wrote works designed for a more
popular audience
*.
J. Arts, O.P.: Bijdragen tot wetenswaardige godsdienstvragen,
3 vols, 1920-1921.
Th. Bensdorp, C.SS.R.: Apologetica, 3 vols, (revised by M.
Stoks), 1918-1922.
A. Boulenger: Manuel d’Apologétique, 1920.
G. Esser and J. Mausbach: Religion, Christentum, und Kirche,
3 vols, 5th ed, 1923.
( xliv )

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

L. V. Hamrnerstein, S.J.: Gottesbeweisei Das Christentum;
Katolizismus und Protestantismus; 1891-1894.
E. Huguney, O.P.: Critique et Catholique, vol. II, L’apologie
des dogmes catholiques, 1910.
J. Klug: Der katholische Glaubensinhalt, 4th ed., 1920; Lehensfragen, 1913.
M. Morawski, S.J.: Abende am Genfer See. Grundzüge einer
einheitlichen Weltanschauung, 1926.
R. V. Oppenraay, S.J.: Apologie van het Christendom, 1922.
F. Sawicki: Die Wahrheit des Christentums, 1918.
D. Sloet: God, Christendom en Kerk, 2 vols., 1890.
W. Wilmers, S.J.: Lehrbuch der Religion, 4 vols., 8th ed.
(revised by J. Hontheim), 1928. He edited various works of apolo­
getics: Apologetische Vereeniging Petrus Canisius.
The following authors produced exclusively books of dog­
matic theology:
B. Bartmann: Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 2 vols., 7th ed., 1928.
F. Diekamp: Katholische Dogmatik, 2 vols., 3rd to 5th ed., 1921.
L. Dory: Compendium theologiae dogmaticae specialis, 1926.
P. Einig: Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae, 6 fasc., 1896.
J. Herrmann, C.SS.R.: Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae,
2 vols., 6th ed., 1926.
J. Hervé: Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, 4 vols., new ed.,
1949-51.
E. Hugon, O.P.: Tractatus dogmatici ad modum commentarii in
praecipuas quaestiones dogmaticas divi Thomae Aquinatis, 3 vols.,
1927.
L. Janssens, O.S.B.: Summa theologica ad modum commentarii
in Aquinatis Summam, praesentis aevi studiis aptatam, 9 vols.,
1899-1921.
J. Katschthaler: Theologia dogmatica Catholica specialis, 5 vols.,
1877.
G. Noggler (P. Gottfried a Graun) O.F.M.Cap.: Institutiones
theologiae dogmaticae specialis p. Alberti a Bulsano recognitae,
3 vols., 1893.
B. Otten: Institutiones dogmaticae in usum scholarum, 6 vols.,
1922-1925.
A. Paquet: Disputationes theologicae seu commentarium in
Summam theologicam, 6 vols., 1893.
J. Pohlet: Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 3 vols., 1910.
E. Rolfes: Die Wahrheit des Glaubens, 3 vols., 1910.

(xlv)

THE TRUE RELIGION

A. Sanda: Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae specialis, 2 vols.,
1916. 1922.
M. Scheeben: Die Mysterien des Christent unus, 3rd ed. (revised
by A. Rademacher), 1912. English translation: The Mysteries of
Christianity, translated by Cyril Vollert, S.J.
Vacant-Mangenot; Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 1903.
Among the more recent manuals of theology the following
are noteworthy:
F. Diekamp: Theologiae dogmaticae manuale, 4 vols., 3rd cd.
(Latin version by A. Hoffman, O.P.), 1949.
A. Ferland: Commentarium in Summam D. Thomae, 4 vols.,
1936-43.
P. Parente and A. Piolanti: Collectio theologica Romana, 7 vols.,
3rd ed., 1947.
Spanish Jesuits (various authors): Sacrae theologiae summa
(B.A.C.), 4 vols., 1952.

( xlvi )

Introduction to Fundamental Theology

Before presenting a treatment of fundamental theology it is
proper to make a few preliminary remarks about the aim, method,
and prerequisites of that division of sacred theology.

1. Aim
Fundamental theology, as already noted, deals with those
truths on which the entire structure of sacred doctrine rests. It
deals with the truths which all other divisions of theology pre­
suppose as already known and proved, namely, the actual existence
of a revelation and its infallible preservation by the Church.
Fundamental theology is, therefore, the study of those matters
which one must know before undertaking the study of special
theology. It includes four treatises:
1.
2.
3.
4.

The True Religion (Apologetics);
Christ’s Church (partly apologetical, partly theological);
Sources of Revelation (strictly theological);
Divine Faith (strictly theological).

The first treatise deals with The True Religion. This treatise
undertakes to prove that there exists on earth one religion which
has been revealed by God and meant for all men. That religion is
the one brought to us by Jesus Christ, an authentic messenger from
God; and that religion is, in the concrete, the religion professed by
the Catholic Church.
The second treatise considers Christ's Church. In this treatise
it is demonstrated that Christ instituted a Church which truly
merits the name “Church,” namely, a visible society, and that He
entrusted to that Church His doctrine and bestowed upon her
His own divine mission of saving souls. After studying the structure
and characteristics of this Church founded by Christ, fundamental
theology goes on to identify it with the Roman Catholic Church.
This section of the treatise is apologetical. The next section studies
the different hierarchical ranks within the Church, the Church’s
infallible magisterium, and the Church viewed as Christ’s Mystical
Body. This section is theological.

( xlvii )

THE TRUE RELIGION

The third treatise is entitled The Sources of Revelation. It deals
with the two streams from which the Church draws her doctrine
and her theologians their arguments, namely, inspired Scripture
and sacred Tradition.
The fourth treatise deals with Divine Faith. It is concerned with
the act whereby men believe, or the assent with which men
embrace the truths revealed by God.
It must be noted that fundamental theology has been developed
as a special branch of theology only in the last two centuries,8® and
does not have fixed and precise boundaries. A number of theo­
logians reserve a large part of their treatment on the Church and
the whole of their treatment on Faith to dogmatic theology. The
dogmatic treatment of the Church is generally put after the treatise
on God the Redeemer.
2. The Method Used
The choice of a method is necessarily dictated by the goal one
has in view. The goal in this treatment of fundamental theology is
twofold: the first and major objective is to gain a deeper and more
precise knowledge of the arguments which guarantee certitude in
religious matters, and a better understanding of the reasonableness
of faith; the second is to learn how to show unbelievers the truth
of the Catholic Religion and to solve their difficulties.57 If either of
these ends is to be attained, we must, at least at the outset, avoid
strictly theological arguments ( that is, arguments drawn from reve­
lation), and proceed by way of arguments of the natural order,
whether they be philosophical or historical, until such time as the
truth and infallibility of the Catholic Church have been demon­
strated. Thus, the treatment, at least in the first part, will not be
strictly theological, but will be for that reason all the more useful.
Yet even in this scientific investigation of the foundations of
the faith, the theologian or the student of theology does not by
any means forget that he is a Catholic. It is not, therefore, as one
still groping for the truth that he approaches this treatise, but as
one who already possesses that truth and is merely seeking a
deeper and wider knowledge of the arguments on which it rests.58
That is why, even from the outset of this treatise, The True
Religion, the pertinent theological notes will be annexed to the
theses-for the truths which will be demonstrated with natural
arguments, the divine origin of Catholic doctrine, the truth of the
( xlviii )

INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY

Church, and so Forth, are at the same time dogmas of the Faith.
As often as it is convenient, definitions from the ecclesiastical
magisterium will also be introduced, not indeed to prove the
theses, but rather to show what Catholics are theologically bound
to hold about the subject, and also because in any branch of
knowledge it is right to listen to those who are especially skilled.5’
3. Prerequisites:
In ecclesiastical seminaries the men who begin the study of
fundamental theology have already completed ex professo studies
in the field of philosophy; for this reason good order demands that
the matter they have already studied in philosophy should not here
be repeated, but rather taken for granted.
One may therefore begin with all the basic truths of sound
philosophy admitted as true, and in particular the following: a. the
ability of human reason to arrive at truth in the metaphysical,
moral, and historical orders. This point is absolutely basic. It must
be clung to especially against the assaults of the Modernists who
adhere to agnosticism. Agnosticism is the philosophical system
which maintains that the only object of our intellectual knowledge
is phenomena, namely, things which are within the reach of our
sense organs.
Agnosticism, consequently, denies that man can either know
or prove the existence of any supra-sensible being, such as God,
or the soul, by the thought-processes of his intellect.
b. The existence of the one, infinite God who is distinct from
the world and from whom all things in the universe proceed and
towards whom they tend, and by whose ineffable providence they
are all governed and conserved in being.60
c. The genuine liberty of man. It should be obvious that these
points are necessary preambles, not merely to faith, but to all reli­
gion, even natural religion. Unless these three points are already
admitted, any discussion of religion, natural or supernatural, is
useless and even absurd.
Finally, one must presuppose as admitted the historic or human
authority (that is, the authenticity, truthfulness, and substantial
integrity) of the Books of the New Testament, and especially of
the Gospels. It is true that a demonstration of the divinity of the
Christian revelation and of the truth of the Church in largest meas­
ure rests upon these books, but it is the universal custom to deal
ex professo with the historic authenticity of these books in a

( xlix )

THE TRUE RELIGION

special branch of ecclesiastical science, namely, Introduction to
Sacred Scripture.

The Connection Between Philosophy and Theology
Since the tract on faith 61 deals expressly with the relationship
obtaining between faith and reason, the bonds of union between
philosophy and theology will be indicated only briefly here.

Philosophy’s principal job in this connection is to make clear
the reasonableness of the assent of faith, and then, as a neces­
sary consequence, the duty of clinging by faith to the tremen­
dous mysteries which divine authority' proposes — mysteries
which are worthy of trust indeed (Ps. 92:5) by the very wealth
of external criteria which serve as a guarantee of their intrinsic
truthfulness.
Theology has a far different task to perform. It rests on the
divine revelation itself and makes more solid in the faith those
who rejoice in the glory of being honored with the name of
Christian. Certainly no Christian ought to be arguing that the
doctrine which the Catholic Church believes with her heart
and professes with her lips may not be true; rather, always
holding on without any hesitation to that same faith, loving it
and living by it, he ought humbly to seek, in so far as he can,
the reasons why it is true. If he can understand, let him thank
God; if he cannot, let him instead of throwing his head back to
bellow, bow his head to adore (Pius X, Encyclical, Com­
munium rerum, April 21, 1909, DB 2120).
Special Bibliography for the General Introduction
to Theology and the Introduction to
Fundamental Theology

Works useful for an historical study of systematic theology:
Congar M-J.: DTC 15.1 (1946), no. II: “La Théologie: étude
historique,” cols. 346-447. This article is remarkable for pre­
senting a synthetic picture of the development of the science
of theology without sacrificing a sense of history to the needs
of systematic presentation.
Grabmann, Martin: Geschichte der katholischen Théologie seit
dem Ausgang der Viiterzeit (1933)
Hurter, H.: Nomenclator Literarius, 5 volumes (1913).
(1)

INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY

Strauhinger, H.: Apologetische Streitfragem Krituche Unte-·
suchungen zu den religions-philosophischen und apologetischen Bestrebungen der Gegenwart (1925).
Werner: Geschichte der apologetischen-polemischen Literatur
der katholischen Kirche, 5 volumes (1861).
Der heilige Thomas von Aquin, 3 volumes (1858).
Franz Suarez und die Scholastik der letzten Jahrhunderte,
2 volumes ( 1861 ).
Die Scholastik des spatern Mittelalters (1881).

Brief historical outlines are given by; Sheeben: Katholische Dogmatik, I, no. 56 if; Pesch: Praelectiones dogmaticae, I, no. 32 ff,
Tanquerey: Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, II (26th ed.»
1949), 1-67; Diekamp: Theologiae dogmaticae manuale, I (3rd
ed., 1949), 90-110.
Particular works for a study of the pre-scholastic period:
de Ghellinck, J.: Le Mouvement Théologique du XIIe siècle
(2nd enlarged ed., 1948).
Landgraf, A.: Einführung in die Geschichte der theologischen
Literatur der Frühscholastik (1948).
Paré, Tremblay, Brunet: La Renaissance du XIIe siècle: Les
écoles et renseignement (1933).

For individual studies on various little-known early scholastics
consult the various excellent monographs by specialists in the field
like: A. Landgraf, R. M. Martin, T. Eschmann, O. Lottin, et al.
In English, C. H. Haskin’s The Renaissance of the Twelfth Cen­
tury ( 1933 ) is a classic as a survey of the general culture of the
period, but it is relatively scanty on theological information. Two
excellent reviews, Medieval Studies (University of Toronto) and
Speculum (Harvard University), contain from time to time val­
uable articles on medieval theology.

Special Bibliography for theology as a science:
St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, q.
Congar, M-J.: “La Théologie Science,” in DTC, 15.1
cols. 459-61.
Ferland, A.: Commentarium in Summam D. Thomae,
Deo Uno et Trino (1943), 1-12.
Gardeil, A.: Le donne révélé et la Théologie, 2nd ed.
(H)

1, 1-8.
(1946)

IV, De
(1932).

THE TRUE RELIGION

Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald: De Revelatione per Ecclesiam
Catholicam proposita, 4th ed. (1944).
d’Herbigny, M.: La Théologie du révélé (1921).
Kreling, G. P. : De aard der H. Godgelecroheid ( 1928 ).
Nicolau, P. and Salavcrri, P.: Sacrae theologiae summa, I, 2nd
ed. (1952), 15-28.
Parente, P.: Collectio theologica Romana, 1, Theologia Funda­
mentalis, 3rd ed. (1947), Appendix 2, Introductio in S. Theo­
logiam, 232-42.
Rabeau, G.: Introduction à l'étude de la théologie (1926).
Schultes, R. M.: Introductio in historiam dogmatum (1922).
Van Laak, H.: Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis, tract. I,
De theologia generatim, fasc. I (1910).
In English the following works are noteworthy:
Burke, Eugene: “The Scientific Teaching of Theology in the
Seminary,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society
of America (1949), pp. 129-73.
Donlan, T.: Theology and Education (1952).
Fenton, Joseph C.: The Concept of Sacred Theology (1941).
Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald: Reality, translated by P. Cum­
mins (1950). See in particular Chapter 6, “The Nature of
Theological Work,” 61-70.
Joumet, Charles: The Wisdom of Faith, translated by R. F.
Smith (1952).
Mersch, Emil: The Theology of the Mystical Body, translated
by Cyril Vollert (1951). See Chapters 2 and 3, pp. 27-74.
Scheeben, Matthias: The Mysteries of Christianity, translated
by Cyril Vollert (1946). See in particular Chapter 28, “The­
ology as Science,” 733-61.

Theological reference and source books available in English:
Attwater, D., A Catholic Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1949.
Parente, P., Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, 1951.
Palmer, P., Sources of Christian Theology, 1955.
Plumpe, J. and Quasten, J., Ancient Christian Writers, 1946ÎF.
Quasten, J., Patrology, 1950ff.

(lii)

INTKODUCT1ÜN

TO FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY

Notes
A General Introduction to Theology and the Introduction
to Fundamental Theology
1. See St. Thomas, S. Th., I, q. 1, arts. 2 and 8; R. Gagnebet, La nature
de la théologie speculative," in Revue Thomiste (1938), no. 1 and 2, 78, and
(1939), pp. 108—47; M-J. Congar, DTC, 15.1 (1946) "La Théologie science,’'
cols. 459-61. Although Scotus holds that theology is a science, he does not
agree with St. Thomas that it is a science in the strict Aristotelian sense of
the word. For a brief presentation and rebuttal of Scotus’ position see P.
Parente, De Deo Uno et Trino (1943), pp. 4-5.
2. See St. Thomas, op. cit., a. 6.
3. M. Scheeben presents an excellent analysis of this point in the fol­
lowing analogy:
The domain of natural things is formed by a circle of truths which links
together created natures as such. It embraces only such things as concern
created nature itself, its development, and its essential relations. Objec­
tively, of course, God also is the center of nature and the natural order,
inasmuch as created nature proceeds from Him by an act of His will,
and is drawn back to Him as its final end. But God is to be considered
here not immediately and in Himself, but only in His relations to the
creature, and moreover the eye which contemplates the entire order is in
the creature. Natural things form, so to speak, an eccentric circle with
two centers, created nature on the one hand and God on the other, in
the first of which is located the eye that surveys the whole order.
The supernatural truths, on the contrary, are grouped directly not around
the created nature, but around the divine nature. . . . Consequently, to
survey this order our eye must, as it were, be located in the divine center
of the circle, since we can perceive it only by belief in God’s revelation,
and so we must contemplate it with an eye that is indeed ours, but must
look through God’s eyes. Hence the sphere of the supernatural order is a
simple circle with one center (Mysteries of Christianity, translated by
Cyril Vollert, S.J. [St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1946], Ch. 28,
"Theology as Science,” pp. 737-38).
4. If, then, fundamental theology receives the name "theology," the term
theology is being used in a broad sense. In this broad sense of the term,
theology includes studies which are united to dogmatic theology only by an
external bond. Examples are: apologetics in the strict sense. Biblical introduc­
tion and Scriptural exegesis, Church history, sacred archaeology, patrology, the
various histories of liturgy, Christian art, dogma, councils, heresy, and so on.
In a word, all the sciences which in university-studies are grouped together
under the label of the department of theology.
Sometimes, on the other hand, the term theology is used in a very
restricted sense to designate exclusively that portion of revealed doctrine which
treats of God alone. Consequently the Fathers of the Church sometimes
divide all sacred doctrine into theology and economy. The latter term refers
only to the works of God produced outside of God, and particularly the works
of the Incarnation and the Redemption. See H. van Laak, De theologia gen­
eratim, p. 6.
5. See RCF (1919), 98, p. 321 and 100, p. 416.

(liü)

THE TRUE RELIGION

6. This knowability is called historico-philosophical. Insofar as it proves
the existence of a communication (an historical fact) it pertains to the field
of history; insofar as it demonstrates that this communication has God as its
author, it seeks the cause of a thing, and such an inquiry properly belongs
to the field of philosophy. See van Laak, op. cit., p. 7.
7. This knowability is historico-philosophical; for to demonstrate that the
Church has always and clearly claimed to be the guardian and teacher of a
revelation pertains to the field of history. To demonstrate the truth of this
assertion (or the Church's divine origin) by means of various miracles is to
search out the adequate cause of those miracles, God. Such an inquiry properly
belongs to the field of philosophy.
8. Notice that God, strictly speaking, does not teach theology as such:
He teaches the principles on which theology is built.
9. That is why modem unbelievers are perfectly consistent in demanding
that universities should abolish the department of theology as such and should
relegate its subject matter to other departments, particularly the departments
of literature and philosophy. For if faith is removed, there is no room for any
strict science of theology; there remains simply the science and history of
religion.
]0. J. B. Becker has an excellent treatment of the meaning of this
Anselmian adage in PhJ, 1906, pp. 115 ff. The axiom docs not mean that all
knowledge rests upon faith; neither does it mean that all the revealed truths
accepted on faith may be understood in positive fashion and are capable of
being demonstrated by the principles of reason. Its real meaning is this: if
anyone desires to gain some understanding of mysteries, an understanding
that will enable him to see that it cannot be proved that mysteries entail a
contradiction, he ought to start with humble faith, the faith whereby he
mentally assents to those mysteries and assents to them in the precise sense in
which the Church teaches them. The understanding of the mysteries which he
will gain will enable him to see that the mysteries are perfectly consistent
with one another and that a number of arguments from the viewpoint of fitness
and analogies drawn from nature lend credibility to the mysteries.
11. S. Th., I, q. 1, a. 3.
12. Because fundamental theology treats of general questions which touch
upon individual revealed truths, many authors call it general theology; because
it is a systematic defense of all revealed religion, others call it apologetics. It is
also called the introduction to theology or theological principles. Less correctly,
however, quite a few authors call it general dogmatic theology or fundamental
dogmatic theology. But this terminology is not exact enough: fundamental
theology does not lay the foundation for dogmatic theology alone; it lays
the foundation for the entire field of theology. See Ottiger, Theologia funda­
mentalis, I, 12; J. Lebreton, “Les origines de l'apologétique chrétienne,” in
KPA, VII, 564-801, VIII, 178-346.
13. See A. Tanquerey, The Spiritual Life, p. 5, no. 11.
14. Some modem authors deliberately restrict their division of theology
exclusively to a division by method such as is given above. See A. Ferland,
De Deo Uno et Trino, 1943, art. 2, “De divisione theologiae,” p. 21, no. 1.
We prefer, however, to keep also the division according to matter given by
Van Noort because it so aptly underscores the over-all unity of theology and

(liv)

INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY
prevents beginners from erroneously misconceiving large branches of theology
as though they were totally independent and unrelated disciplines.
15. In the 17th century one sometimes finds the term dogmatic in place of
positive theology; it is in this sense that Gêner, for example, entitled his work:
Theologia dogmatico-scholastica.
16. Even though the terms apologetical and polemical signify the same
thing etymologically, in customary usage they are employed with the following
distinction: apologetics (strictly so-called) argues mainly against those who
refuse to admit the divine origin of Christian revelation, whereas polemical
theology argues mainly against heretics or schismatics.
17. See Martin Grabmann, Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 1911.
18. In accord with Kleutgen’s dictum: "Scholastic theology begins where
positivo theology ends. At that precise point it speculatively analyzes the facts
which positive theology has dug out of theological sources in order first of all
to acquire a wider knowledge and secondly to extract from that accumulated,
wider knowledge a deeper and fuller comprehension.” Théologie der Vonett,
final volume, no. 12.
19. See Sixtus V, Bull: Triumphantis, 1588; thesis no. 4 subscribed to by
Bonnetty in DB, 1652; Leo XIII, Encyclical Aeterni Patris (August 4, 1879),
and Depuis le jour (September 8, 1899). Finally, the Vatican Council itself
describes that partial “understanding of mysteries” which scholastic the­
ology seeks as "extremely fruitful” (Const. De fide catholica, ch. 4). See
also St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi (September 8, 1907); Motu Propria:
Sacrorum Antistitum (September 1, 1910), and Praeclara, on the study and
teaching of St. Thomas (AAS, 1914, p. 336).
20. The patristic era in the West extends up to Gregory the Great
(d. 604) or Isidore of Seville (d. 636); in the East it extends to John
Damascene. See Johannes Quasten, Patrology, I, The Beginnings of Patristic
Literature (Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1950).
21. See F. Diekamp, Theologiae dogmaticae manuale, I (3rd edition,
1949), 93; M-J. Congar, however, points out that patristic theology was not
exclusively defensive: a secondary but real motive was the “spontaneous need”
of the believer to think about his Faith and align it harmoniously with his
general level of human knowledge and culture. See DTC 15.1 (1946), cols.
348 ff.
22. See Diekamp, ibid.
23. In brief, the Gnostics sought to replace faith by knowledge and to
substitute philosophy for revelation. See F. Cayré, Manual of Patrology, I
(1935), 101; J. Quasten, op. cit., I, 254: "The Gnostics endeavored to create
a Christianity which, fitting into the culture of the time, would absorb the
religious myths of the Orient and give the dominant role to the religious
philosophy of the Greeks, to leave but a small place for revelation as the
foundation of all theological knowledge, for faith, and for the Gospel of
Christ.”
24. Cayré, op. cit., II, 327.
25. Diekamp, op. cit., p. 94.
26. For a full, scholarly description of theological work during the pre­
scholastic period see J. de Ghellinck, Le Mouvement Théologique de *XII
Siècle (2nd edition. 1948), I, “La préparation théologique,” 1-112. For a

(lv)

THE TRUE RELIGION

very brief but Accurate summary of the theology of the same period see C.
Sheedy, “The Eucharistic Controversy of the Eleventh Century," in SST,
ser. 2, 1947, pp. 1-32.
27. See de Ghellinck, op. cit., pp. 44—45.
28. See Sheedy, loc. cit., p. 5.
29. See Diekamp, op. cit., p. 96.
30. See Sheedy, loc. cit., p. 5.
31. That John the Scot was no “rationalist” (as some have claimed), but
thoroughly Christian in his outlook, despite his errors, is the position of a
number of modem scholars. See Cayré, op. cit., II, 385; Sheedy, loc. cit.,
pp. 18-19.
32. DTC, 15.1, col. 360.
33. See Sheedy, loc. cit., p. 10.
34. The complete Aristotelian corpus was recovered only gradually. Dur­
ing the first half of the 12th century only his logical works were available; his
Metaphysics and Ethics were not available until the close of the 12th century.
See Ch. Haskins, The Rise of the Universities, p. 346; Paré, Tremblay, Brunet,
La Renaissance du Xlle siècle: les écoles et l’enseignement, pp. 31-32.
35. J. de Ghellinck admits, though with cautious restrictions, the enormous
influence of Abelard in the development of scholastic theology. See Le Mouve­
ment Théologique, pp. 132, 173ff; Paré, Tremblay, Brunet, op. cit., p. 307,
state unequivocally: “Abelard and St. Anselm were thus the creators of
scholastic theology, that outstanding product of the philosophical renaissance
of the 12th and 13th centuries.” It should be noted here that Paré and his
associates are viewing the 12th and 13th centuries as one unit in linking
together the names of Abelard and St. Anselm. Actually, St. Anselm’s work
was largely ignored in the 12th century by contemporary masters; only in the
13th century would he come into his own when his works were enthusiastically
studied and welcomed by Alexander of Hales, Bonaventure, and St. Thomas.
See J. de Ghellinck, op. cit., pp. 83-86.
36. The term “theology” was not used at all in the first half of the twelfth
century until Peter Abelard used it in his Introductio ad theologiam. The
terms used instead were sacra pagina and sacra doctrina. During the Caro­
lingian era the term sacra pagina was a very apt term to describe the theology
of that period which was literally an explanation of the "sacred page” of the
Bible. Robert of Melun and Peter the Lombard continued to use the term sacra
pagina, but with a wider connotation than it had in the Carolingian era.
St. Augustine had used the term sacra doctrina and the term continued to be
used as late as the time of St. Thomas. Abelard’s use of the term theology
was an innovation which did not win general approbation for some time. For
a history of the term theology see the work of de Ghellinck and that of Paré,
Tremblay, and Bninet, previously quoted.
37. Abelard did not, however, make as many mistakes as are usually
attributed to him. As J. Cottiaux has aptly pointed out, much of the confusion
about Abelard’s position stems out of a failure to consider his method. The
different aspects of his thought counterbalance one another by their opposition
like arches in a roof. Unfortunately, since Abelard struck out in many direc­
tions, he did not often stop to harmonize his viewpoints. Consequently, if one
considers his work in separate sections, he is liable to make him out to be both
a rationalist and a fideist, an Arian and a Sabellian. See J. Cottiaux, “La con-

( 1« )

INTRODUCTION TO FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY

caption de la théologie chez Abelard” in RHE, 28 (1932), 247-295; 533-551;
788-828. Some of his theories, like that of Trinitarian appropriation, were to
be adopted by the masters of the 13th century. See R. M. Martin, "Pro Petro
Abelardo. Un plaidoyer de Robert de Melun contre saint Bernard,” RSPT.
XII (1923), 308-333.
38. Etienne Gilson sums up the question of Abelard’s supposed rational­
ism neatly in the following passage:
It is a curious thing that precisely because of the passionate yearning with
which he desired knowledge of God, men should want to make of Abelard
a rationalist. He is neither a rationalist in intention, since he declares the
mystery impenetrable, nor in fact, since he never asserted that his com­
parisons were exact equivalents of dogmatic realities. He attempts to
discover for us, not a complete comprehension (le sens) of revelation,
but some comprehension (un sens), and that is exactly what is necessary
to prevent formulas from being reduced to mere words devoid of meaning
when we utter them. It hardly needs to be mentioned that Abelard could
not explain the comparisons he was using without having the air of
wanting to explain the dogma itself; and yet, it is not his reason which
absorbs his faith when it sets about discovering in the human sphere
realities that are analogous to those that dogma reveals; on the contrary,
it is his faith which absorbs his reason and restrains it from attempting
tasks for which it was not made. "Le sens du rationalisme chrétien.
Etudes de philosophie médiévale (1921), p. 25. On this same point see
Paré, Tremblay, Brunet, op. cit., pp. 280-295; de Ghellinck, op. cit.,
pp. 171-175.
39. See Abelard’s own description of the purpose of De unitate et trinitate
divina in his Historia calamitatum, ML, 178.140; and his explicit use of the
term summa (. . . aliquam sacrae eruditionis summam . . .) in the prologue
to his Introductio ad theologiam, ML, 178.979.
40. ", . . the famous Sic et non ... for a very long time gave him
[Abelard] the reputation of a sceptic, when actually the work is an arsenal
of apparently contradictory patristic texts designed for the work of reconcilia­
tion by students.” J. de Ghellinck, op. cit., p. 46; see Paré et al., op. cit.,
pp. 289-290.
41. See DTC, 15.1, cols. 366-371. For a presentation of the gradual
development of the lectio, quaestio, and disputatio see Paré et al., op. cit.,
pp. 125-131.
42. See de Ghellinck, op. cit., pp. 51ff.
43. See Diekamp, Theologiae Dogmaticae Manuale, I, p. 99.
44. See C. Suermondt, "Conspectus operum S. Thomae” in ETL (1925),
p. 236; Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality (1950), pp. 1-22.
45. See S.Th., I, q. 2, Introduction; much information can be found in
De Groot, De h. Thomas v. Aquino; see M. Crabmann, Einführung in die
Summa Theologiae des hl. Thomas von Aquin (2nd ed., 1928); GarrigouLagrange, op. cit., pp. 1-22.
46. See Mandonnet, Les écrits authentiques de St. Thomas d’Aquin
(1910), p. 155.
47. See Diekamp, op. cit., p. 102.
48. Ibid., p. 103.
49. DTC, 15.1, col. 417, no. 3: “Continuation et développement de la
scholastique médiévale.”
50. See Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., p. 24.

( Ivü )

THE TRUE RELIGION

51. Ibid., p. 26.
52. De Kath. (1921). His real name was Dionysius van Leeuwen. He
was bom in Ryckel near Trudonopolis and lived at Ruremunde.
53. See DTC, 15.1, cols. 407-410, “Appréciation sur la théologie de la
période scholastique."
54. The third part of this work, "Les Dogmas du Credo," contains some
opinions, for example, the knowledge of *
as-man,
Christ
which should not be
approved; sec Etudes (1878), pp. 205ff.
55. For other works, see the list given by Bainvel, op. cit., p. 5; DAFC,
I, 215-250; DTC, 1.151 Iff; Buchberger, Kirchliches Handlexikon, I, 280.
56. For a history of fundamental theology and apologetics, consult the
following: Langhorst, in Stimmen, vols. 18-20; Schanz, Apologie, I, 3rd ed.,
22ff; A. de Poulpiquet, “Apologétique et Théologie,” in RS PT (1912), p. 708;
M. le Bachelet, “Apologétique, Apologie,” in DAFC, pp. 189-251; L. Maison­
neuve, “Apologétique,” in DTC, 1, cols., 1511ff; Aigrain, “Histoire de I’Apologétique,” in Apologétique (1937), pp. 950-1011.
57. See J. Steffes, “Wie kann mann den Wahrheitscharakter der Religion
erweisen?” in Munster Pastoralblaat (1923), p. 117.
58. We do not, then, investigate the foundations of our religion in an
attitude of doubt (which George Hermes (d. 1831) recommended as the
proper attitude of mind for students undertaking theological studies). This
advice was both unreasonable and wicked. See the Vatican Council, Constitu­
tion De Fide Catholica, ch. 3, DB, 1794, 1815). We do so to find corrobora­
tion. In other words, we wish to turn our popular certitude into philosophical
certitude. Both types of certitude are genuine because they indicate firm intel­
lectual assent and both are backed up by sufficient motives; but in phil­
osophical certitude the motives are perceived more fully, more distinctly, and
above all more reflectively.
59. See B. Durst, “Ziir theologischen Methode,” in Theologische Revue
(1927), pp. 293-361.
60. Modernists speak of a need of the divine and not of God because
they are unwilling to acknowledge a personal God. See Beijsens, Théodicée, I,
7 and 323; G. Michelet, Dieu et l'agnosticisme contemporain, 4th ed. (1920);
Garrigou-Lagrange, Dieu, 5th ed. (1928); I. J. M. van den Berg, Introductio
in theologiam naturalem (1927).
61. See nos. 331ff of this book.

( Iviii )

SECTION I

A Scientific Analysis of Religion in the Abstract
Chapter I. On Religion in General

Article I
THE OBJECTIVE FOUNDATION OF RELIGION
AND THE OBLIGATION TO PRACTICE IT

I. The Objective Foundation of Religion:
1. Modern misconceptions can be reduced to this: religious
feeling is the beginning of all religion. Man creates
religion to fulfill a subjective need.
2. This misconception disregards the following truths:
a. religion can possess an objective foundation, the objec­
tively true knowledge of God;
b. historically, religion has possessed such an objective
basis.
II. The Obligation to Practice Religion:
Proposition 1: Man is strictly bound by the natural law to
practice religion.
Proof: 1. from the metaphysical order (man’s rational
nature);
2. from the general agreement of mankind.
Proposition 2: Man is also bound by the natural law to
practice some external worship.
Proof: 1. from the nature of worship;
2. from the necessity of external worship as a
means to sustain internal worship.
Proposition 3: Men are also bound by the natural law to
worship God publicly.
Meaning: society as such has an obligation to worship God.
Proof: society depends on God for its existence just as
does the individual.
Scholion: The duty of religion is the most important of
all duties and the foundation of all morality.

(1)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Treatise on the True Religion
Special Bibliography
In addition to the authors previously cited who have published
works covering the entire field of fundamental theology, the follow­
ing authors are worthy of note:
J. V. Bainvel, De vera religione et apologetica (1914).
A. de Broglie, Problèmes et conclusions de l'histoire des reli­
gions, 4th ed. (1896 ).
A. de Broglie, Religion et Critique (1896).
H. Dieckmann, De revelatione Christiana tractatus philosophico-historicus (1930).
A. Dorsch, De religione revelata (1916).
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione per Ecclesiam
Catholicam proposita, 4th ed. ( 1944 ).
J. L. Gondal, La religion (1893).
J. Herrmann, Tractatus de vera religione, 3rd ed. (1903).
P. Nicolau, and P. Salaverri, Sacrae theologiae summa, v. 1,
Theologia fundamentalis, 2nd ed. (1952).
J. Ottiger, De revelatione supernaturali (1897).
P. Parente, Theologia fundamentalis, 3rd ed. (1947).
W. Pohl, De vera religione quaestiones selectae (1928).
S. Schiffini, De vera religione (1908).
H. van Laak, Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis, tractatus
II, De religionis revelatione in abstracto considerata ( 1908 ).
G. Yelle and R. Foumier, Apologetica (1945).
G. Zaccherini, De vera religione (1905).
For studies in comparative religion in English the following
may be consulted:
W. Koppers, Primitive Man and His World Picture (1952).
R. H. Lowie, Primitive Religion (1924).
Arthur P. Madgett, Christian Origins, v. 1, 2nd ed. (1941).
E. C. Messenger, Studies in Comparative Religion (1934).
Eva Ross, Social Origins (1937).
W. Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion ( 1931 ).
Sir Bertram Windle, Religions Past and Present (1927).
The True Religion
Preliminary Note
No one, not even an atheist, is ignorant of the existence of
religion. Religion is as commonplace as trees, and like trees it

(2)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

grows in an endless variety of shapes, sizes, and colors all over the
world. And as some trees are gigantic in size and others small;
some flowering and some stunted; some beautiful in form and
others grotesque, so too is it with the variant forms of religion.
To one man the term “religion” will evoke the image of a ven­
erable rabbi with a long beard and black skullcap patiently perus­
ing the scrolls of the Old Testament; to another, the image of a
Catholic priest saying Mass or entering a confessional box; to
another, the image of congregational singing at twilight in a small
chapel; to another, the image of a muezzin in his tower summoning
Mohammedans to prayer; to another, the image of a Buddhist priest
in his temple; to yet others, the image of African natives and their
medicine man engaged in a religious dance.
Because religion, as manifested in various parts of the world,
exhibits such an endless variety of forms, the exact scope of the
demonstration of the true religion must be made clear from the
outset.
The study of comparative religion is both scientific and philo­
sophical. Both aspects, the scientific or empirical and the philo­
sophical, are necessary for an adequate study of the science of
religion. They should complement, not contradict, each other. The
scientific or empirical side of the study is concerned with the
discovery of various historical data about religion as it has
appeared throughout the ages. It does this by the aid of such
special sciences as anthropology, pre-history, archaeology, and
ethnology. The various facts unearthed by these studies are to
be compared in order to note their agreement and differences.
The philosophy of religion is not concerned with the discovery
of historical facts, nor with comparison of the various ritualistic
forms under which religion may appear. Its aim is to investigate,
in the light of such facts, the common nature of religion under­
lying all these fragmentary cultural forms. It seeks the ultimate
causes of religion, the answers to questions such as these: why is
man religious at all? has religion an objective or merely a subjec­
tive foundation? is religion something of pragmatic value only, or
is it necessary? Finally, in comparing religions one with another,
it wants to know whether there is one objectively true religion or
whether all religions are partially true and partially false.
It is necessary to keep these two aspects of the science of
religion constantly in mind, lest the discussion of religion become
hopelessly confused.

(3)

THE TRUE RELIGION

The distinction here suggested between the science and the
philosophy of comparative religion is a very important one
indeed. In the first place, the distinction provides us with a
proper and fair distribution of the subject-matter of the study
as a whole. Thus, the questions of the ultimate origin of
religion, and of its validity, belong to the Philosophy of religion.
On the other hand, the question of the history and development
of particular religions belongs to the Science of religion. Now,
as these two distinct branches of Knowledge, Science and Phi­
losophy, have their own problems to solve, so also they have
their own appropriate methods to be used in their solution.
Thus, a “scientific” problem must be determined mainly by an
appeal to facts, or by the various methods which may generally
be called “empirical.” A “philosophic” problem, on the other
hand, must be determined mainly by the a priori, or meta­
physical, method of abstract reasoning on the necessities of the
case. It would be quite out of place to employ a metaphysical
method in the determination of a “scientific” question of fact;
it would be equally out of place to employ an “empirical”
method for the solution of a philosophic problem. Yet this dis­
tinction of method has unfortunately not always been observed,
and scientists and philosophers have been equally guilty in this
respect (E. C. Messenger, Studies in Comparative Religion,
[London: The Catholic Tmth Society, 1934], I, p. 18).

The study of comparative religion is, then, in its entirety, a
vast and separate science which deserves to be studied with its
own proper techniques. Here no attempt is made to study the
various forms in which religion has appeared over the ages; the
interested reader is referred to the bibliography on page 2.
Further, the philosophy of religion is taken up here only insofar
as it is a preliminary matter to the apologetical demonstration of
the existence of one revealed religion.
References, therefore, to the empirical side of the study of
religion will be incidental and only made when they are necessary
to refute objections based either upon false historical data or upon
interpretations of correct data which are vitiated by the acceptance
and a priori application of false philosophical principles.

The Correct Concept of Religion
1. Etymological meaning
2. Definition
(4)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

i intellect
3. The practice of religion involves the / will
I emotions
4. Some acts of religion are
a. essential to the virtue;
b. merely prescribed by it.
5. Religion may be considered
a. subjectively, as a virtue;
b. objectively, as the sum total of theoretical and practical
truths pertaining to God and to our relationship to Him.
The Correct Concept of Religion
Etymological definition. The word religion, according to Cicero 1
and others, is derived from the Latin term relegere, which means
“to do much reading,” or “to study closely.” If this derivation is
accepted, religion signifies an attentive and deep study of matters
pertaining to the worship of God. Other authors, taking their cue
from Lactantius, derive the word from religare, which denotes that
one “unite himself,” or “bind himself fast” to God. Finally, but with
far less probability, some take the lead of Augustine and derive
religion from re-eligere. In this case religion signifies that one
“chooses once more,” the God whom he has lost by sin.
Real definition. Apart from its etymological derivation, religion
signifies man’s relationship to God.1 This does not refer to the
ontological relationship by which everything in the universe
depends on God for its whole being; it designates rather the moral
relationship by which a rational creature, who recognizes his
dependence on God and the duties which follow from that depend­
ence, pays honor to God both in theory and in practice. Since honor
accompanied by submission is called worship, religion may be
defined as the virtue whereby we offer God the worship that is
rightfully His because of His supreme excellence.3
The definition given above considers the subjective aspect of
religion, regarding it as a virtue or constant attitude of mind
inclining man to offer God the worship that is His due. Although
this treatise is primarily concerned with the objective nature of
religion, it is necessary first to clarify a few points pertaining to
the subjective element of religion.
The virtue of religion is not practiced exclusively by acts of

(5)

THE TRUE RELIGION

the intellect or exclusively by acts of the will, or exclusively by
emotions and feelings; it is practiced by all of these activities
together. The acts of the intellect and will, however, are the prin­
cipal acts of religion; emotional reactions are only subsidiary. Thus,
those who teach that religion consists exclusively in intellectual
activity (Hegel, Spencer, E. V. Hartmann, O. Pfleiderer), or exclu­
sively in acts of the will (Kant, Fichte, Ritschl, Herrmann,
Schopenhauer, Achelis, Caird, Paulsen, Wundt, Tolstoi), or exclu­
sively in emotional activity or feeling ( Schleicnnacher, Jacobi,
James, the Modernists), are badly mistaken. The emotions depend
in large measure on physiological conditions and, unless guided
by reason, can completely destroy religion.
In addition it must be noted that some religious acts are neces­
sary to the virtue of religion and are brought into being by it;
others are merely prescribed by it. Acts which are necessary to the
virtue of religion are those which directly and of their very nature
honor God: for example, adoration, thanksgiving, and petition.
Acts which are merely prescribed by the virtue of religion are acts
proper to other virtues: for example, the virtues of temperance
or mercy. Insofar as actions proper to these virtues are directed
towards God’s glory and are prescribed by religion, they are said
to belong indirectly to the virtue of religion.3
All that has been said thus far pertains to the subjective element
of religion. Religion, in its objective sense, embraces all those duties
by which we must worship God, or the sum total of theoretical and
practical truths pertaining to God and our relationships to Him.
This sum total of duties is accurately and succinctly summarized
in the formula: creed, code, cult.
In this treatise, attention will be directed mainly to the objec­
tive aspect of religion. The first section of the treatise will contain
a scientific analysis of religion in the abstract; the second section
will contain an application of that theory of religion to demonstrate
the actual existence and the truth of the Christian-Catholic religion.

The Correct Concept of Religion
Notes
1. See S.Th., Ila-IIae, q. 81, a. 1, c; Schanz: Apologetik des Christcntums,
I, 4th ed., no. 4, 2.
2. We shall not give here a list of all the erroneous notions of religion that
exist, but a few common examples may be of interest.

(6)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

1. Thomas Huxley: Religion is Reverence and Love for the Ethical Ideal,
and the desire to realize that Ideal in Life.
2. Immanuel Kant: Religion consists in our recognizing all our duties
as divine commands.
3. Solomon Reinach: Religion is a .wm of scruples which impede the free
exercise of our faculties.
4. Λ. N. Whitehead: Religion is the υϋίοη of something which stands
beyond, behind, and within the passing flux of immediate things-,
something which is real, and yet waiting to be realized; something
which is a remote possibility, and yet the greatest of present facts;
something that gives meaning to all that passes, and yet eludes
apprehension; something whose possession is the final good, and yet
beyond all reach; something which is the ultimate ideal, and the
hopeless quest.
The first definition excludes the notion of God as the Supreme Power on
which all things depend, reducing religion to a humanitarian search for
wholesome ethical ideals. The second reduces religion to one of its conse­
quences. The third not only does not acknowledge creed, code, or cult, but
makes religion a neurotic disease. The fourth is uttered in poetic prose, but
states that religion is an impossible ideal. (The first three definitions are cited
in Messenger, Studies in Comparative Religion [London: The Catholic Truth
Society, 1934], I, p. 5; the fourth is found in Whitehead’s book, Science and
the Modern World [New York: The New American Library, Mentor ed.,
1948], ch. XII, “Religion and Science," p. 191).
Many writers describe a sense of dependence on any sort of being what­
soever as religion. D. F. Strauss says: "The fundamental ingredient of every
religion is the feeling of absolute dependence. Whether we call it God or the
Universe, the fact remains that we undoubtedly do feel ourselves to be
dependent on one or the other” (Alter und neuer Glaube, p. 142).
To see how far an abuse of terminology has proceeded and what vast
confusion exists about the very notion of religion, consult V. Cathrein’s article,
"Modeme Religion," in Stimmen, 68 (1905) 53. Some excellent examples
of weird conceptions about both God and religion currently abroad in America
may be found in V. Sheppard, Religion and the Concept of Democracy
(Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1949), especially
chapter 4, "The Modern Cult of Democracy,” pp. 50-70; R. Mohan, S.S.,
A Thomistic Philosophy of Civilization and Culture (Washington: The Cath­
olic University of America Press, 1948), “Religious Anti-Rationalism,” pp.
55-59.
3. See S. Th., Ila-IIae, q. 81, a. 1, ad 1; a. 4, ad 2. Here is found an
exposition of the sense in which morality is distinguished from religion, and
in what sense it is included in that concept.

(7)

SECTION I
A Scientific Analysis of Religion
in the Abstract

There are two types of religion: natural and super­
natural. Natural religion stems necessarily from
the very nature of God and of man, is known and
regulated by reason, and leads to a natural goal.
Supernatural religion rests upon some sort of rev­
elation. Note, however, that supernatural religion
does not destroy, or take the place of natural
religion, but is added to it and perfects it.

(9)

CHAPTER I

On Religion in General

The principles established in this chapter are necessarily valid for
any natural religion and conditionally valid for a supernatural
religion. The condition for the latter is the actual existence of a
divine revelation.

Article I
THE OBJECTIVE FOUNDATION OF RELIGION
AND THE OBLIGATION TO PRACTICE IT

I. The Objective Foundation of Religion
In this modem day a great many men adhere to philosophical
monism, subjectivism, or positivism. They deny that there is a God
who is distinct from the world, or at least that He can be known by
reason. Such persons maintain that all religions lack any objective
foundation and rest ultimately on purely subjective experience, a
sort of psychological sentiment. They claim that men are religious,
not because they know by objectively valid arguments that God
exists and that they depend on Him, but because they are driven
by their own personal disposition (either a blind instinct about the
existence of suprasensible realities, or the awareness of their own
helplessness coupled with a desire for help and happiness, or a
categorical imperative) to manufacture a god or gods for them­
selves. Hence we should look for the origin of religion not in man’s
intelligence, which recognizes God making Himself known either
naturally or supematurally, but in the human heart, emotions, and
will. Modernists teach practically the same doctrine. Following, as
they do, the principles of agnosticism or immanentism,’ Modernists
claim that the origin of religion is to be found in a subjective need
• Agnosticism holds that the human mind is incapable of knowing any­
thing about a suprasensible world, even its existence. Immanentism teaches that
the origin and deepest explanation of every religion and of all aspects of
religion is to be found in man himself, namely, in the intrinsic disposition and
desires of the human soul.

(11)

THE TRUE RELIGION

lb

of the divine which lies hidden beneath our conscious mental
activity, or in the subconscious mind. Given a favorable opportu­
nit}’, this subconscious need bursts forth from its hidden recess and
a man begins to feel how vehemently his heart pants after God.
This religious feeling, which is called “faith,” is for them the
beginning of all religion.'
Once this assertion is granted, it is easy to accept their other
dictum: men have manufactured deities and fabricated diverse
relationships between gods and men and developed different
religious duties all in accord with their own peculiar subjective
or objective circumstances.2 This is the explanation, according to
the Modernists, for all the diversity of religions, past and present.
Most Modernists add, finally, that religion has to be changed
from time to time to keep pace with the progress of science, human
culture, personal views of morality, and so forth.
Against this theory, which makes man the creator of God
rather than God the Creator of man, the following is to be main­
tained here:
1. Religion can possess an objective foundation, namely, the
objectively true knowledge of an existing and governing God. This
fact flows spontaneously from the points proved in the philosophical
sciences of criteriology and theodicy. For criteriology demonstrates
that we can have objectively valid knowledge of metaphysical
realties, and theodicy demonstrates the existence of one God who
is Creator and Lord. This is the first and major assertion, since it
suffices to safeguard the rights and objective legitimacy of religion
as such.
2. Historically, religion has possessed such an objective foun­
dation. It cannot be denied that there have been, and still are, false
religions—religions containing many doctrines, moral practices, and
forms of worship, which sound reason neither teaches nor approves.
In spite of this, when it comes to a question of the substance of
religion—the conviction that one is obliged to worship some god,
and the genuine will to worship him—we can say, in general, that
it rests upon the certitude, even though it may be a common-sense
certitude, that some real god actually exists. The same point is a
conclusion of theodicy, which demonstrates that a constant and
morally universal conviction of the entire human race regarding
the existence of God is marked with such characteristics that it must
be considered the result of sound reason. In other words, when
normal intelligence stops to examine the actually existing world, it
arrives by a natural and almost spontaneous process of reasoning

(12)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

at the knowledge of some supreme being. That this reasoning
process is not merely a subjective way of thinking, but has objective
validity can be seen by applying the principles used in criteriology
to refute subjectivism and positivism.

II. The Obligation to Practice Religion
2
After the question of the objective foundation for religion, or
the possibility of a religion which is more than a mere spawn of
psychological sentiment, arises the query: is there any moral obliga­
tion to practice religion? That there is a real and strict obligation
to honor God by religious worship is denied not only by the men
whose views were attacked in the preceding section, but also by
all who profess absolute indifference in religious matters. Such
people hold that God does not really care whether we worship
Him or not; consequently they consider all religion as something
useless and unprofitable.3 Against them the following three propo­
sitions are made:
Proposition 1: Man is strictly bound by the natural law to practice
*
religion.
This proposition is certain.

Proof of the proposition. 1. From the metaphysical order. Man,
since he possesses intelligence and will, ought to assent intellec­
tually to the ontological order of things, and ought to conform to
it in practice through his free actions; but the very order of nature
demands that the highest honor, complete subjection, and complete
love should be offered to God; therefore, man ought to acknowledge
in theory this demand of nature, and ought to follow its dictates
in practice—in other words, man is bound to practice religion.
The major should be obvious. Who, indeed, would say that man,
simply because he enjoys freedom of choice, may neglect or even
pervert the order of nature?
As for the minor, nature and reason alike teach that excellence
should be honored, that sovereignty should be obeyed, that a goal
should be pursued and loved. But in God we find supreme, indeed
infinite, excellence, “insofar as He infinitely transcends all things
from every possible viewpoint” (S.Th., Ila-IIae, q. 81, a. 4, c.);
therefore the highest honor or adoration belongs to God? God is
the supreme Sovereign of all things, since all things completely
depend on Him as their Creator, Preserver, and Provider; therefore
to God is due complete subjection and utter obedience. God is the

( 13)

3

THE TRUE RELIGION

goal of all things, because they are ultimately ordered to Him.
Hence He should be desired above all other goods and loved above
all other things. Very rightly did Leo XIII say:

Of all the duties of mankind, that is without doubt the greatest
and holiest duty which orders men to worship God lovingly
and religiously. That duty follows necessarily from the fact that
we continue to exist by God’s power, and are governed by God’s
will and providence. Since we have come forth from Him, we
ought to return to Him (encyclical Libertas praestantissimum,
in the Allocutions of Leo XIII, Desclée ed., Ill, 108).

The fact that God has no need of our worship, and that He does
not gain any additional happiness or profit from it, does not change
matters at all. That God does not need our worship does not mean
that He forfeits thereby His right to that honor, or that man is
excused from his obligation. For who would say that a beggar is
dispensed from the duty of gratitude, just because that gratitude
would bring hardly any profit to a powerful benefactor? Neither
can one pretend that God has yielded His rights in this matter.
Since God cannot contradict Himself, He must will His creature
to operate in conformity to the very nature He has given him.
Finally, let it be noted that we do not worship God “for His profit,
but for His external glory and for our profit” (S.Th., IIa-IIae,q. 81,
a.6, ad 2).

4

2. Proof of the obligation from the general agreement of man­
kind. All peoples, from all parts of the earth, whether they exist
today or have existed in the past, have always professed some sort
of religion. Granted that the type of religion practiced may often
have been of a very superstitious sort, the fact remains that all
kinds of people, not merely civilized nations, but even, and
especially, primitive ones have always practiced religion. What
some authors have alleged about finding tribes completely with­
out religion is simply not true.0 How explain this fact? This
• “The question whether anywhere on earth there has ever been discovered
a tribe having no religious notions or ideas may be answered definitely, ‘No!’ ”
(O. Peschel, Volkerkunde, 6th ed., p. 273). "We can now affirm definitely that
in spite of all investigations, no human beings anywhere have been found
who did not possess something which was recognized by them as a religion”
(Max Miiller, Ursprung und Entwicklung der Religion, p. 88). See Schanz,
Apologie, v. I, 4th ed., no. 3. Note also that it is incorrect to point to wide­
spread Buddhism as an example of irréligion; for wide-spread Buddhism, that
is, popular Buddhism, is not atheistic.

( 14)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

unwavering and universal agreement of mankind in a moral
matter which puts a check on man’s passions cannot be adequately
explained by prejudice or education. Neither can it be sufficiently
explained on the grounds that rulers or priests tricked people into
practicing religion, or that it was due to ignorance of the natural
sciences, or to irrational fears, or to veneration for the dead. This
universal fact can be adequately explained only on the grounds
that all peoples in this matter were following the dictates of sound
reason. As Cicero puts it, "Nature recognizes that God should be
worshipped, and there was never any man bom who lacked this
natural law which orders him to worship” (Oratio pro Flacco).9
The fact that many people in our day profess no religion or
even deny openly that there is any obligation to worship God in no
way destroys the validity of this argument. In the first place, many
who belong to no church or sect do not thereby necessarily wish
to abandon all religion, internal as well as external.7 Secondly,
even those who stubbornly deny the obligation to worship God in
any way whatsoever, granted that they may be sincere in their
conviction, are still so few that they do not destroy the universal
conviction of the human race.8 No one maintains that man is
religious by an inescapable necessity or that the dictates of reason
may not be misdirected because of prejudice and passion. Finally,
those who have rejected all religion are not particularly noted for
virtue, nor are they usually very happy, as is often shown by their
falling into spiritualism, or by the fanatical hatred they frequently
exhibit against religion.
Proposition 2: Man is also bound by the natural law to practice
some external worship. This proposition is certain.
Religion consists, above all, in the acts of the intellect and will 5
with which we acknowledge and love God’s excellence. This is
internal worship. A secondary, but nonetheless necessary, part of
The idea that somewhere there ought to be found peoples who were natu­
rally atheistic was not the product of scientific research into the history of
religion, but the a priori theory of nineteenth century comparative religionists
who sought to apply the theory of biological evolution to the field of religion
with the utmost rigor. In accord with their a priori reasoning, religion ought to
be found in its purest fonn, monotheism, where man has reached his highest
development and in its crudest form where man was very primitive. And
somewhere in the dim twilight beyond that stage one might possibly hope to
find peoples who were atheistic or totally lacking religion. As a matter of fact,
religion as found among the earliest men is monotheistic and quite elevated;
only later did it degenerate into such aberrations as fetishism, animism, totem­
ism, magic, etc. See No. 10 of this book, Scholion, p. 25.

( 15)

THE TRUE RELIGION

religion is external worship, or the honor we pay to God through
the external actions of our body. Some people who admit in general
the obligation to practice religion and consequently the obligation
to pay internal worship, make it a point to deny that there is any
natural obligation to worship God externally. Man is, however,
bound to practice some sort of external worship. The question
whether or not man is bound by the natural law alone to practice
tin's or that special act of worship is of no concern here.9
6
Proof of the proposition. 1. Worship by its very nature demands
an external expression. The entire man is dependent on God, and
so the entire man, not merely his soul, but also his body, ought to
take part in acknowledging this dependence. “Worship of God is
twofold,” says Aquinas, "interior and exterior. Since man is com­
posed of both body and soul, both should take part in the worship
of God. The soul should pay interior worship and the body exterior”
(S.Th, la-IIae, q. 101, a. 2, c.).
It is not hard to see that external worship is necessary as a
means to sustain internal worship. Man is obliged to pay God
the most perfect internal worship he can. It follows that he is also
bound to take the means by which those internal acts of religion
may be aroused, sustained, and strengthened. But our nature is so
constructed that our internal activities are stimulated, strengthened,
and rendered more vivid through the motions and actions of our
senses.1" According to St. Thomas:
The human mind, if it is to be joined to God, needs the helping
hand of the senses. That is why in divine worship it is neces­
sary to make use of some material things which act as a sort of
signpost to stimulate man’s mind to those spiritual activities by
which it is joined to God. Hence it is that religion looks upon
external actions as somewhat secondary and as geared towards
the production of interior acts (S. Th. Ila-IIae, q. 81, a. 7, c. ).

Again he writes:

Men make use of a number of corporeal actions . . . such as
prostrations, genuflections, audible cries and songs. We do these
things, not because we think that God needs such signs, for
God knows all things. We do them for our own sake so that by
these corporeal actions our will may be directed towards God
and our affections may be kindled; and in so doing we at the
same time acknowledge that God is the author of both our
(16)

ON

RELIGION IN GENERAL

soul and body and accordingly render to Him both spiritual
and bodily submission (S.C.G., III, 119).
Proposition 3: Men are obliged by the natural law to offer public
worship to God. This proposition is certain.
Men must worship God not only privately, as individuals, but 7
publicly, as members of society. This means that society as such is
obliged to worship God. It is evident that this public worship is
external. Therefore, the demonstration of this proposition furnishes
additional proof for the necessity of external worship. Opponents
of this proposition are liberals and, above all, socialists. They both
assert that “religion is a private affair,” although in practice they
frequently attack even private religion with all their power.
Proof of the proposition. Just as its individual members, so
society as a whole continues to exist by God’s sustaining power, is
ruled by God’s providence, and totally depends on God. Who
would maintain that men are subject to God in their private lives,
but not in their social or political lives? Consequently, man as a
social being, or society as such, must acknowledge and profess its
dependence upon God.
Pope Leo XIII says:
The very same law of nature and reason which orders men as
individuals to honor God in a holy and religious fashion,
because we are in His power, and because we must return to
Him from whom we have come forth, likewise binds the civil
community. For men living in society are no less in God’s power
than men living as individuals. And society no less than indi­
viduals ought to pay thanks to God who is its author and
preserver, and from whose generosity it receives the countless
goods by which it is enriched (encyclical Immortale Dei,
Allocutions of Leo XIII, Desclée ed., Ill, 149).

Scholion. The duty of religion is the most important of all duties
and is the foundation of all morality.

1. Reason itself points out that man has duties towards God,
towards himself, and towards other men. It must be evident that
of all these duties the most important and holiest are those which
man owes to God, who is the first cause and last end of all things.
2. Note, also, that religion is the foundation stone of all other
duties, the basis of all morality.11 In fact, once the obligation of
(17)

8

THE TRUE RELIGION

honoring God through subjection to His will is admitted, the other
duties of morality find an unshakable basis, the will of God the
law-giver, whose authority binds all men. Those who deny either
the existence of God or the obligation of serving Him simply cannot
find any reason why men should really and strictly be obliged to
lead a moral life.’2 Such persons appeal either to the dictates of
conscience or civil laws. Their appeal to the dictates of conscience,
or to an innate sense of what is decent, or to love of order is futile.
Unless conscience be viewed as a sort of herald which makes known
the divine law, it can have no real binding force. No one can be
obliged to any duty except by a superior. But conscience or reason
is not superior to man, since it is but one of his own faculties.
Hence, to proclaim that reason is the final court of appeal actually
amounts to proclaiming that man is free of any real obligation.13
Such people also appeal to civil laws. Without mentioning any
other arguments, it should be obvious that a merely human legis­
lator who is not sanctioned by divine authority cannot impose any
obligation that really deserves the name.
No matter what people may protest to the contrary, to preach
a morality cut off from religion, a morality which they call “inde­
pendent” or “free,” amounts in fact to the destruction of the entire
moral order.14 This gives a fresh argument for the necessity of
religion: for if it is an evil thing to undermine morality (and the
conclusion that morality has no binding force proceeds logically,
once religion is excluded), then the basic necessity of religion must
never be denied.
It is also untrue to assert that a morality which is dependent
on another’s will is unbefitting man’s dignity. As man cannot be
independent in the ontological order, neither can he be so in the
moral. But it is one thing to be dependent on a supreme legislator,
and quite another to fulfill his commands out of purely slavish fear.

Notes
1. See DB 2074 fr.
2. F. Paulsen states: “Religion does not spring from the intelligence, nor
from logical-metaphysical speculation, nor from the evidence of history; it
springs from the heart” ( Philosophia militans, p. 46). “The intellectual gar­
ments in which religion gets dressed up, the conceptual formulae in which
philosophy ani theology try to comer it, are an injury and a disgrace to
religion” (System der Ethik, 5th ed., p. 406).
W. Wundt remarks that religion “has not died out of the human soul.”

( 18)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

Religion is "nothing but the concrete expression of the moral ideal. The yearn­
ings and challenges, the highest emotional sanctions which man meets with
in his consciousness, he sets before himself as a goal, and, still more, as a sort
of universal frame of reference in which to interpret the existing world outside
himself. Man then divests his religious conceptions of their imaginative force
in order to grasp the real meaning of the commands of conscience” (System
der Etliik, II, 3rd ed., 10-1).
3. For example, Kant wrote: “I accept the following point as an axiom
which needs no demonstration: everything, with the exception of good conduct,
which man pretends to do to learn how to become pleasing to Cod is purely
religious-compulsion and sham-service of God” ( Religion innerhalh der Grenzen der Vemunft, Werke VI, Hartenstein ed., p. 353).
4. M. Serol, Le besoin et le devoir religieux (1908). The author does not
always correctly distinguish between revealed positive religion and purely
natural religion.
5. See L. Roure, “La religion du Dieu Créateur ou la place de l’adoration
dans la religion," in Etudes (1928), 194, 513.
6. See M. Lagrange, “La religion de Cicéron d’après le De natura
deorum," in ETL (1928), p. 413.
7. A Sabatier: “People confuse hostility directed against an exterior
religion, or against a dogma, or against a church, or against a tradition, with
atheism and irréligion. Nothing could be more false . . . the only atheist and
the only irreligious man is the frivolous man who uses his very frivolity as a
cover-all weapon and disguise for a vain and brutal egotism” (Esquisse (Tune
philosophie de la Religion, pp. 27-28).
Against those who assert that knowledge of natural science puts an end
to religion, see Kneller, Das Christentum und die Vertreter der neueren
Naturwissenschaft (1912); Emeyieu, La part des croyants dans le progrès
de la science au XIX siècle (1920). Emeyieu has “listed the names of 432
scientists of distinction. Setting aside 34 whose religious views are unknown,
he tabulates them as follows: Atheists 16; Agnostics, 15; Believers 367.
Selecting out of this total some 150 original thinkers and scientific pioneers,
he finds among them only 5 Atheists and 9 Agnostics compared with 123
Believers—the views of 13 are unknown" (B. Conway, The Question Box,
[New York: The Paulist Press, 1929], p. 113).
Sir Bertram Windle, himself a lifelong student of science, has edited a
series of biographies of distinguished Catholic scientists (Twelve Catholic
Men of Science) who found no contradiction in accepting both rational and
revealed truth. The twelve scientists are: Linacre, Vesalius, Stensen, Galvani,
Laënnec, Müller, Corrigan, Secchi, Mendel, Pasteur, de Lapparent, and
Dwight. See Conway, op. cit., p. 144.
A change in the either/or attitude about religion and science, so rampant
in the nineteenth century, is strikingly indicated by the president of Harvard
University, Dr. Pusey, who pleads for a return of theology to the university as
a major science. See “Religion Now” in Harper's, December, 1953, and the
comment about the article by G. Gustafson in The Priest, January, 1954.
No one has better indicated than Pius XII how valuable is the contribu­
tion of science to religion when the two work hand in hand. He says: “For
[you men of science] by your research, your unveiling of the secrets of nature,

( 19)

THE TRUE RELIGION

and your teaching of men to direct the forces of nature towards their own
welfare, you preach at the same time, in the language of figures and formulae
and discoveries, the unspeakable harmony of the work of an all-wise God.
“In fact, according to the measure of its progress, and contrary to affirma­
tions advanced in the past, true science discovers God in an ever-increasing
degrec-as though God were waiting behind every door opened by science.
We would even say that from this progressive discovery, which is realized in
the increase of knowledge, there flow benefits not only for the scientist himself
when he reflects as a philosopher—and how can he escape such reflection?—
but also for those who share in these new discoveries or make them the object
of their own considerations” (Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science,
Nov. 22, 1951, translated in The Church and Modern Science [New York:
America Press, 1951], p. 31).
For a sample of the opposite mentality still prevailing among a small
group of die-hard, anti-religious scientists, still consumed by a nineteenth­
century mentality, see Gordon Child, who writes: "For convenience only we
distinguish magic in which impersonal mystic forces are directly controlled
from religion in which the forces are personified, and can therefore be influ­
enced in the same way as men by entreaties or flattery. But really there is no
sharp distinction. Most rituals are designed also magically to coerce, or at
least assist, the gods. That is the sense, for instance, of the numerous ritual
dramas and also of the meals and beer given to the gods” ( Man Makes Him­
self [New York: The New American Library, Mentor ed., 1951], pp. 178-179;
see also pp. 186-187). The same mentality, less blatantly expressed, is found
in G. Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution [New York: The New
American Library, Mentor ed., 1951], pp. 132, 135, 179.
8. When we say that such persons are only a handful compared with the
whole human race, we mean the human race considered not merely in the
twentieth century, some two and one half billion people (see Information
Please Almanac, 1954, p. 732), but the whole human race considered during
the entire span of its existence, variously estimated as somewhere between
50,000 and 500,000 years ( see Gordon Child, op. cit., p. 11).
9. St. Thomas solves the objection, “Ceremonial acts are not demanded
by natural reason,” by the following general answer: "Natural reason does
demand that a man do something to show reverence for God, but that a man
do precisely this or that is not demanded by natural reason, but by regulations
laid down by divine or human law” (S. Th., Ila-IIae, q. 81, a. 2 ad 3). Else­
where he teaches that “the offering of sacrifice pertains to natural law”
(Ibid., q. 85, a. 1). Perhaps these two viewpoints can be reconciled by saying
that the offering of sacrifice is not indeed strictly ordered by the dictates of
natural reason, but that it is suggested by it.
10. Conversely, internal sentiments, especially the livelier ones, tend
spontaneously to burst forth in external gestures. That is why internal religion,
provided it is sincere, will almost necessarily manifest itself through external
worship. For just as external worship without internal would be hypocrisy
(for one dissimulates what is in reality lacking), so, too, a purely internal
worship without any external worship would be crippled, feeble, and con­
trary to nature.
11. Morality', insofar as it is distinguished from religion, means the sum

(20)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

total of duties by which a man has obligations towards himself and towards
other men, considered both as individuals and as members of society.
12. See Franon, Les fondements du devoir, 1916; Beysens, Ethiek of
natuurlijke zedenleer, I, 582ff. E. Bruneteau, "Peut-il y avoir une morale sans
Dieu?” in RPA, XVI (1913), 801-611.
13. Rousseau says: “People would like to establish virtue on purely
rational grounds—but in vain; what basis could they offer for it? Virtue, they
say, is love of order. But really could such a love of order, in fact should it,
take preference in me over the love of my own happiness? Let them give me
a reason for preferring love of order to self-love. If God does not exist, the
wicked man is the only reasonable man; the good man is really a fool”
(Emile, I, 4).
Did not Friedrich Nietzsche, by applying to human society "the-strugglefor-life” theory, grant to the superman the right to trample underfoot all
weaklings so that he might reach supremacy (Herren-Moral)? How savage
morality can become when based on the State as its ultimate norm has been
tragically illuminated for the modem world by the concentration camps of
Nazi Germany and the purge-trials of Soviet Russia. Stalin merely put into
practice that perfect disregard of the dignity of the human person uttered in
theory by Karl Marx: “If I speak of individuals, it is only insofar as they are
personifications of economic categories, and representatives of special class
relations and interests” (Das Kapital, quoted by R. Mohan, op. cit.). Perhaps
the most futile attempt to construct a morality apart from religion is that
proposed by George Gaylord Simpson, who wishes to use evolution as the
ultimate basis for morality. After stating: "Man is the result of a purposeless
and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.
He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the
order of Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all life and indeed to all that is
material. It is, however, a gross misrepresentation to say that he is just an
accident or nothing but an animal,” he attempts to give some suggestions for
a new, relative morality based upon the process of evolution as re-directed by
"a species of the order of Primates" (op. cit., p. 179).
14. In practice, the men who have liberated morality from "the props”
of religion are usually not outstanding for good morals; still, one should not
make too great generalizations in this matter. If actually a number of men
manage to lead a morally upright life without the help of religion, they bear
out strikingly the observation of A. Balfour: “Biologists tell us of parasites
which live and can only live within the bodies of animals more highly organ­
ized than they. So it is with those persons. Their spiritual life is parasitic: it is
sheltered by convictions which belong, not to them, but to the society of which
they form a part; it is nourished by processes in which they take no share.
And when those convictions decay, and those processes come to an end, the
alien life which they have maintained can scarcely be expected to outlast
them” (Foundations of Belief, 1895, pp. 82-83).

(21)

Article II
THE UNITY OF THE TRUE RELIGION

I. This Article is directed against those who favor relative
indifference in religious matters.
II. Preliminary remarks.
Proposition: The objectively true, legitimate, and good reli­
gion is one and the same for all men.
Meaning: Not all religious duties are the same for all men,
but those which are absolute and those which
are hypothetically universal.
Proof: a. for absolute duties;
b. for hypothetically universal duties.
Scholion: The theory of progressive religious evolution
must be rejected.

(22)

Article II
THE UNITY OF THE TRUE RELIGION

The point-of-view of those who favor a relative indifference in 9
religious matters is next to be examined. Although such persons
concede that there is some obligation to practice religion, or at
least admit the usefulness of religion, they assert that all religions
are good and legitimate. Some, however, restrict their assertion to
cover merely the various forms or sects of Christianity.
They defend their assertion in a variety of ways. Some, among
them the Modernists,1 rest their case on an error previously dis­
cussed, namely, that religion is merely a product of psychological
sentiment. Furthermore, they assert that a particular form of
religion is useful only insofar as it satisfies the needs and aspirations
of the human heart. They conclude, logically enough, that any
religion is good, at least for its own time and place. When it ceases
to satisfy the desires of its adherents, it is cast aside completely or
is changed, unless kept alive unjustly by force. Other proponents
of religious indifferentism rest their case on the assumption that
all truth is relative and, as a consequence, changeable. Finally,
others admit that there is only one objectively true religion and
that all others are false; but at the same time they maintain the
impossibility in practice to distinguish the true religion from the
false ones, and hence conclude that all religions are, in practice,
good.
However, if one grants that religion rests on an objective
foundation which is an objectively true knowledge (natural or
supernatural) of God, it follows of necessity that only that religion
can be true which teaches the truth about God, about our relations
with Him, and our duties toward Him. On the contrary, any
system of religion which proposes false teachings on these points,
or mingles falsehood with truth, is certainly a false religion. A
thing is morally good only if completely good; morally evil, if even
partially defective. Precisely insofar as any religion lacks objective
truth, to such an extent must it also lack legitimacy and goodness.
A religion is legitimate only if it is in harmony with the law, that
is, with the will of God; a religion is good only if it worships God

(23)

THE TRUE RELIGION

as He ought to be worshipped and if its practice tends of its very
nature to man’s ultimate goal.
Later it will be shown that one can distinguish the true religion
from false ones, employing the criteria of revelation. In practice,
however, this task of distinguishing the true religion from the false
is not an easy matter for everyone. It can happen, and indeed does
happen, that some men mistakenly, but sincerely, embrace a false
religion as the true one. If such people practice a false religion in
good faith, they are acting rightly from a subjective point of view
and. all else being equal, can gain merit.®
But, objectively speaking, the religion they profess still remains
in itself false, illegitimate, and evil. Here there is no question of
establishing precisely just what may be subjectively licit or even
obligatory for a man who has innocently fallen into error. The
whole aim of this chapter is to determine which is the objectively
true religion, the religion which all men are objectively bound to
practice and should seek out to the best of their ability.

Proposition: The objectively true, legitimate, and good religion is
one and the same for all men. This proposition is certain.
Explanation. This affirmation of the unity of the true religion
does not mean that all religious duties are the same for all men;
it deals only with those duties which are absolute and those which
are hypothetically universal.
Absolute religious duties are those which necessarily flow from
the very nature of God and of man, for example, the obligation of
acknowledging that there is but one true God and Lord, and of
honoring Him internally by gratitude and love and externally by
some sort of worship. These absolute duties are the same, not
only for all men of a particular age, but for all men of all times.
Hypothetically universal duties are those which, granting the
existence of the absolute duties, are based upon some fact of
® This fact is not denied by the condemnation of proposition 15 of the
Syllabus of Piux IX: “Every inan is free to embrace and profess the religion
his reason has led him to believe to be true” (DB 1715). The proposition
was condemned in the sense intended by its author, F. Vigil, of Peru. He
meant that man is not obliged to consider even the possibility of a revelation,
and consequently is not obliged to inquire whether any revelation has taken
place; but he is free to embrace that religion whose teachings strike him
personally as being more in conformity with reason. He may, therefore, safely
reject any religion whose intrinsic truthfulness is not easily apparent to himself.
See Tosi, V odesungen Uber den Syllabus, p. 52; Heiner, Der Syllabus, p. 89.

(24)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

importance for the whole human race. According to Catholic
teaching such facts are: the elevation of mankind to a supernatural
order; the revelation made by Christ and His Apostles; the founda­
tion of the Catholic Church. Although these hypothetically uni­
versal duties are the same for all men, they are not necessarily
the same for all ages. They have binding force only since the
historical occurrence of the fact upon which they are based. It
must be noted, in addition, that there can be, and indeed are, many
hypothetically particular duties which pertain to the true religion.
These are the duties which rest on some divine or human fact
binding, not all men or all societies, but only some men and some
societies. Such duties, as is obvious from their very nature, can
differ, not only for different ages, but also for different men living
in the same time. Thus, for example, had there existed nothing but
a purely natural religion, it should have been set up by a legitimate
human authority in different ways for diverse peoples. Again, the
Mosaic Law was divinely imposed on Israel alone. In the Catholic
religion itself, because of varying human factors, particular churches
are obliged to particular ritual forms and particular disciplinary
laws; clerics and religious have their own special duties proper to
their state of life, etc.
Proof of the proposition. 1. In regard to absolute duties. We
have stated that these duties are such that they flow from the very
nature of God and of man. But neither divine nor human nature
changes; hence, it is impossible that the relationships which stem
directly out of these natures, and the duties which correspond to
these relationships, should be altered.
2. With reference to hypothetically universal duties. From what
has been said it is clear that the fact on which these duties rest
equally affects all men. It is consequently impossible, once the fact
has occurred, that the very duties flowing from that fact should not
be the same for all men. For example, is it not obvious that all men,
after a revelation has been made which is designed for all men and
after God has established a universal religious society, are equally
obliged both to accept this revelation by faith and to enter this
society?
Scholion. The theory of progressive religious evolution must be 10
rejected. Many people exclude any supernatural activity of God in
the world; some, indeed, cast aside any objective foundation for
religion. Die-hard evolutionists, they apply the theory of continuous
progress even to the field of religion.2 Such people teach that all
(25)

THE THUE RELIGION

religions which have ever existed or now exist form just so many
stages through which the human race moves upward, little by
little, to the perfect religion, which is, in their opinion, one purely
natural. According to some, the human race is gradually tending
to that point at which it will finally be liberated entirely from the
"disease” of religion! It is from the same religious instinct, the same
religious consciousness, in accordance with differing internal and
external circumstances of various peoples, that different religious
conceptions, judgments, practices—in a word, different religions,
arose. Since these individual religions suited the temperament,
culture, and aspirations of their followers, they were judged as
legitimate and good in their own time and place; but, objectively,
they differed vastly from one another in their degree of perfection.
Consequently all founders and reformers of religions, even though
their claim to a special mission from God was based on illusion or
pious fraud, are equally worthy of praise because each in his own
way championed continuous religious progress.3
Although various groups of evolutionists have their own pet
theories as to precisely which stage of religion (fetishism, magic,
animism, totemism, etc. ) came first,4 they are nearly all agreed that
humanity was originally more or less atheistic:
For they argue that man cannot have had any high form of
religion when he first emerged from the animal state from
which they think man evolved, and they postidate for man a
pre-logical existence, when he could have had no conception
of a deity at all (From Social Origins by Eva J. Ross, pub­
lished 1937 by Sheed and Ward, Inc., New York, p. 71).

Since there is neither space nor time to trace out these divergent
evolutionary theories in detail, it must suffice to examine, merely
as a sample, the once popular theory which held fetishism to be
the initial stage of religious evolution. The other theories follow
the same thought pattern, but eliminate or vary some of the stages
in the total process.
The road traveled by the human race according to the fetishistic
theory was roughly this: after a period in which no religion at all
existed, or only some barbaric form of religion as yet undiscovered,
there arose first fetishism. In fetishistic religion a number of par­
ticular material objects,5 a particular boulder, or shell, or tooth,
were thought to possess personality or at least mysterious powers
(26)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

and as a consequence came to be worshipped. Next came animism."
Man, becoming conscious of his own soul, began to attribute souk
to all nature, animate and inanimate. Thus he began to worship
souls or spirits which he believed to be residing in things such as
the moon, or the wind, or a local mountain. After that arose
totemism. In totemistic religion various classes of animak like bears,
or eagles, or snakes, were thought to have some sort of hereditary
link with a particular group or clan of people. They thought that
their ancestors either descended from the animal or at least had
some special connection with it. The animal thus exemplified some
trait like bravery or cunning which they associated with their own
clan. The clan, therefore, held the animal in reverence and grad­
ually came to worship it.®
Then came schamanism. The schamani, or magic-working priests,
sought to placate for a time spiritual beings which were hostile to
mankind. Next came polytheism. Then dualism, which acknowl­
edged a twofold principle behind all reality, one good and the
other evil, one light and other darkness. Finally, there arose
monotheism which some present-day prophets predict will finally
give way to atheistic monism.
After the discussion in preceding sections, it will scarcely be 10a
necessary to point out how far this theory of progressive religion
is removed from the truth.
a. It gratuitously and wrongly rejects the existence or even
the possibility of a revelation.
b. If one admits the objective validity of human knowledge, it
is asinine to maintain that all religions are legitimate; for it is
e More recent writers, as a matter of fact, stress the essential differences
and real opposition between both animism and totemism on the one hand and
religion on the other, even though the two may be found side by side in the
same culture. Sir James Frazer, the outstanding authority on totemism,
expressly admits: "Pure Totemism is not in itself a religion at all; for the
totems as such are not worshipped, they are in no sense deities, they are not
propitiated with prayer and sacrifice. To speak therefore of a worship of
totems pure and simple, as some writers do, is to betray a serious misappre­
hension of the facts” ( Totemism and Exogamy, 4th ed. (1910), p. 27, cited
in E. C. Messenger, Studies in Comparative Religion, I, no. 1 (1934), 12).
W. Schmidt asserts the same opposition between totemism, magicism, and
animism on the one hand and religion on the other: “The spiritualism of the
totemistic, magic-working men can in fact be directly contrasted with religion,
can even be considered hostile to religion; for where true religion is practiced,
magic is, whether instinctively or consciously, always felt to be at the
opposite pole, and as such to be avoided and even persecuted ” ( The Religion
of the Primitives, cited in Messenger, op. cit., I, no. 3, 18).

(27)

THE TRUE RELIGION

evident that in many and even most fundamental doctrines they
mutually contradict one another. It does not help matters to make
a comparison between the variety of religions and the variety of
languages, which latter, though varied in their perfection, are all
nonetheless good. A comparison can indeed be drawn between
various languages, or systems of arbitrary signs selected to express
ideas, and religious rites and ceremonies which are themselves for
the most part arbitrary signs, capable of determination now one
way and now another by competent authority. For just as the same
truth may be expressed by diverse sounds and words, so the same
teaching and the same religious emotions can be symbolized by
various religious rites. But the essential meaning of religious teach­
ings is a different case entirely. Unless these teachings express the
relationship actually obtaining between God and man, they are
false and unprovable. The same sort of distinction suffices to dis­
solve another analogy frequently used: namely, that just as a ruler
is pleased if his subjects honor him in diverse ways, so too God is
pleased by a variety of religions! Would a ruler really be pleased
if his subjects exhibited the honor due to himself to pretenders,
or if false ideas of his government were spread among his people,
or if the court ceremonial sanctioned by himself were omitted or
despised? Granted that his subjects acted in good faith, a ruler
could accept the intention of those who are mistaken, but he would
not approve the false veneration in itself.
c. The evolution of religion, such as is proposed by disciples
of progressive religion, is not the result of patient historical inquiry,
but the bald assumption of an atheistic theory of evolution. As a
matter of fact, intense, modern, scientific research into the question
has boomeranged against the evolutionist theory of religion. Begin­
ning with the work of Andrew Lang, The Makins, of Religion
(1908), down to the monumental work of W. Schmidt, Der
Ursprung der Gottesidee (1912-49), numerous scholars7 have
completely demolished this quaint nineteenth-century theory of
religion’s slow upward rise through a series of steady surges.
Actually, religion as found among the earliest men is monotheistic
and quite elevated; it is only in later stages of culture that it degen­
erated into the perverted forms labeled fetishism, animism, inanism,
totemism, and so on.

If we now glance back over the whole picture of man’s oldest
religion, as we have been able to draw it by means of the
(28)

ON RELIGION

IN GENERAL

historical correlation of Ethnology and Prehistory, we are imme­
diately impressed by the strong contrast between our findings
on the one hand and the a priori theorisings of the old progres­
sive evolutionists on the other.
The development of religion must have started from inferior
beginnings, it was affirmed; but moral monotheism appeared to
them as an intrinsically high form of religion, as indeed it is;
therefore, the a priori argument ran, this could only be the
result of a long and complicated development, which finally
produced monotheism in the latest times. In actual fact, how­
ever, it is just in the oldest stages of culture that we find mono­
theism pure and simple whereas ... it is precisely in the later
cultural stages that monotheism recedes further and further
before the onrush of naturism, animism, manism, magicism
(W. Schmidt, “The Religion of Earliest Man,” in Messenger's
Studies in Comparative Religion, I, 25).
When one considers the additional fact that there exist widely
diffused traditions among the primitives which stress some sort of
communication with God as the starting point of their religion, the
Catholic thesis about the original monothesim of the human race
(which is accepted on the basis of divine revelation), far from
being in conflict with natural scientific investigation, is corroborated
by it.
Some scholars, indeed, are so impressed by the nobility and
purity of the religious concepts found among primitive peoples
that they feel no sufficient explanation can be given for such nobil­
ity except by postulating some sort of primordial revelation.

To what can we trace back the immemorial faith in God? All
are agreed that our primitive races have not invented or evolved
it on their own. Nor do they claim that their forebears did so.
They only say that the latter handed on this belief to them
together with many other things. What was the source from
which those forebears drew their knowledge? . . .
... Is it not highly improbable that the least developed and
mentally most primitive beings should by the unaided light of
their own intelligence have been able to recognize, and even
to a certain extent to define, the purpose of man’s existence
and that of the world surrounding him? We may well doubt it.
We must even do so, when we consider how comparatively
uniform as regards fundamentals is the religion of all these
primitive peoples. Were we dealing with knowledge acquired
(29)

THE TRUE RELIGION

by human efforts in the course of time, then these correspond­
ences would indeed be hard to explain; and since, as we have
seen, there can be no question of later borrowing, we are left
no choice but to place the origin of these religious conceptions
far back, somewhere near the beginning of our race, and to
acknowledge that the lofty purity by which they are character­
ized can hardly be conceived as the result of simple human
endeavour (From Primitive Man and His World Picture by
Wilhelm Koppers, published 1952 by Sheed and Ward, Inc.,
New York, pp. 181-184).
With J. Ridderbos we may rightly conclude:

Contrary to the law of evolution, Holy Scripture shows us
another law, namely, that the first light enkindled by God was
darkened more and more through the sin of man, but through
God’s grace grew into greater clarity; and so is unfolded before
our eyes the great world-drama, the history of God and man
developing and progressing, not from polydemonism into mono­
theism, or even from animal to man, but from the first to the
second Adam, from the earthly Paradise to the heavenly
(Studien, 85 [1916], 516).
Notes
1. See DB 2077, 2082, 2083.
2. See DB 2094.
3. And thus Christ our Lord, who is, over all things, God blessed forevei
(Rom. 9:5), is put into the same category with Confucius, Gautama, Moham­
med, and Luther. The theory explained above is followed, if not completely,
at least for the most part, by numerous Protestant theologians who are
described as modem. And these theologians, in order to deceive Christian
people, continue to use the term “revelation,” and to describe Moses and the
Prophets as "messengers from God," and to call Christ “the Son of God and
Redeemer of the world,” but all the while they give a new meaning to the
traditional terms.
4. Fetishism (De Brosses, A. Comte, Sir John Lubbock); Magic (Sir
James Frazer); Animism ( E. B. Tylor, R. R. Marett); Manism (H. Spencer);
Totemism (McLennan, S. Reinach, Robertson Smith, Durkeim, Freud); Nature
myths (W. Schwartz, A. Kuhn, M. Müller, B. Bréal). See W. Schmidt, Prim­
itive Revelation (1939), "Theories as to the Origin of Religion,” pp. 116-124
E. Ross, Social Origins (1937), pp. 71-95.
5. E. Haeckel considered the Catholic veneration given to relics and
images a vestige of fetishism!
6. The concepts of animism and totemism are not as yet perfectly defined
and are understood by some in one way and by others in another. See Prat,
La science de la religion et du langage d'après Max Midler, p. 18; Al.

(30)

ON RELIGION IN GENERAL

Borchert, Der Animismus oder Ur.sprung und Entwfcklung der Religion aw
dem Seelen-Ahnen und GeMerkult (1900); Th. Mainage, Lee religions de In
Préhistoire (1921).
7. In addition to Schmidt, the works of Pinard de Boullaye, W. Koppers,
E. C. Messenger, A. Leroy, E. Eyre, J. M. Cooper, R. H. Lowie, ManchenHelfen, and numerous others, are quite valuable. For a discussion of the
various pioneers in the field of historical ethnology, see W. Koppers, Primitive
Man and Hie World Picture (1952), pp. 9—41·

(31)

CHAPTER II

Revealed Religion

Revelation is Possible, Necessary, and Recognizable

Article I
REVELATION IS POSSIBLE

I.

II.

Notion of Revelation: the Disclosure of Truth Made by
God to Man Beyond the Normal Course of Nature.
Divisions of Revelation:
a. private and public;
b. mediate and immediate;
c. modally supernatural and essentially supernatural.

III. Notion of a Mystery: a Truth which by Its Very Nature
Lies Completely Beyond the Grasp of Unaided Human
Reason.
IV. Division of Mysteries:
a. relative;
b. strict.

Corollary.
Proposition 1 : It is possible to have some sort of revelation.
Proof: 1. It does not involve a contradiction on God’s part.
2. It does not involve a contradiction on man’s part.
Some objections answered.
Proposition 2: A revelation containing mysteries is possible.
Proof: Arguments essentially the same in nature as those
used in proving Proposition 1.
Some objections answered.
Proposition 3: Mediate revelation is possible.
Proof: Arguments essentially the same in nature as those
used in proving Proposition 1.
Scholion: The suitability of mediate revelation.

(33)

CHAPTER II
Revealed Religion

11

It has been already demonstrated that the natural law itself
obliges man to practice religion and that the true religion is neces­
sarily one and the same, in the sense described above, for all men.
From these facts it follows that man is bound in conscience to
search diligently for the true religion, and to make use of the
proper means to find it. Since the duty of practicing religion is the
greatest of all duties, the obligation to seek the true religion is a
very serious one.
If a religion is presented which, with some real plausibility
claims to be revealed by God, men must investigate that religion
seriously and embrace it, should its claims be proved. For man
must practice that religion which God has taught and prescribed
by positive revelation.
Before undertaking the direct proof of Christian revelation, it
will be necessary to discuss the views of those who assert that a
supernatural revelation is impossible, useless, or unknowable.
These opponents of Christian doctrine, however else they may
differ, agree in maintaining that human reason is the only yard­
stick for measuring truth and falsehood. In consequence, these men
declare that nothing above nature is knowable. They are usually
called rationalists, naturalists, and Modernists.’
Article I
REVELATION IS POSSIBLE

12

I. Notion of Revelation
Revelation, a word derived from a Latin verb meaning “to
remove a veil,” has the general sense of making known some truth
to another. In an active sense it is the operation whereby someone
• Strictly speaking, naturalists teach that nothing beyond the order of
nature exists; rationalists teach that nothing beyond the order of nature is
knowable. Most of the time, however, the terms are used synonymously.
Modernists, in clinging to the tenets of agnosticism, completely eliminate any

(34)

REVEALED RELIGION

discloses a truth to another; in an objective sense it is the truth
disclosed. When theologians use the term, they always mean a
divine revelation: the disclosure of a truth by God to an intelligent
creature, particularly to man.
God can bring a truth to man’s attention in two ways:
1. Naturally. This is done through the creation of the visible
universe and the gift of intelligence. Such a manifestation of truth
is called natural revelation. Since God is the author both of man’s
intellectual powers and of the created universe from which man
draws his knowledge, it is not absurd to say that He reveals the
truths which are acquired by the use of natural powers. Neverthe­
less, in speaking of a natural revelation, the term “revelation" is
used only analogously. Natural revelation and supernatural revela­
tion may not be compared with one another as though they were
species of one and the same genus.1
2. Supernaturally, in a way to which man has no right. Such a
revelation is accomplished by a communication which completely
transcends the normal course of nature. This is a supernatural reve­
lation, and it alone is truly worthy of the name revelation. Super­
natural 2 revelation may be defined as the disclosure of truth made
by God ° to man beyond the normal course of nature.3

II. Divisions of Revelation
Revelation may be divided as follows:
13
1. Private and public. This is based on a consideration of the
people for whom the revelation is intended. A private revelation
revelation, strictly so-called, by entirely perverting its genuine concept. (See
DB 2072. ) For an excellent short treatment of the basic principles, spirit, and
evil consequences of rationalism and naturalism, see Garrigou-Lagrange, De
revelatione, v. I, 4th ed. (1944), VII, “De rationalisme seu naturalismo in
genere,” 206-218.
° When God is said to speak to men, this should not be so crudely mis­
interpreted as to mean that God, who is pure spirit, uses a mouth or tongue.
On the other hand, this phrase should not be interpreted merely meta­
phorically. God is described as “speaking" by an analogy of proper proportion­
ality: as human speech is related to its proper effect, so is divine revelation
related to its proper effect. ( See Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione, I, p. 142. )
To put it more simply, God is said to speak because He can produce in the
listener the ordinary effects of human speech. (See Yelle and Fournier,
Apologetica, p. 255; S.Th., Ila-IIae, q. 173, a. 2.) In this way it is clear that
revelation does not do violence to God’s immutability: “It should be noted
that active revelation is the divine action formally immanent in God, namely,
the divine essence, and at the same time virtually transient insofar as it
produces an effect outside of God" (Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., I, p. 158).

(35)

THE TRUE RELIGION

is one destined for one or several individuals; a public revelation
is one destined for a society.
2. Immediate and mediate. This is based on the manner
in which the revelation is made known. An immediate revelation
is one given to a person directly without the intervention of any
other man (although an angel may be an intermediary agent); a
mediate revelation is given to men indirectly through some other
man appointed as a messenger by God for this purpose.
3. Modally supernatural (supernaturale quoad modum) and
essentially supernatural (supernaturale quoad substantiam). This
is based on the type of truth revealed. If the truths revealed do not
by their very nature transcend the comprehension of reason, it is at
least physically possible for man to discover their existence without
the aid of a revelation. Then the revelation is supernatural only
in the manner in which the truths are made known. This is called
modally supernatural. If, on the other hand, a revelation lays down
positive commandments or regulations which do not necessarily
stem from the relationship between God and man, or truths of the
intellectual order completely transcending the grasp of reason
(mysteries), such a revelation is not only modally but also intrin­
sically supernatural. This is called essentially supernatural reve­
lation.4

14

III. The Notion of Mystery
A mystery, in the popular sense of the term, means something
hidden. In theological usage it denotes a truth which by its very
nature lies completely beyond the grasp of unaided human reason.
Completely: There are many things, such as light, electricity,
atomic energy, the attributes of God, whose existence are known
without a perfect understanding of their nature and manner of
operation. These truths are in a relative sense beyond the grasp of
our intelligence, but they are not, at least in the theological sense,
mysteries.5
By its very nature: Consequently, truths which are only acci­
dentally, or because of some external obstacle, beyond the grasp of
our knowledge should not be considered mysteries. Such truths
would be, for example, the exact number of the stars or the grains
of wheat in a field.
In addition to this, there are some tniths that completely and
by their very nature transcend the powers of human reason only

(36)

with regard to their existence. Others are beyond the grasp of
reason, both with regard to their existence and their essence (their
intrinsic possibility).
A truth whose existence cannot be known with certitude with­
out a revelation, but whose intrinsic possibility may be positively
grasped at least after revelation, is called a relative mystery
(mysterium secundum quid'). Such truths are exemplified in the
existence of angels, the creation of the world, and the last judg­
ment. To this category may be added divine commandments and
regulations which depend exclusively on God’s free choice, over
and above the natural order of things. Examples of this are the
choice of a special day, the Sabbath, for the fulfillment of the third
commandment, or the institution of the Church as a perfect and
infallible society (also called second-class mysteries).
A truth whose existence cannot be known without revelation
and whose intrinsic possibility ( the intrinsic harmony of its various
elements ) cannot be positively comprehended even after its revela­
tion is called a strict mystery (mysterium simpliciter).0 Such, for
example, are the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the mystery
of the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.
The qualification “positively comprehended” is important. It is
one thing to see the harmony of the various factors involved, and
quite another not to see any necessary disharmony among them.
In the latter instance, we grasp, in a negative way, that the thing
is possible. Since a mystery, though above reason, does not contra­
dict reason, its possibility can be grasped in such a manner. In
other words, reason cannot demonstrate that there is any intrinsic
contradiction involved in the concepts expressing the meaning of
the mystery. If a contradiction were involved, obviously there
would be not a mystery, but rather an absurdity. But if, as a matter
of fact, a mystery implies no contradiction, reason cannot dis­
cover any.

Corollary:
1. No mystery, whether first- or second-class, can be discovered
by reason without a revelation, or demonstrated by reason even
after its existence has been revealed. If reason, on purely rational
grounds, could ever demonstrate with coercive arguments that a
revealed truth simply had to be so, such a truth, strictly speaking,
could also be discovered by reason.7
2. A strict mystery ( mysterium simpliciter) can neither be
(37)

THE TRUE RELIGION

discovered by reason, nor demonstrated, nor completely compre­
hended even after its revelation.
15

16

Proposition 1: It is possible to have some sort of revelation. This
proposition is of faith ( de fide ).

This proposition defends the possibility of revelation in general
and, consequently, the possibility of that type of revelation which
presents the least difficulties. Such a revelation would be one that
is immediate and only modally supernatural. This would amount
to no more than a fresh promulgation of natural religion and the
natural law.
This proposition was declared a dogma of faith by the Vatican
Council: “If anyone should say that it is impossible or unbecoming
for man to be instructed about God, or the worship due God, by
means of a revelation, let him be anathema” (DB 1807).
Proof: A revelation about religion and the natural law could
only be called impossible if it involved a contradiction on the part
of God, or on the part of man. But:
1. It involves no contradiction on the part of God. Certainly
God lacks neither perfect knowledge of the natural law, nor the
power to communicate His knowledge to men in a supernatural
way. Furthermore, He can do this in such a way that man can be
certain he is being instructed by God. Such a revelation would
have a goal worthy of God’s wisdom. Even though it is physically
possible for man to learn the truths under discussion without a
revelation, a revelation would make them known more easily and
more definitely, and the commandments would carry more weight.
Furthermore, God would manifest His goodness in a new way and
would Himself be honored greatly by the closer union of man with
God which would result. At the same time, a revelation does not
demand, to prevent its being superfluous, that a nature lack any
perfection rightly its own, but simply that the nature be capable
of additional perfection. Finally, if it is no offense to the majesty
of God to create man and even microscopic animals, such as
amoebae and paramecia, by what right may rationalists declare
that it is unworthy for God Himself to instruct man?
2. Revelation involves no contradiction on the part of man.
Since it is normal for man to leam many truths through human
teachers rather than through his own discovery, it is obvious
that to have God as his teacher, who possesses infinite knowledge
and authority, offers no insult to man’s dignity. If it is no disgrace
(38)

REVEALED RELIGION

for a man to believe other men, why would it be a disgrace for
him to believe God? It is not true to say that the human soul, in
receiving a revelation, is unnaturally reduced to absolute passiv­
ity,s since the ideas which God communicates by His immediate
action require the concurrence of the act of human intelligence.

Some Objections Answered:
Some object that revelation destroys the autonomy and inde­
pendence of reason.” But it is absurd to speak of reason—a power
that always operates in a necessary manner, being determined
either by its proper object or by the will—as autonomous. If the
objection means that the human will is so autonomous that it is not
obliged to move the intelligence to consent to a revelation which
it knows has definitely come from God, such a conception of the
autonomy of the will must simply be rejected.10
Others object that a revelation interferes with the continuous
evolution of human knowledge. Still, God, who causes all things
to take place in an orderly fashion, gave His revelation in such
wise that by His gentle providence He disposed and prepared
the human race to receive it. Do not even the rationalists seek to
explain the whole history of the Mosaic, Prophetic, and Christian
revelation by a natural evolution? They try in vain; but even so,
attempts of this kind would not even be possible if God, in reveal­
ing, had in no way taken into account the aptitude, the aspirations,
and the circumstances of those who were to receive His revelation.
Proposition 2: A revelation containing mysteries is possible.
This proposition, insofar as it covers a revelation which is essen­
tially supernatural, has been defined as a dogma of faith by the
Vatican Council:
If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowl­
edge and perfection that is above his natural capacity, but
can and ought to arrive finally at the possession of all truth and
goodness by the exercise of his own powers and without any
interference, let him be anathema ( DB 1808).
By the term “mysteries” is here meant whatever is divinely
added over and above natural religion and the natural law. Hence,
commandments which depend exclusively on God’s free will, sec­
ond-class mysteries, and first-class mysteries are included. There is
a priori certitude that some second-class mysteries can exist, for

(39)

17

THE TRUE RELIGION

who would contend that God can make no free decrees? And such
decrees could not be known unless they were revealed.
A posteriori, that is. from the very data of revelation, we know
that mysteries of the first class actually exist; here we maintain
simply one point: no one can prove a priori that such mysteries are
impossible. In what possible way could reason show that there can­
not be any reality in God which completely transcends the grasp of
our reason? Is not God an infinite Being whose nature is known
only analogically and very imperfectly? Additional force is added
to this argument by the consideration that many facts about finite
realities, whose existence is known naturally, remain obscure to
18 men of the highest intelligence even after prolonged study.
Proof: Since the arguments adduced in the preceding thesis
can be easily applied here, it will be enough simply to dissolve the
difficulties which rationalists oppose to the revelation of mysteries,
especially the revelation of first-class mysteries.
Some Objections Answered:
1. There cannot be any mysteries or truths which completely
exceed the grasp of the human intellect, because the object of the
intellect is all being, all truth.
The object of the human intellect is indeed all being, but a
distinction is required. All being is the object of the human intellect
if a proportion exists between the being and the intellect, or if the
being is suitably presented. In this sense, the objection is valid.
But if one of the two conditions mentioned is lacking, the objection
has no force. In the present life the only realities which are propor­
tioned to the human intellect are corporeal things, together with
such knowledge as can be gleaned from them. There is no argu­
ment to prove that from corporeal reality one can gain the
knowledge of all truth.11
2. Mysteries are said to be above reason; actually, they are
contrary to reason. Everyone grants that mysteries are not suitable
subject-matter for reason. Consequently, mysteries must be unsuit­
able for, or contrary to, reason.
Mysteries are not positively suitable for reason in the sense that
reason can discover, or demonstrate, or completely comprehend
them. Granted. But it does not follow that they are in consequence
positively unsuitable, or contrary to reason in the sense that reason
can find in them an obvious contradiction.
3. The revelation of a mystery is a contradiction in terms: to

(40)

reveal means “to remove a veil,” but the Vatican Council states that
even after revelation mysteries “remain covered with a veil and
wrapped . . . with a kind of darkness” (DB 1796).
In the revelation of a mystery the veil is moved aside far enough
to make known the existence of the reality, but not far enough to
disclose the intrinsic possibility of that reality. This distinction
dissolves the sophism: a mystery cannot be revealed, otherwise
it would cease to be a mystery.
4. The Author of reason does not want us to abdicate reason.
Any man, however, who assents to propositions that are neither
proved nor provable does abdicate reason; but it is just such
propositions that are called mysteries.12
The statement, “mysteries are propositions which are neither
proved nor provable,” can be understood in different ways. The
proposition in its correct sense means that mysteries cannot be
proved by internal arguments in such a way that their truth is
clearly apparent to reason. It is false to extend it to the sense that
mysteries cannot be proved by external arguments, testimony his­
torically certain and eminently trustworthy: divine testimony. To
acknowledge obscure truths on trustworthy testimony is not to
abdicate reason, but to follow it.
For just as an ordinary man would be very stupid to assert that
facts proposed to him by a philosopher were false solely on the
grounds that he could not personally grasp them, so too a man
would be guilty of an even greater stupidity who would suspect
truths revealed by God to be false solely on the grounds that
they could not be investigated by reason (St. Thomas, S.C.G.,
1,3).
Nor is it correct to think that only practical truths, or rules for
practical living, can be imposed by external authority, and not
truths of the intellectual order:
Man totally depends on God, his Creator and Lord, and created
reason is completely subject to uncreated Truth. Consequently,
we are obliged to offer to God, when He speaks, the complete
homage of our intelligence and will by an act of faith ( DB
1789).

Insofar as the modern mind shuns this obligation, it refuses
to God a homage that is naturally due Him.
5. God does not do anything useless. But it would be useless to ιβα

(41)

THE TRUE RELIGION

teach men propositions which offer no meaning that is intelligible.
However, it is propositions of this nature that are called mysteries.
It is one thing for the truth of a proposition to be imperfectly
clear to the mind, and quite another for a proposition to offer no
meaning of an intelligible character, that is, for a proposition to
be utterly devoid of meaning. The first case occurs whenever the
fitness of a given subject to a given predicate cannot be seen. This
certainly is the case whenever there is at least a first-class mystery.
The second instance of unintelligibility would occur only if the
very concepts themselves, in the subject and predicate, or in either
one of them, were purely negative. The concepts in which mysteries
are couched, since they are derived from created reality which only
imperfectly mirrors divine realities, are indeed analagous concepts,
and hence positive-negative concepts,0 but they are far from being
purely negative.13
Even though such concepts cannot be perfectly adequate, they are
still distinct enough and clear enough to be distinguished correctly
e Sec Jacques Maritain, Formal Logic. The imperfection of analogical
knowledge is beautifully expressed by Gutberlet in these words:
Analogous ideas are like silhouettes. If we could not gaze upon the actual
world itself, but had to arrive at an understanding of it by means of
shadows cast by real objects and from the positions and mutual inter­
relations of those shadows, how many facts of the real world would have
to remain unknown to us? Anything that failed to cause a change in the
shape and size of the shadows would completely escape us. Many other
facts would be quite bewildering to us, as the penetration of one shadow
into another: this phenomenon would lead us to deny the incompenetrability of bodies (Lehrbuch der Apologetik, II, 2nd ed., 18).
Nevertheless, projected shadows do exhibit at least some likeness to the
bodies they represent and some likeness of the relationship of these bodies to
one another. Think, for example, of the shadows cast by a tall man leading his
small daughter by the hand. Even from shadows we can glimpse at least some
knowledge, however imperfect, of the bodies themselves. This example may
help us to grasp how completely dill erent is an analogical idea from a mere
algebraic symbol which exhibits no likeness at all to the thing symbolized,
and thus cannot produce any knowledge of the thing in itself.
For a good, brief statement of the role of analogy in metaphysical knowl­
edge see Gerald B. Phelan, St. Thomas and Analogy. For a much fuller treat­
ment of the same subject see James Anderson, The Bond of Being; Cajetan,
Scripta philosophica, De nominum analogia (ed. P. Zainmit, Rome, 1934).
For the role of analogy in theology see T. Penido, Le rôle de l'analogie en
théologie dogmatique; Garrigou-Lagrange, The One God, pp. 382—415; J. de
Rohellec, "Cognitio nostra analogica de Deo,” in Divus Thomas (Plac. ), 1927,
pp. 298C; A. Ferland, Commentarium in Summam D. Thomae, De Deo Uno
et Trino (1943), pp. 112-117; P. Parente, De Deo Uno et Trino, 2nd ed.
(1943), pp. 56-58; T. Penido, “Sur l’analogie des noms divins: L’analogie
métaphorique,” in RSR, 38 (July-December, 1952), 161-188. An excellent
diagram of the various types of analogy is found in Parente, op. cit.. p. 57.

(42)

REVEALED RELIGION

one from another. It is not true to say that the content of such
concepts is reducible to mere metaphor or to anthropomorphism.
For the reality that is expressed, when purified of the imperfections
inherent in analogous concepts, is genuinely verified in Cod for­
mally, or according to its proper definition, although in a more
eminent way.
Thus, even in mysteries we grasp the meaning of the proposi­
tion, or that which is proposed for us to believe, in such a way
that we are able to express the mystery in correct terms and dis­
tinguish it from every other proposition. Since we are certain, by
reason of God’s testimony, that the subject and predicate do not
contradict each other, we truly grasp, through the revelation of a
mystery, a truth that is not otherwise accessible to us.
Nor is knowledge of this sort completely useless to mankind.
a. It is true that mysteries, since they cannot be positively
understood or demonstrated from the principles of reason, even
after revelation, are not known scientifically through their causes.
Even though it is better to understand a truth than merely to know
of its existence, still, knowledge of the latter type should not be
despised, since "even a very imperfect knowledge of realities which
are themselves sublime bestows on the soul a very high degree
of perfection” (S.C.G., I, 5).
b. It is also true that mysteries cannot be incorporated into the
system of any science. Nonetheless, they do not contradict any
science, nor do they split14 the human mind into two contradictory
compartments. Leaving intact all the truths which human intel­
ligence can master by its own power, mysteries go on to instruct
man in matters which exceed his natural capacity.
c. Even if it were true that mysteries do not contribute any­
thing to the advancement of the sciences, this would prove nothing
against the usefulness of their revelation.15 God did not give His
revelation for the sake of scientific progress; He gave it for the
sake of religious progress. By the revelation of mysteries man is
led to a deeper knowledge of the majesty and goodness of God,
and this promotes reverence, gratitude, and love toward Him. One
need but consider the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation,
the Redemption, and the Holy Eucharist.

Proposition 3: Mediate revelation is possible. This proposition
is certain.

Since a number of rationalists attack particularly that type of
(43)

19

THE TRUE RELIGION

revelation which is called mediate, in which truths destined for a
nation or for the whole human race are revealed directly to only a
few men who then communicate them to the others in the name,
and by the authority, of God, it is necessary to demonstrate ex
professo the possibility of mediate revelation (either modally or
essentially supernatural).
The possibility of a mediate revelation will be dependent upon
the condition that God clearly marks such a revelation with definite
characteristics to signify its divine origin. The nature of these
characteristics will be described shortly.
20
Proof: The possibility of mediate revelation must be granted,
unless it is intrinsically contradictory either to God’s nature or to
man’s nature. But:
1. It involves no contradiction on God’s part. Who could deny
that God has the right to appoint a number of men to act as His
messengers and agents in instructing other men in religious matters?
Who could deny that God has the power to provide for the incor­
rupt preservation of that revealed doctrine even through long cen­
turies, and to make that doctrine exhibit unmistakable signs of
its divine origin?
We cannot say that God, if He willed to make a revelation,
would be obliged by His own wisdom and goodness to teach
individual men immediately and directly, because a mediate reve­
lation would spread throughout the world only very slowly, and
would also be rejected by many. Even though arguments of this
sort show that immediate revelation is preferable to mediate on this
point, it still remains true that even mediate revelation is a mag­
nificent gift of God. God is not bound, especially when it is a
question of supernatural gifts, to select the better gifts.10 As for
those who, without fault of their own, refuse to acknowledge a
mediate revelation, either because it has not yet been propagated
in their countries, or for other good reasons, they do not thereby
merit punishment. Even if a great number of men were to reject
such a revelation through their own fault, the error could not be
ascribed to God. From another point of view there are good
reasons, worthy of divine wisdom, why God should prefer to make
a mediate rather than an immediate revelation. Notice, too, that
the difficulty alleged on the score of the slow spread of a mediate
revelation would definitely not hold true of a revelation granted
by God to the first parents of the human race—if God did grant
such a revelation.

(44)

REVEALED RELIGION

2. It does not involve a contradiction on man’s part. On the
one hand, human beings are capable of acting as messengers in
communicating to other men truths received from God. That holds
true even of mysteries. On the other hand, men are usually docile
enough to accept instruction from other men, even in matters
pertaining to God. This should be clear from the very ease with
which the most diverse peoples have, as a matter of fact, accepted
religious doctrines from men who claimed, rightly or wrongly, to
have a divine mission. Nor would it be impossible for men to have
moral certitude (which suffices in matters of this kind) about the
divine origin of a mediate revelation, in the supposition that God
had sealed it with His own trademark. Finally, mediate revelation
involves no contradiction, simply because we receive a doctrine
from men and are obliged to believe God; for the men in this
instance do no more than propose divine doctrine on divine
authority.17
Scholion: The suitability of mediate revelation.

Mediate revelation is not only possible, but also quite suitable.
Three reasons will suffice to show this:
a. By a mediate revelation God follows the same procedure He
employs in natural affairs. Just as God makes use of secondary
causes to produce a vast number of natural events which He Him­
self could directly produce, so, too, in the hypothesis of mediate
revelation, some men would communicate divine truth to others.
On this point St. Thomas says:
Since God always acts in an orderly fashion, it was fitting that
He manifest the truths of the faith in an orderly manner;
namely, that some men should receive these truths from God
directly, and that others should be instructed by these in their
turn, and so on in an orderly manner even to the very last
(S.C.G., III, 154).

b. By a mediate revelation a supernatural religious society
springs up connaturally and spontaneously, whereas in the hypoth­
esis of a revelation made directly to every individual no such
religious society would necessarily result. Men could indeed, even
in this latter hypothesis, be joined together by certain sacred bonds,
but the union would be both less natural and less binding.
c. By a mediate revelation the door is opened for a far wider
(45)

21

THE TRUE RELIGION

opportunity to exercise the virtues of humility and obedience in
accepting the revealed doctrine, and of charity in making it known
to others.

Notes
1. The Reformation denied that there was any natural revelation, but it
did not deny supernatural revelation. Rationalists, if they use the term “revela­
tion,” always mean by it natural revelation in accord with the dictum of
A. Schopenhauer; "There is no other revelation than the thoughts of a wise
man” (Parerga, II, no. 177). To the Modernists revelation means nothing
more than a man's experimental consciousness of his relationship to God
(see DB 2020).
2. The customary definition of the supernatural includes everything that
exceeds or surpasses the essence, needs, and powers of any created being.
The supernatural must not be confused with: a. whatever surpasses the power
of the senses and can be reached only by reason; b. any sort of teaching about
God, for God can be known by the unaided reason; c. anything that is con­
trary to nature; for what is unnatural destroys or injures nature, whereas the
supernatural perfects nature beyond its needs.
3. It makes no difference whether the signs God uses to manifest a truth
directly affect the external senses, the imagination, or the intelligence:
corporeal, imaginative, intellectual revelation. Regardless of the means God
uses in making a revelation, He not only manifests a truth, but also makes
those receiving the revelation absolutely sure that the truth(s) communicated
come from God. See S.Th., Ila-IIae, q. 173, a. 2. Many authors prefer a
definition which states more clearly that the disclosure of truth is caused by
a formal utterance on God’s part, so as to exclude creation, miracles, infused
knowledge, and the beatific vision. See Van Laak, De theologia generatim,
p. 2; Mannens, Theologia fundamentalis, 2nd ed., p. 32; W. Wilmers, De
religione revelata, p. 47; Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione, I, ρρ. 132, 135,
136; G. Yelle and R. Fournier, Apologetica (1944), Art. I, “An recte revelatio
dicatur locutio Dei?,” 254-256; M. Nicolau and J. Salaverri, Sacrae theologiae
summa, I, 2nd ed. (1952), 93, no. 53, and 96-97, no. 58.
4. Some authors refer to a revelation which is only modally supernatural
(supematurale quoad modum tantum) as formal revelation, and to an intrin­
sically supernatural revelation (supematurale quoad substantiam) as material
revelation.
5. See M. Gossard, “Le mystère religieux et le mystère scientifique” in
RPA, XIII (1912), 344. Van Laak, op. cit., p. 20, describes the opinions of
those who either deny the existence of mysteries or pervert the concept of
mysteries.
6. To put the same thing another way we can say: a mystery loosely
so-called exists when reason cannot see that the predicate is actually in
harmony with the subject; a mystery strictly so-called exists when reason not
only does not see the actual harmony of the subject and predicate but also
cannot see how the predicate could be in harmony with the subject.
7. Note the qualification "coercive” arguments. It is one thing to demon­
strate a truth with coercive arguments, and quite another to illustrate a truth

(46)

REVEALED RELIGION

or make it sound plausible by using arguments from fitness or by analogies.
This latter task, and not the former, is what the scholastic theologians embark
upon when dealing with mysteries.
8. This is what D. F. Strauss ( Christliche Glaubenslehre, I, 140) and
many others imagined to take place.
9. See P. Thone, "Le principe d'autonomie” in RCF, 59 (1909), 188;
Garrigou-Lagrange, Le sens commun, la philosophie de Fêtre et les formules
dogmatiques (1909), in Revue Thomiste (1909), pp. 164, 259, 566, and in
De revelatione, I, 4th ed. (1944), Ch. 7, no. 4, "De spiritu rationalism), juxta
Ecclesiam," 212-216.
10. See the Vatican Council’s constitution De fide catholica, can. Ill, 1,
DB 1810.
11. See Van Laak, op. cit., pp. 23ff. Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione, I,
353-357, gives a correct distinction between proper and adequate object of
the human intellect.
12. This objection and the following one was advanced again in our
century by E. le Roy, “Qu'est-ce qu’un dogme,” in Quinzaine (April 16, 1905)
and in the book: Dogme et critique. See Revue Thomiste (1905), p. 438,
where le Roy's entire doctrine is refuted by Th. Pegues. See also J. Bittremieux, “Der pragmatische Dogmabegriff,” in ThGl (1912), p. 277. For a more
complete list of objections against the possibility of mysteries see GarrigouLagrange, op. cit., I, 372-376.
13. See St. Thomas, De potentia, q. 7, a. 5.
14. See the decree Lamentabili, prop. 57, DB 2057.
15. The contrary-to-fact condition “even were it true” is important. For,
as we shall see in a future volume (Divine Faith, no. 336), faith actually
enriches reason by liberating it from errors, and by conferring on it much
additional knowledge, even with regard to secular sciences.
16. It is quite impudent, therefore, for J. J. Rousseau to say: “I would
prefer to have heard God myself; it would not have been any more difficult
for Him, and I would have been protected from deception. Why should there
be men standing between God and me?” (Emile, book IV).
17. See Van Laak, op. cit., pp. 25ff.

( 47 )

Article II
THE NECESSITY OF REVELATION

I. Preliminary Remarks.
Proposition: Once men began to worship false gods, a suit­
able knowledge of natural religion was morally impossible
without the aid of revelation.
Meaning: 1. moral impossibility;
2. suitable knowledge of natural religion;
3. the human race, not individual men;
4. once idolatry had a firm grip;
5. without a revelation: unless God used some
other supernatural means.
Proof:
1. Pagan peoples did not possess a suitable
knowledge of natural religion and the natural
law.
2. Given the natural means at their disposal, it
was morally impossible for them to rise to
such knowledge.
Scholion 1. A note about modern philosophers.
Scholion 2. Revelation is not man’s right, but something
eminently fitting for him.

(48)

Article II
THE NECESSITY OF REVELATION

Since God out of pure benevolence elevated man to a super­
natural order, that is, designed for man a supernatural goal to be
reached in a way suitable to a rational creature, and since man
cannot even know about this goal by his own natural reason, it
follows in this hypothesis, and consequent to this economy set up
by God, that an essentially supernatural revelation is an absolute
necessity. That is why the Vatican Gouncil says:

Revelation must be said to be absolutely necessary . . . because
God out of His own infinite goodness has destined man to a
supernatural goal which is to share in divine goods completely
surpassing the understanding of the human intellect (DB 1786).

But please notice, we are not for the present concerned with
that hypothetic necessity just described above; here we are exclu­
sively concerned with the question of whether, from any point of
view at all, men need a revelation (granted it be only modally
supernatural) in order to have sufficient knowledge about natural
religion and the natural law. For the purpose of this inquiry is not
to conclude from the acknowledgment of some sort of necessity for
a revelation to the actual existence of a revelation, but simply to
point out from reason itself the very great usefulness of a revela­
tion against the rationalist position that it is, at least, “not fitting
for man to be taught about God and the worship due Him by a
divine revelation” (DB 1807).
Proposition: Once men began to worship false gods, a suitable
knowledge of natural religion was morally impossible without
the aid of revelation. This proposition is certain.
1. Moral impossibility implies a physical possibility.A physical impossibility exists when the physical power to obtain or pro­
duce a given effect is missing. It should be obvious that a knowl­
edge, even a perfect knowledge, of natural religion is physically
possible for man; otherwise it could not be called a "natural"

(49)

23

THE TRUE RELIGION

religion.' A moral impossibility exists when the physical power to
do something is at hand, but the work is impeded by so many
and such great obstacles that in reality it never, or rarely, will be
accomplished.
2. A suitable knowledge of natural religion and the natural
law is morally impossible. Suitable knowledge is knowledge that
enables a man to think correctly about God and the worship
due Him and to regulate his entire life according to the norms
of natural goodness. The following are definitely not suitable
knowledge.
a. The knowledge of only one or two religious truths. What is
required is a rather full and developed knowledge of theoretical
and practical truths: the knowledge of the one true God, Creator
and Provider of all things; of the way to worship Him; of the
immortality of the soul; of the primary and secondary principles
of the natural law and their clear-cut application to problems
peculiar to each man’s state of life. It is, however, just as impos­
sible to define with mathematical precision what is “suitable”
knowledge in individual cases as it is to define exactly how much
food and what kinds of food a man needs to live healthily, b. A
knowledge which is doubtful or mere guess-work, or permeated
with errors of all kinds. What is required is a knowledge that is
sure and at least free from gross errors, c. Λ knowledge of religion
gained only after many years, or acquired almost at the end of
life. What is demanded is a knowledge acquired early enough so
that a man may use it wisely in the direction of his entire life.2
3. The human race, not individual men. The moral impos­
sibility of suitable religious knowledge must be understood in
reference to the entire human race, not this or that particular
individual. If it were a question of individuals, even those endowed
with the highest intelligence and placed in very favorable circum­
stances, a suitable knowledge of religious truths could not be called
morally impossible; but a perfect knowledge would appear to be
impossible without revelation. One must consider the human race
as it is, with all its weaknesses and defects.
4. Once idolatry had a firm grip. The discussion also con­
siders the human race only after it had begun to worship false
gods. According to ethnologists and historians, the cult of false
gods, accompanied by a vast corruption of morals, reigned supreme
among all nations, the Jews alone excepted, before the time of
Christ. The same wretched condition still exists wherever Christian
(50)

REVEALED RELIGION

doctrine has not yet been preached. ' We do not say that the human
race always lived in such a state, or that it fell into it by necessity.
We simply say: once idolatry had been introduced and had a firm
grasp, a suitable knowledge of natural religion was morally impos­
sible for the human race.’
5. Without a revelation: unless God used some other means.
Once the moral impossibility described above has been established,
there immediately arises the moral necessity of some supernatural
help. Naturally, it must be admitted that God in His providence
could have afforded some extraordinary remedy other than a reve­
lation to supply man’s need. Consequently, the words, "without the
aid of revelation,” are to be understood in the hypothesis that God
had not elected to give any other type of assistance.
The proposition is certain and is contained in the statement of
the Vatican Council:

It is due to divine revelation that in the present condition of
the human race those truths about God which are not of them• For this discussion, it is not necessary to answer the question: "What
caused this wretched condition of the human race and the consequent moral
impossibility of reaching a suitable knowledge of religion?" Even the purely
historical-cultural approach to the study of religious origins strongly proves
that polytheism and idolatry were not the original condition of men.
God, as a matter of fact, raised the human race in the beginning to the
supernatural order and gave it a (primeval) revelation. It was definitely pos­
sible, not only physically but also morally, for the human race to keep this
revelation (substantially) intact. But the various peoples, by yielding to lust
and vice, lowered their moral life and even fell into idolatry. This condi­
tion was caused by men’s free will, but with the assistance, so to speak, of
concupiscence and the weakness of intellect. Concupiscence and the weakness
of intellect were not man’s original condition, but came as a result of the sin
of Adam. It is quite evident that the moral impossibility of gaining suitable
religious knowledge results in its totality from the fault of the human race.
Would such a moral impossibility have been present in a state of pure
nature? In the hypothetical state of pure nature our first parents would have
been created in a perfect condition and would consequently have possessed
suitable religious knowledge from the very moment of creation, or at least
they would have gained it for themselves immediately by a special, but
natural, help from God. It would have been morally possible for their children
to preserve this knowledge. Would their children, though, in actual fact pre­
serve this knowledge? We simply do not know. Theologians, however, are of
the opinion that the preservation of religious knowledge in the hypothetical
state of pure nature would have been easier than it was in the state of fallen
nature. They argue that concupiscence and the weakness of reason would not
have been so great, or that extrinsic difficulties caused by the assault of the
devil would not have occurred, or that God in His providence would have
provided more powerful aids, even though these would have been purely
natural.

(51)

24

THE TRUE RELIGION

selves beyond the grasp of human reason can (now) bo known
by all men readily, with firm certitude, and with no mixture of
error. And yet, it is not for this reason that revelation must be
said to be absolutely necessary, but because God out of His own
infinite goodness has destined man to a supernatural goal . . .
completely surpassing the understanding of the human intellect
(DB 1786)?
Proof:
J. Pagan peoples lacked a suitable knowledge of religion.
Since this fact is unquestionable, it will suffice merely to point out
a few highlights. The pagans erred grossly about the unity of God
by admitting the existence of many gods. They erred grossly about
His nature and attributes by referring to their gods the most evil
desires and crimes. They erred about the worship of God by taking
part in orgies of drunkenness, lust, and human sacrifices all under
the guise of honoring the gods. They erred about man’s destiny,
either by doubting the immortality of the soul, by believing in
metempsychosis, or by dreaming up a foul paradise unworthy of
man. In a similar way, they erred greatly in moral matters. One
need but recall the brutal slavery, the hatred of foreigners, the
rejection of new-born babies, the abandonment and murder of
weak or crippled children, the fornication, and other even worse
practices which were ratified by common and inveterate custom
and were not considered vices.
Such actions were allowed and propagated publicly, with gov­
ernment officials, priests, and philosophers showing the way. They
were favored, and frequently ordered, by the civil law. This took
place, not merely among barbarians and the uncivilized peoples,
but even among the more civilized nations which sometimes erred
all the more grossly in religious and moral matters the more they
excelled in political and military matters, in science and the arts.
26
2. The pagan peoples, morally speaking, were incapable of
rising to a suitable knowledge of religion. They had at their
disposal only two means of arriving at such a goal: their own
personal investigations, and the help of philosophers. But neither
the one nor the other was morally sufficient for the task.
25

a. Their own personal investigations were not adequate to the
task. To acquire a suitable knowledge of religion by oneself requires
diligent and constant investigation. Most men are prevented from
such an investigation by native inability, by the pressure of family
(52)

REVEALED RELIGION

matters, by laziness, or by lack of interest. Consequently only a
handful of men investigate religious truths studiously and perseveringly. And even they arrive at the discovery of the truths mentioned
above only after a long time: to reach the knowledge of such deep
truths by the road of reason alone requires both a long application
of the intelligence and much prior knowledge. In addition, man, in
his youth, is disturbed by passion and consequently less ready for
investigations of this type. Finally, this late knowledge on the part
of a handful of men is often filled with doubts and errors, because
the probative force of a demonstration is sometimes lost very easily,
and a merely probable argument or even a sophism is accepted as
a demonstration.5 Therefore, by their own individual efforts only
a very few men at best, and those by way of exception, would reach
a suitable knowledge of religion. No nation, let alone the entire
human race, could, morally speaking, ever arrive at such knowledge.

b. The assistance of philosophers was not adequate to the task.
The pagan philosophers, although some of them did pass on excel­
lent knowledge in some matters, did not themselves, as history
testifies, arrive at a suitable knowledge of religion.
For you know how often they taught false and distorted doc­
trines about the true nature of God, and how many uncertainties
and doubts they passed on about the nature of God, the first
origin of things, about God’s knowledge of future events, about
the cause and principle of evil, about the ultimate destiny of
man and eternal happiness, about virtue and vice. Yet there
is nothing more necessary to the human race than a true and
sure knowledge of these truths. (Leo XIII, Encyclical Aetemi
Patris, in the Allocutions of Leo XIII, Desclée ed., I, 96).
Then, again, they were unwilling to teach the people the
healthier doctrines which they themselves attained. On the whole,
these were reserved for the learned: either because they agreed
with Horace’s dictum: “I hate the stupid rabble and stay away from
them,” 0 or because they agreed with Plato 7 and Varro ' that the
false religion of the fatherland must be upheld at all costs. Finally,
even if they had wanted to teach them, they would not have been
able to do so. Since they disagreed among themselves on so many
points, and by their lives and morals contradicted even their own
teaching, the people did not look on them as authoritative guides.
All this is confirmed by the fact that no nation, without the

(53)

THE TRUE RELIGION

help of a revelation, ever arose from its abyss of ignorance and
error.
27 Scholion 1. A note about modern philosophers. What has been
briefly indicated above about the errors of pagan philosophers in
religious matters is generally true also of those modem philosophers
who have rejected the Christian religion. Which of them has taught
the natural truth about God, or about our relationship to Him, or
the goal of mankind, without falling into serious errors? Have not
almost all of them become skeptics, agnostics, or monists (either
idealistic or materialistic)? Clearly, then, if the human race were
today still wrapped up in the darkness of error as formerly, it
would never arrive at a suitable knowledge of natural religion by
the aid of philosophers. As for the fact that many modem philos­
ophers far excel the ancients in the moral doctrine they teach, that
is to be attributed not so much to their own genius, as to the
Christian revelation on whose tmth they were themselves nour­
ished, or by which they were at least surrounded on all sides, and
from which they have consciously or unconsciously borrowed many
teachings.

28 Scholion 2. This necessity of revelation which has been established
does not prove that the human race, even after the Fall, had a
right to a revelation. It simply proves that it was eminently
fitting for God to give such a revelation.
This follows from the fact that we are speaking, not of a
physical impossibility, but of a moral impossibility. In addition, the
moral impossibility under consideration regards a suitable knowl­
edge, not the minimum knowledge strictly required to reach a
natural goal. It must not be forgotten that the moral impossibility
to attain a suitable knowledge of religion was caused by man’s own
fault. Who would claim that a wise and just God is bound to rescue
the human race with a supernatural remedy when it has freely and
guiltily cast aside its original knowledge or distorted it?

A benefactor who refuses to heap more gifts upon a beggar who
has already abused generous gifts and injured his patron cannot
be called hard-hearted. Similarly, it is folly to try to draw any
other conclusion from the necessity of revelation than that it
was indeed quite fitting for God in His goodness ... to heal
human misery by the help of revelation; and that man . . .
ought to hope for a revelation with intense longing and, if one
(54)

REVEALED RELIGION

is given, . . seek zealously to discover it and . . . embrace it
(Ottiger, Theologia fundamentalis, I, 147).
Notes
1. Traditionalists and fideists exaggerate the necessity of revelation. They
hold that a divine revelation is unqualifiedly and absolutely necessary because
no religious truth, not even the existence of God, can be known by man
naturally. See Egger, Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae generalis, 5th ed.,
no. 70; the propositions signed by Bautain and Bonnetty, DB 1622ff, and
1649ff; J. Beysens, Ideologia, p. 195; Roger Aubert, Le problème de l’acte de
foi, 2nd ed. (1950), 1st part, III (art. 3), "Rationalisme et fidéisme,” 102-127.
2. Notice that the "suitable" knowledge under discussion is not simply
synonymous with such knowledge as would strictly suffice to reach a natural goal.
( Here the question of what knowledge is required to reach a supernatural destiny
is not even touched upon. ) Although many of the theoretical and practical truths
required for man to reach his final goal in fitting fashion do belong to a suit­
able knowledge of natural religion, they could be completely, but sincerely,
ignored without causing an utter impossibility of reaching that goal. Certainly
anyone who faithfully follows the dictates of his conscience, even though he has
defective knowledge and consequently makes many mistakes, will not be
deprived of his final end. . . . The suitable knowledge here described holds a
place midway between perfect knowledge and a knowledge which, strictly
speaking, is sufficient to reach the final goal.
3. Mohammedans, for example, have borrowed much from both the
Mosaic and Christian revelations.
4. That the Council at this point was discussing neither an altogether
perfect knowledge of natural religion, nor a very minimum of religious knowl­
edge, but a suitable measure of knowledge is the conclusion reached by
Granderath from an analysis both of the words of the Council and of its
preliminary debates on the question. See Granderath’s work. Constitutiones
dogmaticae Concilii Vaticani ex actis explicatae, p. 78. The Council referred
to the human race as it actually exists when it declared that the (present)
moral possibility of attaining suitable religious knowledge is due to revelation.
Therefore without revelation no such possibility exists; a suitable knowledge of
religion is morally impossible. The Council added the words “in the present
condition” to show us that the moral impossibility which it affirms is not
present necessarily, but accidentally as a result of a contingent historical fact.
What that contingent historical fact is the Council did not say. Many
theologians seem to think that it was the sin of our first parents, but they
have not yet proved their point conclusively. We prefer to say that the moral
impossibility arises both because our first parents sinned and because universal
idolatry developed shortly afterwards. The opinion which states that the moral
impossibility arises exclusively from the slate of fallen nature is, at least, not
taught by the Vatican Council, and seems to be contrary to the mind of the
Fathers of the Council. In the preparatory meeting, the Very Reverend Chair­
man turned down a proposed amendment with the statement: “When we
speak of the present state of man, we do indeed also mean man fallen through
sin” (Collectio Lacensis, VII, 136). "We also mean." therefore, they did not

(55)

THE TRUE RELIGION

mean the state of fallen man exclusively and without any addition b
thing additional. What can that something additional be except the
,SOnie·
defection from the worship of the true God?
un versai
5. See St. Thomas, S.C.G., I, 4.
6. Odes, Bk. 3, 1.
7. The Republic, Bk. IV.
8. See St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. VI, chs. 27 and 31.

(56)

Article III
THE RECOGNIZABILITY OF REVELATION

Preliminary Remarks.
I. Criteria of Revelation: Motives of Credibility.
a. Warning: these cannot be determined a priori.
b. Division:
1. internal and external;
2. negative and positive.
c. Enumeration and application of criteria:
1. internal—a doctrine’s truthfulness, moral goodness,
sublimity.
a. negative;
b. positive.
2. external—the holiness of the doctrine’s herald; effects
and history of doctrine; miracles; prophecies.
a. negative;
b. positive.
d. Mutual comparison and evaluation of criteria.
II. Miracles.
a. Notion: an effect perceptible by the senses and beyond
the range of all nature.
b. Division:
1. with reference to the nature of the effect produced;
2. with reference to the subject in which miracles are pro­
duced;
3. with reference to the manner of their production.
Relative miracles.
Purpose of miracles: a special type of divine testimony.
c. The possibility of miracles.
Proposition: If God’s existence is granted, miracles are pos­
sible.
Proof: 1. by positive argument;
2. by refuting the objections of adversaries.
Scholion. The fittingness of miracles.
d. The recognizability of miracles.

(57)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Proposition 1: Some miracles can be known with certitude
both by eye-witnesses and by posterit}', even by those who
live many centuries later.
Historical truth of a miracle: it really happened.
Philosophical truth of a miracle: it was beyond the range
nf all nature.
Proof: 1. The effect was not produced by unknown powers
of nature or by the cleverness or trickery of men.
Established by:
a. the nature of the effect;
b. the manner of its production.
Answer to objections.
2. The effect was not produced by the help of evil
spirits.
Established by considering:
a. the work itself;
b. the circumstances surrounding it.
Scholion: Sometimes the character of one marvelous event
enables us to gauge the character of other
marvels.
e. The probative force of miracles.
Relevant tmth of a miracle: it was performed either directly
or indirectly for the set purpose of guaranteeing a doctrine.
Answer to objections.
f. Miracles of the moral order.
1. notion;
2. possibility;
3. recognizability;
4. probative force.
III. Prophecies.
a. Notion: the sure and definite prediction of some future
event which could not be foreseen through natural causes.
b. Prophecies are possible.
c. Prophecies are recognizable.
Epilogue
1. The Method of Immanence: a method of persuading men
that a religion is revealed primarily by arguments drawn
from the deepest needs of human nature, adapted to their
volitive powers.
2. Critique of this method.

(58)

Article III
THE RECOGNIZABILITY OF REVELATION

A divine revelation would be worthless unless man could recog- 29
nize it as such. If indeed God willed to reveal certain truths, He
undoubtedly stamped such revelation with certain marks whereby
it could be definitely recognized and unmistakably distinguished
from all doctrines falsely claiming a divine origin. Just as a man
is not excused on any pretext from the obligation of accepting a
revelation which he definitely knows to be from God, so it would
be offensive to right reason and to God’s will, as known to us
through natural means, were a man to accept a doctrine as divine
without being sure that it had really come from God.
The signs or marks by which one may recognize the divine
origin of a doctrine are called the criteria of revelation or the
motives of credibility. They are called the criteria of revelation,
because they enable man to judge clearly and determine whether
such or such a doctrine has truly been revealed by God; they are
called motives of credibility, because they move the intellect to
make the following judgment: since it is clear that this doctrine
has its origin in God, it is reasonable to believe it by divine faith
(judgment of credibility).1
The purpose, then, of such criteria is not to demonstrate directly
the truth of some body of doctrine, but to demonstrate its divine
origin, to establish the fact that it has been revealed.
I. A General View of the Criteria of Revelation

Note: Human reason, of itself, cannot determine precisely the 30
methods whereby God, were He to reveal truths, would make His
revelation recognizable. Consequently, the existence of most of the
criteria to be discussed is known only from the history of revela­
tion. There is no other aim in view at this point than to make
known the usefulness and effectiveness of the criteria of revelation.
Division of criteria.2 The criteria of revelation may be divided 31
into internal and external. Internal criteria are those intrinsic to the
doctrine itself, for example, the general tenor of the message
(59)

ΓΗE TRUE

RELIGION

whose revealed character is being determined. External criteria are
distinct from the doctrine itself and consist of historical facts which
precede, accompany, or follow the disclosure of some doctrine.
Both internal and external criteria may be subdivided into nega­
tive and positive. Criteria are negative if they show that nothing
precludes a given doctrine from having God as its author, but do
not give any positive indications of its divine origin. Criteria are
positive if they point out (with probability or with certitude) that
a certain doctrine has in truth come from God. A positive criterion
which proves the divine origin of a doctrine only with probability is
by itself ineffective and must be classified as inadequate. Such a
criterion, however, may be very useful when linked to other criteria.
32
Enumeration and application of criteria: 1· Internal criteria
include the truthfulness, the moral goodness, and the sublimity of
a doctrine.
a. Negative. A religious doctrine which is in no way opposed
to sound reason and moral goodness, contains no contradictions,
and does not clash with another revelation known definitely to be
divine, may have been revealed by God. If even one of these
conditions is lacking, the doctrine cannot be from God.3
b. Positive. A doctrine satisfying the negative criteria, teaching
natural religion and natural law with sufficient fullness, certitude,
and purity, independent in doctrine from any prior revelation,
should be judged with great probability to be divinely revealed.
This probability is all the greater, the more fully and more per­
fectly natural religion is taught. The reason for saying this is based
on the tremendous difficulty, even moral impossibility, of knowing
natural religion so perfectly by reason alone. Since it is not alto­
gether impossible for a man of great genius to attain such knowl­
edge by his own power, this criterion, of itself, is not coercive or
adequate.
If such a doctrine should, over and above the teaching of
natural religion, neatly solve questions which perturb the human
mind in matters of religion,4 prescribe commandments and practices
splendidly suitable for man’s present state of life and very effective
for fostering piety, moral goodness, and the welfare of society, and
thereby correspond to the needs and legitimate aspirations of
human nature, the presumption in favor of its divine origin is
greatly increased, although certitude cannot be given from such
indications alone. The basis behind the opinion just given is this.

(60)

REVEALED RELIGION

internal
■

vision

intellectual

a truthfulness

.

( 61 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

On the one hand, thoughtful people would hardly grant that
human intelligence, whose weakness in matters of this kind is well
known, could manage to bring forth from its own storehouse such
splendid and such salutary doctrine. On the other hand, it cannot
be demonstrated by compelling arguments that such a doctrine
could have come only from God, especially as an apt or apparently
true solution to difficult questions may not necessarily be true.
33
2. External criteria include the holiness of the herald who
announces the revelation, the effects and history of the doctrine,
and above all, miracles and prophecies. By a “herald” of a revela­
tion is understood its first witness, the man or men who arc chosen
by God to spread the revelation for the first time.
a. Negative. A doctrine which has a herald who is sane in
mind and decent in morals, but not in any extraordinary' manner,
a doctrine which could point to some fine examples of devotion and
moral goodness, but not in any sense exceptional, a doctrine whose
diffusion and preservation can be explained by honorable, but
natural means, can have a divine origin, but need not necessarily.
Contrariwise, if a religion has as its founder a vicious man,
it is improbable, indeed exceptionally improbable, that its origin
is divine. Although it is not intrinsically contradictory for God
at some time or other to speak through evil men, it is incred­
ible that the all-holy and all-wise God would choose to use such
for the establishment of a new religion. Who would believe that
God Himself would directly choose for so sublime and extraordi­
nary a mission a man who was hateful and evil? The man’s very
way of life would create a tremendous prejudice against his
religious teaching and would render suspect even the miracles he
might perform.5
Again, a religion which is perceived to induce by its very nature
the perversion and dissolution of morals is unquestionably not
from God.
A doctrine, finally, which is propagated or supported by fraud
and other dishonorable means,® unless it is evident that such prac­
tices go against the grain of the religion itself and are happening
somewhere merely by accident, is at least badly suspect. If its first
champion practiced fraud and trickery, mankind could be certain
that he was not God’s messenger.
b. Positive. A doctrine claiming to be divinely revealed, whose
herald is outstanding for purity of life, a doctrine which produces
outstanding models of virtue and spreads and lives on beyond all

(62)

REVEALED RELICTON

normal expectation, probably, indeed very probably, comes from
God.
If, furthermore, either the herald’s holiness, or the fruits pro­
duced, or the spread and continuance of the doctrine is so excep­
tional that it cannot be explained solely by natural powers but
should be attributed to a special help given by God, proof grant­
ing full certitude will be at hand for the divine origin of such a
doctrine. In a case of this kind a moral miracle has taken place.
This will be described later.
Finally, miracles and prophecies, provided they are joined with
the doctrine in question in a proper way, are positive and coercive
criteria.7
A comparison of the criteria one with another. From the pre- 34
vious discussion it is clear that negative criteria are extremely use­
ful for detecting a religion which falsely claims a divine origin.
But they are not so helpful when it comes to recognizing a religion
which is true in its claim to come from God.
Of the positive criteria the external far outweigh the internal.
This is true for three reasons: 1. A judgment about the utility,
excellence, and sublimity of a religion does not of itself solve the
matter completely. 2. Such a judgment presupposes a diligent
investigation of various religions and can consequently be made
by only a handful of men. 3. Such a judgment is influenced not a
little by the subjective dispositions of the investigator.9
The use of internal positive criteria is, however, usually ex­
tremely helpful, both because such criteria dispose uneducated
people to examine external arguments more readily, and because
they can be used as a corroborative argument of a demonstration
already given on historical grounds. In fact, internal arguments
are sometimes genuinely necessary in order to remove the prejudices
of people who refuse to listen to external arguments, either because
they are convinced beforehand that the religion under discussion
is outdated or replete with absurdities, or because they are con­
vinced that no religion could be credible or true in their own eyes,
unless it could be shown that it meets the needs and aspirations
of their own hearts. That external arguments, objectively consid­
ered, far outweigh internal arguments should be clear from the
fact that a divine revelation is an historical reality and as such
should be proved mainly on historical grounds.
Of all external arguments by far the best are miracles and
prophecies.

(63)

THE TRUE RELIGION

In the light of the above discussion, the following words of
the Vatican Council can be easily understood: 0
In order that the assent of our faith should be in accord with
reason, God willed that there should be joined to the internal
inspirations of the Holy Spirit external proofs of His revelation.
Such external proofs are divine facts, in particular, miracles and
prophecies. Since these brilliantly bear witness to God’s omni­
potence and infinite knowledge, they arc the surest signs of
a divine revelation and are accommodated to the intelligence
of all men (DB 1790).

35

II. Miracles *
I. Notion and division of miracles
Notion: St. Thomas teaches:
The term miracle comes from the Latin word admiratio, which
means admiration or wonder. Wonder arises when effects are
visible, but the cause is hidden. For example, a man may won­
der when he sees an eclipse of the sun and is ignorant of the
cause. The cause, though, of some visible effect may be known
to one man, but be unknown to others. As a consequence some
event may be a cause of wonder for one man and not for
others. A rustic, for example, is filled with wonder at the sight
of an eclipse, but an astronomer is not. A miracle receives its
name because it is completely wonderful; because it has a cause
which is absolutely hidden from all. In reality the cause is
God. For this reason those effects which God produces in a
manner over and above the causes known to us are called
miracles (S.Th., I, q. 105, a. 7).f

An angel may be the hidden cause of effects which surpass the
normal course of visible nature. In this case the cause would not
be absolutely unknown to all beings, but only to men. Effects of
this kind, produced by a superhuman agent, are called miracles in
0 See special bibliography on pages 102-103.
t God is called a strictly hidden cause, not as though His existence were
unknown, but because God’s inode of operation is far beyond human knowl­
edge. Miracles receive different names depending upon the different pointsof-view from which they are considered. In themselves, as effects surpassing
nature’s power, miracles are called powers; as symbols manifesting something
supernatural, they are called signs; considered from the point-of-view of excel­
lence inasmuch as they excite awe and amazement, they are called portents
or prodigies. See S.T/i., Ila-IIae, q. 178, a. 1, ad 3.

(64)

REVEALED RELIGION

a broad sense of the term, miracles from the point-of-view of men
(miracula quoad nos, relative miracles),10
Definition of a miracle. An absolute miracle is defined as an 36
effect perceptible by the senses and beyond the range of all nature.
The effect lies directly within the range of the senses, or at least it
is manifested externally in a way perceptible by the senses. Unless
the effect were outwardly disclosed, no wonder would result. It is
for this reason that transubstantiation is not considered a miracle
in the customary use of the term. Even if imperceptible effects
surpassing the range of nature were listed among miracles, it
would cause no great confusion.11 Miracles of that type, however,
would be useless for proving the divine origin of a religion.
Beyond the range of all nature means that something is pro­
duced in a manner surpassing all the ways whereby created realities
operate. Since all the powers and possibilities of every creature
are included in the range of nature, a miracle is an effect which
surpasses the productive power of all creatures.
A miracle is often described as an extraordinary effect, not
precisely because it is rare, but because it supersedes the normal
course of nature (extra ordinem). That is why St. Thomas says:
“Even if blind men were to receive sight every day, it would still
be a miracle” (II Sent., d. 18, q. 1, a. 3, ad 2).® Not every effect
which has God as its exclusive author is a miracle; only those that
take place beyond the natural order, effects which in some sense
are opposed to such order and are exceptions to it. That is why
neither the creation of the universe, whereby the order of nature
was first established, nor the conservation of the universe in exist­
ence, nor the daily creation of rational souls, something pertaining
to the normal course of nature and demanded by it,12 is classified
as a miracle.
The Author of Miracles. Obviously an effect which surpasses 37
all created power can have only God as its author, its principal
cause. Moreover, since the very concept of miracle demands that it
° Some authors understand the term “extraordinary” to mean that a
miraculous effect must take place in a way surpassing every kind of order
established by God. Thus a miracle would have to surpass not only the natural
order, but also the normal order of grace. If such is accepted as the true notion
of a miracle, then there is one more reason for not considering justification
through baptism or transubstantiation as miracles, since they take place accord­
ing to the law normally observed in the supernatural order of grace. Still,
it seems far better, when describing the general doctrine about miracles, to
consider them exclusively in reference to the order of nature.

(65)

THE TRUE RELIGION

take place in a way beyond the mode of operation of any creature,
creatures can give nothing of their own to the physical performance
of a miracle. For to whatever extent a created agent would function
as an efficient cause of a miracle, to just that extent would the
effect produced not be beyond all modes of operation native to
creatures. Evidently, then, a creature cannot even act as a genuine
or physical instrument in working a miracle. God alone, and noth­
ing else, satisfies the requirements for a true, efficient cause of
miracles. It is not true, however, that creatures can play no role
in miracle-working. Angels and men can cooperate in a twofold
manner: either morally, by moving God by their prayers to work
a miracle; or potentially (potestative') by doing something simul­
taneously, namely by presenting the divine command to nature
and thus imposing on nature the proximate necessity of being the
subject of a miraculous change, the change itself being caused by
God alone. In this sense a man or an angel may be called the
instrumental or ministerial cause of a miracle. Actually a man who
under the impulse of God makes a divine command known to
nature, or who, under the impulse of God, persistently implores a
miracle, does in some fashion fulfill the notion of a divine instru­
ment in the working of miracles.13
38
Division of miracles. The best division of miracles is based
on a consideration of the manner in which they surpass the power
of nature
*
Miracles may surpass nature’s power in one of the
following three ways (See S.Th., I, q. 105, a. 8):
a. In respect to the very nature of the effect produced (quoad
substantiam facti). Some miracles so far exceed the power
of creatures that nature herself could not possibly produce them
in any way or in any subject whatsoever. Examples are the mutual
compénétration of two material bodies and the glorification of the
human body.
b. In respect to the particular subject in which the effect is
produced (quoad subjectum in quo fiunt). These are effects
which nature can cause, but not in this particular subject matter.
Examples are the resurrection of a dead man (nature can produce
life in a fetus, but not in a corpse) and the restoration of sight
to a blind man (nature does give sight to a child).
c. In respect to the manner of production (quoad modum).
• Another division of miracles, based on the various ways in which effects
are opposed to the order of nature or repugnant to the native bent of natural
agents, is found in St. Thomas, De Potentia, q. 6, a. 2, ad 3.

(68)

REVEALED RELIGION

This is a question of effects which nature can bring about in the
same particular subject matter, but not in the same way or by the
same means. An example is the healing of a serious wound or
disease suddenly, without proportionate remedies—to cure blind­
ness, not by an operation, but by a simple command.
Note: This division explains what is meant by saying that one
miracle is “greater” than another. Since an effect is called a miracle
precisely by a comparison with the natural power it surpasses, a
miracle which greatly surpasses the powers of creatures is rightly
said to be greater than another which surpasses the powers of
creatures to a less notable extent. Thus it is that of all miracles
those hold first place which exceed the order of creation with
reference to the very nature of the effect produced (quoad sub­
stantiam facti), whereas effects which surpass created powers only
in the manner of their production hold last place. No miraculous
effect, however, may be said to be more wonderful than others by
making a comparison on the basis of the divine power employed;
this remains exactly the same in all.14
Relative miracles (miracula quoad nos). Since pure spirits are 39
included within the ambit of all nature, they cannot perform abso­
lute miracles.15 Still, they can produce effects which are wonderful
in man’s eyes. Because they work invisibly and can with the utmost
ease and swiftness make use of the powers of the universe, which
they understand more perfectly than men, they can do many
things which surpass the normal course of visible nature, things
which corporeal nature, left to her own, or put to work merely by
man, would either not be able to do at all, or could not accomplish
with such great perfection. Two points must be made in regard to
miracles of this kind.
1. Such miracles differ from absolute miracles not simply in
degree, but in kind. Absolute miracles (miracula simpliciter) take
place by God’s will alone and without the operation of a created
agent. Relative miracles, on the other hand, are always produced
by the application of created power and hence, strictly speaking,
are not beyond the order imprinted in creation by God, but are
in accordance with it, even though they seem to take place beyond
that order. That is why St. Thomas teaches that wonders worked
by created spirits take place not after the fashion of a miracle,
but after the fashion of an art (De Potentia, q. 6, a. 3).
2. Even though created spirits can work relative miracles by
their own power, they can work them only insofar as God com-

(67)

mauds or allows them to do so. Angels, no less than other creatures,
are completely subject to the rule of divine providence. Even
though man cannot determine precisely what God can or does
allow angels to do, two principles are evident: a. God could not
allow created spirits to disrupt the normal order of the visible
universe by performing miracles almost daily at their own choos­
ing. This fact is demonstrated by experience itself, b. God could
not permit spirits to work prodigies in such fashion and in such
circumstances that men would thereby be irresistibly driven into
some error contrary to religion or good morals. Such permission
on the part of God would be contrary to His divine wisdom.
40
Purpose of miracles. The all-wise God does not operate in a
fashion completely beyond the order of all nature without a very
special purpose. The special purpose of a miracle is not to be found
within the natural order. If one were to admit that nature’s order
required from time to time the working of miracles for its own
preservation, he would attribute to God a failure of foresight. The
purpose of a miracle, then, belongs to a higher order of divine
providence. Its purpose is to serve as a supernatural manifestation
by God; to be a very special sort of divine testimony. Every miracle
is by its very nature a testimony to divine omnipotence, since it
shows that God’s power is not shackled to the order of nature.
In consequence, such a display of power can be used by God to
serve as a testimony of special benevolence or anger towards some­
one, as a recommendation of some virtue, as a manifestation of
some person’s holiness, or as a guarantee of some religion. To dis­
cover which of these motives prompted the miracle one must exam­
ine the circumstances under which it occurred. Because of this
quality of purposiveness a miracle is considered by everyone to
be a divine sign or trademark, and is frequently referred to simply
as a sign.
The angels, because of their close union with God, never inter­
fere with the normal course of the visible universe, unless ordered
or permitted to do so by God. If, then, a good angel works a won­
derful deed in favor of some person or religion, his act will always
and necessarily include God’s testimony in favor of this person or
religion. Thus a work performed by a good angel over and beyond
the normal course of visible nature is equivalent to an absolute
miracle under its aspect of being a divine trademark ( ratione signi
divini). For this reason, wonderful events which exceed the power
of visible nature, but not the power of a created spirit, so long as

(68)

REVEALED RELIGION

it is clear that they are produced, if not by God Himself, at least
by good angels, are frequently called true miracles, though they
are minor and merely relative miracles.”'
Note the qualification, “provided it is clear that those events
are worked at least by good angels.” Prodigies performed by devils,
even though they cannot occur without divine permission, can in
no wise be adduced as a divine trademark or testimony. Wonders
performed by devils are never described without qualification as
“miracles,” but are called prodigies, demoniacal miracles, or false
miracles.
Catholic teaching on miracles is summed up in these words of 41
the Vatican Council:
If anyone says that miracles cannot take place and, conse­
quently, that all accounts of them, even those contained in
Sacred Scripture, ought to be rated as fables or myths: or
[if anyone says] that miracles can never be known with certi­
tude, or that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot
be legitimately proved by them, let him be anathema (DB
1813).

II. The possibility of miracles. Those who deny the existence
of a God who is distinct from the universe logically enough deny
the possibility of miracles. Such are all atheists and pantheists.
Rationalists, however, even though they grant the existence of a
personal God, contend that miracles are impossible. Indeed, they
are so stubborn on this point that they are led by their precon­
ceived opinion to reject all books containing miraculous accounts,
especially the Gospels.17 Only absolute miracles will be discussed
in this section; for, once their possibility is admitted, there is no
need to consider the other classes of miracles.
Proposition: If God’s existence is granted, miracles are possible. 42
The Vatican Council declared this possibility a dogma of faith.
Proof. 1. By positive argument. The order of secondary causes
was established by God according to His own free choice and not
by any necessity of nature, for He could have established another
order of things. Consequently God is in no way bound to the order
of things once selected and brought into being, but He can
act in a fashion over and above the order instituted when He so
chooses, for example, by producing effects without the agency
(69)

THE TRUE RELIGION

of the secondary causes which usually produce them, or by
producing other effects beyond the range of secondary causes,
... or by restraining the activities of natural agents to prevent
them from doing what they were designed to do (S.Th., I,
q. 105, a. 6, De Potentia, q. 6, a. 2).
43

2. By the refutation of objections. Before considering and
refuting the individual objections offered by rationalists against the
possibility of miracles, the fundamental source of those objec­
tions should be pointed out. That source is a hostile attitude
of mind rather than a reasoned conviction. Even the assertion
that God could intervene in the world’s affairs (whether He
actually does do so or not) is resented by those who want
man to be the center of the universe and man’s reason to be
the sole criterion of truth and moral goodness. The possible inter­
vention of God in His world is considered rather as an affront
than a benefit to men. Rationalists, therefore, instead of searching
into the facts of history, start from a quasi-religious first principle
that God must not interfere in human affairs. In short, rationalists
bitterly oppose the possibility of miracles, not because the very
concept of a miracle is in itself something contradictory and hence
ridiculous, but because they make it a dogma that man may not be
hindered in the management of his affairs. Their subsequent objec­
tions to miracles are merely a post-factum searching after a
rational basis which can bolster up their original, irrational dogma.
Perhaps no one has described their position so accurately as G. K.
Chesterton. He writes:
... my belief that miracles have happened in human history
is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human
evidence as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point
there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and
cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen
that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and
fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connec­
tion with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The
believers in miracles accept them ( rightly or wrongly ) because
they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny
them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against
them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old
apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as
you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to

(70)

REVEALED RELIGION

a murder. ... if it comes to human testimony there is a choking
cataract in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can
only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story
about the ghost cither because the man is a peasant or because
the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main
principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of
materialism—the abstract impossibility of miracles. You have a
perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist.
It is we Christians who accept all the actual evidence—it is you
rationalists who refuse actual evidence, being constrained to do
so by your creed ( Reprinted by permission of Dodd, Mead and
Company from Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, pp. 279-280.)
Rationalists have three principal arguments against miracles.
These are:
a. Those who say that God can make exceptions to the physical
order should logically conclude that He can also make exceptions
to the moral order, for example, by making perjury morally good,
or murder, or adultery. After all, God is equally the author of
both orders.
There is no parity in this example. God can make exceptions
to the physical order not precisely because He is its author, but
because He instituted it in such a free fashion that He could also
have fashioned another. The moral order, or the natural law gov­
erning morals, was not freely instituted by God, but flows neces­
sarily from tlie moral attributes of God. There is nothing strange
about this. The physical order governs the mutual relations existing
among creatures. Those relations could have been altogether dif­
ferent without destroying in the slightest degree the necessary
relations which exist between creatures and God Himself. The
moral order, on the other hand, governs the free actions of creatures
in reference to their final goal, God Himself. If that relationship
should be destroyed, rational creatures would no longer be directed
towards God, surely a result that would be contradictory both to
God’s wisdom and to His sanctity.18
b. A miracle would destroy the immutable laws of nature
(physical laws).1® Physical laws, or the native tendencies of things
to act in a definite way, are indeed immutable, as long as the
natures of those things with which the tendencies are identified
remain unchanged. But those tendencies do not come into play
unless there are present at the same time all the conditions requisite
for their action. Such conditions are not present by necessity, but
(71)

THE TRUE RELIGION

may be impeded, modified, or completely removed, either by the
influence of secondary causes, or by the positive action of Gori
Himself.
When a miracle takes place, the natural tendency of a thing
to act in a definite way is neither destroyed nor changed. God
directly and personally causes some condition on which the exercise
of the native tendency depends to remain unfulfilled. In what
precise fashion God docs that, is not known. That He can do it is
beyond cavil because of His omnipotence. Certainly if man by
erecting Grand Coulee Dam can stem back a tide of water, what
could prevent God, in exercising divine power, from holding back
the waters of the Red Sea without destroying the law of gravity?
If man can launch a rocket missile far into the atmosphere, what
could prevent God’s power from lifting up the body of Christ on
the occasion of His ascension into Heaven? If man by use of
chemicals can make a thing temporarily incombustible, why could
God not protect the three youths in the fiery furnace while at the
same time the flames retained their natural tendency to ignite?
Since it is true that created things, so long as all the requisite
conditions are fulfilled, always operate in accord with their natural
tendency, in the case of miracles there is really no change or
suspension of the physical law itself. The effect of the law is
suspended or changed in a particular case because some condition
required for its operation is absent. Since this occurs without the
intervention of a natural cause, it is correct to say the course of
nature is altered in that particular case.
It is stupid to say that, if God can alter the course of nature, all
human foresight and all science are rendered impossible. For God
does not alter the course of nature either widely or frequently; He
does so rarely, only in particular instances. Who would be so foolish
as to doubt that a man who wanted to walk on the water would
sink, merely because Peter once walked upon the Sea of Galilee?
c. The occurrence of a miracle would contradict God’s immuta­
bility and wisdom. It would contradict His immutability, because
the defenders of miracles are forced to admit that God is no longer
satisfied with the order of nature which He first instituted. It would
contradict His wisdom, because those who admit miracles ought
cither to grant that God changes the course of nature at whim
and without reason, or does so to correct defects which happen in
nature contrary to His will. This would certainly show a failure on
the part of God’s providence.21

(72)

REVEALED RELIGION

A miracle does not contradict God’s immutability. By one and
the same eternal decree God established the normal course of
nature and simultaneously decreed to allow exceptions to it from
time to time by performing miracles.
From all eternity God foresaw and chose to do whatever He
has done in time. Therefore He established the course of nature
in such wise that whatever exceptions He should make from
time to time to that course would have been preordained by
His eternal will (De Potentia, q. 6, a. 1, ad 6).

Consequently there is no change in God’s will.
Neither does a miracle contradict God’s wisdom. It is not
claimed that God makes exceptions to the order instituted by
Himself without good reason, or that He does so to repair some­
thing He had fashioned poorly to begin with; rather He makes
such exceptions for reasons very worthy of His wisdom, as indi­
cated above (See no. 40).22

Scholion. The fittingness of miracles.
From the purpose of a miracle, which is to show that God’s
power is not shackled to the order of nature, one can understand
why it is not only possible but even very fitting for God to work
miracles from time to time. St. Thomas says:
There is no better way of making it obvious that the whole
gamut of nature is subject to the divine will than for God from
time to time to do something over and beyond the order of
nature. By so doing He makes it clear that the order of creation
flows from Himself not by any necessity of nature, but by His
own free will. Nor should we deem it frivolous that God should
perform something in corporeal nature in order to manifest
Himself to the minds of men, since all corporeal creatures are
directed towards an intelligent nature as towards their goal.
But the goal of an intelligent nature is to know Cod. There is
nothing strange, then, in having an occurrence in corporeal
nature serve as a means of bringing knowledge about God to
intelligent beings (S.C.G., III, 99).

St. Augustine writes:
Because He [God] is not the sort of substance which can be
seen with the eyes, and because those miracles whereby He
rules the whole universe and provides for every creature have
(73)

44

THE TRUE RELIGION

grown so stale by custom that scarcely anyone bothers to notice
the marvelous and stupendous works of God found even in a
grain of seed. He has in His mercy reserved some works for
Himself which He performs at an opportune time over and
above the normal course and order of nature so that men might
grow awe-stnick by seeing, not greater, but rarer works than
those which daily occurrence has rendered commonplace
(Tractatus 24 in Joannem no. 1).

45

III. The recognizability of Miracles 23 Recognizing the futility
of arguments adduced against the possibility of miracles, once
God’s existence has been granted, a number of rationalists seek
another subterfuge: they say that miracles are not impossible, but
that they can never be recognized with certitude, or at least that
up to this time no miracle has been definitely established.24 The
leaders of the “Higher Criticism” movement of the late nineteenth
century afford an example of this mentality. Renan wrote: “We do
not say: a miracle is impossible. We say that up to this time no
miracle has been proved” (Histoire des origines du Christianisme,
I, Vie de Jésus, 19th ed., 96). Hamack stated: “The historian is in
no position to deal with a miracle as with an established historical
event. . . . Each individual miracle remains quite doubtful from the
viewpoint of history, and the sum total of doubtful occurrences can
never add up to certainty” (Dogmengeschichte, I, 3rd ed., 63).
Others maintain that the miraculous fact itself, considered
purely as a fact (materialiter sumptum) can never be definitely
established, especially for men of a later generation. In other words,
it can never be definitely settled whether the extraordinary effect
which may be a miracle ever took place in reality. Here the ques­
tion turns on the historical truth of miracles.
Finally, others assert that the supernaturality of the cause of the
miraculous fact can never be established. This means that man
cannot demonstrate that the effect was produced by God or by a
good angel, and not by the unknown powers of nature, or by the
deceit of man, or by the devil. Here there is a question of the
philosophical truth of miracles.

46 Proposition 1. Some miracles can be known with certitude both
by eye-witnesses and by posterity, even by those living many
centuries later. The Vatican Council declared this proposition a
dogma of faith. (See above, no. 41.) 25
This proposition deals exclusively with the historical truth of
(74)

REVEALED RELIGION

miracles, omitting for the present all discussion of their supernatural
character. Note, too, that in the present discussion one must beware
of the paralogism used by some modems: they say that a miracle,
by the very fact that it is supposed to be miraculous, that is, pro­
duced by a cause unknown to us, cannot be "demonstrated.” It is
indeed impossible to prove the genuinity of a miraculous effect by
means of its causes ( a demonstration of why a thing is so, demon­
stratio propter quid). But it by no means follows that the existence
of such an effect cannot be known with certainty.
The existence of the effect can be known to eye-witnesses by
their own sense perception; it can be known to posterity by trust­
worthy testimony. Even though these methods do not grant us
strictly scientific knowledge, they do grant us a genuine certitude
(a demonstration that the thing is so, demonstratio quia).29 This
is a moral certitude, which is the only kind of certitude possible
in historical matters. Nor can such certitude be gained about every
single miraculous event which is asserted to have ever happened,
but only about some, those which have been passed on to us in
proper fashion.
Proof. 1. With reference to eye-witnesses. For eye-witnesses to
gain sure knowledge of a miraculous fact, nothing else is required
except that the witnesses have normal sensory faculties and pay
sufficient attention. Surely a miraculous event, considered simply
as an event, can be perceived by the sense organs just as easily,
clearly, and definitely as an ordinary event. It can be perceived
clearly not only by educated persons but also by simple, ordinary
men whose sensory powers are as good as those of the educated.
Then, also, the very strangeness of the occurrence provokes greater
attention, and stimulates the bystanders to explore the matter more
diligently. Would it really be impossible or difficult to find out
with certitude whether a man, one’s own fellow citizen, had been
bom blind and afterwards received sight? that Lazarus had been
four days in the tomb and then was restored to life?—Those unbe­
lievers are acting petulantly who demand that a miracle must
always be announced beforehand, and that the event must be
reviewed under a legal form of examination or judged exclusively
by specialists.
2. With reference to posterity. For posterity to gain certitude
about a miraculous fact that has been legitimately examined by
eye-witnesses, what is required and suffices is that the fact be
transmitted and preserved by trustworthy testimony. If there are

(75)

THE TRUE RELIGION

witnesses who know the facts, who are competent, truthful, and in
agreement, there is no reason why one should value their testimony
to a miraculous fact less than their testimony to ordinary facts.
This is particularly true in light of the fact that very strange events
usually provoke doubts and further investigations among those that
hear of them, so that if some should believe too readily, there are
others equally prone to doubt. This is all the more true when it is
of great importance to both listeners and witnesses to spot false­
hood in the matter. Nor is the long passage of centuries an obstacle
to certitude. Though a recent event usually strikes the imagination
to a greater degree, tradition, provided it possesses the requisite
conditions, does not lose its value by the mere passage of time.
47
There are two chief objections.27
1. They say that it is physically impossible for a miracle to
occur, whereas it is only morally impossible for even a thousand
witnesses, otherwise quite trustworthy, to make a mistake or to
practice fraud; therefore the moral certitude in favor of a miracle
is always cancelled out by the physical certitude to the contrary.
Similarly, they maintain that the experience of one man, testifying
that a corpse came back to life, must yield to the experience of a
thousand men who maintain that the dead do not come back to
life. Thus it is with every miracle: against the lone witness rise a
thousand who assert the opposite.
For merely natural causes to produce a miracle, by definition
an effect surpassing nature’s powers, is indeed physically impos­
sible. But for the First Cause, God, to produce a miracle is in no
way impossible; in fact, it is altogether possible, as has been
demonstrated (see nos. 42-43-44). The objection, therefore, is
specious. For factually one is not confronted with the problem of
two opposed certitudes: the one physical, the other moral.
Neither is the experience of a small number of men who
witness to the resurrection of a corpse rendered useless by the
contrary experience of thousands of others. Since their experiences
do not revolve about the same event, they are not mutually
contradictory.
When David Hume, the inventor of this objection, said: “Every
superstition is necessarily overthrown by this argument,” he added
with good reason: “if it be a legitimate argument”! (An Inquiry
Concerning Human Understanding, I, 10).
47a
2. They argue: it is at least certain that Christian men have
been quite gullible about admitting miraculous occurrences.
(76)

REVEALED RELIGION

It must be admitted that some Christians, and indeed in some
ages most Christians, like the other men of their time, have been
over-credulous. For that very reason learned men who rely on the
aid of critical investigation to sort the true from the false perform
an excellent service for religion itself. But it by no means follows
that no miracle can be known with certitude, or that all miracles
which Christians have accepted were received without question.
Let critical norms be applied, but let them be sober and honest
rules of criticism. Just as gullibility should be avoided, so too
should quibbling.28
Our adversaries are illogical when they conclude that an overeagemess in this matter of belief is necessarily and inextricably
entwined with belief in revelation, because some men of the
Middle Ages were guilty of extreme credulity. Such gullibility was
connected with faith purely by accident. It arose from a lack of the
critical sense, which is easily understandable in the case of men
who were not accustomed to the exactitude of the natural sciences
and who were short on documentary evidence. If the men of the
Middle Ages sinned frequently by gullibility, the learned men of
our age often err in the opposite extreme. They apply the meth­
odology of the physical sciences to the field of history, especially
religious history, or they exclude a priori the possibility of miracles,
at least in practice, and conclude with Renan that all accounts of
supernatural events necessarily indicate either gullibility or fraud.2''

Proposition 2: At least some genuine miracles can be clearly dis- 48
tinguished from merely natural marcels and from diabolical
prodigies. The Vatican Council declared this proposition a
dogma of faith.
Once the historic truth of an event has been established, one
must investigate closely its miraculous character, the philosophical
truth of a miracle. This can be done both by eye-witnesses and by
later investigators. By the term true miracles are meant not only
absolute miracles, but also relative miracles worked by good
angels; for these, as has been said above (no. 40), are equivalent
to absolute miracles from the point of view of their serving as a
divine trademark.
Only this is asserted here: true miracles can sometimes be
recognized with certitude. And it should not be considered strange
that the matter may at times remain more or less doubtful. When a
miracle occurs, not as a proof of some doctrine, but simply as a

(77)

THE TRUE RELIGION

manifestation of special love towards a particular person, there is
no necessity for the person himself to be absolutely certain that
he was rescued by a miracle strictly so-called.
Proof. The proposition can be proved by exclusion. If a given
effect cannot be explained by the powers of the visible universe
or by the activity of devils, obviously a true miracle has occurred.
49
Part I. Careful attention given to the nature of the effect and
to the manner in which it occurred is often all that is needed to
know for certain that a remarkable event has not been accom­
plished by the unknown powers of nature or by the cleverness or
trickery of men.
1. The nature of the effect. Some effects by their very nature
obviously surpass all the powers of material creation and all human
ingenuity in regard either to the essence of the fact or to the
subject in which they occur. For example, the resurrection of a
corpse, the multiplication of loaves of bread, walking on water, etc.
2. The manner of production. An effect which nature herself
can produce in a given subject can definitely not be referred to
nature’s powers whenever it is clear that no equipment at all has
been used or that the means at hand were woefully inadequate to
produce the effect. Examples of miracles in which no equipment
at all is used are the curing of leprosy or the silencing of a storm
by the mere command of the miracle worker. Examples of miracles
in which the means at hand are inadequate are the restoration of
sight by the application of mud to the eyes of a blind man, the
instantaneous cure of paralysis by the touch of a hand, etc. Every
type of secondary cause must use proportionate means.
Objections against this proposition are many.
50
a. Some maintain that man does not yet know the precise
extent of nature’s power, as is attested by the stupendous inventions
of our own times.30
Certainly man does not always know the extent of nature’s
powers, but he does know a lot. For example, he knows in a nega­
tive way that no natural power can produce certain effects, such
as the restoration of life to a corpse.31 At times man knows in a
positive way just how nature’s powers will necessarily operate in a
given set of circumstances, since many natural laws are very well
known. Does not the human body burn by necessity when sur­
rounded by flames? Does not the human body tend to sink by
necessity in water? To gauge the occurrence of a miracle one need
not know the absolute limits of all natural powers in all possible
(78)

REVEALED RELIGION

circumstances; it is enough to know that the powers actually
employed in a given set of circumstances were utterly incapable of
producing such an effect. Who could possibly maintain that a bit
of mud or a drop of saliva can restore sight instantly, or that a
touch of the hand is equal to the task of healing instantaneously
an amputated ear? °
b. Maybe the miracle-worker cleverly made use of some force
of nature unknown to the rest of men.
How would the miracle-worker have known of this mysterious
power which was unknown to the rest of mankind prior to, during,
and even after his own lifetime? How could he have applied it so
cleverly without the use of technical apparatus of any kind, or
instruments? If such a gratuitous assertion is to be granted, then
the miracle in question is avoided only by having recourse to
another miracle. We might add that miracle workers are usually
not professors of the physical sciences.
c. Why could not the miracle-worker have been aided by some
chance occurrence of some unknown power of nature?
It seems absurd to suppose that a miracle brought about by an
unknown force should happen to coincide by chance not once, but
many times with the wonder-worker’s beck and call. And even if it
were a question of but a single miracle, unless there were some
other way to prevent misunderstanding, divine providence itself,
to which even chance happenings are subject, could not permit
a charlatan to be aided by such a fortuitous coincidence as a
guarantee of a false religion.
d. Perhaps there was some fraud used and it was undetected.
One can, it is true, imagine circumstances under which a faked
miracle would be possible. When, therefore, the character of the
miracle-worker, the circumstances, and the purpose of the miracle
give rise to some suspicion of fraud, the rules of criticism come
into play. Unless they can completely allay the suspicion of fakery,
the event must not be accepted as a miracle. But in many cases the
° It is in this way, too, that we solve the trite objection that our
ancestors judged that it was impossible for a man to make the journey from
Holland to America in ten hours, or for a man living in Amsterdam to talk
with a friend in New York and so on. Our ancestors judged it to be impossible
for anyone to do these things through the means available in their day; and
they judged rightly. They had no jet-planes and no transatlantic telephones.
When we examine a miracle, we are not asking whether or not at some future
date means will perhaps be found proportionate to produce such an effect;
what wo are asking is whether the means actually at hand or those that could
have been on hand could reasonably account for the effect.

( 79)

THE TRUE RELIGION

ver)’ circumstances of the event exclude any suspicion of fraud or
deceit: think, for example, of the multiplication of the loaves of
bread, the resurrection of Christ, to mention but two.
e. How many marvels are wrought by the power of the imag­
ination and hypnotism!
It cannot be denied that the imagination and hypnotic sugges­
tion can produce extraordinary effects, particularly in women and
sick persons, and that even some diseases arising from a disordered
nervous system can be healed by them. For that very reason some
men exaggerated!)· and deceptively, but not without all foundation,
praise "the faith which heals.”32 When it comes to a question of
judging cures of this sort, one has to be extremely cautious. But,
even prescinding from such marvels as the resurrection of the dead,
the multiplication of the loaves of bread, or the calming of the
storm, it is quite certain that many diseases, especially those involv­
ing some serious lesion of the organs, simply cannot be cured by
the imagination alone or by hypnosis, or at least cannot be cured
instantaneously:
Faith-healing ... is the popular name for cure by suggestion.
The more, accurate term for it is psychotherapy ... let us call
to mind the obvious limits of this method of cure, even when
supported by the most accurate medical knowledge and scien­
tific procedure: it cannot be used at all in the majority of the
ills which afflict mankind. Wounds, ulcers, lesions of nervous
and muscular tissues, cancers, diseases caused by pathogenic
microbes—these and all other organic diseases are quite outside
its scope (A. P. Madgett, Christian Origins [Cincinnati: Xavier
University, 1941], I, 210).

The same author relates that an eminent American psychiatrist,
Dr. Μ. H. Hoffman, Clinical Director of the psychiatric division
of Eloise Hospital, Eloise, Michigan, in discussing cures brought
about by psychotherapy emphasized the length of time required to
effect such cures:

He [Dr. Hoffman] gave an instance of what was considered a
most exceptional case. The patient, a purely mental case, had
become completely helpless as far as normal human activity
was concerned. He administered metrazol shock treatments, and
after five of these, covering a week’s time, the patient began to
show signs of improvement. Within a few months she was able

(80)

REVEALED RELIGION

to resume some of her normal activities. Within a year (I) she
was quite normal (Ibid., p. 212).
The facts of hypnosis, in general, strengthen rather than weaken
the case. For the startling results of hypnotism (those which are
authentic) have not been produced by the simple command of a
will or voice, but by the use of psychic means whose proportion
to the effect desired is already known or at least considered prob­
able by medical men:

Always and everywhere I have held and written that suggestion
is a psychical treatment adapted to a psychical case, which must
be a simple functional auto-suggestive disturbance, not created
by organic development that is toxic or affects the brain, like
meningitis, uraemia or mental defect. These are not answer­
able to psychotherapy (Ibid., p. 211, quoting Bernheim, Hypno­
tism, and Suggestion).

But whenever one finds authenticated effects which, upon inves­
tigation, cannot be attributed to the powers of nature, the activity
of a super-human agent must be acknowledged.
Part II. To establish with certitude that some marvel which is 51
recognized as being beyond the powers of visible nature has not
been worked by the help of evil angels, it is usually enough to
examine carefully the work itself and its circumstances, especially
its moral circumstances.
1. The work itself. There are some works which either by their
very nature, or by the subject in which they occur, or by the manner
of their production completely surpass the power of a created spirit.
Such works are those which are definitely known to be incapable
of realization either by simple local motion, or by the application
of some natural power. For example, the resurrection of a dead
man (provided it be certain, for example by the stable possession
of new life, that we dealing with a genuine resurrection). The devil
could, strictly speaking, assume the appearance of a corpse. Other
examples are instantaneous cures of damaged organs, such as the
eyes, the limbs, the lungs, etc.
2. The circumstances. God’s works must be honorable, good,
holy, and wholesome for man. Consequently, something evil or
treacherous will usually be detected in the works of an evil spirit.
a. If the wonder-worker is evil, proud, light-headed, or desirous
(81)

THE TRUE RELIGION

of praise, the work performed should not be considered miraculous.
God does not usually choose such people as Ilis instruments,
especially when there is question of the first announcement of a
revelation.
b. If the manner whereby the marvels are wrought betrays any­
thing shameful, obscene, ridiculous, irreverent, violent, or cruel, if
the wonder-worker is wildly excited and mentally unbalanced,
God’s approval should not be regarded as given. If the wonders
are unaccompanied by a profession of religion and do not foster
religious purposes, considerable suspicion should be attached to
their value.33
c. If the goal or effect of the work is either evil or unworthy
of God, if the work is merely fuel for human curiosity, if it nour­
ishes pride, disobedience, or discord, if it favors a break-down of
morals, if it is performed to bring favor on a false, irreverent, or
indecent doctrine, or a doctrine contrary to a prior revelation
already definitely known as coming from God—then God is not its
author. The same holds true if men have been warned before­
hand against prodigies of this sort by a genuine messenger from
God,34 or if the prodigy is destroyed by a higher power.35
Divine providence cannot permit demons to use their native
power in producing prodigies in such a way that honest men,
because of such works, would be almost irresistibly led astray in
the business of salvation. At least when it is a question of the
approval of some religion, means will never be lacking to dis­
tinguish diabolical prodigies from true miracles.

52 Scholten. Sometimes the character of one marvelous event enables
man to gauge the character of other marvels.
Suppose there is a man who claims he is a messenger from God.
Suppose he has done something which is beyond all doubt a true
miracle and at the same time worked other marvels which he
himself claims as divine signs, but whose miraculous character is
not in itself equally clear. All those other marvels can and ought
to be considered true miracles. The man’s divine mission is already
proved, and he is certainly not a deceiver. As often, therefore, as
he seemed to be working miracles, he actually was working genuine
miracles.
On the contrary, if it has been proved of a man that he once
performed a prodigy by the aid of the devil, or by trickery
(82)

REVEALED RELIGION

attempted to simulate a miracle, all other actions performed as a
guarantee of the same cause, no matter how marvelous they may
seem, should not be accepted as miracles.
IV. The probative force of miracles.36 It is somewhat super- 53
fluous to demonstrate ex professo that miracles fully and coercively
prove the point for which they are worked. It is quite obvious that
the all-wise and all-holy God can never guarantee a false assertion
by His exclusive trademark. This probative force belongs not only
to absolute miracles, but also to relative miracles worked by a
good angel. As God Himself cannot perform a work to foster false­
hood, neither can He order or approve such action on the part of
angels. It is easy enough to grasp that a miracle, even one, is
sufficient to establish complete proof of a thing forever. The objec­
tion that the modern mind does not accept miracles as proof and is
offended rather than convinced by them proves nothing against
the objective value of any argument based upon miracles.37
If a religious doctrine is to be proved by miracles, it should be
definitely established that the miracle was wrought either directly
or indirectly for the purpose of guaranteeing that doctrine. A king’s
seal does not guarantee the authenticity of a document unless it
is stamped upon it. Neither does a miracle, however historically
and philosophically true, guarantee a doctrine unless it can be
shown that it has been worked for that purpose. This is what is
known as the relevant truth of a miracle.
A miracle is worked directly as a guarantee of a doctrine if a
man or an angel asserts in clear words, or equivalently, by his
manner of acting, that he is about to perform a miracle for the
express purpose of making known to all the divine origin and hence
the truth of such or such a doctrine. Thus Christ, before healing
the paralytic at Capharnaum, stated: “But that you may know that
the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins . . ” (Matthew
9:6; see Mark 2: Iff; Luke 5:17ff).
A miracle is worked indirectly in favor of a doctrine if it is
directly worked in favor of a man who claims to be a messenger
from God, and that man in turn appeals, openly or equivalently,
to the miracle as a guarantee of his divine mission. So St. Paul
defended the truth of his claim to be an Apostle by appealing to the
wonders that had accompanied his labors (see 2 Cor. 12:12). The
miracle, by directly proving the divine mission of the messenger,
indirectly proves the divine origin of the doctrine he preaches. It is
(83)

THE THUE RELIGION

unthinkable that God would permit a genuine messenger of His
to propose a doctrine as divine which actually is false or non-divine
in origin.
Objections. The difficulties raised by unbelievers against the
$4 probative force of miracles are groundless. They say:
a. Miracles, since they are historical facts, cannot prove the
intrinsic truth of a doctrine.
The Church does not maintain that miracles directly prove
the intrinsic truth of a doctrine. A miracle does prove the divine
origin of a doctrine, the fact that God has spoken, and this, in the
supposition that God is truthful, suffices for a judgment of
credibility.
b. The argument from miracles involves a vicious circle. First
of all the truth of the miracle is established from the character of
the doctrine with which it is connected; then from the very same
miracle is established the truth of the doctrine (see nos. 51, 2, c).
The opponents are mistaken. There is no vicious circle if the
character of the doctrine, which is analyzed by reason, sometimes
serves as a negative criterion for judging the philosophical truth
of a miracle, and the miracle in turn serves as a positive confirma­
tion for the divine origin of that doctrine. The negative base
(namely, the absence of a patent contradiction and of depravity
in the doctrine) on which the genuineness of a miracle is partially
judged is one thing; the positive conclusion (namely, the divine
origin of that doctrine) which is reached once the reality of the
miracle has been established is quite another.
c. Practically all religions, even the most perverted, boast about
miracles.
This can be easily understood. In doing so they testify to the
universal agreement of mankind that a religion ought not to be
considered divinely revealed if it lacks miracles, and that miracles
definitely do prove a religion to be divine in origin. Moreover, it
is obvious that the probative force of miracles is not destroyed by
the mere fact that many falsely appeal to them:

I hope we may dismiss the argument against wonders attempted
in the mere recapitulation of frauds, of swindling mediums or
trick miracles. That is not an argument at all, good or bad.
A false ghost disproves the reality of ghosts exactly as much as
a forged banknote disproves the existence of the Bank of Eng­
land—if anything, it proves its existence (Chesterton, Orthodoxi/,
pp. 283-84).
(84)

REVEALED RELIGION

If the miracles appealed to by false religions are examined
critically, the following conclusions will be discovered: either they
lack historical foundation; or, if they did factually occur, they were
not real miracles (they were not philosophically true), or else they
were not worked as a guarantee of those religions (they lacked
relevant truth).18
V. Miracles of the moral order. Notion of a moral miracle. 55
A moral miracle is an action or series of actions, preceptible by the
senses, so difficult that man’s moral powers are unable to accom­
plish them (with God’s normal concurrence). A sufficient explan­
ation for such an act can be found only in the postulate of a special
help from God. Some examples of moral miracles are the following:
the holiness of Christ, the extraordinarily swift spread of Christian­
ity, the heroic constancy of the martyrs.
A moral miracle is like a physical miracle in that both exceed
the powers of nature and take place in a way beyond or outside
their respective laws. But a moral miracle differs from a physical
miracle in many ways.
a. In a physical miracle the effect exceeds the physical powers
of creatures, and takes place in a fashion beyond the laws govern­
ing the activity of physical things, so that without the intervention
of God it would be physically impossible. In a moral miracle the
effect exceeds not the physical, but the moral powers of men, and
occurs in a fashion beyond the normal laws of human behavior, that
is, beyond the constant and uniform fashion in which human liberty
reacts in given circumstances, so that without God’s intervention it
would be not physically, but morally impossible.
b. In a physical miracle the effect is wrought by God alone
without the mediation of a secondary cause; in a moral miracle the
effect proceeds directly from a secondary cause, from the human
will, but only with God’s special help.0
° The nature and characteristics of a inoral miracle are excellently
described by R. von Nostitz-Rieneck:
Supernatural influences on the spiritual life of men and especially what
we call “moral miracles” stand in an altogether different relationship to
the natural laws of individual and social ethics than that of physical
miracles to natural and physical laws. The latter tend to run counter to
the laws; the former seem to conform to them. Moral miracles take their
supernatural or superhuman character from the fact that in the actions
and events surrounding them intellectual and ethical forces are applied
in a manner, and with a perfection, that produces results which seem to
lie far beyond the usual, moral strength of men, considered as individuals
or as a class. But when is this the case? When can I say that deeds which
actually have men as their authors and are in conformity with moral laws

(85)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Possibility. The question whether moral miracles are possible
or not does not offer any special difficulty. What is there to prevent
God from so increasing the power of a man’s will by a special
help, directly or indirectly, that the man wills and does things he
would never will to do and never would accomplish if left to
himself?
57
Recognizability. In this regard a twofold judgment must be
made. In the judgment of the existence of the fact ( the historical
truth) there is nothing special to be remarked. But in making a
judgment about the miraculous character of the fact (the philo­
sophical truth of the miracle) human behavior must be carefully
weighed. One must determine, for example, how men in situations
of a similar kind, and amid similar obstacles, and with similar
helps, constantly behave. It is in this way that one learns what
men can or cannot morally do when left on their own. The laws or
fashions of human behavior are only morally constant and hence
admit of exceptions, even though rare, in particular cases. To make
a prudent judgment that there is present a special help of God
generally requires that a large number of men depart from the
usual manner of acting in a given situation,30 or for one and the
same man to make such a departure frequently. To have sufficient
proof of the philosophical truth of a moral miracle a rather large
number of cases, larger or smaller in proportion as the act is more
or less difficult, is demanded.
58
Probative force. The probative force of a moral miracle, grant­
ing it possesses relevant truth, is no less than that of a physical
miracle. It is obvious that God cannot cooperate in a special way
to guarantee a false doctrine or an evil institution.
56

59

III. Prophecies10
I. Notion and definition. The word “prophecy” comes, accord­
ing to the common opinion of modem41 scholars, from the word
and ethical ideals surpass human power such as it has been created? In
our opinion, we may say so particularly in two cases. First, if, in their per­
formance, moral force of unprecedented excellence is at hand. Second, if
through these deeds extremely noble social effects are produced, effects
which have no proportion to the means used. In both instances the super­
human character must follow as a conclusion from the unparalleled
uniqueness of the deeds. But what can be called “unprecedented” or
"unparalleled”? That which lies beyond the frontiers of all historical
experience; that which has never happened anywhere before in this
manner, or with this perfection (Stimmen, 60 (1901), 132).

(86)

REVEALED RELIGION

prophanai "to speak for another,” or “to speak in the place of
another.” This accords with Augustine’s dictum: "A prophet of God
is nothing more than a proclaimer of God’s words to men” (Quaestio
17 in Ex. 7:1 ). That is why Scripture, in a broad sense of the term,
calls all men prophets who by God’s impulse speak about divine
matters, either by interpreting the Scriptures, or by exhorting the
people, or by praising God.42
Because the men who were moved to speak by divine impulse
very often made known hidden realities, the term prophet in a
more restricted use began to mean those who manifested hidden
things, whether past, present, or future.43 Finally, because future
realities are the most hidden of all, a prophet in a very restricted
sense of the term is a man who foretells future events. It is in this
last, technical, and apologetical sense that the term prophecy is
now used.
Definition: A prophecy may be defined as the sure and definite 00
prediction of some future event which could not be foreseen
through natural causes. The qualification “sure” is inserted to
exclude both mere guesses or suspicions and assertions that are
indeed apodictical, but clearly rash, assertions which would not be
accompanied by sure foreknowledge. Prophecy consists principally
in knowledge.
The prediction must be “definite,” because ambiguous predic­
tions which could be twisted in any direction or applied to any
event, such as those of the pagan oracles,44 do not deserve the name
of prophecy. It is not necessary, however, for future events to be
predicted with the maximum of clarity. A prediction can be definite
and yet more or less obscure because of metaphors and parables,
especially before the event occurs.
It must deal with future events which could not be foreseen by
natural causes. If the thing predicted could not be naturally known
by any created intellect whatsoever, there results what is known
as an absolute prophecy, one which proceeds from a knowledge
that is superior to all created intelligence. But if the prediction is
something which is beyond the powers merely of the human mind,
there arises what is known as a relative prophecy, or a prophecy
from the point of view of human knowledge (quoad nos).45 If such
a prophecy is uttered by the aid of the devil, it is not described
unqualifiedly as a prophecy, but it is called a false prophecy, or
divination.
Prophetic knowledge (considered theologically).46 God does no 61
(87)

THE TRUE RELIGION

violence to those creatures He uses as instruments for working
supernatural effects, nor does He use them in a way contrary to
their natures. To prophesy, however, without any understanding
of the things which are spoken is opposed to human perfection.
Such a manner of acting belongs to idiots and dreamers. Hence,
both the Fathers and the theologians consider as certain that true
prophets never utter their revelations in a delirious state, but
always grasp intellectually the things they prophesy.17
Excluding that peculiar and imperfect form of prophecy in
which the person who speaks is not considered a true prophet (as
in the person of Caiphas, cf. John 11:51), one finds that prophets
understand to some extent, even though at times very inadequately,
what God wishes to announce through them, and know that God
has given them their message. The words “understand to some
extent, even though at times very inadequately, what God wishes
to announce,” are added because “the mind of the prophet is a
deficient instrument in relation to the principal agent; even genuine
prophets do not understand everything that the Holy Spirit intends
to convey through their visions, words, or deeds” (S.Th., II-II,
q. 173, a. 4).
There are two elements in prophetic knowledge. First, the
reception or representation of the realities to be announced. This
requires an infusion of some sort of species into the mind of the
prophet. Second, a judgment about the realities represented. This
judgment is made by the light of the intellect, as given added
strength by God Himself.
The representation of the realities may be made to the senses,
to the imagination, or to the intellect. A sense-vision occurs when
the prophet perceives something by eye or ear (see Daniel 5); an
imaginative-vision, when nothing is perceived by the external
senses, but when God either imparts completely new images to
the imagination or rearranges in a completely new way images
previously gathered from the senses (see Acts 10:10ff); an intel­
lectual-vision, when God directly puts new intellectual ideas into
the intellect (as happened to the Apostles when they received
infused knowledge). On this basis, prophecies are divided into
corporeal (or sensible), imaginary,48 and intellectual.
The judgment about the revelation received means that the
divinely strengthened intelligence of the prophet decides with
infallible certitude both the meaning of the revelation and the
fact that it has been given by God.
(88)

REVEALED RELIGION

This judgment is the major Factor in prophetic knowledge

because judgment is the terminating point of knowledge. Con­
sequently a man who receives a representation of things from
God through the means of imaginary likenesses, as did Pharaoh
(Gen. 41), and Nabuchodonosor (Dan. 4), or through the
means of bodily likenesses, as did Balthassar (Dan. 5), is not
considered a prophet unless his mind is also enlightened to
make a judgment. On the other hand, a man will be considered
a prophet if he receives only the intellectual light needed to
make a judgment of the visions granted to the imaginations of
other men, as is clear in the case of Joseph, who explained the
dream of Pharaoh. As Augustine says (De Genest, ad literam,
XII, 9), however, the greatest type of prophet is the man who
excels in both respects; the man who sees personally the images
signifying bodily realities and penetrates their meaning with
great intellectual acumen (S.Th., II-II, q. 173, a. 2).

II. Prophecies are possible. If the existence of God is granted, 62
the possibility of prophecies cannot be denied. Two considerations
are enough to prove this: 1. philosophy demonstrates the fact that
God knows all future realities of any sort whatsoever; 2. it has been
already demonstrated that God can communicate His knowledge
to men.
The best argument that rationalists can offer against the possi­
bility of prophecy is that prophecy would force a man or a people
to perform whatever has been predicted. Since it is incredible that
the all-kind and all-holy God would foster fatalism and destroy
man’s liberty, prophecies are impossible.49 This argument, how­
ever, does not even consider those prophecies whose fulfillment
does not depend on the exercise of human freedom; for example,
that God will perform such or such a miracle. Moreover, even in
the case of a prophecy whose fulfillment requires human coopera­
tion, the prophecy itself in no way destroys or limits human free­
dom. The event foretold takes place, not because it was prophesied,
but it is prophesied precisely because it will actually take place.50
III. Prophecies are recognizable.51 True prophecies, just as 63
true miracles, can sometimes be known with certitude both by
eye-witnesses and by others who are removed either by space or
time from the prophetic event.
1. The historic truth of the prophecy can be seen easily. For
this it is sufficient to know that the event was predicted beforehand
(89)

THE TRUE RELIGION

in a positive and definite way and that the event took place
afterwards.
'2. The philosophical truth of the prophecy can be grasped
easily. To he certain that some event, which was predicted and
then actually happened, proceeded either from God Himself or
from some good angel who acted at God’s behest or with God's
approval, it is sufficient to show that such an event can be referred
neither to human foresight, nor to the devils, nor to the rashness
of a man favored by chance. The very nature of the event predicted
or at least the circumstances under which it occurred preclude
alternative explanations.
a. The nature of the event itself usually shows that the fulfilled
prediction cannot be explained on the grounds of human foresight.
Future events which depend exclusively on God’s own free choice
can in no way be known beforehand by men. In addition, there are
a large number of events which (either totally or partially) depend
on the free choice of men. Such events could not be foreseen even
with probability by human foresight, especially if one consider not
only the events themselves, but also the various circumstances of
time, manner, and place in which the events take place. Even in
the case of future events which do not proceed from the activities
of free causes, there are a great number which are clearly beyond
the power of human foresight. Examples of these are found in such
matters as contagious diseases and storms which occur, long after
they have been predicted, in a definite place and at a definite time.
Here we may also include in a general way all events that take
place by chance.
b. That a fulfilled prediction was not the work of devils is clear
either from the very' nature of the event foretold or from the
circumstances.
The devils certainly had no role to play when there is question
of an absolute prophecy. No created intelligence can foresee with
certitude events of the future which depend on the exercise of
God’s free will or the free will of men. The devil, possessing great
intelligence and long ages of experience, can predict with greater
or lesser probability some free actions of men by an analysis of
man’s nature and habitual way of acting. But there are many other
free acts about which he cannot make even a probable guess.
Such acts are those that are free in the fullest sense of the word,
or vastly improbable in a given set of circumstances, or not due
to occur until the far distant future.

(90)

REVEALED RELIGION

The circumstances of the prophecy also can help determine
whether the activity of the devil should be considered.52 For when
we are dealing with an event which surpasses the knowledge of
men but not of devils (a relative prophecy), an investigation of the
circumstances, of the person of the prophet and his manner of
acting, or the purpose and effect of the prophecy, are often enough
to disclose whether the prophecy should be attributed to God or
to a good angel, or to the devil. God, in His wisdom and holiness,
could not allow a demoniacal prediction to be of such character
that it would lead, almost of necessity, men astray in the matter
of religion. When, therefore, there is question of a prophecy given
as a guarantee of a religion, means will not be lacking to distinguish
true prophecies from divination.
c. That a fulfilled prophecy cannot reasonably be explained on
the grounds of a chance occurrence can usually be demonstrated
with ease. When the event foretold is, by its very nature, utterly
uncertain or wildly improbable, it is unreasonable to expect that
chance brought about its fulfillment; this would be doubly true of
an event impossible in the order of nature. Who could believe the
assertion that the prophecy of a virginal birth or of the resurrection
of a dead man was fulfilled by mere chance? If the same person
were to prophesy not only one but many events, or even one event
along with its attendant circumstances, to attribute the fulfillment
of such prophecies to chance would be plainly stupid. “If a pig,”
says Cicero, “were to scratch out the letter A on the ground with
his snout, would you therefore conclude that he could write the
story of Ennius’ Andromache?” Finally, Divine Providence, which
controls even chance happenings, could certainly not permit a false
religion to be strengthened and made highly plausible by proph­
ecies which came true because of chance.
What has been stated above in regard to the probative force
of miracles can be applied without any difficulty to prophecies.

Epilogue
03a
The AAethod of Immanence. The whole aim of traditional apol­
ogetics is to prove the fact of revelation by objective arguments,
in particular by external ones, and thereby prepare the way for a
judgment of credibility. Toward the close of the nineteenth century,
however, a school of philosophers and theologians, especially in
France, maintained that this method is not effective. They claimed
that traditional apologetics is of little value, if not absolutely and
(91)

THE TRUE RELIGION

in itself, at least in the concrete world of facts, because it docs not
satisfy modem mentality. Such opinions still have a large body of
supporters.
The modem mind, according to this school, grows impatient
with truths imposed on it from without (extrinsicism); it is not
attracted by purely historical arguments that prove the fact of
revelation (historicism), but yearns to find in itself and in its own
vital action the beginning of the truth it ought to embrace (immanentism). The modem mind has a horror of abstract dialectic, of
arguments which belong exclusively to the speculative reason
(intellectualism); it is captured far more easily by arguments
which appeal to the whole man, which appeal in a very special way
to man’s volitive powers, to his emotions and will. In pursuing
religious and moral truth the modem mind gives a primacy to the
will (voluntarism, moral dynamism).
To meet this modem mentality the new school53 urges that
apologetics should begin by way of a psychological approach rather
than a philosophical-historical one. It urges the use of the Method
of Immanence, whereby apologetics should seek its fundamental
arguments for embracing a revealed religion in man’s nature itself,
in the deepest needs and yearnings of human activity. This apolo­
getics of immanence may be defined as “a method, of persuading
men that a religion is revealed, based primarily on arguments drawn
from the deepest needs of human nature, and adapted to their voli­
tive powers” (J. V. de Groot, Summa, p. 13).
63b
The procedure followed in this type of apologetics embraces
two steps:
1. If anyone examines attentively the intimate make-up of man
as he is and carefully studies his thoughts, desires, and actions in
their entirety, he will find that man is anything but self-sufficient
in spiritual matters. Every man who has not deliberately crushed
the noblest aspirations of his nature yearns after an evolution and
perfection of religious and moral life which he cannot attain by his
own native intelligence and power. There is, therefore, in man as
he now exists a vague yearning and an inescapable need for a
truth and a virtue surpassing his nature, for a supernatural truth
and help; in short, for revelation and grace. Apologetics should,
then, diligently seek the reasons behind this need and awaken men
to a consciousness of them. The purpose of apologetics should be,
not to summon from man’s own nature a supernatural reality or to
determine precisely what that supernatural reality should be, but
(92)

REVEALED RELIGION

to make man realize that he ought to love and desire as his own
proper good and as a need of his own life that supernatural reality
should it be offered. Indeed, if the personal experience of this need
is the point where the natural and the supernatural meet, then this
experience is a necessary condition for man's acceptance, under the
guidance of his will, of the supernatural reality offered from
without.
2. Once these things have been accomplished, let the apologist
propose that supernatural reality, namely the Catholic Church,
together with her doctrines and institutions. Above all let him
picture the rich spiritual life to which the Church has always
guided and still guides the best of her children. Let him point out
that the doctrines and institutions of the Church perfectly cor­
respond to human needs and aspirations; that they are extremely
useful for attaining a full growth of spiritual life, and that they
make possible a life which one ought to yearn for with all one’s
heart, a life of incomparable richness which may be found nowhere
outside the Church.54
Even if it should turn out that a man who has been stirred by
the deep longing of his heart to embrace Christ and His Church
later encounters the difficulties which rational criticism can raise,
he will still cling faithfully to Christ and His Church, because he
is joined to them not by the dry bonds of reasoning, but by the
living embrace of his entire soul. Still, one may present to him the
historical arguments which traditional apologetics usually advances.
Criticism. This apologetics according to the Method of Immanence ought in our opinion neither to be rejected as totally
useless or erroneous, nor ought it to be approved wholeheartedly.
a. The urgent need for supernatural truth and supernatural
help is conceived in relation to man such as he now is. We do
know that man is destined for a supernatural goal and has been
elevated to the supernatural order. Provided, therefore, that the
origin of the need for the supernatural which is asserted is not
sought for in the very principles of human nature itself,55 but in
the impulse of the Holy Spirit summoning man to his actual goal,
there will be no confusion of the natural and supernatural orders.
One might well doubt whether the grace of the Holy Spirit actually
arouses in all men, or in most men, particularly in those who are
not baptized, a true desire and a genuine need for a strictly super­
natural good, or whether it is actually possible to lead all men, or
at least most men, to a consciousness of this urgent need. In addi­
(93)

THE TRUE RELIGION

tion, there is always the danger that the apologist may imagine he
sees in the souls of men who are, so to speak, neutral, his own deep
realization of Christianity.
b. One must certainly approve strongly whatever can be offered
to point out that the dogmas and practices of the Church cor­
respond to the noblest aspirations of the human heart, and such
dogmas and practices confer a grandeur on human life, both indi­
vidual and social. Arguments of this sort carry weight with cultured
and morally good men and at times, with the help of God’s grace,
achieve the desired end. It must be admitted, though, that such
arguments are suitable for only a relatively small group of men.
In addition, the evaluation of such arguments depends to a large
extent on the subjective and variable dispositions of those to whom
they are addressed. For this reason one might fear somewhat for
the constancy of a conversion that results from these arguments
alone: the greater the role of the emotions in a conversion, the
greater the danger of inconstancy.
If it is asked whether arguments of this sort, taken by them­
selves, suffice to prove the divine truth of the fact of revelation
with certitude, the answer is, we think, no. For they do not
directly prove anything except the eminent utility or goodness of
the Catholic religion. But to be able to conclude with certitude
from the goodness of a religion to its divine origin, it should be
established that this goodness, this suitability to human nature,
this power to perfect human living is so great that it completely
excludes any possibility of mere human invention.
To prove this point beyond doubt is no easy matter. And, as a
matter of fact, the immanentists themselves pay little attention to
doing so. The arguments that they offer may present valid presump­
tions; they may accidentally suffice for some men; but they do not
appear to be strictly sufficient arguments for proving the fact of
revelation. Unless the fact of revelation is established with certi­
tude, divine faith, that is, an assent given because of the authority
of God revealing, becomes impossible.
The apologetics of immanence can, therefore, be employed with
some usefulness among cultured men. In fact, in the case of men
guided by the modem mentality, as described above, such an
apologetics may perhaps be necessary to dispose them for the
acceptance of the philosophico-historical arguments. But by itself
it does not lead to a judgment of credibility which is fully and
strictly established. It can, therefore, by no means be substituted
(94)

REVEALED RELIGION

in the place of traditional apologetics; nor can the latter be con­
demned as useless and obsolete. The patrons of the method of
immanence, however, from time to time imply and even assert
openly that this should be done.
It is customary to praise the apologetics of immanence as some- 63d
thing specially suitable for men who have swallowed the Kantian
prejudices about the inability of the theoretical reason to reach
objective truth. In fact, its main proponents either subscribe to or
favor a moral dogmatism. In so far as the new apologetics is
motivated by Kantian principles, it loses all intrinsic and objective
value and can be used only as an argument ad hominem. Anyone
who holds that the theoretical reason is unable to know objective
truth can only grant such power to the practical reason by a bald
lack of logic.58
Certainly, if the conclusions of the theoretical reason give
nothing but subjective necessity, if they do not establish a thing to
be necessarily so, but only necessarily to be thought so, can the
postulates of the practical reason generate objective necessity?
Why should they not also be reduced to subjective norms of
thought? Therefore, just as often as you shall show by the argu­
ments of the Immanentists that the truth of the Catholic religion
is a postulate of the practical reason or of the religious conscious­
ness, if you likewise acknowledge the theory of the impotence of
the theoretical reason, you will have captured a Kantian, but
you will not have moved one foot towards proving the objective
truth of the Catholic religion.

Notes
1. The criteria of revelation and the premises to faith (i.e., God’s existence
and truthfulness) are similar in that both are prerequisites for anyone to attain
faith; they differ in that the criteria of revelation prove that God has spoken
or given testimony.
2. See A. de Poulpiquet, "Le solidarité apologétique des motifs de
crédibilité," in RPA, 13 (1912), 81, 161.
3. Not every assertion of philosophers or scientists is to be accepted as
an irrefutable axiom of sound reason. As the philosopher A. Whitehead notes:
"Science is even more changeable than theology. No man of science could
subscribe without qualification to Galileo’s beliefs, or to Newton’s beliefs, or
to all his own scientific beliefs of ten years ago” (Science and the Modem
World, Mentor ed. (1948), p. 182).
A divine revelation can contain truths which surpass the grasp of unaided
reason. From the two points mentioned above it is clear how wrong is the
assertion of rationalists that the sole criterion of a genuine revelation is its

(95)

THE TRUE RELIGION

jwrfcct harmony with the principles of reason. How could such a criterion be
the sole criterion of revelation since, of its very nature, it cannot prove the
"divine origin" of any revelation, but solely the truthfulness of a doctrine, and
since it cannot possibly be applied to mysteries?
4. For example, the origin of man, our subjection to evil, retribution to
God offended by sin, the immortality of the soul.
5. This position is by no means weakened because of Balaam ( Num. chs.
22-24) or Caiphas (John 11:49-52). There is simply nothing in common
between these men and founders of new religions. Nor can the assertions
made about the first herald of a revelation be applied with the same force to
later promulgators or ministers of that religion once it has been established.
The latter are not chosen directly by God Himself, and they do not cause so
great a prejudice against a religion whose revelation has already been estab­
lished. It goes without saying, however, that such men do immense harm to
the authority of the religion they teach when they live wickedly.
6. The use of armed might is as equally disreputable as fraud. The
employment of this sort of coercion is contradictory both to the normal course
of God’s providence, which treats every man with great reverence, and to the
very nature of religion, which is of no value unless it rests upon conviction
and is freely exercised. Here the only point in question is the acceptance of
God’s revelation. Obviously God, as Creator and Supreme Lord, has the right
to punish man for his crimes. That He has exercised that right, directly or
indirectly, is abundantly clear from the Old Testament and portions of the
New Testament (see Acts 5:1-11).
7. Orthodox Protestants consider miracles and prophecies vehicles of reve­
lation rather than criteria of the truthfulness of revelation. As a consequence
they say that the power of working miracles ceased once the Christian religion
had been established. See H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, I, 2nd cd.,
349, 353, 361.
8. See A. de Poulpiquet, "Quelle est la valeur de l’apologétique interne?”
in RSPT (1907), p. 449.
9. See also Canon III, 3, DB 1812. The canon was directed against those
sole or primary way of discerning the divine origin of a religion is based on
internal experience, religious feeling, private testimony received from the Holy
Spirit, the direct certitude of faith, and other criteria of the same sort.
10. Whenever we make mention of purely spiritual creatures, whether good
or evil, we are speaking hypothetically, that is, on the hypothesis that such
creatures exist. In speaking of them we shall describe them according to the
doctrine commonly held by all who admit the existence of created, pure
spirits.
11. See St. Thomas, S.T/i., 1, q. 105, a. 7, ad 3; De potentia, q. 6, a. 2,
ad 2.
12. The production of a rational soul does not in every way transcend
the effective power of nature, as the generative action of parents docs in some
sense cause the soul of the child. It does not do so, however, efficiently, but
dispositively.
13. If we read in the lives of some saints that they were endowed with
the “gift of miracles,” or were distinguished by having the "grace of powers
or cures," we should not conclude that those saints had some power, natural

(96)

REVEALED RELIGION

or supernatural, which remained in them habitually, to be turned on or off
at will. Such assertions simply mean that God frequently stirred those saints
by a transient motion to cooperate, either by prayer or by some external action,
in working a miracle. See St. Thomas loc. cit., and S.Th., Ila-IIac, q. 178,
a. 1, ad 1. See also ZkTh (1918), p. 748.
14. S.Th., I, q. 105, a. 8.
15. See St. Thomas S.C.G., III, 102; de Tonquédec, Introduction à l’étude
du merveilleux et du miracle ( 1918), pp. 239ff.
16. Many modem authors, taking miracle in this broader sense, define it
as an effect perceptible by the senses, produced by God or a good angel, and
surpassing the normal course of visible nature. . . . Ecclesiastical tribunals
themselves, in causes of canonization, acknowledge as true miracles even such
effects as good angels are thought to be able to produce by their own native
power. See Benedict XIV, De heatificatione et canonizatione servorum Dei,
IV, 1, no. 17.
17. D. F. Strauss: "Certainly one can have no clear sense of history
without an insight into the solidly linked chain of ultimate causes, and a
realization of the impossibility of miracles” (Lehen Jesu, 3rd ed., Einleit,
p. 86).—E. Renan: “That the Gospels are in part legendary is obvious from
the very fact that they are full of miracle-accounts and of the supernatural”
(Histoire des origines du Christianisme. I, Vie de Jésus, 19th ed., 48). . . . See
E. Bruncteau: "De quelques theories éliminatrices du miracle,” in RPA,
XVIII (1914), 499, 561; XIX (1915), 225, 362.
18. See De potentia, q. 6, a. 1, ad 3.
19. P. Périer, “Le miracle est-il une violation des lois de la nature?’ in
RPA, XXX (1920), 18ff.
20. See De potentia, q. 6, a. 1, ad 20. Ch. Renouvier, himself no lover of
Christianity, writes: “The knowledge we possess of natural laws cannot be
legitimately pushed to the point of allowing us to affirm that a supra-mundane
will has never produced such a phenomenon, but simply that the spontaneous
development of these laws has never produced one. Neither reason nor our
knowledge of nature’s laws obliges us to deny the possibility of miracles.
Neither have we the right to say that we may banish miracles from history in
the name of constant experience and that up to this point no miracles have
ever been proved” (Philosophie analytique de l'histoire, Il (1898), 366).
21. Thus, as Wegscheider maintains ( Institutiones theologiae Christianae
dogmaticae, Prolegomena, 1, no. 12), it is not surprising that men of a less
learned age, who were more prone to consider divine power than divine
wisdom, easily admitted the possibility of miracles; for they were not paying
attention to the fact that in extolling divine omnipotence they were them­
selves derogating from God’s infinite wisdom.
22. It is, therefore, plainly unreasonable for Paulsen to write: “Miracles
are contrivances whereby the universe gets put back in order again from out­
side” (System der Ethik (1889), p. 343).
23. On this point read Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, II, 4th ed.
(1944), art. 3, 58-92.
24. See Kneller, “Wunder und Evangelienkritik,” in Stimmen, v. 54
(1898) p. 117; G. Mattiussi, “Cognoscibilità del miracolo," in La scuola
cattolica (1908), pp. 277, 435, 608, 704; J. Guibert “Pour voir un miracle,”
in RPA, v. 7 (1908), p. 439; Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., v. 11, pp. 89-92.
(97)

THE TRUE RELIGION

25. The proposition signed by Bautain (Sept. 8, 1840) also pertains to
this point: "The proof of the Christian revelation drawn from the miracles
of Christ which astonished the senses and minds of eye-witnesses has not lost
its power or brilliance for later generations. The same proof is found in the
oral and written tradition of all Christians. It is by this twofold tradition that
one must demonstrate the Christian revelation both to those who reject it
and to those who, without admitting the fact, are searching for it” (DB 1624).
26. See Beysens, Critériologie, 2nd cd., pp. 320ff, R. 1’. Phillips, Modern
Thomistic Philosophy, II, 271.
27. J. Tonquédec "La critique du témoignage en matière du merveilleux,”
in RSR (1916), p. 50.
28. Well worth reading on this point is de Smcdt, Principes de hi critique
historique.
29. Renan: "We shall, then, stand by this principle of historical criticism,
that an account of supernatural occurrences cannot be admitted as such,
because it always implies cither gullibility or fraud" (op. cit., p. 98).
30. See RAP 38 (1924), 344.
31. See Beysens, Cosmologie, pp. 275ff.
32. J. Charcot, in his little work, Faith-Healing, states that a perfect
trust, engendered by natural means, that one will recover health is sufficient
to explain all the cures which have actually occurred on pilgrimages and the
like. ... On the power of the imagination see St. Thomas, S.Th., Ill, q. 13,
a. 3 ad 3; S.C.G., III, 99; De potentia, q. 6, a. 3 ad 7; De main, q. 4, a. 8. ad 13.
Worth reading are Gutberlet, Lehrbuch der Apologetik, II, 2nd ed. 115—
128, and J. B. Kettenmeyer, “Wunder und Suggestion,” Der Katholik (1911),
p. 344.
In English, for an excellent treatment of this whole problem see L. de
Crandmaison, Jesus Christ, III, 142-150. For case histories of weird phenom­
ena, whether produced by supernatural, preternatural, or psychic causes, see
the eminent authority Herbert Thurston, The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism
(1952). This work is more concerned with presenting data than explaining
it. For a brief treatment of the usefulness of suggestion in psychotherapy see
Psychiatry and Catholicism, by J. H. Vandervelt and R. P. Odenwald (1952),
Ch. VI.
As a sample of the absurd arguments used by some champions of unbelief
in their attempts to abolish miracles we shall quote from Renan’s Vie de Jesus:
“Practically all the miracles that Jesus is believed to have worked would
appear to have been miracles of healing. Medicine in the Judea of his era
was in the same state as it still is today in the Orient, that is, completely
unscientific. In such a state of knowledge, the presence of a superior man
who treats the sick person with gentleness and assures him by some visible
signs that he will recover is often enough a decisive remedy. Who would dare
to say that in many cases, and especially those without well-defined lesions,
that contact with an exquisite person is not as powerful as the resources of
a medicine-chest? Tire very pleasure of seeing such a person cures! He gives
what he can: a smile, a hope and it is not in vain”! (Origines du Christianisme,
I, 270).
33. See A. Bros, “Comment constater le miracle,” in Annales de phil­
osophie Chrétienne, 77 (1906), 250.

(98)

REVEALED RELIGION

34. See, for example, Matthew 24:24; Mark 13:22; Deuteronomy 13:1-3.
35. See, for example, Exodus 7:3-12; 8:16-19.
36. See H. Lesêtre, "La valeur probante du miracle" in RCF 56 (1908),
257; Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione II, (1944), 94-97.
37. Evidently, when dealing with people of such mind, one should proceed
prudently. At least in the beginning one should use other arguments better
suited for them. See G. J. J. Louwerens, Thaumatophobie of Wondervrees,
1912.
38. Even though God does not usually make use of men who follow a
false religion to work a miracle, strictly speaking He can do so provided it is
apparent from the circumstances that the religion of the wonder-worker is not
given God’s guarantee by that miracle. Consequently, Benedict XIV approved
the following conclusions: "He [God] worked a genuine miracle in confirma­
tion of the man’s personal faith; therefore that man had true faith.” But by
no means was the following conclusion approved: “He [God] worked a
miracle; therefore the faith professed by that man is the true faith” (De
canonizatione, 1.1V, c. 4. no. 6); see S.Th., II-II. q. 178, a. 2, and 3; GarrigouLagrange, op. cit., II, objection no. 6, p. 97; RPA, XIII (1912), 479; Pastor
Bonus, XXVII (1915), 392 and 449; DAFC under the heading, “Guérisons
miraculeuses.”
For a treatment of the prodigies at the tomb of the deacon, de Paris, see
DAFC under the heading “Convulsionnaires." For· the remarkable accounts of
Aesculapius see Studien 59 (1902), 367; RCF (1917-18). Many miraculous
healings are narrated of John Serguieff, commonly known as Father John of
Cronstadt, a Russian priest. That the facts are historical is not absolutely
certain, but even if they are genuine, they at least do not prove anything in
favor of schismatic doctrine, but simply in favor of those truths which the
Russian Church has retained of the Catholic religion; see Jean de Cronstadt,
Ma vie en Jésus-Christ, published by A. Staerck.
39. This manner of acting is, of course, presumed to be morally good
from every point; otherwise any special help of God is excluded a priori.
40. See St. Thomas S.Th., lla-IIae, q. 171-174; De veritate, q. 12; J.
Touzard, Comment utiliser l'argument prophétique (1911); C. Pesch, Theologische Zeitfrage, V, 82-115; Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, Il (1944),
XX, 98-124.
41. St. Thomas less correctly derives the term prophet "from pro, which is
procul [from afar] and phonos, which means an apparition, because far-off
things become apparent to them [the prophets]” (S. Th., Ila-IIae, q. 171,
a. 1).
42. See Numbers 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 11:4-5; 14 passim.
43. That is the explanation, for example, of the usage in Matthew 26:68:
"Prophesy to us, O Christ! who is it that struck thee?"
44. Some examples of ambiguous prophecy are: "Croesus, in crossing the
Halys River, will overthrow the vast power of wealth” (his own wealth, or
that of his enemies?); *T say that you, Aeacida (Pyrrhus), can conquer the
Romans” ( the same sentence, since it is in the accusative with infinitive con­
struction in Latin, can also be translated: "I say that the Romans can conquer
you, Aeacida"). Worthy of note are Cicero’s remarks about the Oracles of
Apollo: “Chryssipus has filled a whole volume with your oracles [the oracles
(99)

THE THUE RELIGION

of Apollo], which arc, in my opinion, partly false anti by chance partly true,
ns happens frequently in any sort of utterance. Some of the oracles are doublemeaning and so obscure that the interpreter himself needs an interpreter, and
the response of the Oracle must be resubmitted to the Oracles; and some of
them are ambiguous and must be submitted to dialectical analysis” (De
divinatione, If, 56). Even though the pagan oracles were usually combinations
of ambiguity and fraud, they should not all be attributed to the wiles of the
pagan priest, since they were also uttered frequently by the aid of devils.
See Acts 16:16; Minucius Felix, Octavius, n. 26ff; Cyprian, De idolorum
vanitate, c. VII; Cicero, De divinatione, 1, 9.
In regard to the Sibylline Books the following points are important.
Sibyll (Sios = Dios boulé = God's wisdom?) was thought by the pagans to
be a nymph who announced the gods’ decisions relating to nations and king­
doms. At first there was but one Sibyll, but by Cicero's time some ten Sibylls
are mentioned. The collection of oracles which once circulated among the
pagans under the name of the Sibylls, have all perished except for a few frag­
ments which we find in Plutarch and others. The twelve Sibylline books
extant today (I-V1II and XI-XIV) were written at different times between
200 B.C. and 300 A.D. by unknown writers, some of whom were Jews and
others Christians. See Kirchenlexicon under the heading "Sybillinische Bucher”;
RB (1904) p. 627; Pastor Bonus XXXI (1919), 337; Scholastik (1929), p. 54;
DAFC under the heading "Sibylles.”
45. It is thus apparent that a prophecy is a miracle, not of power, but of
knowledge. It is an intellectual miracle and may be either absolute or relative.
46. See S.Th., loc. cit., q. 173, a. 2; RSPT (1914) p. 218.
47. Suarez: “The gift of prophecy perfects a man in a way that is both
human and perfect: but to speak without any understanding of what one is
saying does not confer anything to human perfection; rather it is characteristic
of those who are temporarily deranged, or are dreaming, and sometimes of
those who lack the use of reason entirely” (De fide, d. 8, s. 4, no. 1).
48. An imaginary vision has joined to it a disengagement from sense­
perceptions. St. Thomas, S.Th., Ila-IIae, q. 173, a. 3. It is clear that this
disengagement from sense-perceptions, which occurs in states of ecstasy and
rapture, is diametrically opposed to mental disorders.
49. Wegscheider mentions this opinion in his Institutiones theologicae,
I, c. 2, no. 50.
50. These points about prophecy itself and God’s foreknowledge we have
mentioned precisely insofar as they are knowledge. We are not unaware
of the fact that God’s knowledge together with His will is the cause of things.
In fact, God not only foresees future events, He also prepares them to come
to pass. Even in so doing He does not destroy human liberty. Divine provi­
dence regulates not only the effects but also the causes of those effects and
the particular ways in which they will be produced. Just as God provides
that I do something at a particular time, so also He provides for my doing it
freely. See St. Thomas, S.C.G., III, 93. Let none be disturbed by the manner
of speech employed in Sacred Scripture: this was done in order that the
prophecy might be fulfilled (see Matthew 1:22; John 19:36). The scriptural
manner of speech should be explained in this wise: first, God decreed that this
event should some day take place; then, because He had so decreed, He fore­

( 100)

REVEALED RELIGION

told its occurrence; and after foretelling it He brought about its accomplish­
ment both in order to carry out His own design and at the same time to
manifest that He tells the truth and is faithful to His promises, without,
however, in any way destroying man’s free will.
For a full treatment of the problem of reconciling Cod's foreknowledge
and man's free will, see works directly interested in that problem, for example,
Van Noort’s De Deo Uno el Trino, no. 70-98.
51. Since we are dealing with the recognizability of prophecy insofar as
it acts as a criterion of revelation, we restrict our discussion exclusively to
those prophecies which have been fulfilled by the event. For a prophecy which
has not yet been fulfilled is of no use in demonstrating the fact of a divine
mission or of a divine revelation. However, the philosophical truth of a
prophecy that is still to be fulfilled can sometimes he known with certitude.
For example, think of a prophecy backed up by a miracle, or of a prophecy
uttered by someone whose divine mission has already been established on
other grounds.—A prophecy which does not tally with events is by that very
fact proved false, unless there is question of a conditioned prophecy, such as
is often the case with prophecies of a threatening nature (see Jonas 3:4;
Isaias 38), even though the condition may not be expressed as such. See
S.Th., Ila-IIae, q. 174, a. 1; S.C.G., HI, 155.
52. See above, no. 51. Read, for example, 2 Esdras 6:12ff. . . . Conse­
quently, in the case of visions or predictions brought about by trances, hyp­
notism and spiritualism, the intervention of God or of a good angel is ruled
out by the very circumstances. Certainly God is not in the habit of using
hypnotists as His instruments, nor do they themselves maintain that they are
being aided by God. The manner whereby spiritualists conduct their perform­
ances is often enough morally blameworthy, or at least indecorous. As a final
point, supernatural gifts are not fuel for human curiosity or vanity, nor are
they given that their recipients may make money. Whatever is certainly
genuine in the shows of spiritualists must be explained on natural grounds,
or if it is morally certain that purely natural means cannot explain what takes
place, then the work of an evil angel must be taken into account.
But, as Ottiger sanely observes, among the matters alleged to be revealed
in a hypnotic state, or by spiritualism, one finds nothing the knowledge of
which would surpass all created intelligence. Rather, all such items are
founded upon the knowledge of things already existent, but hidden, or at most
upon such things as could be known by relative prophecy. ( Theologia funda­
mentalis, I, 252).
Worth reading on this point are Gutbcrlet, Lehrbuch der Apologetik, II,
2nd ed., 147-200 and Reinhold, Theologia fundamentalis, I, 206.
53. M. Blondel, L’Action (1893); Lettre sur les exigences de la pensée
contemporaine en matière d’apologétique ( 1896 ) ; Ch. Denis, Esquisse d’une
apologie philosophique du Christianisme (1898); Laberthonnière, Essais de
philosophie religieuse (1903), etc.
Worth reading on this matter are: Schanz, Neuere Versuche der Apol­
ogetik (1897), and the Tiibinger Quartals. (1903); Pesch, Theologische Zeitfragen, I, 66; le Bachelet, L’Apologétique traditionnelle et l’apologétique mod­
erne (1897); J. v. de Groot, Summa apologetica, 3rd. ed. p. 10; H. Mazzella,
Praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae, III, 3rd ed., 626; Gardeil, La crédibilité

( 101 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

et l'apologétique, 2nd cd. (1928); DAFC under the headings "Apologétique"
and "Immanence"; DTC under the heading "Apologétique ; J. de Tonqnédec,
Immanence (1913, written against Blondel); Rev. de philosoph. (1913), p.
286. Studicn. 62 (1904). 382; 63 ( 1904). 427; 72 (1909). 259. 555. RI’A
XII (1911), 641, 837; XIII (1912), 270. 749; A. de Ponlpiqnet, L'ohfet
integral de L'apologétique (1911).
For more recent treatments of the same subject see Garrigou-Lagrange,
op. cit. I, 121-128. On page 128 he gives a list of articles written by himself
in which he has critically examined the more recent publications of Blondel;
La pensée (1934), L'Etre et les êtres (1935), and L’action (2nd ed., com­
pletely revised), v. 1 (1936), v. II (1937).
See also Nicolau and Salaverri, Sacrae theologiae summa, I, 2nd cd.
(1952) no. 138, 150-154.
For an excellent historical review of the milieu in which the method of
immanence took root, together with a judicious appraisal of what is worth­
while in the movement, sec Rogert Aubert, Le problème de L'acte de foi,
Part 2, c. 3, “Les controverses autour de la méthode d’immanence,” 2nd ed.
(1950), pp. 265-392.
54. Some writers, like Ollé-Laprune (La prix de la vie) and G. Fonsegrive (Le Catholicisme et la vie de l'esprit), are in agreement with the
immanentists only insofar as they personally prefer "the intellectual and moral
suitability of Christianity” and its “identity with the laws of life” to all other
criteria. In short, they admit the ontological priority of the speculative reason
over the practical, and its ability to reach truth with certitude; they admit
the objective validity of the proof by external criteria, but simply have a
preference for the internal criteria as a means of bringing modem men to the
Church. See Studicn, as cited above; Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., I, 114.
55. This idea was already condemned by St. Pius V (see DB 1021, 1024,
under the errors of Baius), and St. Pius X condemned any method which
attempts to demonstrate that a need for the supernatural order is inherent in
human nature:
But here we must once more bitterly lament the fact that there arc
Catholics who, though rejecting Immanence as a doctrine, employ it
as a method of apologetics and do so with so little caution that they seem
to admit that there is in human nature not merely a capacity and suit­
ability for the supernatural order (something that Catholic apologists
have always noted, but with proper reservations) but an inborn need
truly deserving the name need (Encyclical Pascendi, DB 2103).
56. See, for example, Beysens, Critériologie, 2nd ed., pp. 240ff; Phillips,
op. cit.

Special Bibliography for Miracles
St. Thomas: Summa theologiae, I, q. 105, articles 6-8. Summa
contra gentiles, III, 98ff. De potentia, q. 6. G. Sichirollo has
gathered together various texts of St. Thomas on miracles in
his Nomenclatura tomistica nella teoria del miraculo ( 1909 ).
Aies, A. d’: Article “Miracle” in the Dictionnaire apologétique
de la foi Catholique.
( 102)

REVEALED RELIGION

Garrigou-Lagrange: De revelatione, II, 4th ed. (1944), 32-97.
Grandmaison, Léonce de. "Les signes divines et les miracles"
in Recherches de science religieuse (1914), p. 105.
Hove, A. van: Ln doctrine du miracle chez S. Thomas et son
accord avec les principes de la recherche scientifique (1927).
Michel. Article "Miracle" in the Dictionnaire de théologie cath­
olique.
Poulpiquet, A. de. Le miracle et scs suppléances (1913).
Sortais, G.: La providence et le miracle devant le science mod­
erne (1905).
Tonquédec, J. de: Introduction a Vétude du merveilleux et du
miracle, 3rd ed. (1923).
Tessen-Weisierski, F. von: Die Crundlagen des Wunderbegriffs
nach Thomas v. Aquin.
Zacchi, A.: Il miracolo (1923).
English Works:
Chesterton, G.: Orthodoxy, pp. 278-284.
Knox, Ronald: The Hidden Stream, especially chapter 11 “Mir­
acles.”
Lattey, C. and Manson, A.: “Miracles,” Religion and Science
(Cambridge Summer School Lectures, 1939).
Lewis, C. S.: Miracles (1947).
Messenger, E. C.: “The Miraculous Element in the Bible,”
Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1951), nos. 87a91c.
Newman, J. H.: Essay on the Miracles of Scripture (1870).
Phillips, R. P.: Modern Thomistic Philosophy, II (1950), 352363.

( 103)

SECTION II

The Truth of the Christian-Catholic Religion
I. Preliminary Remarks: Definition of Terms.
II. Divisions of this Section:
a. The sublimity of the Christian-Catholic religion;
b. Christ’s own divine mission;
c. The divine origin of Christ’s work, that is, of the ChristianCatholic religion;
d. The divine prophecies about Christ and His work.
Chapter I. The Sublimity of the Christian-Catholic Relicion
Preliminary Remarks.
Proposition 1: From no viewpoint is Christian-Catholic
doctrine unworthy of God. Moreover, it is so sublime that
it seems to be altogether beyond the power of human
invention.
Proof of the first point: Catholic doctrine is not unworthy
of God.
1. The sublimity of Catholic doctrine.
a. It is a complete and full system of religion.
b. It is an extremely holy system of religion.
c. It is a very beautiful system of religion.
d. It is an extremely wholesome system of religion.
Corollary.
2. This sublimity cannot be attributed to mere human
genius.
a. It teaches natural religion fully, surely, truly.
b. It adds to natural religion.
c. It contains many mysteries, yet does not contradict
reason.
d. It is suitable for all minds, all nationalities; and it is
extremely wholesome.
The explanations based on evolution from:
1. Jewish religion, and
2. syncretism
are inadequate.

( 105)

SECTION II

The Truth of the Christian-Catholic Religion

Now that the preliminary questions have been clarified, it 64
remains to prove that there actually exists in the world a religion
revealed by God: Christianity as professed by the Catholic Church.
The Christian revelation was not completed and perfected
except through Jesus Christ, from whom it takes its name. That
revelation can, in a certain sense, be traced back to our First
Parents.1 Using the term “Christian religion” in a broad sense, one
may distinguish three eras.
1. The primitive religion. This was based on the revelations
made to the First Parents and the Patriarchs, to whom Christ was
promised, however obscurely. This is called the era of the natural
*
law.
2. The Mosaic religion. This belonged to one nation alone, the
Jews. Moses was the divine messenger who brought this religion
to his people, and the prophets developed and enriched it. Its main
purpose was to prepare the way for the coming of Christ and the
universal religion He would establish. This is known as the era of
the Mosaic Law.
3. The Christian religion in the strict sense. This was promul­
gated by Christ and His Apostles for the entire world and for all
time. In the concrete it is none other than the religion of the
Catholic Church. This, the era in which we live, is called the era
of the Gospel Law.
The ideal method of procedure here would be to demonstrate 65
individually the divine origin of the primitive, of the Mosaic, and
of the Christian religion. This approach is the most scientific, but
it is also the most lengthy. On that account, the demonstration of
the primitive and Mosaic religions will be omitted here.2 After the
• The phrase “era of the natural law” does not mean that the people of
that time lived exclusively under the natural law. Such a meaning would
exclude entirely any revelation. The phrase is used to distinguish it from the
era of the Mosaic Law. The era of the natural law lasted up to the promulga­
tion of the Gospel Law for such peoples as did not belong to the Israelite
nation. See W. Schmidt, Die Uroffenbamng als Anfang der Offenbarungen
Gottes, 5th ed., Kempten, 1923.

(107)

THE THUE RELIGION

proof of the divine origin of the Christian religion in the strict
sense, a brief discussion of those preparatory revelations which
Christ Himself acknowledged and confirmed as divine in origin
will be added in an appendix.
The demonstration of the Christian religion will make it clear
that the divine religion instituted by Christ is none other than the
religion of the Catholic Church. In short, the demonstration of the
Christian religion will be at the same time a demonstration of the
Catholic religion.
It is one thing to show that the religion professed by the
Catholic Church is the divine religion established by Christ; it is
quite another to explore the establishment and constitution of the
Church as an ecclesiastical society. Here the discussion centers on
the first point; the second is left for a separate work, Christ’s
Church.
The opponents of this thesis are not only orthodox Protestants
who deny the divine origin of the Catholic religion, but also liberal
Protestants and Modernists, who deny Christ’s divinity and main­
tain that He taught no definite body of doctrine, but started a
sort of religious movement that was adapted, or should be adapted,
to varying ages and places.3
The subject-matter of this section embraces four chapters. The
first proves the divine origin of the Christian-Catholic religion by
internal criteria; the others demonstrate the same fact by external
criteria, each in a different way. The second chapter presents argu­
ments which directly prove Christ’s own divine mission and thereby
affords a brief and provisory proof of the divine origin of the
Christian-Catholic religion. The third chapter offers arguments to
prove directly the divine origin of Christ’s work, which is the
Christian-Catholic religion. Chapter four corroborates both Christ’s
own divine mission and the divine truth of the Catholic religion by
a consideration of the Messianic prophecies.
66
The Catholic Church claims that her doctrine comes from the
divine revelation promulgated by Christ and His Apostles. She
maintains that Christ was sent by God to found a religion and
that she has truly received a mandate from Christ to guard and
preach that religion to the end of time.
Chapter 1. The sublimity of the Christian-Catholic religion
The teaching of the Catholic Church, if examined attentively,
is found to be so marvelously sublime that it is altogether credible,
( 108)

SUBLIMITY OF CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION

and indeed quite probable, that it has come from God. At a min­
imum, every fair-minded man has an obligation to investigate
more closely the arguments which her defenders offer in behalf of
her divine origin.

Chapter 2. Christ's own divine mission
It is clear from both oral and written tradition that Christ
claimed to be a divine messenger. This claim is proved by the
extraordinary holiness of Christ Himself, the fulfillment of His
prophecies, the miracles wrought by Him, and His resurrection
from the dead. Since Christ’s claim to be a divine messenger is
true, then the religion founded by Him is divine in origin. Christ’s
religion was entrusted to the Catholic Church, and to it alone, for
its guardianship and promulgation.

Chapter 3. The divine origin of Christ's work (the ChristianCatholic religion)
The Catholic Church claims that she was founded by Christ
as the guardian and teacher of His revelation and that the religion
she preaches is Christ’s own divine religion. This claim is proved by
many miracles in the physical order, the wonderful spread and
preservation of Christ’s religion, the magnificent harvest of sanctity
which it has produced, and the remarkable heroism of its martyrs.
Consequently the religion of the Catholic Church is truly divine
in origin, and Christ’s own divine mission is indirectly confirmed,
as He was the founder of this divine religion.
Chapter 4. The divine prophecies about Christ and His work
Long before the coming of Christ there were written in the
sacred books of the Jews various promises about a certain extraor­
dinary messenger of God and about the universal and indestructible
spiritual kingdom He would establish—the Messianic prophecies.
Those prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ and in the Catholic
religion. Their fulfillment shows that they were true prophecies,
uttered under divine inspiration. They validly corroborate both
Christ’s own divine mission and the divine truth of the Catholic
religion. That man whom God Himself has approved as His own
messenger is truly a genuine one, and that religion is certainly a
divine work which has long beforehand been promised as the
kingdom of His Messias.

(109)

CHAPTER 1

The Sublimity of Christian-Catholic Religion

The argument derived from the sublimity of Christian doctrine 67
can be presented in either of two ways. 1. One can describe only
those points of the Christian doctrine which all Christians have
received from Christ and thereby conclude that such a doctrine is
in a general way beyond the power of human invention and that
it was certainly beyond the power of Christ to ίηνβηζ since He
was not even an educated man. 2. One can examine the entire
doctrine taught by the Catholic Church (omitting for the time
being the question whether or not the whole body of doctrine
in all its parts comes from Christ) and thence conclude that such
doctrine, no matter who its original author was, cannot be a
product of mere human genius.
Those who follow the first method can present only an incoher­
ent doctrine, as there are a vast number of things which are occa­
sions for disagreement among the various Christian sects: did
Christ Himself teach this or not? did He mean this doctrine to be
understood in this sense or in another? To avoid these incon­
veniences and to present our argument as one directly in favor of
the Christian-Catholic religion, this presentation will follow the
second method of approach. The purpose of this chapter is to show
that Catholic doctrine, considered in its sublimity, is at least quite
probably divine in origin. The words “at least quite probably” are
used because an appreciation of internal criteria depends to some
extent on the subjective temperament and disposition of the
examiner. Consequently one could not grant these criteria a strictly
demonstrative power. The principal aim of the present chapter is
to prepare the mind to discuss the external arguments more readily
and to weigh them objectively and justly.
Proposition: From no point-of-view is Christian-Catholic doctrine 68
unworthy of God; indeed, it is so marvelously sublime that it
seems to be altogether beyond the power of human discovery.
The proposition has two parts. By applying negative internal
criteria, the first shows that the doctrine in question could have a

(111)

THE TRUE RELIGION

divine origin. By applying positive internal criteria, the second
renders the divine origin of that doctrine at least highly plausible,
even if it does not absolutely demonstrate such a divine origin.
Proof of the first point: Christian-Catholic doctrine is not
unworthy of God
The doctrine of Christ, within a few years of its origin, spread
even to the more civilized nations, and waxed strong among those
peoples who far surpassed others in civilization and in the pursuit
of knowledge. Furthermore, Christ’s doctrine always found numer­
ous and fierce opponents, of whom many were exceptionally bril­
liant.4 Though this doctrine was subjected to the strictest sort of
examination a thousand times, no one could ever prove that it was
in any way contrary to sound reason or good morals. In fact, with
the exception of those who were so incensed by their passions or
blinded by prejudices that they did not even refrain from obvious
calumny, its opponents usually granted that nowhere were the
theoretical and practical truths which belong to natural religion
taught in purer form than in Christianity. Rationalists, of course,
by common consent sneer at all truths not positively clear to
reason and term them contrary to reason; in this, however, they
are following not reason, but prejudice. The particular arguments
by which rationalists try to show that some Christian dogmas, such
as the Blessed Trinity or the Holy Eucharist, are contradictory to
reason are dealt with in their own proper places in the course
of dogmatic theology. They cannot be treated adequately here,
because they require a much more accurate exposition of dogma.
It is enough at this point simply to make the following general
observation: the semblance of a contradiction between the teach­
ings of the faith and the conclusions of reason will almost always
be found to take its origin from the fact that

. . . either the dogmas of the faith have not been grasped and
presented according to the mind of the Church, or that opinions
and guesses have been mistaken for axioms of reason (DB
1797).

69 Proof of the second point: Christian-Catholic doctrine seems to
be utterly beyond the power of human discovery
To prove this it must be shown that: 1. Christian-Catholic
doctrine is actually sublime; and 2. it is so sublime that it could
hardly, indeed, in no wise, be attributed to merely natural causes.
(112)

SUBLIMITY OF CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION

I. The sublimity of Catholic doctrine
a. It is a complete and full system of religion. In addition to
teaching a complete system of natural religion with great purity
and certitude, it also supplies abundantly for the lacunae that are
found in natural religion (for example, its teachings on the manner
in which God should be worshipped, about the way of obtaining
forgiveness of sins, etc., and it solves with great adroitness the
deepest problems which trouble every human mind. One need
merely point out its doctrines about the origin of the world, the
common origin of all from one parent, the cause of misfortunes in
the life and the internal struggle common to all men, the doctrine
about man’s condition in the life to come, and many others. With
good reason St. Thomas could assert:
Not one of the philosophers before the coming of Christ, no
matter how hard he struggled to do so, could learn as much
about God and matters necessary for eternal life, as one poor
old lady can know by faith after Christ’s coming. Hence it is
said in Isaias 11:9: the earth is filled with the knowledge of the
Lord (Expositio symboli, art. I).5

b. It is an extremely holy system of religion. Consider its 79
standard of sanctity. Presenting the noblest doctrine about God
as the all-loving Father of all men, it offers as the supreme standard
of all morality: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole
heart . . . and thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 23:37, 39). From this
standard flow all man’s duties to God, to his neighbors, and to
himself.
Duties towards God. Man is taught to seek His glory in all
things and before all else, to seek Him with love and awe, to place
in Him perfect confidence, casting aside anxiety about earthly
affairs, to imitate His infinite perfections with all his human
strength.
Duties towards neighbors. Man is commanded to love his neigh­
bors for the sake of God with a brotherly love that excludes all
injustice, all harsh words, and even unkind judgments. This love is
to embrace not only benefactors, friends, and fellow-citizens, but
it is to include also foreigners, enemies, and persecutors. This is to
be a practical love which will move him to run to the aid of the
poor and downtrodden. What is more, it will move him to lay down
his life for his brothers, if need be.
(Π3)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Duties towards self. All men are commanded, in acknowledg­
ment of their own dignity, to abstain from the vices of the world,
to bear misfortune patiently, to avoid vainglory, to treat their
bodies with the reverence fitting God’s temples, and to place the
care of their souls before all other interests. These injunctions, in
proportionate measure, are given to all Catholics as necessary com­
mandments.
To foster a still higher form of perfection and to attract gen­
erous souls to the very heights of sanctity there are added to the
commandments the counsels of obedience, poverty, and chastity,
which open a fuller and safer road to Christian perfection.®
Consider the means of sanctity. It is deeply impressed on indi­
viduals that to be able to lead a life worthy of the Christian name
there is always at hand power from high, ready to supplement the
weakness of human strength. This power is the manifold grace of
God which Christ, dying on the cross, merited for all men, which
He constantly offers to individuals in many ways, especially in the
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Man is ordered to come with confidence
to the throne of grace that by frequent prayer he may obtain help
at an opportune time. To make up for his poor dispositions and at
the same time to give a sort of visible guarantee that grace has been
received, there are the sacraments which admirably correspond to
all the necessities of the spiritual life.
Consider the stimuli to sanctity. Before the eyes of all are held
up the most perfect Model of sanctity, Christ Himself, and the
strongest sanction possible. The good have promised to them in this
life peace of conscience and spiritual joy; in the hereafter a life
which is eternal, whose pure delights, worthy of both God and
man, are such that eye has never gazed upon, nor ear heard, nor
mind ever imagined their like. On the other hand, to inculcate a
saving fear in evil-doers, eternal punishment is threatened.7
71
c. It is a very beautiful system of religion. This beauty derives
from the unity and perfect consistency of its doctrines.8 Its specu­
lative dogmas are indissolubly interlinked with one another in such
a way that one flows from the other, one calls for and presupposes
another. Think of the mystery of the Redemption which gives life
to all Christianity. This mystery supposes, on the one hand, the
mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the privileges of the
Blessed Virgin Mary. On the other hand, it supposes the dogmas
concerning original sin and the elevation of man to the super­
natural order. Similarly, from the dogma of the Redemption are

(114)

SUBLIMITY OF Cil R I ST I A N-C ATHOLIC RELIGION

derived the doctrines concerning the Church, the Mystical Body of
Christ, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the sacraments, and the adoption
of men as sons by God (an adoption now imperfect by grace, to
be made perfect by glory). Again, the dogmas mentioned above in
many ways presuppose, are related to, and throw light on, truths
of the natural order. The mystery of the Trinity necessarily sup­
poses a God who is purely spiritual, having infinite intelligence and
will; the dogma of the Redemption admirably demonstrates the jus­
tice, wisdom, and goodness of God, and holds as already evident
the freedom of man; the doctrine of original sin necessarily implies
the common origin of all men from a common parent and offers an
explanation for the miseries of this life; the doctrine of glorification
includes the truths that the soul is immortal and that man’s final
destiny consists in the knowledge and love of God. Because of this
deep consistency of doctrine, heresies usually tend by their own
weight to fall into dissolution: the rejection of one truth or of a
few truths makes the whole edifice of doctrine begin to totter.
There is an indissoluble connection between the theoretical
dogmas and the moral precepts. The latter either arise from the
former, or are strengthened by them, or receive their sanction from
them. Usually bom of the theoretical truths of natural religion, the
moral precepts receive new and extremely valid motives of obliga­
tion from the mysteries. What could more stir a man to love God
above all things than the dogmas of the Incarnation and adoptive
filiation? What could more strongly urge a man to love his neighbor
than the common redemption of all men through Jesus Christ?
What could more powerfully move a man to sobriety and chastity
than a reflection on the Eucharistic blood received into our very
bodies, and on the Holy Spirit dwelling within us? With good
reason, then, can one compare Christian ethics without Christian
dogma to a house without a foundation.
Christian-Catholic doctrine is sublime because it is suitable
to every type of mind and every nationality. It is so profound that
even after nineteen centuries it offers to learned men inexhaustible
material for thought and meditation, always opening up new vistas
to their minds, ever attracting their hearts with new delights. Yet,
at the same time, it is so simple that even the uneducated may
easily learn it and love it sincerely. Do not little children have the
deepest mysteries explained to them in a few words? Do not
unlearned men receive a sure and clear solution of the deepest
problems which even the greatest geniuses cannot discover on
(115)

THE TRUE RELIGION

their own? Do not business men, manual laborers, and housewives,
the healthy and the handicapped, old people and school children
approach Holy Communion with a devotion equal to that of the
learned theologian?9 For this reason Christian doctrine has been
compared to a river in which both the lamb may gambol and the
elephant swim.10 It is suitable also for all nationalities, because all
its dogmas and all its commandments refer equally to all nations;
no nation is preferred to any other. Furthermore, Christianity has
no regulations which bind it to any particular place—it sharply
distinguishes religion from politics—nor is it shackled to a par­
ticular form of government.
72
d. It is an extremely wholesome system of religion, admirably
designed to promote the happiness both of individual men and of
society. What has been said already goes far to establish this
matter. A religion which is suitable to every type of mind, which
satisfactorily answers the legitimate questions of the human intel­
lect and at the same time strikingly fosters human holiness is
definitely a happy religion. Otherwise one must concede that what
aptly fits man’s nature does not lead men to happiness. How could
a religion fail to foster the happiness of individual men, when that
religion teaches a man to resist his passions and concupiscences, to
bear the hardships of life with manly courage, to be content with
life’s necessities, and to acknowledge the governance of a fatherly
providence in all things? How could a religion fail to foster the
happiness of society, when that religion strongly urges those very
virtues that establish peace and harmony among men: humility,
patience, obedience? When it commands all to lend aid to their
neighbors, defends the full sanctity of marriage, vindicates the
legitimate use of both domestic and public authority, and at the
same time forbids every abuse of that same authority with a warn­
ing about the strictest sort of judgment by a Divine Avenger?

72a Corollary
In these days especially, some people object that Christianity,
or at least Catholicism, offers an obstacle to gracious living and
economic progress because it prescribes “flight from the world,”
praises poverty, and so forth. This objection is utterly groundless.
Christianity, in teaching man his absolutely final goal—to serve
God in this life, and to enjoy Him in the next, by no means excludes
other goals, even though they are intermediate and subordinate.
(116)

SUBLIMITY OF CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION

But it is perfectly legitimate for men continually to aspire to a more
perfect use and exercise of all their powers, both bodily and
spiritual, and to be busy constantly about the job of subjecting
material things more fully to their control. Are we not clearly
instructed that man, the image of God, was made by God to be
lord over all irrational creatures? That is why the Catholic religion
neither discredits nor condemns anything designed to serve the
well-being of people. Indeed, precisely because it so deeply under­
stands that men in general are greatly hindered from the pursuit
of virtue by indigence and poverty, the Catholic religion ardently
longs for all to have a decent share of temporal goods. Catholicism
forbids only the immoderate or disordered use and pursuit of
earthly goods.
If it is asked whether Catholicism also gives a positive motive
for a more intense pursuit of material goods, a distinction must be
made. Catholicism does not directly and ei professo urge men to
pursuits of this sort. And quite rightly, for it is a religion to which
was entrusted the care not of temporal, but of eternal affairs. Men
rarely need any urging to make them pursue earthly goods with
great zest. Indirectly, though, the Church does a great deal to
foster economic progress by condemning sloth, carousing, extrava­
gance, and avarice, by instructing every man about the duties of
his state in life, by ordering all men to practice justice, honesty, and
charity. That is why, all else being equal, a society dedicated to
materialism, and thirsting exclusively after material goods, may
amass more abundant riches, but a Christian society will more
successfully promote the common prosperity of its citizens. Even
if one consider exclusively material goods, it does little good for a
country to have its wealth immensely increased by multiplying and
perfecting its means of production, unless at the same time all
classes of society obtain a proportionate share of the wealth.
But the Catholic Church applauds poverty! True; but what does
this mean? She does not praise or yearn for a social milieu in which
the majority of the citizens would be oppressed by poverty. She
does praise voluntary poverty; that is, she praises those who put
aside all zeal for earthly riches and live only for God and their
neighbor. These people, although despised by a number of men
who ridicule what they fail to understand, do a great service to
human society. They help society by the works of charity they
undertake, or by the prayers, penances, and example with which
( Π7)

THE TRUE RELIGION

they soften Gods anger and restrain other men from a disordered
desire for things of this earth.
*
73 II. Catholic doctrine is so sublime that it cannot be referred
solely to the discovery of human genius
a. Catholic doctrine teaches natural religion with great fullness,
with perfect certitude, and without any error. So perfect a knowl­
edge of the entire field of natural religion is so difficult a task that
it seems morally impossible, at least in the broad sense of the term,
for any human intelligence to attain it. (See number 23.) It is at
least certain that outside of Christianity no school of philosophy
and no religion has ever arrived at such knowledge. In fact, a large
number of Christian sects which separated from the Catholic
Church have erred in teaching even natural religion: early Protes­
tantism did so when it denied man’s free will; Calvinism (and
Jansenism) did so when they taught that God arbitrarily pre­
condemned some men to hell, thereby attributing to God an
obvious injustice.
b. By the teachings which the Catholic religion has added to
natural religion it has aptly supplied for the lacunae of natural
religion. It has adroitly solved the deepest sort of problems which
have troubled mankind in religious matters, and has strikingly
advanced men’s holiness. Once again, therefore, human genius
seems to be ruled out as a satisfactory explanation. If it is so
terribly difficult to know even natural religion satisfactorily, would
it not be even more difficult to add such points as seem quite
clearly to perfect natural religion?
* Note that the Catholic Church does not acknowledge a double standard
of sanctity, one for monks and the other for the laity, nor does she identify
Christian perfection with the monastic life. Christian perfection for people in
all walks of life consists in love of God and neighbor; the religious vows
(poverty, chastity, and obedience) are nothing more than means to sanctifica­
tion, but means of very great value for certain people. On the one hand, any
man in any walk of life can arrive at perfection without the observance of the
vows; on the other hand, not all of those who dedicate themselves to a life in
religion actually arrive at perfection. The religious state, considered in itself
and purely abstractly, is the quickest means to perfection and can be spoken
of as the state of perfection, i.e., a way of life professedly dedicated to the
pursuit of perfection (see S.T/ι., Ila-IIae, q. 184). It is erroneous to conclude
from this that the monastic life is the best route to perfection for each and
every man considered in the concrete situation. Each one has his own gift from
God, one in this way, and another in that (1 Cor. 7:7).
(See A. Tanquerey, The Spiritual Life, III, 153-203; Garrigou-Lagrange,
The Three Ages of the Interior Life, I, chapter 8, 144-159 and 12 and 13,
196-213.)

( 118)

SUBLIMITY OF CH R I ST IA N - CATHOLIC RELIGION

c. Catholic doctrine contains many mysteries which border on
certain truths of the natural order. Even though vast progress has
been made in the natural sciences long after the origin of Christian­
ity, not one of these new discoveries (this means, of course, defin­
itely established truths, not wild guesses ) has been found to con­
tradict any Christian dogma. The more carefully and more pro­
foundly learned men investigate the Christian religion, the more
they marvel at the perfect harmony of that system; the more they
marvel at the perfect coherence of the super-rational truths in
relationship to one another and in relation to natural truths, and
at the extraordinary appropriateness of the mysteries in themselves.
Now if this teaching about mysteries were nothing but the product
of man’s imagination, it would of course, be nothing more than a
ridiculous imposture. If this were so, would it not be utterly incred­
ible for some man to have knit together a series of lies in matters
of this kind with such extraordinary dexterity that even after
innumerable and exacting examinations no falsehood would ever
have come to light? Again, it can be easily shown that all the
people who, over the course of the centuries, have dared to
“reform” the Christian-Catholic religion, either by adding or sub­
tracting something, have always destroyed something honorable or
introduced something dishonorable, and have lessened its over-all
harmony. If the Catholic religion were a purely human invention,
it would be difficult to explain why it could never be improved
upon by men and why every change has always turned out for
the worse.
d. Catholic doctrine is suitable for every type of mind and
every nationality, and at the same time is an extremely wholesome
doctrine.11 This fact greatly supports the preceding arguments. A
doctrine which is wholesome for all kinds of men and at the same
time is very worthy of God, the loving Father of all mankind, seems
by that very fact to be beyond the power of man’s genius. Every
purely human doctrine in precise proportion to its depth and
sublimity, gets beyond the reach of the common multitude of men;
and practically all the other religions were tightly bound to one
or another particular nationality.
From these considerations one can conclude with at least great
probability that Christian-Catholic doctrine is not a human inven­
tion. And since no serious minded man would attribute the origin
of an extremely holy religion to evil spirits, it is at least quite
probable that Christian-Catholic doctrine has good reason to claim

(119)

THE TRUE RELIGION

a divine origin. If that is so, then every man has the obligation of
seriously investigating the various external or historical arguments
which are adduced as proof of that divine origin.
To weaken the argument from the incomparable splendor of the
Christian religion rationalists try to explain the origin of that
religion on the grounds of evolution, to which, in the minds of
many of our contemporaries, nothing is impossible.
74

Scholion. The origin of the Christian religion cannot be explained
either as an evolution of Judaism, or as a syncretism of the Jew­
ish religion with pagan superstition and Greek philosophy.
1. The Jewish religion did indeed contain several dogmas and
precepts of Christianity. Some can be found expressed clearly;
others are found only in germ. Because this is so, Christianity is
rightly called the final fulfillment of the Mosaic religion. Did not
our Lord Himself say: ‘7 have not come to destroy, but to fulfill”
(Matthew 5:17)? Do not all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church
agree with the saying of Augustine: “in the Old Testament the
New is concealed, and in the New the Old is revealed” ( The First
Catechetical Instruction, ACW translation, IV, no. 8, 23)?
Christianity, nevertheless, is so vastly superior to Judaism and
contains so many doctrines which are foreign to and even opposed
to Judaism such as it was professed at the time of Christ, that
Judaism can in nowise be said to have given birth to Christianity
by a natural evolution. The fundamental Christian dogmas of the
Trinity, Incarnation, and Redemption through the death of the
Messias, of justification by faith without the works of the Mosaic
law, were utterly foreign to the minds of Christ’s contemporaries.
The moral teaching of Christianity not only abolished the cere­
monies of the Mosaic law, which had a strong attraction for the
Jews, but also perfected the moral code of Moses, purifying it of
the corruptions of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. For their
external and ritual sanctity it substituted an internal and truly
noble one.12 Certainly the Jews awaited a Messias, but a Messias
who was to be a political king and was to restore a temporal king­
dom to Israel by conquering the pagan nations. The Messianic
prophecies of the Old Testament were truly fulfilled in Christ and
in His religion, but they were fulfilled in a manner quite different
from the hopes and desires of the Jews of Christ’s time. The Jews
at the time of Christ were so addicted to religious exclusivism
that, as history shows, the narrowness of the early Judaic Christians

(120)

SUBLIMITY OF CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION

caused great trouble for the Church, which from the very begin­
ning had a universal perspective.’3
The Christian religion seemed so novel to contemporary Juda­
ism, and its teachings differed from the ideas current among Jews
to such a degree that the leaders of the Jewish nation, with the
support of the people, demanded Christ’s death on the cross and
inaugurated numerous persecutions against His Apostles.’*
Another answer to the objection that Christianity is a purely
natural religion, a further evolution of the Jewish religion, which
itself was purely natural, can be given. The seeds of the Christian
religion, which were actually contained in the Law and the
Prophets, were themselves not the product of man’s mind, but
revelations given by God.
2. Syncretism maintains that Christianity originally lacked real 74a
dogmatic teaching, but little by little gathered together its doc­
trines, regulations, and practices from very different sources.
Syncretism is quite popular among many students of comparative
religion today, though there are almost as many varieties of the
theory as there are adherents. In fact, many hold that the pagan
mysteries were one of the major sources on which Christianity
relied.15
This theory is not based upon proved, historical data, but is an
a priori postulate of rationalism, which excludes at the outset all
possibility of supernatural intervention by God, and consequently
is obliged to find a natural explanation of the Christian religion.
For this reason it leaps from very tenuous premises to very
resounding conclusions, nor does it hesitate to assert that the most
superficial resemblances among religions definitely establish that
one religion has borrowed from another. These comparative reli­
gionists indicate various sources for Christian doctrine: now the
Greeks, now the Persians, now the Buddhists. The variety and
inconsistency of their opinions is itself a good argument against
the lack of a sound scientific foundation for their conclusions.
Even if the historical possibility of such a multiple derivation
of Christian doctrine, or rather the accommodation of that doctrine
to the religious and philosophical mentality of varied peoples, were
granted, the theory of religious evolution is still faced with two
insoluble difficulties. 1. It offers no answer to the question: “How
could there arise out of such an evolution a religion that is uni­
versal, possessing an extremely consistent body of doctrine?” If
Christianity had adapted itself all over the world to the opinions
( 121 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

of local peoples by embracing whatever they contain of vitality
and worth, it would have had to change its nature in different
places. Even if all these varied additions had managed to be strung
together by heaven only knows what sort of a unifying principle,
it would, at the very least, never have reached that extraordinary
unity found in Catholic doctrine. 2. This theory cannot explain why
the Christian religion caused such contradiction and fierce persecu­
tions all over the world. Why should the various pagan nations
have attacked a refigion whose very genius lay in its inexhaustible
ability to accommodate itself to various peoples?
The syncretistic theory is historically impossible. The supposed
eclectic borrowing could not have been done by Christ or His
Apostles. According to the adversaries they were mere men and
possessed no supernatural aids. Consequently how could they know
of foreign and far-off religions? They were either completely
ignorant of Greek philosophy, or at best did not know enough to
accomplish such a task. Nor could the borrowing have been
done by later Christians. It can be demonstrated unquestionably,
from an examination of the books of the New Testament and
other ancient documents, that the fundamental dogmas and essen­
tial institutions of Christianity were in existence during the second
century, and most probably during the first. An examination of
these documents shows that these teachings were not, as our
adversaries would have it, taken from non-Christian sources during
the third and fourth centuries.
The very fact that Christian dogmas did not exist either in their
own proper form or even in their essential elements anywhere out­
side of Christianity shows that the presumed evolution was impos­
sible. If the foreign doctrines assigned as sources for the dogmas
of the Trinity, of the Logos, of the Incarnation, of the Resurrec­
tion, of baptism and the Eucharist are examined seriously and freed
from the wishful interpretations surrounding them, it can be seen
that these “sources” have so little in common with the Catholic
mysteries that their vague or merely superficial similarity is always
accompanied by a far vaster dissimilarity, one that is real and
intrinsic.
This does not mean to assert that there is no connection what­
soever between Christianity and other religions.” Many of the
theoretical and practical truths which the Church professes belong
bv their very nature to natural religion and consequently are found
outside the Church. In the practices and ceremonies of worship
(122)

SUBLIMITY OF C II R I ST I A N-C AT H OLIC RELIGION

some things are so natural to man that it is not at all strange to
find them both in the true religion and in false ones: the offering
of sacrifice, sacrifical banquets, a type of confession and expiation
for guilt, the use of water as a symbol of purification, singing, the
use of incense and lights, images, vestments, and many others.
Christianity is not the original discoverer nf human nature nr nf
religious conscience. Nor is it so far above nature that it disregards
it. Not all things in false religions are false; nor are all things in the
true religion, Christianity, supernatural.
Notes
1. See St. Augustine, Retractationes, I, 13, no. 3.
2. A rather full demonstration of the divine origin of these prior revela­
tions is found in Ottiger, Theologia fundamentalis, I, 341-514. For different
methods of approach to this matter read Bellamy’s book, La théologie Cath­
olique au XIXe siècle, p. 210. For an apologetic presentation of primitive
revelation, correlating data from ethnology, anthropology, pre-history, and
Sacred Scripture, see W. Schmidt, Primitive Revelation (translated by J.
Baierl, Herder, 1939). For a scholarly. Biblical analysis of the first chapters
of Genesis, see La Sainte Bible, I, part 1, "Genèse,” by A. Clamer.
3. See Decree, Lamentabili, propositions 22, 54, 59; DB 2022, 2054, 2059.
4. Most of the objections brought against the Christian-Catholic doctrine
by modem adversaries were already known in their main outlines as early as
the second century. See J. Muth, Der Kampf des heidnischen Philosophen
Celsus gegen das Christentum (1899).
5. Th. Jouffroy, Mélanges philosophiques (1830), p. 330, has developed
this point as follows:
There is a small book which we make little children learn and about
which we question them in church. Read this little book, the Catechism,
and you will find in it a solution to all the problems I have raised; a solu­
tion to all without exception. Ask a Christian how the human race arose,
and he knows the answer; ask him where humanity is heading, and he
knows; how it goes there, and he knows. Ask this tiny child, who has
never in his life given a thought to the matter, why he is here on earth
and what will happen to him after death. He will give you an answer that
is sublime. He will not fully understand his answer, but the answer will
not be for that reason any less wonderful. Ask him how the world was
made, and for what purpose, and why God has placed on earth animals
and plant-life; ask him how the earth was populated, if it was by one
family or by many; why it is that men speak different languages, why men
suffer, why they fight with one another, and how the whole business will
end: he knows the answers. The origin of the world, the origin of the
human race, the problem of different races, the destiny of mankind here
on earth and hereafter, man’s relationships with God, the duties of men
to their fellow men, man’s dominion over the earth: he is ignorant of
none of these matters. And when he grows older he will, moreover, not
be in doubt about the natural law, or political law, or international law,
for he finds out all those points and expounds them clearly and, as it

(123)

THE TRUE RELIGION

were, all on his own because of Christianity. There is what I call a great
religion. I recognize by it this sign, that it does not leave unanswered
any of the problems which are of interest to humanity.
6. Goethe says: "Let spiritual culture stride ever forward, let the human
soul expand to any extent it desires, still it will never surpass the sublimity
and moral culture of Christianity such as we sec it glowing and gloaming in
the Gospels." Quoted in Hamack, VVesen des Christentums, p. 3.
7. It is unreasonable for E. von Hartmann to maintain that Christian
morality should be considered a rather inferior sort of morality because it
promises a reward. The reward is nothing other than God Himself, and man’s
happiness itself glorifies in the most perfect manner possible the God of all
things. The attainment of the final goal has by its very nature a twofold
aspect: it is simultaneously the glorification of God and the happiness of the
creature. Would it not be foolish to neglect this other aspect, which even
though secondary is nonetheless a very powerful stimulus for all men, particu­
larly for the less holy? On the other side of the picture, the main punishment
of the damned is the loss of God Himself; punishment of loss. See Van Noort’s
De gratia, nos. 149ff.
8. Worth reading on this point are E. Lingens, Die innere Schonheit des
Christenthums (1914); J. Souben, L’Esthétique du dogme Chrétien (1898);
V. Cathrein, Die katholische Weltanschauung in ihren Grundlinien mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Moral (1914); J. Gspann, Schonheit der katholischen Weltanschauung (1914); G. Menge, Die Herrlichkeit der katholischen
Kirche in ihrer Lehre (1919); F. Sawicki, Die katholische Frommigkeit
(1921).
9. E. Laboulaye: “Put beside Spinoza and Hegel the character of Jesus.
Where is the ideal of beauty, of truth, of goodness? Where do you find the
doctrine that can entrance the greatest human beings and at the same time
comfort the humblest? Where do you find the moral standard for mankind,
the standard of duty and of justice for the citizen? Forget your church or
your school of thought and simply gaze objectively” (Etudes morales et
philosophiques, p. 56).
10. What has been said above about Christian doctrine generally is
applicable to the prayer which is Christianity’s very own: the Our Father.
This prayer, magnificently simple and plain, by its incomparable richness,
satisfies and is eminently suitable for every man. Stokl says:
All that man can ever express in prayer to God is contained in this short
prayer and, indeed, in so simple a form that it is accessible to every
understanding however limited, and in a style so ingenious and attractive
that it must touch the heart of every being, great or lowly, learned or
simple, of this or that age or sex. Not everyone can be initiated into the
profundity of the prayer of Christ in exactly the same way. But everyone
can pray tile Lord’s Prayer. If he says it with attention and in a true
spirit of prayer, then he has, as far as the essence of the matter is con­
cerned, offered to God the complete and full homage of prayer. From this
focal point emanate all the rays of prayer, and every prayer offered by
the Church herself or enjoined upon her faithful represents only a further
development of and commentary upon this kernel of all prayer” ( Lchrbuch
der Apologetik, 2, 198).
11. See Billot, De Ecclesia, I, 5th ed. (1927), 225-238.

( 124)

SUBLIMITY OF CIIRI ST I A N - C ATHOL IC RELIGION

12. See Matthew 5:17; 7:29; 19:3-31; 21.
13. How badly mistaken was Hamack in denying that Christ Himself had
a concept of a universal religion is brought out in Der Katholik I (1913),
249-291; Batiffol, L'enseignement de Jésus, pp. 297ff; de Grandmaison,
Jésus Christ, I, 3rd ed. (1928), 370-71.
14. Lagrange says: "Through Jesus, man’s religious life enters into a
phase that is truly new: Judaism recoils in dismay and refuses to accept this
ending of its history because it is not the natural ending looked for. ... If
Jesus had done nothing more than make a synthesis of current Jewish ideas,
the Jews would have followed him docilely" (Méthode historique, 1st ed.,
p. 55). Even Renan admits: "Far from Jesus’ being the continuator of Juda­
ism, what characterizes his work is its rupture with the Jewish spirit” (Vie de
Jésus, ch. 28).
15. See I. Rohr, "Griechentum und Christentum,” in Bibl Zf, V (1912),
p. 8; B. Allo, L'Evangile en face du syncrétisme paten (1910); B. Heigl,
"Religionsgeschichtliche Methode und Théologie,” in Bibl Zf, XII (1928), 1;
see Stimmen, 71 ( 1908), 378, 500, 72 (1907), 37, 182; 82 (1912), 388, 520,
RPA, III (1907), 462, 519; DAFC under heading "Syncrétisme."
16. See A. Deneffe, "Das henologische Prinzip," in Stimmen, 83 (1912),
423; A. Pimgriiber, “Synkretismus,” in Stimmen, 87 (1914), 268.

(125)

CHAPTER II

Christ Had a Divine Mission

I.

The Person of Christ.
a. His portrait in the Gospels is not a composite fabrication.
b. Testimonies of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny
the Younger.

II.

His Own Testimony About Himself.
a. Jewish expectations of a Messias;
b. False Jewish expectations;
c. Christ declared that He had been sent by God to teach
men the truth, that His teaching was divine, and that it
must be accepted by men.
d. He transferred His own mission to others.

III.

We Know that His Testimony Was True Because of:
a. His extraordinary holiness;
b. the fulfillment of His prophecies;
c. His numerous miracles;
d. His resurrection from the dead.

(127)

CHAPTER II

Christ Had a Divine Mission

I. The Person of Christ
75
It is an undeniable fact that Jesus of Nazareth, a man possessing
the character and activities sketched in the Gospels, historically
existed.® This fact is guaranteed by the veracity of the Evangelists,
a veracity here taken for granted.} Some historians of comparative
religion maintain that the portrait of Christ in the Gospels was
based largely on religious ideas current at the time, in particular,
on the mythology and mysteries of the pagans. They maintain, in
other words, that there already existed on canvas the colors out of
which the Evangelists might paint their picture of an “ideal” Christ.
This presumption of an idealistic portrait is not only historically
untrue but morally impossible. The extraordinary nobility of char­
acter, and the utterly pure life of our Lord could in nowise be
assembled from those impure and ridiculous myths about Osiris,
Attis, Adonis, Dionysius, etc.1 Even under the supposition that the
elements were at hand to be thus selected, purified, and harmon­
ized, how would those simple men, the Evangelists, who were not
learned in philosophy, ever have used them to give us that exceed­
ing marvellous portrait which excites admiration in even unbe­
lievers, and of which no later writer has ever been able to produce
the equal?
There have come down to our own times two powerful accounts
written by pagan writers, attesting to the historical existence of
Jesus of Nazareth, the Founder of Christianity.2
e Bmno Bauer (1809-1882) denied that Jesus Christ ever existed. Since
his wild criticism and that of others equally childish from Reimarus (d. 1768)
to Paulus and Strauss are of purely antiquarian interest today, we refer the
interested reader to G. Ricciotti’s cool, critical analysis of them: "Rationalist
interpretations of the life of Christ,” found in The Life of Christ (1944)
pp. 179-216. The only point of importance here is that the same philosophical
prejudice—the impossibility of miracles and of the supernatural—which spawned
these radical theories of the 19th century "higher critics" still casts a spell over
the minds of many contemporary liberal Protestants and prompts them to prate
loftily about "the Christ of Faith" and "the Christ of History." The much
publicized Albert Schweitzer is a good example of this mentality.
t See the special bibliography on page 134.

( 129)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Flavius Josephus, who died about 100 A.D., wrote:

At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to call
him a man. He was a miracle-worker, a teacher of men who are
willing to receive truth, and he attracted many Jews and even
many Gentiles to himself. This man was the Christ; and although
he was handed over to Pilate by our leaders and Pilate had
him crucified, those who had first loved him did not cease to
love him. For he returned to them alive on the third day in
accord with the predictions of the divine prophets made about
this marvel and a thousand other marvels foretold of him. And
the tribe of Christians, which takes its name from him, exists
even to this day (Antiquities of the Jews, XVIII, 3, 3).a
Tacitus, who wrote during the reign of Trajan in the years
98-117 A.D., has this to say:

To obliterate the rumor [which accused himself of setting fire
to Rome] Nero rounded up the guilty ones and subjected them
to the most uncommon tortures. The guilty ones were the
Christians, who were usually described by the populace as
‘loathsome” because of their shameful crimes. The originator
of that sect was Christ, who during the reign of Tiberius had
been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Even though
that deadly superstition was checked momentarily [by Christ’s
death], it burst out again, and now not only through Judea,
where the evil originated, but even in Rome, where all sorts of
monstrous and shameless doctrines flow in from all sides and
find a following. Thus it was that the ones first caught, who
confessed their crime and the large multitude captured by their
testimony were condemned, not so much for the crime of arson
as for hatred of the human race.4 And they were made sport
of in their dying by being strapped to the backs of wild animals
so that they might be tom apart by the fangs of dogs, or were
nailed to crosses, or were burned to death, and when daylight
failed they were set on fire to serve as lamplight. . . . Nero
opened up his gardens for that spectacle and, proclaiming it a
sport-circus, he mingled with the people in the dress of a
charioteer. So it came about that even though the torments
were inflicted on criminals who deserved such because of their
most recent crimes, a cry of pity began to rise up that the
torments be ended, not so much for the sake of the public
good, as against the savagery of one man (Annales, XV, 44).
The events narrated took place in the year 64 A.D.

(130)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

In addition to these witnesses, Suetonius also gives historical
testimony of the Christians and perhaps of Christ Himself, and
Pliny the Younger makes mention of both Christ and the Christians.

II. Christ’s Testimony About Himself”
76
Christ openly and continuously proclaimed Himself before
friends, before the general populace, and before the doctors of the
law and the public officials, as a messenger from God to men. He
also taught that He was the Son of God, and Himself true God.
The divinity of Christ is mentioned at this point only because
Christ asserted and performed some things which no mere mes­
senger of God could ever dare to assert or do.
1. The Jews at the time of Jesus of Nazareth were expecting a
messenger from God, whom, as a prophet without peer, they called
the Messias, that is, the Christ.7
King Herod inquired of the priests and scribes where the Christ
was to be bom. And without any hesitation they replied: “In Beth­
lehem of Judea” (Matthew 2:4).
Simeon was looking for the consolation of Israel . . . And it had
been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see
death before he had seen the Christ of the Lord (Luke 2:25-26).
John the Baptist sent two of his disciples to ask: “Art thou he
who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Matthew 11:3; see
John 1:19-36).
Andrew, after meeting Jesus, told his brother Simon Peter:
“We have found the Messias” (John 1:41). Philip exclaimed: “We
have found him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets
wrote” (John 1:45).
The Samaritan woman confessed: “I know that Messias is com­
ing (who is called Christ), and when he comes he will tell us all
things” (John 4:25).
The people who ate the loaves of bread exclaimed: “This is
indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14).
After hearing Jesus speak, the crowd in the temple asked:
“When the Christ comes will he work more signs than this man
ivorks?” (John 7:31).
The Jews inquired of Christ: “How long dost thou keep us in
suspense? If thou art the Christ, tell us openly” (John 10:24).
2. The Jews pictured for themselves a political Messias who 77
should subject all nations by earthly conquest and in that way
extend the kingdom of the one true God. Jesus carefully avoided
( 131 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

anything that might foster and add fuel to such an expectation.
Nevertheless, throughout His entire public life He acted as a
prophet and often declared, either equivalently or openly, that He
was the Messias.
The citizens of Nazareth took offense at him. But Jesus said to
them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country,
and in his own house” (Matthew 13:57; see Luke 4:16-21).
Jesus was accustomed to speak of Himself: "Behold, a greater
than Jonas is here . . . behold, a greater than Solomon is here”
(Matthew 12:41). In the parable of the vineyard He exhibited
Himself as a son in His Father’s household and as greater than all
the prophets. (See Mathew 21:33ff; Mark 12:Iff; Luke 20.-9ÎF. Com­
pare these passages with Matthew 13:16-17; John 8:52ff. )
When the disciples of John came to seek His identity, He
answered by pointing out His miracles and at the same time by
applying to Himself the prophecies which the Jews were accus­
tomed to apply to the Messias: "Go and report to John what you
have heard and seen: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are
cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise, the poor have the gospel
preached to them. And blessed is he who is not scandalized in me”
(Matthew 11:4-6).
When the Samaritan woman referred to the Messias, Jesus said
to her: "I who speak with thee am he” (John 4:26).
To the Jews who demanded, "If thou art the Christ, tell us
openly,” He replied: "I tell you and you do not believe. The works
that I do in the name of my Father, these bear witness concerning
me. But you do not believe” (John 10:25-26).
When the high priest ordered: "I adjure thee by the living God
that thou tell us whether thou are the Christ, the Son of God,”
Jesus answered: “Thou hast said it” (Matthew 26:63-64).
Peter was called blessed because in reply to the question: "But
who do you say that I am?” he had answered: "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:15-16).
After the resurrection, when talking with His disciples on the
road to Emmaus, He applied to Himself all the things foretold in
the Old Testament about the Messias: “O foolish ones and slow of
heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the
Christ have to suffer these things before entering into his glory?”
Awl beginning then with Moses and with all the Prophets, he
interpreted to them in nil the Scriptures the things referring to
himself (Luke 24-.25-27).8
( 132)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

3. Consequently, Christ declared very clearly that He had been 78
sent by God the Father to teach men the truth, that His teaching
was divine and must be acknowledged as such by all men if they
were not to suffer the most terrible of punishments.
"For from God I came forth and have come; for neither have I
come of myself, but he sent me” (John 8.42).
"This is why I was born, and why 1 have come into the world,
to bear witness to the truth" (John 18:37).
‘7 have not come of myself, but he is true who has sent me,
whom you do not know. 1 know him because I am from him, and
he has sent me” (John 7:28-29; see Matthew 11:27 and Luke
10:22).
"My teaching is not my own, but his who sent me” (John 7:16).
"He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who
sent me. And he who sees me, sees him who sent me. I have come
a light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain
in the darkness. And if anyone hears my words, arul does not keep
them, it is not 1 who judge him; for 1 have not come to judge the
world, but to save the world. He who rejects me, and does not
accept my words, has one to condemn him. The word that I have
spoken will condemn him on the last day. For I have not spoken
on my own authority, but he who sent me, the Father, has com­
manded me what I should say, and what I should declare. And I
know that his commandment is everlasting life. The things, there­
fore, that I speak, I speak as the Father has bidden me” (John
12:44-50).
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,
that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life
everlasting. ... He who believes in him is not judged; but he who
does not believe is already judged, because he does not believe in
the mime of the only-begotten Son of God (John 3:16-18).
4. Christ transferred His own divine mission to other men who 79
were to propose and promulgate His doctrine with divine authority.
"Amen, amen, I say to you, he who receives anyone I send,
receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me”
(John 13:20; see Matthew 10:40 and Luke 10:16).
“As the Father has sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21).
“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go,
therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teach­
ing them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold,

( 133)

THE TRUE RELIGION

I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world"
(Matthew 28:18-20)’.
"Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every
creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he
who docs not believe shall he condemned" (Mark 10.16).
The preceding pages contain a brief outline of Christs testi­
mony about Himself and His mission. He was teaching them as one
having authority (Matthew 7:29). He did not teach like the pagan
philosophers, nor like the Scribes and Pharisees. “Never has man
spoken as this man” (John 7:46).
The truthfulness of Christ’s testimony about Himself and His
work can be proved by:
the extraordinary sanctity of Christ Himself: Article I;
the fulfillment of His prophecies: Article II;
the numerous miracles He worked: Article III;
His resurrection from the dead: Article IV.

Special Bibliography for the Life of Christ
Fillion, L.: L’existence historique de Jésus (1909).
Graber, C.: Im Kampfe um Christus (1927).
Jung, E.: Die geschichtliche Personlichkeit Jesu (1924).
Keulers, J.: De Pseudo-Christus, 2nd ed. (1927).
Meffert, F.: Die geschichtliche Existenz Christi (1910).
Meyenberg, A.: Lehen Jesu-Werk, 3 volumes (1922-1928).
Oldra, A.: Gesù Christo, Studio critico-apologetico, 2 volumes
(1923).
Sanders, N.: Jesus Christus (1928).

English Works:
Daniel-Rops: Jesus and His Times (translated by Ruby Millar,
1954).
Fillion, L.: The Life of Christ, 3 volumes (translated by N.
Thompson, 1928).
Fouard, C.: The Christ, the Son of God, 5th ed. (1 volume ed.
1945).
Grandmaison, L. de: Jesus Christ, 3 volumes (1928).
Guardini, R.: The Lord (translated by Elinor Briefs, 1955).
Lebreton, J.: The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ Our Lord
(revised ed. 1935).
Prat, F.: Jesus Christ, 16th ed., 2 volumes (translated by J.
Heenan, 1950).
Ricciotti, G.: The Life of Christ (translated by A. Zizzamia,
1947).
(134)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

Notes
1. See Tromp, S., "De differentia mysteriorum et Christianismi," in De
Revelatione Christiana (1950), pp. 404-406.
2. Wilmers says:
No sensible man would expect the Romans or Greeks to have written
accurately and extensively about Jesus of Nazareth. The province of Judea
was too far off from them, and even more remote from their minds was
the Jewish race with whom the Christians used to be confused from the
very beginning by even the governors and emperors themselves. But with
the passing of time, when the grain of mustard seed had blossomed into
a mighty tree, even Roman writers were forced to take notice of the
author of the new religion (De religione revelata, p. 328).
Kurt Linck, a non-Catholic professor, examined the testimony of Josephus,
Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius about Christ and arrived at this conclusion
against Drews: "That Jesus lived is absolutely undeniable!” (De antiquissimis
veterum quae Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis, Giessen, 1913).
3. The passage quoted is extant in all handwritten and printed codices
and was already presented by Eusebius (HE I, 11). Yet there are many who
consider the passage either spurious or partially interpolated; for, they say,
how could an unbelieving Jew have written in such fashion; furthermore, older
apologists failed to cite Josephus. The usual answer to their objection is that
Josephus, though indifferent and skeptical about religious matters, could have
recorded about Christ, not his own personal opinion, but the common opinion
of the people. The argument from the silence of the oldest apologists is a
negative argument and proves little. It is at least very improbable that
Josephus, who praises John the Baptist and makes mention of James the less
and the brother "of that Jesus, who is called Christ,” should have been com­
pletely silent about our Lord.
Authors defending the authenticity of the passage are:
1. among non-Catholics: Burkitt, Hamack, Laqueur;
2. among Catholics: Gutberlet, Hettinger, Hurter, Kneller, Tricot, Wilmers.
Authors claiming an interpolation are:
1. most rationalists;
2. among Catholics: Batiffol, Schanz, and Funk.
Works of value on this disputed point are:
Felten, J.: Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, I, 2nd ed. (1925), 683ff.
Thackeray, H. St. John: Josephus: The Man and the Historian (1929). This
is a work by a scholar who has devoted most of his life to the problem. He
defends vigorously the authenticity of the passage and his testimony is all the
more impressive because it was delivered to a Jewish audience as the Jewish
prize lecture of the year.
Wohleb, L. : “Das Testimonium Flavianum; ein kritischer Bericht über den
stand der Frage,” in Romische Quartals., vol. 34 (1927).
4. For hatred of the human race, "that is, for being stubbornly opposed
to Roman civilization and Roman religion.” P. Allard, Le Christianisme et
l’empire Roman, p. 16.
5. Suetonius: "The Christians, a tribe of men who follow a new and
vicious false religion, were persecuted” Nero, c. 16. “The Jews, who at the
instigation of Christ [Chrestus] were constantly raising disturbances, he
[Claudius] banished from Rome” Claudius, c. 25. Even though it is true that

( 135)

THE TRUE RELIGION

the pagans sometimes called Christ, "Chrest,” it is not certain that the Christ
(Chrest) mentioned by Suetonius is our Lord. According to Ricciotti:
There is no reasonable doubt that the epithet Crestus used by Suetonius
is the Greek term christos, the etymological translation of the Hebrew
messioh especially since even later we find the Christians called crestiani.
. . . We may therefore conclude that about twenty years after the death of
Jesus the Jews living in Rome were given to constant and noisy quarrels
regarding the character of "Christ,” or Messias attributed to Jesus, some
evidently recognizing him as such and others denying him. The former
were undoubtedly the Christians, especially those converted from Judaism.
Suetonius, who writes seventy years after the events have taken place and
who knows very little about Christianity, thinks that his Crestus was
present in Rome and personally provoked the riots. ( The Life of Christ
(1944), p. 83).
6. See M. Lepin, Jésus Messie et Fils de Dieu (1910); H. Felder, Jesus
Christus I, 144-290; RPA 34 (1922), 154 and 231.
7. The name Maiiah, derived from the verb Mâiah (to anoint), was taken
from Psalm 2, 2: the princes conspire together against the Lord and against
his anointed. See Ph. Freidrich, Der Christus-Name im Lichte der Altestamentische und Neutestamentische Théologie (1905).
8. Luke 24:25-27. To deny that Christ actually claimed to be the Messias
and hence a Messenger from God seems too much even for rationalist critics,
at least for most of them. Hamack himself states: "That Jesus Christ claimed
to be the Messias has been denied by some critics. . . . But it seems to me that
this portion of the Gospel tradition can withstand even the most searching
examination” (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, I, 3rd ed., 63, note). Never­
theless, some rationalists, such as Wellhausen and Wrede, deny this fact.
For a refutation of their position read Batiffol, L’Enseignement de Jésus, 6th
ed., p. 224.

( 138)

Article I
CHRIST'S EXTRAORDINARY HOLINESS PROVES HIS
DIVINE MISSION

I. First Argument: Solution of a Dilemma.
1. Christ, in claiming a divine mission, was not deluded by
His own imagination.
2. Neither was He a charlatan.
Corollary.
II. Second Argument: A Man Who Possesses Superhuman
Sanctity Cannot Possibly Lay False Claim to a Divine
Mission. But Christ Possessed Utterly Perfect and Super­
human Sanctity.
1. Christ was completely sinless.
2. He excelled in every virtue.
Corollary.

( 137)

Article I
CHRIST'S EXTRAORDINARY HOLINESS PROVES HIS
DIVINE MISSION

80 First Argument
It has been shown how clearly and how frequently Christ
declared that He was a messenger from God to men. In making
such declarations, Christ was either deluded by His own imagina­
tion, or He deliberately and with extraordinary viciousness deceived
men, or He spoke the truth. The first and second alternatives are
false. Consequently Christ spoke the truth and in reality was a
messenger from God to men.
1. Christ, in declaring that He was a messenger from God,
was not deluded by His own imagination. Suppose there is a
man suffering from hallucinations who, constantly and over many
years, in private and in public, before friends and enemies, by
words and deeds, acts as though he were a messenger from God,
indeed as though he were the Son of God. As a result of this claim
he demands absolute trust in and utter devotion to himself.
Suppose this man is finally brought before a court because of his
hallucinations and willingly submits to a judicial condemnation and
a death which he had foreseen. Would not such a person be justly
considered out of his mind and in fact insane? The very majesty
of His teaching shows that our Lord was not a man of this sort.1
Furthermore, even the rationalists, usually rate Christ as one of the
wisest of men.
It does no good to say that Christ was a gifted enthusiast, since
anyone who would be so sadly deluded by enthusiasm must cer­
tainly be insane. The truth is that the charge laid against Christ
that He was an enthusiast or fanatic is utterly without basis. As a
matter of fact, He excelled in moderation, temperance, and meek­
ness.2
81
2. Christ, in declaring Himself a messenger from God, was
not a charlatan. Surely a man mentally sound, who declares falsely
that he is a messenger from God, commits a monstrous sin: he is
guilty of a hideous irreverence towards God, deceives his fellow
( 138)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

men in a matter gravely serious, and attains the very pinnacle of
arrogance. This is precisely what our Lord would have done
throughout His entire public life, if this second charge were true!
Recall the manner in which Christ actually recommended Him­
self and His doctrine. He demanded of all men, under pain of
damnation, faith in Himself and in His disciples for all time. He
called Himself the way, the truth, and the life, without whose help
no one could come to the Father and without whom no one could
do anything good. He declared that He was the Son of God, to
whom God the Father had committed all judgment; that He will
come one day in the clouds of heaven with power and majesty. He
claimed to be one with the Father and that all the works of God
the Father and all power on heaven and on earth were His very
own.3 Would not a man who deceitfully claimed such prerogatives
for himself, and stubbornly persisted in such lies, be clearly deserv­
ing of the hatred and contempt of all men?
Yet even the rationalists do not dare to call our Lord a bad
man, let alone an extremely vicious one. In fact, they usually
describe Him as the finest product of the human race and the glory
of mankind.1
Now if Christ was neither a lunatic nor a liar, then the testi­
mony He gave regarding Himself must be true. There is no other
alternative.
Corollary

Notice how outrageously the rationalists contradict themselves.
On the one hand they refuse to believe Christ’s lucidly clear words
and will not accept Him as the Son of God or a messenger from
God; on the other, they praise Christ as the wisest and holiest of
all men. Let them lay aside rhetoric e and have the courage to
put before themselves and their readers the basic dilemma: Christ
was either a lunatic, a liar, or a messenger from God!
0 As an example of rationalist procedure in this matter, note Renan s
statement:
Jesus went back to Galilee having completely lost his Jewish faith, and
full of revolutionary ardor . . . the Law will be abolished; and he himself
will do the abolishing. The Messias has come; and he himself is the
Messias. The Kingdom of God will soon be manifested, and he himself
will do the manifesting. . . . The son of man, after his death, will come
again in glory, accompanied by legions of angels ... the daring of such
a conception should not surpris® us. Jesus had for a long time been
envisaging himself with God as a son with his father. \\ hat would in
other men be considered insufferable arrogance ought not be considered
as outrageous in him . . . Jesus should not be judged according to our

(139)

THE TBUE BELIGION

The Second Argument
82
It is impossible that a man who possesses superhuman sanctity
should falsely claim to have a divine mission. Christ, however, pos­
sessed such superhuman sanctity. Consequently Christ could not
have claimed falsely to have a divine mission.
petty standards of propriety. His disciples’ admiration overwhelmed him
and carried him away. It is clear that the title of rabbi, with which he
had been content, was no longer sufficient for him; even the title of
prophet, or of messenger from God, no longer corresponded with his
thought. The role that he was attributing to himself was that of a super­
human being and he desired that people should regard him as having a
relationship with God more elevated than that of other men. But . . .
there was for him no supernatural, for there was for him no nature. . . .
On the one hand, Jesus’ need for good, general esteem, and on the other
hand the enthusiasm of his disciples entailed contradictory notions. . . .
An absolute conviction, or, to put it more precisely, the enthusiasm which
removed from him [Jesus] even the possibility of doubting, would cover
all these audacities. We, with our cold and timid natures, understand
very little of the mentality of being completely possessed by an idea which
turns people into apostles. For us, conviction signifies sincerity with one­
self. But sincerity with oneself does not carry much weight with Oriental
peoples who are little accustomed to the critical spirit. Good faith and
imposture are terms which, in our rigid conscience, are utterly irrécon­
ciliable. In the Orient, there are between the one and the other a thousand
nuances and thousand detours. . . . Literal truth has very little value for
the Oriental. He views all from the experience of his prejudices, interests,
and passions. ... AH the really great events are accomplished by the
people; but one does not lead people unless one tolerates their ideas.
. . . the man who takes humanity as he finds it with its illusions, and seeks
to move it and with it, will not be blamed. . . . There is no great founda­
tion which does not rest on legend. The only one deserving blame in such
a case is humanity which wants to be deceived (Vie de Jésus, Ch. 15).
Another rationalist whose views on this subject are expressed quite
emphatically is O. Pfleiderer. He writes:
It is indeed true that Jesus taught no new concept of God. But . . . Jesus
felt the idea of the Father-God ... as the central truth in his personal
experience, and ... in its light he comprehended the destiny of the world
and of men . . . this was definitely the new fact which concealed the
nucleus of a completely new religious world in its mustard-seed insig­
nificance. ... If Jesus knew and felt that he was in possession of a blessed
knowledge and love of the heavenly Father and saw all his brethren walk­
ing in error, then it was quite natural, and even necessary, that he share
with others the higher life of peace and joy enjoyed by a child of God.
. . . And if . . . daily experience showed him that the most effective heal­
ing power for sick hearts lay actually in what he communicated from
within himself . . . how naturally, then, did it come about that the first
faint inkling became ... a growing certainty that he and no one else was
called to initiate the promised era of salvation for his people . . . that he
was fated to be their Messias or Savior ( Religionsphilosophie, II, 2nd ed.,
187 and 191).

( 140)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

Proof of the major. Nothing, in the common and correct estima­
tion of men, so powerfully recommends a religious doctrine as the
holiness of its founder. Consequently few men would believe
that God could permit a false prophet to maintain, for his entire
life, the appearance of outstanding virtue. When it is a ques­
tion, not merely of great sanctity, but of a sanctity which from
every point of view is perfect and unique, it is certain that such
cannot be found in a false prophet. Certainly this most perfect type
of sanctity surpasses the natural powers of any man; everyday life
shows that in many respects all men fail. Such sanctity supposes
special help from God, indeed, an extraordinary help from God.
Were God to offer such help to a man who falsely claimed to have
a divine mission, then He, Truth itself, would be furthering a
fraud in a way most powerful.
Proof of the Minor: Christ possessed the most perfect and super- 83
human sanctity.5
1. Christ was completely sinless. It is not perhaps so remark­
able that Judas, Pilate, and Pilate’s wife declared that Christ was
a holy man;0 but even the Apostles who had lived familiarly with
Him for a long time, and had Him continually under their observa­
tion, openly testified to His perfect sinlessness.7 Finally, Christ
Himself, who taught all men to pray: forgive us our debts, never
displayed any consciousness of sin, or asked forgiveness for His
sins; even though He was utterly humble, He confidently stated:
“Which of you can convict me of sin?” (John 8:46), and “the prince
of the world is coming, and in me has nothing” (John 14:30), and
elsewhere He exclaimed: “I do always the things that are pleasing
to him [the Father]” (John 8:29).8
2. Christ excelled in every virtue. He excelled in a burning
love for God, the fulfillment of whose will was His very meat,’ and
whose glory alone He sought.10 He excelled in love for men, for
whom He spent Himself and all that He had, so that His whole
life may be summed up in the brief phrase: he went about doing
good (Acts 10:38). He excelled in humility and meekness, teach­
ing more by example than by words: “Learn from me, for I am
meek and humble of heart” (Matthew 11:29). He excelled in
obedience both to His mother and to His foster-father,1 * and espe­
cially to God the Father to whom He was obedient to death, even
to death on a cross (Philippians 2:8). He excelled in patience,
bearing the rudeness of His disciples, laboring among great sinners,
implacable persecutors, and a traitor. He had unconquerable cour-

(141)

THE TRUE RELIGION

age whereby He endured the ultimate in mockery and torture
without opening His mouth.
How greatly Christ surpassed a merely human measure of
virtue is evident from the following considerations:
a. The proportion and harmony of His virtues was so great that
one in no way detracted from another. There was majesty about
Him, yet He attracted even children by His kindness and friend­
liness. He was chaste beyond the slightest suspicion, yet He allowed
women to care for the necessities of His daily life. He was just
without being harsh, indignant without being wrathful, humble
without being slavish. Christ alone is the exception to the saying of
Thomas à Kempis: “every perfection in this life has some imper­
fection coupled with it.” 12
b. Though His sanctity is utterly sublime, it does not frighten
men by a disagreeable and stifling rigidity. Quite the contrary, it
appears to all as something to be loved and imitated. With good
reason did Christ assert: “My yoke is easy, and my burden light”
(Matthew 11:30)?’
Since Christ’s sanctity was not diminished by any defects, nor
clouded by any stain, and utterly ideal, we rightly conclude that
it was superhuman. It was a miracle of the moral order. It is
impossible that God would grant so marvelous a sanctity to a man
who falsely pretended to be His messenger?4
Q4 Corollary
There are few people who try to lower the sanctity of our Lord
by saying that He was not free enough from affections. They say
that He even favored with a kind of blind affection the poor, the
sick, and the sinners, and turned His back on the rich, the strong,
and the good.
The perfection of sanctity in a human being does not require
that one should not have affections or feel them deeply; what it
does require is that the rational will should in no way be prevented
by the affections from pursuing moral good. But not one example
can be adduced to show that Christ’s affections ever stopped Him
from the pursuit of moral good.
Similarly, it is not contrary to the perfection of sanctity to show
one’s inner feelings by words and deeds, provided there is a legiti­
mate reason. But our Lord manifested His affections not because
of any softness, but for the instruction of mankind. It is absurd to

( 142)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

state that Christ, out of blind affection or out of human respect,
favored some and turned His back on others. Christ pursued His
goal, which was to save al) men, in ways accommodated to the
background of His listeners. With those who were conscious of
their ignorance and their spiritual poverty, He was usually gentle;
with those who put too much stock in themselves and seemed in
their own eyes brave, holy, and wealthy, but despised or envied
others, He was usually austere and sometimes stern. He was so, not
that He might drive them away, but that He might destroy their
sense of pride and self-sufficiency, which was the greatest obstacle
in the way of a Messianic salvation. At times, our Lord treated
even His Apostles and friends sternly, though He certainly had no
aversion for them; He did so in accord with the seriousness of His
task and as circumstances demanded.15
Notes
1. Simply recall how many principles of surpassing beauty and depth
Christ gave; how many parables of delightful simplicity; how many answers,
full of wisdom, to the most erratic questions. Read, for example, Matthew,
chapters 5—7; Luke, chapter 20:20-40.
2. Our adversaries attempt to show that Christ, both by word and by
deed, showed Himself mad, insane, mentally unbalanced, immoderate, etc.
To back their assertion they point out the following places in the Gospels:
a. Mark 3:21: But when his own people had heard of it, they went out
to lay hold of him, for they said, "He has gone mad." Even though some of
Christ’s relatives may have thought Him mad, their opinion proves nothing.
The whole Gospel story cries out that Christ was neither out of His mind,
nor out of control. We cannot conclude, either, from the actual Greek text,
that Christ's relatives themselves thought Him mad. It may be that they went
out to protect Him from those who did lay such a charge at His feet. More­
over, the Greek words actually signify “He was beside himself," and do not
necessarily imply a condition of insanity.
When some modem critics (John Weisz, O. Holtzmann) state that a
“Messianic consciousness” can only be explained psychologically as a result
of a deranged imagination, they are obviously making such a statement on
the gratuitous assumption that a genuine mission from God and genuine divine
sonship—indeed any supernatural fact—is a priori impossible. See Ph. Kneib,
Moderne Lehen-Jesu-Forschung unter dem Einflusse der Psychiatrie (1908),
p. 46.
b. These words of Christ, say our antagonists, prove that He was mentally
unsound: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother . . .
he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26); "if someone strike thee on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39); “Therefore do not be
anxious, saying: 'What shall we eat?" or, 'What shall we drink?" or, "What
are we to put on?"" (Matthew 6:31); "But do not you be called ‘Rabbi" . . .
And call no one on earth your father . . . Neither be called masters" ( Matthew

(143)

THE TRUE RELIGION

23:8-9), and so forth. These sayings, we must remember, were uttered hyper­
bolical)}· to suit the Oriental mentality and an epigrammatic fashion of speech.
That they should be considered as hyperbole is usually clear from the context
or from other places in the Gospels. Could Christ really want us to hate our
parents, when as a matter of fact He orders us to love even our enemies
(.Matthew 5:24)? Apply Christ's own dictum: the letter kills, but the spirit
gives life! When Christ calls the Scribes and Pharisees "hypocrites” and a
"brood of vipers” (Matthew 12:34), the context shows that no hyperbole is
intended. He uses sharp language, perfectly justified both by the deeds of
those whom He addresses and by His own mission. It is always necessary to
keep the context and the group addressed in mind.
c. The deeds of Christ pointed to by our adversaries as showing that He
lacked moderation are the following: the expulsion of the merchants from the
Temple (John 2:13; Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45) and, above
all else, the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:13; Matthew 21:19). Christ was
stem towards those who violated the holiness of the Temple, but He did not
act wildly; certainly He had a valid reason for so doing—"The zeal for thy
house has eaten me up" (John 2:17).
All agree that the cursing of the fig tree was a symbolic action, signifying
the rejection of the synagogue, which outwardly exhibited leaves of legality
and zeal, but inwardly lacked the fruit of genuine holiness. See CCHS (1951 )
p. 880, no. 711c-d. The writer there pertinently remarks: "There is no
impatience in the words since he [Christ] expected no fruit and it would be
a curious sentimentality that could read cruelty there . . . especially as the
insentient tree becomes a signpost for man.” An example of such “curious
sentimentality” is found in Philip Wylie’s treatment of the incident in Genera­
tion of Vipers. Wylie accuses Christ of acting peevishly. He apparently accepts
the incident as true and we can only wonder what sort of mind it is that can
say, not what power Christ must have, but only how peevishly he has acted.
3. See John 3:16-18; 5:19, 22ff; 10:30; 14:6; 15:5; Matthew 24:30;
28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16.
4. Thus Renan writes: “He [Jesus] is the common glory of all who have
a human heart” (Vie de Jésus, Introduction).
5. On this point read Hettinger, Apologie, 18er Vortrag (Lecture): “Die
Person Jesu Christi,” 10th ed., p. 465; H. Felder, Die Heiligkeit Jesus (1921);
and Jesus Christus, II, 180-285.
6. Matthew 27:4, 19, 24.
7. Peter: "But you disowned the Holy and Just One" (Acts 3:14); You
know that you were redeemed from the vain manner of life handed down from
your fathers . . . with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blem­
ish and without spot (1 Peter 1:18-19); “Who did no sin, neither was deceit
found in his mouth" (Ibid. 2:22); John: “We have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the just (1 John 2:1); Sin is not in him (Ibid. 3:5);
St. Paul teaches the same doctrine: For our sakes he made him to be sin who
knew nothing of sin (2 Corinthians 5:21); Holy, innocent, undefiled, set apart
from sinners (Hebrews 7:26).
8. Bougaud marvels over the sublime sinlessness of Christ. He writes:
This unique fact elevates Jesus Christ to a height of grandeur immeasur­
ably above the rest of the great men of the world. For which of them

(144)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

was without sin? Which of them has given his own immaculate purity as
the foundation for a work of 1900 years? Which of them has so identified
his own life with moral beauty that to swerve away from that life is to
swerve away from moral good, and to copy his life is to attain to good?
From this viewpoint Jesus Christ has no equal, no rival. He is unique,
and by this one fact of his immaculate purity, he appears to us in the
midst of other men as in a sublime solitude (Jésus-Christ, p. 94).
9. See John 4:34.
10. See John 8:50.
11. See Luke 2:51.
12. The Imitation of Christ, Bk. I, 3, 4. Heinrich writes:
Even in the saints we find traces of human frailty; in Christ alone do we
find light without shadows. There lies even in the virtues of men at times
an element of imperfection. We are such limited beings that frequently
our very strength is our weakness. Virtue is much like talent: we develop
one virtue, to some extent, at the cost of others. Gentleness suffers with
the growth of forcefulness, dignity with that of humility, the interior life
with that of zealous, external activity. Even in the case of saints one virtue
stands out above all the others. Now and then the heroism of their virtue
frightens us because of an apparent excess and violence of which no doubt
their virtue had need in order to carry off the victory over human imper­
fection. But in Christ we gaze upon a phenomenon absolutely unique in
mankind. In Him are joined in a fine harmony what are apparently the
most contradictory of attributes and virtues: childlike simplicity and
marvelous wisdom; an incomparable gentleness and tenderness side by
side with unflinching forcefulness; the most perfect humility and the
most exalted dignity; restless activity and the most profound inner life;
burning zeal and a heavenly peacefulness; an all-embracing love and
compassion coupled with the highest earnestness of holy righteousness. It
is precisely this marvelous unity and harmony which bestow on Him that
incomparable moral beauty which everyone observes in Him. . . . Just as
in white light all the colors of the rainbow shine in their undivided unity,
so are all the virtues of the wise and the just, all the holiness of the saints
with the greatest completeness and purest beauty joined together in the
perfection of Christ as in their ultimate source and divine archetype
(Dogmat. theol. I, 2nd ed., 438).
Dr. A. Pierson praises the extraordinary harmony of Christ’s virtues in
this manner:
In the Son of Man we find more than one man: the stem preacher of
penance as well as the preacher of love; the ascetic denying all bonds of
blood as well as the bridegroom who prepares for his companions pure
joy; the hero full of enthusiasm who sees "Satan falling down like lightning
from heaven," as well as the supremely patient friend of man who com­
pares his preaching to the slowly growing seed; the heavenly-minded man
who criticizes all concern for earthly things, as well as the founder of a
religion who is not afraid to put upon the lips of his followers, as often
as they take their place before the Infinite, this prayer: "Give us this day
our daily bread" ( Geschiedenis v. h. Roomsch-Catholicisine tot op het
Con. van Trente, I, 5).
13. Heinrich again states:
In this ideal perfection of Jesus lies also the reason why He can be the
model and the object of the highest veneration and also of the most trust­
ing love for all men, without distinction of time, nationality, degree of

( 145 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

culture, or personal characteristics. All find in Him the purest and most
beautiful human nature. ... As Jesus once won the hearts of highly cul­
tured Greeks, so docs He today win the hearts of the poor savages of the
South Seas, who with wondering astonislunent hang on the very words
of the missionary who presents to their minds the picture of Jesus, of this
man who has never had an equal ( op. cit., p. 434 ).
Even Rousseau’s testimony here is amazing: He confesses:
If the life and death of a Socrates are the life and death of a wise man,
the life and death of Jesus are those of a God. Shall we say that the
history of the Gospel is a tale invented to please? My friend, one does
not invent in such fashion. ... At bottom, this is to fall back in the face
of the difficulty without resolving it. It would be more inconceivable for
several men to have harmoniously fabricated this book than for him to be
the only one who furnished its subject matter. Jewish authors would
never have created either this tone or this moral grandeur; and the Gospel
has characters so real, so great, so striking, so perfectly inimitable that an
inventor of them would have to be more striking a character than its
hero (Emile, Bk. I, IV).
14. It is not necessary to mention what a horrible monstrosity he would
conjure up for the moral order who would think that it could be admitted
that a man who displayed such tremendous sanctity in all things should none­
theless have been a vicious fraud.
15. See, for example, Mark 8:33; 9:32-33; Luke 10:41; 23:27-30; 2:49.
See Hennemann, Die Heiligkeit ]esu (1898).

( 146)

Article II
CHRIST'S PROPHECIES PROVE HIS DIVINE MISSION

I.

Christ Foretold Events to Come, Events Which Later
Actually Happened.
1. facts about Himself;
2. facts about His disciples;
3. facts about the destruction of the Holy City.
Corollary: On the same plane are statements revealing His
knowledge of things far off or hidden.

II.

Christ’s Predictions Do Not Admit of Natural Explanation.
1. The events foretold were:
a. numerous;
b. complex;
c. contingent on the free will of God or of men.
2. They were, moreover:
a. sure;
b. accurate;
c. crystal clear.

III.

Christ Made These Prophecies as a Guarantee of His
Mission.
1. In a general way: “These very works that I do bear
witness to me.”
2. Now and then Christ made a specific assertion to this
effect.
Corollary: The Apostles evidently so considered His knowl­
edge of hidden things.

(147)

Article II

CHRIST'S

PROPHECIES PROVE HIS DIVINE MISSION

In order to construct a valid argument on the basis of Christ’s
prophecies three facts must be demonstrated: 1. Christ foretold
events to come, events which later actually happened (historical
truth); 2. Christ’s foreknowledge of these things was no natural
knowledge (philosophical truth); 3. Christ made these predictions
in confirmation of His mission (relevant truth).
85 I. Christ Foretold Many Things which Later Actually
Came to Pass1
1. Facts about Himself. He began to tell them what would
happen to him, saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and
the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the Scribes;
and they will condemn him to death, and will deliver him to the
Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge
him, and put him to death; and on the third day he will rise again”
(Mark 10:32-34; see Matthew 20:18-19; Luke 18:32-33). The Old
Testament had indeed foretold that the Messias would die a violent
death, but at the time of Christ none of the Jews understood these
passages as applying to the Messias. As a result, the idea of a
suffering and dying Messias was foreign even to the minds of the
Apostles.2 Furthermore, none of the circumstances enumerated in
detail in His prediction, namely, that He would be betrayed to the
leaders of the Jews, that He would be mocked, spat upon, and
scourged by them, and finally, that He would rise on the third day
—none of these circumstances had been clearly foretold by any
Old Testament prophet.—The precision with which all these pre­
dictions were fulfilled is well known.
86
2. Facts about the disciples, a. He sent two of his disciples,
and said to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immedi­
ately on entering it you will find a colt tied, upon which no man
has yet sat; loose it, and bring it. And if anyone say to you, ‘What
are you doing?’ you shall say that the Lord has need of it, and

(148)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

immediately he will send it here" (Mark 11:2-3; see Matthew
21:2ff).—And so it happened.
b. And he said to them, "Behold, on your entering the city,
there will meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water; follow him
into the house into which he goes. And you shall say to the master
of the house, ‘The Master says to thee, "Where is the guest cham­
ber, that I may eat the passover there with my disciples?"’ And
he will show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready"
(Luke 22:10-12). And immediately therafter: And they went and
found just as he had told them (Luke 22:13).
c. And while they were eating, he said, “Amen 1 say to you,
one of you will betray me." . . . And Judas who betrayed him
answered and said, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “Thou has
said it” (Matthew 26:21, 25).
d. Jesus said to him [Peter], “Amen 1 say to thee, this very
night, before a cock crows, thou wilt deny me three times”
(Matthew 26:34; see Mark 14:30). For the fulfillment, see Matthew
26:69-74, and the parallel passages.
e. And while eating with them, he charged them not to depart
from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, “of
which you have heard,” said he, “by my mouth; for John indeed
baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy
Spirit not many days hence . . . you shall receive power when the
Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in
Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends
of the earth" (Acts 1:4-5, 8; see Luke 24:29). It is true that the
pouring forth of the Holy Spirit had been foretold by Joel,3 but
no one before Christ had made the precise prediction that this
Spirit would come upon the Apostles and that this would take place
within a short time after the Ascension. The fulfillment is recorded
in Acts 2: Iff.
3. Facts about the destruction of the Holy City. Daniel had 87
predicted the ruin of the city of Jerusalem and of the *Temple.
However, our Lord’s prophecy was so freshly original that it has
led many rationalists to conclude that the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke must have been written after the actual fall of the dty.
a. The destruction of the Temple would definitely not coincide
with the end of the world. This was a bit of news altogether
opposed to Jewish expectations: “Jerusalem will be trodden down
by the Gentiles, until the times of the nations be fulfilled’ (Luke
21:24).
( 149)

THE TRUE RELIGION

b. The city would be hemmed in by ramparts: "Thy enemies
will throw up a rampart about thee" (Luke 19:43). Josephus and
Tacitus’ testify that this is precisely what was done by Titus:
"Caesar Titus decided to use earthworks and ramparts in attacking
this city and its populace” (Hist., bk. 5, c. 13).
c. The Jews would experience extreme distress: "They will shut
thee in on every side" (Luke 19:43). "For there will be great dis­
tress over the land, and wrath upon this people. And they will fall
by the edge of the sword" (Luke 21:24). The frightful fulfillment
of this prophecy is described by Josephus: “The number of those
that perished during the whole siege was one million, one hundred
thousand. The majority of these were indeed of the same nation,
but did not belong to the city itself; for they had come up from the
whole country to the feast of unleavened bread. They were all of
a sudden hemmed in by an army, and so tightly that first a pesti­
lence broke out among them, to be followed in short order by a
famine” (Wars of the Jews, bk. 6, c. 9, 3).6
d. The Temple and city would be completely devastated: "Dost
thou see all these great buildings? There will not be left one stone
upon another that will not be thrown down" (Mark 13:2). They
"will not leave in thee one stone upon another" (Luke 19:44). As
a matter of fact, Titus had the Temple burnt to the ground.7 The
foundations and the remaining ruins were not quite completely
demolished, since the Jews, at the instigation of Julian the Apostate,
tried to rebuild the Temple. “During the night there was a great
earthquake, which shook loose the rocks which had been tom away
from the old foundations of the Temple and scattered them all,
and the neighboring buildings with them” (Socrates, Historia
Ecclesiastica, bk. 3, c. 2). “Fearful globes of fire bursting forth
near the foundations in frequent attacks made the place unap­
proachable, and actually consumed some of the workmen; thus
kept at a distance by the quite stubborn fire, they gave up the task
before it was fairly begun” (Ammianus Marcellinus, Re R. gest.,
bk. 23, c. 1).
Josephus states that “those who destroyed it, so thoroughly laid
the city even with the ground that those who came thither could
scarcely believe that it had ever been inhabited” (op. cit., bk. 7,
c. 1, 1).
e. The Jews would be scattered throughout all nations. Jeru­
salem, as the capital of the Jewish nation, and hence a symbol of
that nation itself, would not be rebuilt: "And they . . . will be led
away as captives to all the nations. And Jerusalem will be trodden
(150)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

down by the Gentiles, until the times of the nations be fulfilletT
(Luke 21:24).
Indeed, after the capture of the city by Titus, very many of
the Jews were sold into captivity; * those who stayed in Palestine
were conquered once more by Hadrian and were deported to many
different places, even as far away as Spain. From that time hence­
forth they have been scattered over all the face of the earth. Under
the same Hadrian Jerusalem was, it is true, rebuilt and given the
name Aelia Capitolina, but the Jews were never in possession of
the new city.®
Corollary

88

One may also consider as prophecies those statements of Christ
which revealed His knowledge of things far off or hidden. "When
thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee [Nathaniel]” (John 1:48).
“Thou has had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast is not
thy husband" (John 4:18). “Lazarus, our friend, sleeps. But I go
that I may wake him from sleep”. . . . Jesus said to them plainly,
“Lazarus is dead; and I rejoice on your account that I was not
there, that you may believe” (John 11:11-15). “Go to the sea and
cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. And opening its
mouth thou wilt find a stater” (Matthew 17:26).

II. Christ's Predictions Do Not Admit of o Natural
89
Explanation
It is apparent to any reader of the Gospel that Christ foretold
many events, which were at times quite complex, which depended
on the free will of God or of men. And His predictions were sure,
accurate, and crystal clear. Many of the events were of such a
nature that they could not even have been guessed in advance, and
some were completely beyond the capacity of any created intellect.
Therefore, it is certain that Christ could have foreseen all these
events, considered in their ensemble, only by means of divine
power. And if the same conclusion does not hold good for each
prediction as such, it does so for at least some individual pre­
dictions.
III. Christ Made These Prophecies as a Guarantee
90
of His Mission
1. In a general way Christ alleged all His marvelous works
as proof of His mission: “These very works that I do bear witness
to me, that the Father has sent me” (John 5:36).

(151)

THE TRUE RELIGION

2. In addition Christ now and then made a specific assertion
that He was foretelling a particular event for the precise purpose
of gaining belief in His divine mission. For example, after His pre­
diction of Judas’ treason, He went on: "I tell you now before it
comes to pass, that when it has come to pass you may believe that
I am he [the Messias]” (John 13:19). Similarly, after having fore­
told the ruin of the city, He added, “[They] will not leave in thee
one stone upon another, because thou hast not known the time of
thy visitation” (i.e., because you have refused to accept me as the
promised Messias) (Luke 19:44).
Corollary
The Apostles themselves quite evidently looked upon our Lord’s
knowledge of hidden things as a proof of His divine mission: “Now
we know that thou knotvest all things, and dost not need that any­
one should question thee. For this reason we believe that thou
earnest forth from God" (John 16:30).
Note: At this point the objection is usually raised that Christ
foretold as quite near at hand His second coming (Parousia) and
the end of the world. As this is a matter for quite lengthy discus­
sion, it will receive more complete consideration in Appendix II.
Notes
1. In order to avoid any cavil about the philosophical truth of this or that
prophecy, we deem it wise to omit Christ’s predictions about those things
already foretold in the Old Testament, except for those prophecies to which
He gave new precision or a fresh application. See F. Schmid, Christus als
Prophet; RPA, XVII (1914), 801; XVIII, 5 and 161.
2. See John 12:34; Luke 18:34.
3. Joel 2:28; see Acts 2:16-17.
4. Daniel 9:17-27; see no. 157ff.
5. Wars of the Jews, bk. 5, 12, 2; bk. 6, 8, 1.
6. Hettinger remarks that Josephus is not always reliable when it comes
to reporting numbers (Lehrbuch, 2nd ed., p. 358). See also H. St. John
Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929).
7. Josephus, op. cit., bk. 6, 4-6.
8. Ibid., bk. 6, 9, 2.
9. See Granderath, "Die Triiminer des Israelitischen Volkes,” in Stimmen
XVII (1879), 42ff. Many theologians in their treatment of this passage draw
additional arguments from Matthew 24:2-14 (and the parallel passages). But
since exegetes are not agreed as to whether the things there set forth by
Christ were meant as signs which would precede the destruction of the city,
these passages cannot form the basis of a sure argument. There are, in fact,
four main views on these verses:
a. They list the signs which will herald the destruction of the city.

(152)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

b. They give the signs that will precede the final judgment.
c. We have in this passage signs pointing to both disasters simultaneously.
These signs will be realized fully before the destruction of the world and
partially before that of the city.
d. Christ here gives warnings rather than real signs. It is as though He
says: "You ask me about the time and the sign, but it is much more important
to be alert and to take care that no one lures you from your faith in me. For
impostors, wars, disasters, persecutions, and all kinds of ills are on the way,
and you must stand unshaken in the midst of all this. Come what may, my
Gospel will be spread throughout the whole world.” See Knabenbauer, op. cit.,
pp. 315ff.

( 153)

Article III
CHRISTS MIRACLES PROVE HIS DIVINE MISSION

I. Christ Worked Many Miracles. This Truth is Established:
1. by the testimony of the Evangelists.
a. If their testimony is acceptable in other matters, it is
trustworthy in this matter also.
b. Remove the miracles and the whole Gospel story
crumbles.
c. They are vastly different from those recorded in the
Apocrypha.
Note: Christ’s foes, too, admitted the truth of His miracles.
2. by the testimony of non-Biblical writers of antiquity.
II. The Prodigious Deeds of Christ were Real Miracles. They
Cannot be Explained by:
1. occult natural forces (trickery, deceit, chance);
2. the intervention of an evil spirit.
The only explanation left is that He performed them by
divine power.

III. In the Performance of His Miracles Christ Intended to
Prove His Divine Mission.
1. This is true in general of all His miracles, considered
in toto.
2. At times He made special mention of the purpose of a
miracle.

( 154)

Article III
CHRIST'S MIRACLES PROVE HIS DIVINE MISSION ’

I. Christ Performed Very Many Miraculous Works.
There is no need to catalogue the miracles performed by Christ.
The Gospels recount more than forty individual miracles, and they
refer to many more in general terms.2 For outstanding examples,
representative of the three main classes of miracles, read the
accounts of the multiplication of the loaves,3 of the cure of the
man born blind,4 and of the raising of Lazarus.5 For Christ’s
miracles can be reduced to three chief categories. Some had as
their subjects irrational creatures, others men, and still others
spiritual beings (as in the casting out of evil spirits).
This prepares the way for an examination of the historical truth
of Christ’s miracles in general. The argument is based, not on one
or another individual miracle, but on all taken together.
The fact that Christ performed miracles is established:
1. by the testimony of the Evangelists, and
2. by the testimony of non-Biblical authors.
1. The testimony of the Evangelists. The historical trustworthi­
ness of the Evangelists is assumed as proved. It would be well to
point out here the inconsistency and unreasonableness of those
who reject the testimony of the Evangelists in the matter of
miracles and accept their testimony on all other points. Such a
position is logically impossible. The following considerations may
help to show why it is:
a. It is not any more difficult to verify miraculous facts than
others. If anything, miracles attract more careful attention. If the
sacred authors are accepted as trustworthy in other matters, it is
unreasonable to reject their witness to miracles.
b. The miracles are so closely connected with the other facts
and teachings recounted in the Gospels that, if they were removed,
the whole Gospel story would have to be rejected. Without miracles
the story loses its special character and lacks all logical con­
sistency.®
c. The character of Christ’s miracles is vastly different from
(155)

THE TRUE RELICrON

the character of those described in the apocrypha. They are not
hollow shows of power or tales to feed men’s curiosity, but they
are instances of mercy and charity.
The historical truth of Christ’s miracles, according to the testi­
mony of the Evangelists, was admitted not only by His disciples
but also by His foes.’
92
2. The Testimony of non-Biblical writers of antiquity. No one
can deny that in the first years of Christianity, everyone, Christians,
Jews, and Gentiles alike, admitted the miracles of Christ as
historically certain.
a. Quadratus, in his defense of the Christians addressed to the
emperor Hadrian (117-138), wrote about those whom Christ had
healed or raised from the dead:
These people were seen by everyone, not only at the time they
were healed or recalled to life, but in the ensuing years as well.
Nor was it only during the earthly life of the Saviour that they
remained alive, but for a long time after His departure; indeed,
some have survived even to our own day ( quoted by Eusebius,
HE, bk. 4, c. 4).8

St. Justin Martyr, recalling Christ’s miracles, remarks: “That
Jesus did these things you may learn from the Reports drawn up
by Pontius Pilate” (Apology, bk. 1, c. 48).
Tertullian, in his account of the life, miracles and death of
Christ, states: “Pilate, who was himself a Christian as far as his
conscience was concerned, reported to the reigning emperor
Tiberius all these matters touching Christ” (Apologeticum, 21,
86-87).·
b. It has already been said (no. 75) that Flavius Josephus
referred to Christ as a “wonder worker.” And how little the Jews,
whether during Christ’s lifetime or later, dared to deny His miracles
is clear from the fact that they tried to explain them away as tricks
of magic which He had learned in Egypt (such is the explanation
offered by the Talmud) or as having been performed by the power
of the name YHWH ° pronounced with its proper vowels, which He
would have learned deceitfully (so states the Toledoth Jesu).10
• YHWH is the sacred Tetragrammaton, being the four consonants of the
Hebrew word “Yahweh,” which is generally taken to mean "I am Who am,”
the answer given by God to Moses when asked what His name was. See
Exodus, 3:13-14.

(156)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

c. Origen makes the following statement in regard to Celsus,
a most bitter foe of Christianity:
He admits to a certain extent the miracles which Jesus per­
formed and by which He drew many people to follow Him as
the Christ, but he makes the calumnious charge that those
miracles were performed not by divine power, but by magical
arts (Contra Celsum, bk. 1, c. 38).
Julian the Apostate declared:

This Jesus did nothing particularly memorable throughout his
whole lifetime, unless one considers it remarkable to cure the
lame and the blind and to exorcise some possessed people in
the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany (quoted by St. Cyril of
Alexandria, Adversus Julianum, 6).

On the supposition that Christ’s miracles were only the fictions
of His disciples, would not their contemporaries, as foes of the
Christian religion, have openly and flatly given the lie to such a
deceit? Would not later adversaries of Christianity, Gentiles and
Jews especially, have unceasingly repeated this rebuttal, particu­
larly in view of the fact that, as history shows, the Apostles and
the earliest Fathers and Apologists were always appealing to these
miracles as proof of their teaching?
If it is clear on the basis of non-Biblical testimony that Christ
was a wonder-worker, then there is absolutely no reason why
those who admit the historicity of the Gospels as a whole should
reject the miracle accounts that form part of those Gospels.

II. The Prodigious Deeds of Christ Were Real Miracles.
93
If Christ’s deeds cannot be explained by appealing to occult
natural powers or to the intervention of evil spirits, then the only
explanation left is that they were performed by divine power.
1. Any explanation based on an ingenious use of natural
forces is impossible.
a. At least several of Christ’s miracles clearly surpass any cre­
ated power, whether one considers the subject on which they were
worked (for example, raising the dead),11 or the manner in which
they were performed ( for example, the multiplication of the loaves
or the curing of the ruler’s son from a distance).12 Miracles of this
nature alone suffice to establish our point; but in addition they

( 157)

THE TRUE RELIGION

show that the wonders whose miraculous character is not readily
evident were not performed by any natural power (see no. 52).
b. If one considers the great number and the rich variety of the
wonders which Jesus worked without any material equipment and
openly in public places, crowded streets, in the sight of friend and
foe alike, then one cannot have any suspicion of trickery or deceit;
nor is any other merely natural explanation adequate. Arnobius
asks the pagans:

Can you point out to us, show us from all those Magi who ever
existed through the ages, any one that ever did anything
resembling what Christ did, even to the thousandth part? (The
Case Against the Pagans, ACW translation, I, bk. 1, 43).
Christ, far from acting as a magician, showed by the frequency,
variety, and manner of His miracles that He was not only a wonder­
worker, but in actual fact the Lord of all creation, animate and
inanimate.
c. One has simply to read the “natural” explanation of Christ’s
miracles advanced from time to time by unbelievers to realize that
they are futile, perverse, and ridiculous. 0 One of their arguments
0 In this connection, it is interesting to read some of the explanations
advanced by rationalists. Renan explains Christ’s power to cast out devils in
this fashion:
There were at that time many lunatics in Judea, doubtless because of the
great mental excitement then prevalent. Jesus had a great deal of influence
over these poor wretches. In this case a gentle word was enough to put the
demon to flight (Vie de Jésus, Ch. 16).
K. Furrer states:
People were awaiting the coming of the Messias with feverish impatience.
Long-continued hoping and waiting had shattered the nerves of thousands
and had caused a whole rash of disease symptoms. What a tremendous
impression this intrinsically healthy and holy personality of Jesus must
have made on these neurotics! Yes, we understand that hundreds upon
hundreds left him with their health restored (Vortrage Uber das Leben
Jesu 1902, p. 126).
G. Paulus explains the multiplication of loaves in this manner: Christ
and the Apostles fed a few with what little they had. Others who had brought
food with them were moved by their example to give part of what they had
to others who had nothing. In this way all were fed. Lloyd Douglas gave a
modern twist to this theme in his popular novel, The Robe. Bernard Weisz,
in his Leben Jesu, II, 4th ed. (1902), 186, offers practically the same explana­
tion as does Furrer in his work. Renan explains this miracle by saying: "Thanks
to an extreme frugality, the holy band was able to subsist there [in the desert].
Naturally people drought they saw a miracle in this” (op. cit., Ch. 12).
Some try to explain the calming of the tempest by assuming that Christ
poured oil on the water. Hase thought it was a question of Christ’s calming

(158)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

can be summarized in this manner: at the time of Christ people
were so ignorant of the forces of nature that they unhesitatingly
cried "miracle!” Perhaps. But did their ignorance keep them from
observing the facts and recording them truthfully? Let the learned
of the present day explain the recorded data.
2. Any explanation which appeals to the aid of an evil spirit 94
must be rejected for these reasons:
a. some miracles of Christ, such as the raising of the dead, sur­
pass the powers of any created being;
b. the circumstances surrounding His deeds dispel any possible
suspicion of diabolical intervention. By circumstances here are
meant Christ’s eminent holiness and the manner in which He per­
formed His miracles, humbly, not to satisfy curiosity, but to help
the suffering;13
c. in addition, the purpose and results of Christ’s miracles make
it clear that no demon could have aided Him. Christ performed
His miracles to recommend His teaching, a teaching completely
holy and altogether antagonistic to devils. Would an evil spirit
willingly have used his power to commend and spread such a
doctrine? 14
Christ Performed His Miracles to Prove His Divine
Mission.15
1. This is true in general of all His miracles, considered
as a unit. Thus, to the question of the Baptist’s disciples, “Art
thou he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” He
answered: “Go and report to John what you have heard and seen:
the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear,
the dead rise, the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matthew
11:3-5). When the Jews demanded: “If thou art the Christ, tell us
openly,” He answered: “I tell you and you do not believe. The
works that I do in the name of my Father, these bear witness conr
III.

the minds of the Apostles, disturbed by the storm. Furrer writes: "A few
minutes later the storm subsided. It is a peculiar characteristic of stonns in
that area to come up suddenly and just as suddenly to stop again” (op. cit.,
p. 129). O. Holtzmann remarks: “The only amazing thing is that the sea
actually became calm. But then it could only be a coincidence” ( Leben Jesu,
1901, p. 209).
Rationalists offer similar explanations for Christ’s walking on the sea—
or rather, as they say, to the sea! See Ottiger, Theologia fundamentalis, I, 759;
Fonck, ZKTh (1903), pp. 302ff; Dr. J. Smit, De daemoniacis in historia
Euangelica (1913).

( 159)

9

THE TRUE RELIGION

earning me. . . . Do you say of him whom the Father has made
holy and sent into the world, ‘Thou blasphemest,’ because I said,
Ί am the son of God.'? If I do not perform the works of my Father,
do not believe me. But if I do perform them, and you are not
willing to believe me, believe the works” (John 10:24-38). Else­
where He says: “For the works which the Father has given me to
accomplish, these very works that I do, bear witness to me, that
the Father has sent me” (John 5:36. See 15:21-24).
2. At times He made special mention of the purpose of a
miracle. For example, on the occasion of the resurrection of Laz­
arus He said: “Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me.
Yet I knew that thou always hearest me; but because of the people
who stand round, I spoke, that they may believe that thou hast sent
me.” When he had said this, he cried out with a loud voice,
“Lazarus, come forth!” (John 11:41-43). Similarly, just before He
cured the paralytic, He said, “But that you may know that the Son
of Man has power on earth to forgive sins,”—then he said to the
paralytic,-“Arise, take up thy pallet and go to thy house”
(Matthew 9:6).
Hence, anyone who is really sincere can only say with Nico­
demus, “Rabbi, we know that thou hast come a teacher from God,
for no one can work these signs that thou workest unless God be
with him” (John 3:2).
96
Scholion 1. Solution of some difficulties. Rationalists and Mod­
ernists claim at times that Christ Himself held miracles in low
esteem, or at least that He did not perform His miracles with a
view to leading men to faith. The falsity of the claim is evident
from the foregoing remarks, but some difficulties remain.
a. Christ sometimes rebuked those who asked for a miracle;16
but these were of the type who had not the least interest in learn­
ing the truth and wanted to disguise their malice under a mask
of ignorance; the type who were always looking for new wonders
and especially for “a sign from heaven.” But at the same time He
foretold what was by far the greatest sign of all, His resurrection.
Elsewhere, Christ scolds a bit more gently those who, though not
really incredulous, were slow to believe.17
b. Again, He praised those “who have not seen, and yet have
believed” (John 20:29);-but this text has nothing to do with
miracles. Rather He is reprimanding those who are not satisfied
with legitimate evidence and demand proof which they can verify
with their own physical senses. Did not Thomas deserve this gentle

( 160)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

reproof when, after Christ’s own prediction and the testimony of
his fellow Apostles, he refused to admit the fact of the resurrection
until he could verify it by seeing with his own eyes and touching
with his own hands? 18
c. Christ habitually required of the sick an act of faith in
Himself before He cured them. Indeed it was quite fitting that
they who already had sufficient motives for belief on other grounds
should prove themselves deserving of His divine bounty by express­
ing their faith in Him. Still this by no means prevented the miracle
from serving as a confirmation of Christ’s divine mission, as it
could by strengthening the faith of the sick person and by leading
others to believe. Rather, this demand of an advance act of faith
proves the relevant truth of the ensuing miracle. He who says,
“I will cure you if you believe that I am the promised Messias,”
explicitly shows that the miracle to follow will confirm His mission.
Furthermore, Christ did not always demand faith in advance,19
and quite often He demanded, or at least took into account, the
faith, not of the sick person, but of others.20 It is consequently clear
that the belief He looked for in advance of a miracle was not a
psychological preparation of the person for a cure, such as a sick
person’s confidence in his doctor sometimes is, but a purely ethical
preparation.
d. If Christ performed, or could perform, only a few miracles
in His native district because of the unbelief of His fellow-towns­
men,21 this means only that our Saviour did not wish to lavish
His gifts on people who were stubbornly incredulous. Indeed, He
could not in all fairness do so, for they were unworthy, and their
attitude held out little promise for the future.22
e. Finally, one cannot deny the relevant truth of Christ’s
miracles on the ground that He forbade the publicizing of some
of them.23 Since He was not only a teacher of truth but also a
model of virtue, it was necessary that He give, even in this matter,
an example of humility. Besides, there may have been special
underlying reasons which made inopportune too wide a publica­
tion of some miracles. For one thing, Christ wished to continue
preaching for some time to come among the Jews and to win men
over to true Messianism by weaning them gradually from the
idea of a temporal kingdom. But, in the ordinary course of
events, He could not have been able to do this if all His miracles,
dazzlingly clear from the very beginning, had over-excited the
minds of the disciples, dreaming as they were of a Messianic

(161)

THE TRUE RELIGION

kingdom in the political sense, and had at the same time put too
sharp an edge on the hate His enemies bore Him.-4
97
Scholion 2. The symbolic meaning of Christ's miracles. "We
must accept the miracles of our Lord and Savior in such a way
as to believe in their reality and to learn the lesson they have for
us” (St. Gregor}', Homilia 2 in Evangelic, no. 1). “Let us ask of
these miracles what they have to tell us about Christ; for if they
are understood, they have such a message. Since Christ Himself is
the Word of God, every act of this Word is a word addressed to us”
(St. Augustine, Tractatus 24 in Joannem, no. 2). In view of these
and of other like assertions of the holy Fathers, we may say:
a. Christ’s miracles as a whole show symbolically the purpose
of His mission, the nature of which they prove. Our Lord’s miracles
did not simply evoke a sterile admiration; they were positively and
eminently advantageous for men. By the greater part of them men
were freed from the tyranny of the devil, restored to health, even
to life. As enslavement by the devil, temporal calamities and death
are nothing other than the results of and the punishment for sin,
do not Christ’s miracles, by removing the consequences of sin, teach
us that Christ was sent to free mankind from sin? From this it
follows that Christ’s miracles were not irrelevant deeds having
nothing to do with His teaching, His “good news.” They are inti­
mately bound up with the Gospel and are, as it were, samples and
pledges of that perfect liberation and restoration which Christ
promised and prepared by His preaching.
b. Many of Christ’s miracles illustrated in a special way the
doctrines He proposed. He prefaced the discourse on the Eucharist
with the multiplication of loaves;26 He cured the man born blind
to show that He was the Light of the world;26 to strengthen belief
in Himself as the Resurrection and the Life He raised Lazarus
from the dead.27
98

Corollary

Miracles performed by God the Father. On the same plane as
the miracles of Christ one can consider those which God the Father,
apart from the intervention of Christ’s humanity, performed in
Christ’s favor—like His sending the angels and the star to proclaim
His birth,28 or His rescuing Him from Herod’s clutches,20 or His
declaration of Christ’s dignity at the baptism in the Jordan,30 at
the Transfiguration,31 and at the time of His death upon the
cross.32 For it is most evident that God could not have called atten­

( 162)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

tion to and recommended by such prodigies a man who falsely
claimed to be the legate and the Son of God. All these wonderful
works were an eloquent commentary on the words spoken by the
Father: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear
him” (Matthew 17:5).

Notes
1. See Felder, op. cit., II, 291—471;
Fillion, L., Les miracles de N. S. Jésus-Christ (1909-1910);
Jacquier and Bourchany, La Résurrection de J.-C. et les miracles
évangéliques ( 1911 ) ;
Watterott, Ign., Lehre und Wunder des Gottmenschen (1922); and
Dausch, P., "Die Wunder Jesu” in BiZ, V (1912) nos. 11-12.
2. See Matthew 8:16 and Luke 4:40 for examples.
3. Matthew 14:14ff. (See also Mark 6; Luke 9; John 6.)
4. See John 9:Iff.
5. See John 11. The article in RPA 31 (1921), 533ff is good on this point.
6. “The miracle accounts form the substance of the synoptic narrative
to such an extent that once you reject them the whole intricate mosaic loses
all trace of a recognizable plan, all intelligible meaning. . . . Unless you
accept miraculous cures as everyday occurrences there is simply no Gospel
story.” Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien (1863), p. 509.
7. See Matthew 9:34; Luke 23:8; John 11:47.
8. Philip Sidetes (c. 450) in his Historia Christiana relates that Papias
remembered persons raised to life by Christ who lived to the time of Hadrian.
See Preuschen, Antilegomena (1901), p. 58.
9. Neither St. Justin nor Tertullian, who had read Justin’s apology, nor
anyone else for that matter, indicates that he had personally read or even seen
these Acts of Pilate. In view of this, many scholars conclude that these
apologists merely assumed the existence of such a report only because they
were under the definite impression that the Roman procurators sent to Rome
a report on all matters of major importance. The extant Acts of Pilate were
actually composed in the fourth or fifth century. See A. Hamack, Die Chron­
ologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, I, 605-611; Battifol, La
Littérature grecque, 3rd ed., p. 38; Bardenhewer, Altkirchliche Litteratur, I,
409; Quasten, Patrology, I, 115-118.
10. See Norbert A. Tux, Compendium theologiae fundamentalis, I, 261;
Liebermann, Institutiones theologicae, I, 10th ed., 422.
11. Rationalists try in vain to rule out miracles involving the raising of
the dead by objecting that it is very difficult to determine whether or not a
person is really dead. For—and this is just one among many possible answers
—how could Christ have been the only one to know, iu spite of the fact that
everyone testified to the contrary, that Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, and the
widow’s son were not dead, and this even before He had seen them (at least
Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter)? Furthermore, in the case of Lazarus, Christ
had foretold to the Apostles His friend’s death and his imminent return to
life. And He had made this prediction while still some distance from Bethany.
Read the accounts in John 11; Luke 7:1 Iff, 8:49ff.

( 163)

THE THUE RELIGION

12. See John 4;46ff.
13. Christ Himself excluded the possibility of diabolical intervention. See
Matthew 12:25-37.
14. See Luke 11:15-18.
15. Modernists and others deny this. See the decree Lamentabili, proposi­
tion 28; DB 2028.
16. See Matthew 12:39, 16:1; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16-29.
17. See John 4:48.
18. See Mark 16:14.
19. See John 9:6, 35.
20. See Matthew 8:13, 9:2, 15:28; John 4:47£F.
21. Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:5.
22. See Billot, De Verbo incarnato, 8th ed. (1942), p. 235; J. Huby, S.J.,
L’Evangile et les Evangiles (Paris, 1940), pp. 21-22; Garrigou-Lagrange,
De revelatione (Rome, 1945), II, 307ff.
23. Matthew 9:30, 12:16ff: He warned them not to make him known; that
what was spoken through Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, who said,
.
He will not wrangle, nor cry aloud, neither will anyone hear his voice in the
streets." See also Mark 1:44.
24. See Wilmers, De religione revelata, p. 339; Buzy, La Sainte Bible,
p. 9 (Paris, 1946); F. Chable, "Die Wunder Jesu, in ihrein innern Zussammenhange betrachtet,” STS II, 4, 15.
25. Sec John 6.
26. See John 9:5ff.
27. See John 11:25.
28. See Luke 2:8; Matthew 2:2.
29. See Matthew 2:13.
30. See Matthew 3:16.
31. See Matthew 17:5.
32. See Matthew 27:51ff.

( 164 )

Article IV
CHRIST’S RESURRECTION PROVES HIS DIVINE MISSION

I. Christ Foretold His Resurrection.
II. He Foretold It As a proof of His Divine Mission.
III. Christ Really Died, As Is Evident from:
1. the unanimous teaching of the Evangelists;
2. the activities of His friends;
3. the activities of His foes;
4. the activities of the officials.
IV. Christ Really Came Back to Life.
1. Theories of rationalists:
a. rejection of the Gospel account of an empty tomb;
b. apparitions of our Lord merely subjective or objective
visions;
c. belief in the resurrection a result of evolution in Chris­
tian consciousness.
2. Proof of thesis is based on:
a. an exposition of facts;
b. a refutation of rationalist hypotheses regarding the
resurrection:
1. swoon and subsequent revival;
2. fraud;
3. evolution;
c. a refutation of rationalist hypotheses regarding
apparitions:
1. fraud and deceit;
2. hallucination.
3. Additional remarks on the evolution theory.

Corollary:
Why did Christ appear only to His friends?
Epilogue:
The Catholic Church continues Christ’s mission.

( 165)

Article IV
99

CHRISTS RESURRECTION PROVES HIS DIVINE MISSION

The resurrection of our Lord holds first place among all the
arguments advanced to prove the credibility of Ilis claims. The
Apostles adduced the fact of the resurrection as the foremost argu­
ment of their preaching.1 St. Paul, in unmistakable terms, made it
the keystone of faith: If Christ has not risen, vain then is our
preaching, vain too is your faith (1 Corinthians 15:14). Through­
out nineteen centuries, everyone, adversary as well as proponent,
has considered it the basis of the entire faith; and no wonder, for
it is a brilliant miracle, intimately related by its very nature with
the truth of the mission of Christ the Redeemer. Indeed Christ
Himself chose it as the crown of all His marvelous works, as the
sublime seal of all His preaching.
Since there is no doubt about the philosophical truth of the
fact, that is, about its being truly miraculous, only its historical
and relevant truth need to be discussed. The decree Lamentabili
condemned the following proposition:

The Saviour’s resurrection is not a fact of the historical order,
but purely of the supernatural order, neither proved nor prov­
able, gradually deduced from other facts by the Christian
consciousness (DB 2036).
The object of this chapter is to demonstrate that the resurrec­
tion was not only a miracle but also the fulfillment of a prophecy
made by Christ.

100 I. Christ Clearly and Frequently Foretold His Resurrection.
From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must
... be put to death, and on the third day rise again (Matthew
16:21).
Jesus cautioned them, saying, "Tell the vision [the Transfigura­
tion] to no one, till the Son of Man has risen from the dead”
(Matthew 17:9; see Mark 9:8).
And Jesus said to them, “You will all be scandalized this night.

( 166)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

. . . But after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee" (Mark
14:27-28).
Christ’s words are abundantly clear: And what he said he spoke
openly (Mark 8:32). It is quite obvious that even His enemies
were aware of this prophecy and understood what it meant: The
chief priests and the Pharisees went in a body to Pilate, saying,
“Sir, we have remembered how that deceiver said, while he was
yet alive, ‘After three days 1 will rise again.’ Give orders, therefore,
that the sepulchre be guarded until the third day" (Matthew
27:62-64).
Rationalists have absolutely no reasonable basis for their con­
tention that Christ had in mind some sort of metaphorical resur­
rection, such as the triumph of His cause, or a spiritual fellowship
with His disciples, or assistance to be sent them from heaven, or
something else of like nature.2

II. Christ Foretold His Coming Resurrection os a Proof of ιοί
His Divine Mission.
1. When, at the beginning of His public life, Christ cleared the
Temple of merchants, saying, “Do not make the house of my
Father a house of business," the Jews, that is, the leaders who had
at least tacitly countenanced this profanation, asked: “What sign
dost thou show us, seeing that thou dost these things?" Since the
rightful authorities allow this business to go on, you have no right
to stop it unless you can show some clear signs that you are
armed with authority from God. Their question amounted to a
request for the credentials of His divine mission. Accordingly,
in answer Jesus said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three
days I will raise it up.” The Jews therefore said, “Forty-six years
has this temple been in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three
days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. When,
accordingly, he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered
that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word
that Jesus had spoken (John 2:14-22).
Although neither the Jews nor the disciples themselves grasped
the meaning of the prophecy at that time, Christ actually had
in mind the resurrection of His body. He deliberately set up the
prophecy in advance to serve later as a proof of His mission.3
2. Then certain of the Scribes and Pharisees answered him,
saying, “Master, we would see a sign from thee.” But he answered
and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation demands a
(167)

THE TRUE RELIGION

sign. and no sign shall be given it but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
For even as Jonas was in the belly of the fish three days and three
nights, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40)?
It is clear that there is question here of a return from the dead.
That this return is foretold as a sign of the divine mission is evident
from the context. The request of the Pharisees can mean only that
they wanted to see some clear proof that He was in reality the one
He claimed to be. In the ensuing verses (41-42) Christ asserts that
He is greater than Jonas and Solomon, and that as a result the
Jews will be condemned for not believing Him. The preceding
verses (22-37) recount the events which seem to have occasioned
the question of the Pharisees. Christ had cured a possessed man
who was both blind and dumb, whereupon the amazed throng
asked, “Can this be the Son of David?", that is, the promised Mes­
sias. The Pharisees countered with the accusation that Christ cast
out devils by the power of Beelzebub. Then our Lord replied that
He cast out devils “by the Spirit of God," and that accordingly the
“kingdom of God” had arrived in their midst. This reply furnished
yet other Pharisees the opportunity to demand a sign from heaven 8
precisely as confirmation of that divine authority to which He
appealed and which the throngs ascribed to Him.0
3. Moreover, even if Christ had never explicitly proposed His
resurrection as an argument for His mission, its relevant truth
would still be sufficiently clear. He had constantly presented Him­
self as God’s envoy. He had openly declared that He had the power
to lay down His life and to take it up again. He had even asserted
that the Father had willed Him to lay down His life with a view
to receiving it back again.7 He had been put to death for claiming
to be the Son of God.8 In the light of all this, is not God’s act of
raising Jesus from the dead a perfectly evident confirmation of the
latter’s teaching?

102 III. Christ Really Died.
Adversaries have left no stone unturned in their efforts to do
away with the fact of the resurrection. During the modern era
some rationalists—a handful, it is true, and without any support
from the ancient enemies of Christianity—have had the audacity
to claim that Christ did not really die on the cross, but merely
lost consciousness and was later revived by the sharp odor of the
burial spices, or by drugs of some sort (Salvador, G. Paulus, Hase).
( 168)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

Consequently, if the argument that Christ returned to life after His
death is to be genuinely effective, the fact must first be established
that He neither feigned death nor merely swooned, but that He
died a real, physical death.
A consideration of the following points easily shows that Christ
really died.
1. The Evangelists unanimously teach that He died. One of
them, John, was an eye-witness, and wrote: And bowing his head,
he gave up his spirit (John 19:30).
2. The action of Christ's friends prove that He really died.
These friends, Joseph, Nicodemus, the holy women, cared for the
Lord as they would for a dead person. They entombed Him, some­
thing they would never have done had they doubted to the slight­
est degree the fact of His death. The manner of His burial, which
involved wrapping the body in tight cloths, embalming it with
approximately one hundred pounds of aromatic spices, and placing
it in a walled-up rock tomb,9 would have certainly caused Christ’s
death if by any remote chance He had been still breathing. Cer­
tainly the burial would not have revived Him. That the Apostles
and the other disciples were unquestionably certain of Christ’s
death is abundantly clear from the subsequent difficulty they experi­
enced in admitting the truth of His resurrection.
3. The activities of Christ's enemies furnish further proof.
Had they not been sure that Christ was dead, they would never
have allowed His body to be taken down from the cross,10 espe­
cially as they were aware of the prediction of the resurrection.11
If Christ had not really died, they would never have had to take
refuge later in the fable of the stolen corpse.
4. Added proof is furnished by the actions of the officials
who took part in the execution. To avoid leaving the bodies on
the crosses over the Sabbath, soldiers were sent to break the legs
of those crucified and thereby to bring their sufferings to a speedy
end. In fact they did break the legs of the robbers, who still had
some life left in them; but, when they came to Jesus, and saw that
he was already dead, they did not break his legs; but one of the
soldiers opened his side with a lance, and immediately there came
out blood and water (John 19:33-34). The breaking of the legs,
which was really an additional torture, was dispensed with in the
case of Christ, precisely because He was already dead, as all could
clearly see. Still, in order to exclude any possible doubt about
His death, one of the soldiers took his lance and inflicted the
( 169)

THE TRUE RELIGION

coup de grâce. That this lance thrust inflicted a lethal wound is
clear when one considers its very purpose, which was to make
certain of Christ's death on the supposition that He might possibly
be still alive. That it achieved its purpose may be gathered from
the size of the wound, which was large enough to receive Thomas’
hand.12 The authentic testimony of the centurion corroborates all
this: But Pilate wondered whether he had already died. And send­
ing for the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead.
And when he learned from the centurion that he was, he granted
the body to Joseph (Mark 15:44-45).13 No, there was no physician
there to write a death certificate, but on the basis of the data at
the disposal of history, any doctor of any age can judge for
himself.14

103 IV. Christ Really Came Back to Life.15
1. Theories of the rationalists—Though only a few rational­
ists have denied the death of our Lord, all reject His return to
life, but not for the same reasons.
a. Some reject completely, or at least partially, the credibility
of the Gospels concerning the fact of the empty tomb, and brashly
declare that the Apostles and other heralds of the resurrection
simply deceived the whole world. Some insist that our Lord’s body
was stolen from the tomb by the Apostles or by Joseph of Arimathea
(Holtzmann), or by the Jewish leaders themselves (Réville), and
that this was done on Pilate’s authority ( Le Roy ). Loisy holds that
our Lord’s body was never given private burial, but was thrown
into the common grave reserved for criminals. Others—and they
are by far the majority—grant that the Apostles were fully con­
vinced of the resurrection, but insist that they were victims of
hallucination, or that, at the most, through some sort of imaginary
vision they saw our Lord living, not in the flesh, but in the spirit.
b. The appearances of our Lord were either subjective or objec­
tive visions. They were subjective if, as the result of some abnormal
physiological or psychological disposition, the visionary’s internal
senses were so strongly and vividly affected that he believed these
sensory reactions to be stimulated genuinely by some external
object (Meyer). They would have been objective, not in the sense
that any objective reality acted as a stimulus for these sensory
reactions, but in the sense that the experiences themselves and the
ensuing judgment passed on them were the immediate effect of
direct divine action (Reim, Schweitzer).
( Π0)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

c. Rationalists advance these explanations of the empty tomb
and of our Lord s appearances only to account for certain progres­
sive stages of belief in the God who came back to life. But in the
name of literary and historical criticism, they flatly deny the fact
of the resurrection itself. Following the lead of A. Harnack, they
will admit the truthfulness of the synoptic Gospels, but only in the
sense that these Gospels record faithfully the legends and the
beliefs current at the time of their composition.
Belief in Christ’s resurrection, clearly expressed in the Gospels,
is nothing but the effect of a gradual process of evolution whose
successive stages can still be discerned from a comparative study
of the various documents. Four stages took place. 1. At the very
beginning any notion of Christ’s rising to life after three days in
the tomb was simply non-existent. Soon, however, the Apostles,
back in Galilee, began to reminisce about their departed Master,
and these reminiscences led to faith in Jesus. In this way were laid
the foundations for the subsequent hallucinations, which were not
long in coming. The Apostles and other disciples of our Lord
convinced themselves, in good faith, that they had seen Jesus, even
though they had actually seen nothing at all. This original tradition
is recorded almost without corruption by St. Paul (1 Cor. 15:3-8).
2. Once Jesus had been seen, the process of evolution entered the
second stage, in which He was declared alive. To explain this, the
tale that Jesus left the tomb on the third day and that some women
found the tomb empty was invented. The witness to this stage of
the process is Mark (16:1-8). 3. Then, in order to make Christ’s
bodily resurrection more readily credible, the Christians composed
the stories about the guarding of the tomb and about the doubts
the Apostles suffered on this matter, which doubts Christ Himself
is supposed to have dispelled. St. Matthew preserves these narra­
tives in his Gospel. 4. The final stage of the evolution is found in
the later Gospels of St. Luke and of St. John, who recount the
appearances of the risen Lord which took place in Jerusalem near
the empty tomb itself.
There is no general agreement on the point of departure for
the evolution of belief in the resurrection. Many trace it to faith
in Jesus the Messias, others to belief in the immortal life of Him
who had been crucified (Loisy), still others to faith in God the
Father, and to Jesus’ consciousness of His divine Sonship (Har­
nack). According to the rationalist principles of those who admit
a natural evolution in the history of religion, belief in the resur-

(171)

THE TRUE RELIGION

rection is to be explained in the light of Oriental and Greek
mythology. The basic notion of resurrection is suggested by what
men observe in nature: the sun sets and rises again, the seed
decomposes only to germinate, the tree is stripped of its leaves,
but later the leaves reappear. This phenomenon of physical nature
and plant life dying and being reborn year after year was in time
ascribed to some deity or other, or was symbolically represented
by some deity, even at times by the sun and moon, and was cele­
brated under the image of a dying and rising god ( Osiris, Adonis,
Attis, Persephone, Dionysius).
This explanation becomes much easier, of course, when it is
granted that Jesus never even existed (Drews).

103a

2. Proof of the Resurrection—The fact of Christ’s real, bodily
return is proved 1. directly, by an exposition of the facts, and
2. indirectly, by showing the weakness of the rationalist theories.
a. Directly—The exposition of the facts.
The most important fact, one thoroughly established, is that
Christ’s tomb, though shut tight by a huge rock and guarded by
soldiers, was empty on the third day. This fact, supported not only
by the testimony of the angels 10 and the women,17 but also by the
admission of Christ’s most bitter foes, could not be explained away
merely on natural grounds, as is clear from the desperate reaction
of the Jews. Behold, some of the guard came into the city and
reported to the chief priest all that had happened. And when they
had assembled with the elders and had consulted together, they
gave much money to the soldiers, telling them, “Say, ‘His disciples
came by night and stole him while we were sleeping.’ And if the
procurator hears of this, we will persuade him and keep you out
of trouble.” And they took the money, and did as they were
instructed; and this story has been spread abroad among the Jews
even to the present day (Matthew 28:11-15). This clumsy expe­
dient truly merits the mockery of St. Augustine:
What? You produce sleeping witnesses? Truly, you yourself
must have fallen asleep, you who have failed with such far­
fetched devices. If they were sleeping, what could they have
seen; if they saw nothing, what kind of witnesses are they?
(Zn Psalmum 63, no. 15.)

There is the further fact that the risen Christ was seen often,
(172)

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

at different times and in many different places under varied circum­
stances. lie appeared to many people, and not only to women but
also to men.”’ And not only was He seen; He spoke and took food
and let Himself be touched—precisely for the purpose of dispelling
every last doubt about the reality and the identity of His body.19
So it is quite true that he showed himself alive after his passion
by many proofs, during forty days appearing to them and speaking
of the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3).
b. Indirectly—The weakness of rationalist theories.
Theories about the empty tomb. None of them can explain
how our Lord’s body vanished from the tomb or what happened
to it. That it did vanish and was not subsequently recovered is
quite evident, for otherwise the Jews would have lost no time in
producing it to expose the deceit of the Apostles’ accounts. The
hypotheses of hallucination and of imaginary vision do not even
touch this difficulty.20 The contention of a few rationalists that
Christ fainted on the cross and was later revived by the odor of
the burial spices or by drugs is directly and openly contradicted
by the Gospels.21 The rationalists appeal to the Gospels to sustain
their contention; the Church appeals to those same Gospels to
refute it. As a matter of fact, Christ, bound tightly in the burial
bands, would have been suffocated by the spices rather than
revived. How would He have been able to leave the tomb, closed
off as it was by a huge rock? How could the Apostles ever have
come to believe that the Master had conquered death? As a matter
of fact, the Apostles acknowledged that Christ died, and St. Paul
re-echoes the voice of Apostolic tradition by stating that Christ
died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was
buried. ... (1 Corinthians 15:3).
The theory of fraud is also inadmissible. This theory claims that
Christ’s body was stolen from the tomb. The Apostles and other
friends of our Lord were too despondent to dare attempt such a
crime, and even had they been bold enough to try, they would have
found it impossible to succeed. It would have been quite an
achievement to roll away the large stone and spirit off the body
without being detected by the guards, and then to hide it away
so perfectly that no one ever discovered it. To accuse the Apostles
of engineering or cooperating in such a fraud is to be guilty of
gross calumny.
An appeal to an earthquake 22 and a flat statement that Christ's
body was swallowed up by the earth is futile. How then explain

(173)

THE TRUE RELIGION

the fact that the burial bands and headcloth stayed at ground
level? ’·
104
One looks in vain for a motive that would explain why the
Jewish leaders would have had our Lord’s body removed; on the
contrary, they had very strong motives for keeping it exactly where
it was.24 And, granting for the moment this groundless supposition,
their subsequent procedure is simply inexplicable. When the Apos­
tles began to proclaim Christ’s resurrection, they would have made
haste to produce His body; and this, of course, they never did.25
St. Matthew would have been unable to record the lie which the
guards told, and he would have been even less able to write:
and this story had been spread abroad among the Jews even to
the present day (28:15). Rabbinic writers do not even so much
as hint at such a procedure on the part of the Jews.
If Joseph of Arimathea had removed our Lord’s body secretly,
having placed it in the tomb near Calvary only temporarily, the
Apostles’ preaching of the Resurrection would have forced him,
either as a friend or as foe of Christ’s followers, to reveal his action.
But in fact, the words which St. Paul and the Evangelist use clearly
bespeak a burial, with all the finality of a burial.
Loisy26 objects that no one could possibly convince himself
that Christ’s tomb was empty, for His body was not entombed, but
cast into the common grave reserved for executed criminals. The
following facts expose the weakness of Loisy’s theory. 1. All Evan­
gelists agree in saying that the body of Jesus was buried by Joseph
of Arimathea, who had requested and received permission from
Pilate to take down the Lord’s body—in keeping with the Roman
custom. 2. In a document of highest antiquity (I Corinthians 15:3)
which, according to modem critics, preserves the original tradition,
St. Paul uses the term etaphê (he was buried), which in New
Testament usage always indicates normal, decent burial.27 St. Paul
certainly intended to use the term in this sense; otherwise he could
never have written that Christians are buried together with Christ
through baptism unto death.28 3. St. Peter, in the sermon which
he delivered on Pentecost,29 compares the tomb of King David
with that of Christ, and contrasts the former to the latter; some­
thing he could not have done if Christ’s burial had not been honor­
able. 4. If what the Gospels and tradition narrate about the honor­
able burial of Christ had not been worthy of acceptance, the
preaching of Christ’s resurrection would have been impossible and
indeed the very account of His honorable burial could not have
come into being or have been promulgated.

(174)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

Those who espouse the theory of evolution assert that the 104a
Evangelists’ tale of the empty tomb is not worthy of credence, and
they base their strongest argument on the fact that St. Paul, in
First Corinthians, 15, says nothing about an empty tomb and that
consequently neither Peter nor James nor, for that matter, any of
the Apostles could have known anything about it.
1. However, it is one thing to be silent about a certain matter
and quite another to be ignorant of that matter. An argument from
silence is valid only when one of necessity should have spoken and
was in a position to do so. For his proof of Christ’s resurrection in
First Corinthians, 15, St. Paul makes use of a better and stronger
argument, the appearances of the risen Christ.
2. St. Paul was well aware that the tomb was empty, for he
was an intimate friend of St. Luke, who narrated that fact in his
Gospel. St. Paul reveals his knowledge of this fact in his sermons
and writings. The succession of expressions in 1 Corinthians 15:3—4:
Christ died ... he was buried ... he rose again on the third day—
necessarily demands that Christ rose from the tomb alive and that
St. Paul knew that He did so. And how could Christ arise alive on
the third day without leaving behind an empty tomb? In fact,
St. Paul bases his argument for the Messiahship of Jesus (Acts
13:34-37) on the fact that Jesus did not experience corruption as
did David and that, of a consequence, our Lord did not remain in
a tomb as did David. The Apostle could not have been so certain,
had he been ignorant of what had happened early in the morning
the first day of the week.
3. St. Peter’s Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:24-31) makes it clear
that the Apostles knew the tomb was empty. It was not in David,
but in Christ, that the words of David found their fulfillment:
you will not abandon my soul to the nether world, nor will you
suffer your faithful one to undergo corruption (Psalm 15:10; see
Acts 2:27). St. Peter proves this by pointing to David’s tomb and
contrasting it to that of Christ. David’s body stayed in the tomb
and suffered corruption. Therefore Christ, who did not experience
corruption, did not stay in His tomb.
The proponents of the evolution theory claim that the fact of
an empty tomb was invented after belief in the resurrection had
crystallized.
1. The proponents of this theory distinguish in the Gospels a
Galilean tradition (Matthew and Mark) and a Judean tradition
(Luke and John) which, they claim, are mutually opposed and
contrary. They also claim that the fact of the empty tomb was not
(175)

THE TRUE RELIGION

yet known in 57 A.D. when St. Paul wrote First Corinthians. But
if the fact of the empty tomb was a later invention, how-and
especially in such a short time—could it have been incorporated
into mutually opposed traditions? For we find it in both the Gali­
lean and Judean traditions.
2. When belief in the resurrection finally produced the fiction
of the empty tomb, one would have expected it to state not only
the fact but its accompanying circumstances, for example, the
precise manner in which Jesus came forth from the toinb. In fact,
the apocryphal gospels, notably the Gospel of the Hebrews and
the Gospel of Peter, do just that. The forthright simplicity of the
accounts in the canonical Gospels is a guarantee of their truth.
3. St. Matthew’s narrative (28:11-15) of the Jewish leaders’
connivance with the sepulchre guards indicates that at the time he
wrote his Gospel the report had already spread abroad that the
disciples had stolen Christ’s body from the tomb. By publishing this
report, the foes themselves ( the Jews ) stand forth as witnesses that
the tomb was empty and that it was empty before the Christians,
in the rationalist view, made up the story.
4. Finally, the argument from an invented tale about the empty
tomb is absolutely preposterous. Belief in and preaching of the
resurrection would have been impossible unless friend and foe alike
had been fully convinced of the fact that the tomb was really
empty. If these adversaries insist that the preaching of the resur­
rection was done in clandestine fashion, then they find themselves
faced with a fact of history, namely that from the beginning there
existed at Jerusalem a Christian community openly professing the
resurrection.
105
Theories about the apparitions. None of those proposed offers
an adequate explanation.
The theory of fraud and deceit is unsatisfactory. In fact, with
the exception of a few thoroughly shameless individuals, rationalists
as a group admit that the Apostles were not deceivers, but simple,
upright men. How could these fishermen, so timid and fearful on
Good Friday, have so cleverly invented a situation of such magni­
tude as to win the adherence even of many of the priests 30 right
in Jerusalem—and all this in spite of the rumor of the fraudulent
theft of the body? And what had they to gain from spreading such
a lie? They certainly knew that lying would win them nothing from
God; they knew, too, that this particular lie would win for them
the vicious antagonism of men. Notwithstanding all this, they not
( 176)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

only designed the most heinous fraud ever; but through a life filled,
by reason of this very lie, with hard work and persecution, they
maintained it right up to death by martyrdom. Absurdi31
The theory of hallucination is inadequate. It claims that first
some women, then the Apostles and a few others—all in good faith
—convinced themselves that they had seen Jesus, though in reality
they had seen nothing at all. This illusion grew chiefly out of the
all-consuming confidence with which the disciples expected the
resurrection of their beloved Master.” Now in truth, neither the
fact of such an hallucination nor its psychological explanation is
admissible.
1. How could so many people—and not just hysterical women
—so often, and in such varied circumstances, have been so deluded
by their imaginations as to convince themselves groundlessly that
they were looking at Christ, talking and eating with Him, touching
Him with their hands? Is one to believe that the whole primitive
Church was made up exclusively of psychotics?
2. It is simply not true that the disciples, carried away by an
enthusiastic expectation of the resurrection, were quick to believe.
On the contrary, after the Lord’s death they were quite despondent
and loath to believe anything. When Magdalene saw the stone
rolled back her first thought was not of the resurrection. Her
reaction was: “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we
do not know where they have laid him" (John 20:2). Later she
asked Christ Himself, under the impression that she was speaking
to the gardener: “Sir, if thou hast removed him, tell me where thou
hast laid him and I will take him away” (John 20:15). When the
women reported the resurrection to the Apostles, these considered
their words to be nonsense, and they did not believe the women
(Luke 24:11). The disciples on the road to Emmaus had appar­
ently found no ground for hope even in the report of the resur­
rection.33 The assembled Apostles were disturbed at the sight of
Jesus and thought that they were seeing a ghost, so that Christ had
not only to show them His hands and feet and to suggest that they
touch them but even to eat in their presence. Only then did they
believe.34 The unbelief of Thomas is proverbial.33 Even when
Christ appeared on the mount of Galilee, there were still some who
had their doubts.3® Unbelievers stumble all over themselves when
they try to avoid this evidence by asserting that the disciples were
indeed despondent and without hope at first, but that they grad­
ually built up confidence and eventually a real conviction about
(177)

THE THUE RELIGION

the resurrection. Then at last they “saw” the Lord.17 The fact is that
the disciples did not see Christ because they “believed" in His
resurrection, but that they believed in His resurrection because
they had seen Him alive with their own eyes and had touched
Him with their own hands.
The inadequacy of the hallucination theory can be proved
against modem critics also. In the original tradition admitted by
them (1 Cor. 15:3-8), Paul equates the appearances of the risen
Lord to Cephas, James, and all the Apostles with the appearance
to himself on the road to Damascus. Now the accounts of this
latter appearance in Acts show clearly that St. Paul was far from
being psychologically disposed to convince himself in good faith
that he saw Jesus, but that he actually did see Him. Consequently,
neither can the appearances to the Apostles be explained away as
hallucinations.
Unsatisfactory, too, is the theory of imaginary visions, accord­
ing to which not the risen body of Christ, but only His soul
appeared to the disciples, with the help of some sort of picture
presented to the imagination.
1. This theory, which satisfies neither Christians nor rational­
ists, does not explain the facts; for pictures in the imagination
cannot be touched and felt.
2. This theory makes Christ responsible for a fraud, because
He allowed Himself to be touched, and ate in the presence of His
Apostles precisely to convince them that He was not a ghost or
a spectre, but a living man.38
105a
Additional remarks on the evolution theory of the Resurrection
1. Too short a time elapsed before the writing of the Gospels—
between 60 and 70 A.D. according to Harnack—for the aforemen­
tioned evolution to have taken place, especially since there were
still living many of Christ’s contemporaries whose attitude toward
Him and the disciples was anything but favorable. Furthermore,
the factors alleged as foundation for belief in the resurrection are
inadequate to furnish such a foundation, as is clear from what has
been said above.
2. The exposition above has already refuted the claim that the
Apostles thought they had seen Jesus, whereas they had actually
seen nothing at all, or at most the soul of Christ, presented to them
by means of a picture in their imagination. The fact that they
actually did see the body of the risen Christ is clear from 1 Cor.
15:3—8. This text shows clearly not only the belief and the teaching

(178)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

of St. Paul, but also that of the other Apostles. 1 delivered to you
first of all, what / also received (v. 3) . . . Whether then it is I or
they, so we preach (v. 11). The belief and the teaching of St. Paul
and of the Apostles were accordingly one and the same, and this
was true even at the time of St. Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, which
took place three years after his conversion, some three or four
years after the death of Jesus. Now the object of St. Paul’s belief
and teaching was Jesus, living again in the flesh, as is clear from
the context and the order in 1 Cor. 15:3-7: died—was buried—rose
—was seen. He who arose, then, was He who had died and was
subsequently buried. This can mean nothing but bodily resurrec­
tion. He who was seen was He who arose. What can this mean
but the appearance of Him who arose in the flesh? Besides, in
1 Cor. 15:12-16, St. Paul used the fact of Christ’s resurrection as a
proof for the resurrection of the dead, and he could not have done
this if the resurrection of Christ and that of all men were not of
the same nature. According to St. Paul, the resurrection of the dead
will clearly involve a bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:35-44)—conse­
quently it was the body of the risen Christ which appeared.39
Granted, then, that the object of St. Paul’s belief and teaching
was Jesus, living again in the flesh, it follows that the Apostles, too,
saw the risen body of Jesus. They all teach the same doctrine.
Consequently one could not admit that stage in the evolutionary
process in which the Apostles first thought they saw the Lord, but
only gradually came to think that He whom they had supposedly
seen was actually alive again.
3. Just as the claim that the empty tomb is a fiction must be
rejected (104a), so must the opinion which holds that the Chris­
tians fabricated at a much later date the initial doubts and
incredulity of the Apostles. Such doubt and unbelief, which cer­
tainly reflected little credit on the Apostles, could not have been
invented or fabricated at a time when the Apostles were held in
highest honor by all. But if, in spite of all this, the doubt and
unbelief were narrated at this time, one can only conclude that they
are based on the truth of the original tradition. Furthermore, the
proponents of the evolution theory say that these fables were com­
posed to strengthen belief in the resurrection. Belief in Christ’s
resurrection, however, is hardly strengthened by these doubts. The
enemies of the Apostles could with justice say that the latter had
seen merely some spectre of the imagination which they thought
was the Messias. Finally, the evolutionists contend that these

( 179)

THE TRUE RELIGION

doubts are recorded only in the later Gospels, those of St. Luke
and St. John. This is not true, for Matthew mentions them in pass­
ing (28.17), and there are indications that Mark, too, intended 10
to narrate the initial doubts and unbelief of the Apostles (16:8).
Besides, to have recorded them would have contributed nothing
at all to the purpose which Matthew and Mark had in writing their
Gospels.
4. The proponents of evolution distinguish among the Gospels.
Matthew and Mark, they say, give the Galilean tradition and
accordingly relate only those appearances of our Lord which took
place in Galilee. Luke and John give the Judean tradition and thus
relate also the appearances which took place in Judea and Jeru­
salem at the tomb of Jesus. Whatever may be the meaning of these
words,41 he goes before you into Galilee; there you shall see him
(Matthew 28:7; see Mark 16:7), they certainly do not exclude the
possibility of our Lord’s appearing in Judea.
a. The first appearance, recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (28:9-10),
was that made to the women early in the morning on the first day
of the week. The claim that this text was interpolated is a gratuitous
assumption on the part of the critics; for the text is missing in no
manuscript and there is no evidence of its being spurious. Besides,
St. Matthew indicates (28:16) that the appearance in Galilee was
not the first, but that another had preceded it, namely, the one in
which the disciples received the order to go to Galilee. Matthew
does not record all the appearances, but only those which furthered
his set purpose, which was generally apologetic in character. On
the other hand, Luke and John set out specifically to convince
their readers of the truth of the resurrection.
b. It is clear that St. Mark also knew of the appearances at
Jerusalem (see Mark 16:9,12). In the original Gospel of St. Mark
(up to 16:8), the Evangelist records the words: “He goes before
you into Galilee,” and thus shows his awareness of the fact that
something kept the Apostles from leaving Jerusalem. That could
be nothing other than the resurrection and the appearances of the
Lord.42. Again, Mark follows in his Gospel the preaching of the
Apostle Peter, which, as far as the resurrection is concerned, is the
same as that of St. Paul. The latter (1 Corinthians 15:5) sets out
to prove from the appearances of Christ that He rose on the third
day. But he could not have done this had not some of the appear­
ances taken place on the very day of the resurrection. It is clear
from the order in which these appearances are recorded that they
were none other than those to Cephas and the eleven. They were

(180)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

still in Jerusalem that day. Hence, the appearances related by
St. Paul, with whom the Petrine catechesis and St. Mark agree, took
place at Jerusalem.
As for the alleged borrowing of belief in the resurrection from 105b
Oriental and Greek mythology or from pagan mysteries, the fol­
lowing must be noted:
1. It should be clear from what has already been said that
belief in the resurrection is based upon historical facts and trust­
worthy testimony. The conclusion is evident.
2. It is simply false to assert that the idea of a real resurrection,
in the sense of an historical fact, was a familiar one in pagan circles.
For when Paul announced Christ’s resurrection to the Athenians,
men thoroughly acquainted with the mysteries, they considered the
matter absurd and ridiculous.13 Celsus, in his search for analogies
to Christ’s resurrection, did not dare invoke these myths, but was
satisfied with some secular tales.'1 Why? Was it not because he
considered the religious myths complete fables? In fact, the
majority of the pagans, especially the better educated, looked upon
them as mere symbols of the death and rebirth of nature.
3. As Hamack points out, the resurrection was preached not
by Hellenistic Jews from Egypt, but by Palestinian Jews. The
latter were unlettered and ingenuous fishermen. How then would
men of this stamp have conceived the idea of a Messias rising from
the dead, an idea so foreign to the Jewish mind that it was actually
a stumbling-block to them? 15
4. There is a vast difference between the Christian faith in the
resurrection and Oriental mythologies. These latter, it is true,
recognize a return to life after death; but it is a resurrection which
will be followed again by death. Christ, on the other hand, having
risen from the dead, dies now no more, death shall no longer have
dominion over him (Romans 6:9).
Corollary
106
With a view to refuting the fact of the resurrection, rationalists
object that this fact rests solely on the testimony of Christ’s dis­
ciples and friends, and are constantly repeating the words of
Celsus: “If Jesus really wanted to make known his divine power,
he should have shown himself to his enemies, his judges, to every­
one indiscriminately.”10 Here is the answer to that objection.
Had the fact of the resurrection no other witnesses than Christ's
friends, it would still be irrefutable. Truthful witnesses are not to
be refused a hearing simply because they testify for a friend.

(181)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Although the risen Christ, appearing for forty days,47 was seen
only by His disciples, it is not true that the fact of the resurrection
rests solely on their testimony. Even the Jews admitted that the
tomb was empty. The soldiers testified that they had felt the earth­
quake and had seen the angel come down and roll back the stone.'"
Hence Christs resurrection was made known to all, to His friends
in one way and to His enemies in another.
It is not our task to determine the reasons which prompted the
risen Christ to allow Himself to be seen, not by all the people, hut
by witnesses designated beforehand by God ... to preach to the
people and to testify (Acts 10:40-42). As things are, the truth of
the resurrection is proved by arguments that are completely ade­
quate. It is hardly probable that an appearance of Christ would
have done any good for men whose obstinate unbelief had failed
to yield in the face of so many miracles.
CONCLUSION TO THIS CHAPTER
The claim of Jesus of Nazareth that He was the legate of God
was no empty boast; His divine mission stands proved by the
arguments given. But if Christ was God’s messenger, then the
religion which He preached and enjoined upon all men is divinely
true. In all confidence one might say with Richard of St. Victor:
“Lord, if it is all a huge mistake, then you yourself have duped us;
for these matters were guaranteed to us by miracles and prodigies
of such magnitude and of such a nature that only you could have
been responsible for them” (De Trinitate, bk. 1, 2).
107

Epilogue

The Catholic Church continues Christ’s mission.
Having ascertained the truth of the Christian religion in the
abstract, the argument can proceed to a consideration of the truth
of the Catholic religion. There are indeed, besides the Catholic
Church, many religious bodies which glory in the title of Christian;
but it is impossible to hide the fact that all of them came into
existence over the centuries by seceding from the Catholic Church,
to which they are all related as lopped-off branches are to the
mother tree. It is consequently quite certain that none of them
goes back to the time of Christ and the Apostles. How could sects
which arose only long centuries after Christ, have been established
by Christ as heirs and guardians of His religion? How could a
society or institution whose beginnings are centuries removed from
the time of Christ have received from Christ the task of continuing
( 182)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

His divine mission? Only the Catholic Church has been in existence
over the whole span of centuries stretching from Christ to the
present day. Therefore, this Church alone could have received from
Christ and I lis disciples its mission and its doctrine. And so it is
that "to the Catholic Church alone belong all those things which
God has so abundantly and marvelously bestowed in order to
proclaim the credibility of the Christian faith" (DB 1794).
These sects contend that they withdrew from the Catholic
Church in order to return to that genuine, pure Christianity from
which the Church had strayed. But by speaking in this fashion,
these heretics admit that the Catholic Church was truly the original
guardian and depositary of the religion of Christ. Granting this
fact, any such corruption of this Church is impossible because of
Christ’s promise. For He not only gave the Apostles and their suc­
cessors the perpetual charge to preach His doctrine to all peoples
but at the same time He promised them His assistance all days,
even unto the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:20). Now
either Christ, the legate and the Son of God, who could certainly
not be on the side of those who would corrupt His teaching, was
in error, or the Church, enjoying divine assistance, did not distort
in the slightest the teaching which He had entrusted to her.49
The remarks made in this epilogue will be expanded in the
next chapter and are made here only to show that the consider­
ations of the preceding chapter alone would suffice to prove the
truth of the Christian-Catholic religion.
Notes
1. See Acts 1:22, 2:22-36, 3:15-16, 4:10-33.
2. So, for example, Hase, Wendt, and others. See Wilmers, op. cit., p. 357.
3. Ottiger refutes other rationalistic explanations of Christ’s words in his
Theologia fundamentalis, I, 837.
4. The phrases, “after three days” and “three days and three nights,” need
not, in view of the Jewish mode of expression, indicate three whole days, as
P. Jovino demonstrates fully in his Disquisitio critico-biblica de tempore sepul­
turae Christi. The Hebrew word 'ônâ is thus explained by the Gemarists:
"A day and a night make up an ‘<5nd, and any part of an ‘ônà is considered as
a whole one” (Lightfoot, Horaria Hebraica).
5. See Luke 11:16.
6. We admit that Christ spoke somewhat cryptically in the passages
cited, but on both occasions He was dealing with men who were asking for
a sign from base motives. Christ, who showed Himself very fair when it came
to giving information, usually spoke to such men in such a way that though
they heard they would not hear with understanding. See Matthew 13:13.

( 183)

THE TRUE RELIGION

7. John 10:17-18: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay
down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay
it down of myself. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to
take it up again. Such is the command I have received from my Father."
8. See Matthew 20:63-66; John 19:7.
9. See John 19:39ff.
10. Renan himself admits:
To tell the truth, the best guarantee an historian possesses on a point of
this nature [the death of Jesus] is the suspicious hate of Jesus' enemies.
... At any rate, they had to see to it that he was really dead. However
careless the ancients may have been in certain eras about anything con­
nected with legal punctuality and about the exact conduct of business,
it is hardly credible that in this instance the interested parties would not
have taken some precautions, since they considered the affair so very
important (Vie de Jésus, Ch. 26).
11. See Matthew 27:63.
12. See John 20:25-27.
13. The reason for Pilate’s wonder is of scant moment. It is true that
authors of the period when crucifixion was in vogue record cases of men who
were crucified and lived for a whole day or more, but these remarks concern
men who had suffered very little before being crucified. Christ had suffered
so many and such horrible tortures before being nailed to the cross that His
dying within a few hours, and before the thieves, seems hardly a matter for
wonder. If, nonetheless, Pilate was surprised, we can only say that he either
paid little heed to our Lord's preliminary torture or that he half hoped and
half feared that Christ would resort to some extraordinary or miraculous
expedient.
14. Some exegetes think that the flow of blood and water was a perfectly
natural occurrence, but the more common opinion among the Fathers and
the exegetes is that they give evidence of a miracle. A natural explanation runs
into serious difficulties, particularly with regard to the flow of water. On this
point see: Le Bec, Dr. E.: The Death of the Cross: A Physiological Study
(St. Louis, 1951), pp. 19ff.
Prat, Ferdinand: Jesus Christ, II, 394-96;
Ricciotti, Giuseppe: The Life of Christ, p. 643;
Der Katholik (1886), II, 585.
On the emphatic assertion found in John 19:35, see V. Kasteren, Het MattheusEvangelie en de Overlevering, pp. 26-32.
15. Consult the following authors:
Disteldorf: Die Auferstehung Jesu Christi (1906);
Jacquier-Bourchany: La résurrection de Jésus-Christ (1911);
Ladeuze: La résurrection de Jésus (1910);
Muser; Die Auferstehung Jesu und ihre neuesten Kritiker (1914); and
Rose: Etudes sur les Evangiles, eh. 8. This work is of special interest.
The following articles are also good for this point:
Dieckmann, H.: “Die formgeschichtliche Methode und ihre Anwendung
auf die Auferstehungsbericht,” Scholastik (1928), p. 379; “Die Auferstehungsberichte der vier Evangelien nach ihren Verschiedenheit und
Eigenart,” ibid., (1928), p. 221;

(184)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

Lohmann, H.: "Dic biblischcn Berichte für die Auferstehung,” ThCl
(1926), p. 154.
16. See Matthew 28:6; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5-6.
17. See Luke 24:9. Compare this passage with Matthew 16:5-6; Luke
24:5-6; John 20:2, 15.
18. He appeared to Mary Magdalen (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-17); to the
women on their way back from the tomb (Matthew 28:9); to Peter (Luke
24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5); to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke
24:13-33; Mark 16:12-13); to the assembled Apostles minus Thomas (Luke
24:36-43; John 20:19-23; Mark 16:14; 1 Corinthians 15:5); to the Apostles,
Thomas included, (John 20:24-29); to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias
(John 21:1-23); to the eleven Apostles on the mount in Galilee (Matthew
28:16); to more than five hundred of the brethren at one time, many of
whom were still alive when Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
probably in the 58 A.D. (1 Corinthians 15:6); to James (1 Corinthians 15:7);
and finally to the Apostles before the Ascension (Acts l:9ff; Luke 24:50-51).
19. See Luke 24:39-44; John 20:24-29.
20. In fact Renan calls the question, "Where was the place where the
worms consumed the lifeless corpse?" idle and unanswerable. He goes on to
say: “We shall always be in the dark on this point of detail” (Les Apôtres,
Ch. 2).
21. See no. 102.
22. See Matthew 28:12.
23. John 20:6-7. Tertullian, even in his day, ridiculed the idea that
Christ’s body had been spirited away secretly: "This is the one whom the
disciples secretly whisked off so that they could believe He had arisen, or
whom the gardener removed for fear his lettuces would be trampled by the
frequent visitors” (De Spect., 30).
24. See Matthew 27:64.
25. See Acts 4:1-22. Dentier writes: “It looks very much as though they
[the leaders and elders and scribes] did not yet know at that very moment
what Réville thinks he knows about them today" (“Die Auferstehung Jesu
in dem Neuen Testament,” Bibl Zf, I [1908], 57).
26. Quelques lettres sur les questions actuelles et sur des événements
récents, XXXV.
27. See Luke 16:22; Acts 2:29.
28. See Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12.
29. See Acts 2:31.
30. See Acts 2:41, 6:7.
31. Those who claim fraud sometimes appeal to the differences of style
and order in the presentation of Christ’s apparitions by the Evangelists and
by St. Paul. They conclude from these differences that the sacred writers
contradict one another and are not trustworthy—at least in the matter of the
resurrection. But:
a. Even were it true that the sacred writers actually contradicted one
another in these relatively unimportant details, one could not jump
to the conclusion that they are unreliable with regard to the main
facts of the narrative. There they are definitely in accord.
b. A real contradiction cannot be proved. No sacred author set out to

( 185)

Τ Π E TRUE RELIGION

compose a complete account covering every detail. In the light of
individual aims, one writer omitted certain details, another others, or
one simply synopsi zed what another had related at greater length. Since
we do not know all the circumstances, and since the very concise
method of presentation is sometimes susceptible of various interpreta­
tions, it is difficult to determine with precision the exact order in which
the events narrated follow upon one another. This is the reason for
the different explanations given by exegeles. Worth reading on this
point arc Le Camus, Vie de Notre Seigneur, 6th ed.; Λ. Cellini,
Gli ultimi capi del Tetramorfo; Prat, op. cit. v. II; Ricciotti, op. cit.
c. We should like to remark in addition that these apparent contradictions
themselves clear the sacred writers of any suspicion of fraudulent
conspiracy. If they had set out to deceive, they would sedulously have
avoided such apparent contradictions.
32. Renan seems to have scaled the heights of impudence with his
remark:
The vivid imagination of Mary of Magdala played a leading role in this
affair. Ah, the divine power of lovel sacred moments in which the passion
of a woman suffering hallucinations gives to the world a risen Godl
(Vie de Jésus, Ch. 26).
33. See Luke 24:19-24.
34. See Luke 24:36-44.
35. See John 20.
36. See Matthew 28:17. How does this unbelief of the Apostles fit in
with the many prophecies of the resurrection? The Gospel itself gives the
answer. After recording the unmistakably clear prediction of the death and
resurrection, St Luke goes on to say: And they [the Apostles] understood
none of these things and this saying was hidden from them, neither did they
get to know the things that were being said (18:34). The Apostles knew, of
course, what Christ’s words meant in their literal sense, but since any idea of
a suffering and dying Messias was farthest from their minds, they clearly did
not know what to make of such a statement. Perhaps they ended by convincing
themselves that the prediction had some allegorical meaning.
37. See C. Rose, Études sur les Evangiles, Ch. 8.
38. See Luke 24:36-43.
39. For the meaning of these phrases of St. Paul: flesh and blood can
obtain no part in the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50); what is sown a
natural body rises a spiritual body (ibid., 15:44); now the Lord is the spirit
(2 Corinthians 3:17), see Tobac, Le problème de la justification dans S. Paul,
(Louvain, 1908); Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, v. IL
40. Ladeuze, op. cit., p. 51.
41. See ibid., p. 43, and Mangenot, op. cit., p. 269.
42. Ladeuze, op. cit., p. 45. Mark 16:9-16 cannot be used in arguing
against critics, since they hold that St. Mark’s Gospel ends at 16:8.
43. See Acts 17:18, 31, 32.
44. Origen, Contra Celsum, Bk. 3, chs. 26, 31-34. See Stimmen, 72
(1907), 46-49.
45. See 1 Corinthians 1:23.
46. See Origen, op. cit., Bk. 2, ch. 63.

(186)

CHRIST HAD A DIVINE MISSION

47. Note the expression throughout forty ihiyt. Christ later appeared also
to Saul, who was at the time of the apparition definitely not a friend of Christ,
but His foe and persecutor (Acts 9:3; see 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:8; St Thomas,
S.Th. Ill, q. 57, a. β, ad 3). We may guess, then, what would have happened
had Christ appeared to His foes as well. Either they would have believed and
be counted by the rationalists among Christ’s friends, as is Paul; or they would
not have believed and in that case would certainly have found some way to
deny the truth of the apparition.
48. See Matthew 28:2-4.
49. From another point of view, if the Catholic Church were assumed to
have become corrupt with the passing of the centuries, it would still not at all
follow that the mission once entrusted to her by Christ passed on to some sect
or other, such as Protestantism. Such a transfer would have to be proved by
positive arguments. No sect can produce such arguments; in fact, none even
makes the attempt. The logical conclusion would be that the lawful guardian
and teacher of Christian revelation had completely vanished; and this con­
clusion certainly cannot be reconciled with Christ’s promise.

( 187)

CHAPTER III

The Divine Origin of Christ’s Work or of the
Christian-Catholic Religion

The Divine Origin of Christ’s Work, or of the ChristianCatholic Religion is proved by:
1. many physical miracles;
2. various moral miracles:
a. spread and conservation of the Christian-Catholic
religion;
b. its marvelous harvest of holiness;
c. the marvelous fortitude of its martyrs.
Article I
THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION
IS PROVED BY PHYSICAL MIRACLES

Sample Miracles from Different Periods of Church’s History.
Scholion. General observations about miracles:
1. Critical reading of lives of saints still leaves huge mass
of sure miracles.
2. Miracles quite often performed as direct proof of Christ’s
mission and doctrine.
3. Miracles more common in early days. Why?

( 189)

CHAPTER III

The Divine Origin of Christ’s Work or of the
Christian-Catholic Religion

All agree that from Apostolic times to our own there has always 108
existed that group of Christians who have been united at least by
the profession of the same faith. All agree also that this group,
very early in its career, adopted the name “Catholic Church,”1
which has been preserved throughout the ages.
It is also admitted that that church at all times and in the most
clear manner has claimed to be the guardian and teacher of the
divine religion founded by Christ. So strong have been its feelings
on this point that it has always expelled as a heretic anyone who
deviated from its teaching on even one point. If such a man stub­
bornly persisted in his defection, it proclaimed him liable to eternal
damnation.2
This chapter, then, will answer the question: "Is this solemn
and constant claim of the Catholic Church to be a religion divine
in origin backed by divine testimony?” It contains the following
articles :
1. many physical miracles: Article I;
2. various moral miracles (e.g., the marvelous spread and con­
servation of the Christian-Catholic religion): Article II;
3. the marvelous fruit of holiness always produced by the
Church: Article III;
4. the wondrous fortitude of the martyrs: Article IV.
Article I
THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION
IS PROVED BY PHYSICAL MIRACLES

Even as Christ Himself was shown to be God’s messenger 109
to men by miracles, so too is His work, the Christian-Catholic
religion. In fact, there has never been a time when the Catholic

(191)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Church has not been distinguished as something unique because
of miracles. Tin’s is so true that to consider even a portion of those
miracles would consume a great amount of time. Consequently, this
treatment is limited to a few miracles only, taken from each of the
more important periods in Church history. These will prove that
the faith of the Catholic Church, in every age of its existence, has
been stamped with the divine seal of approval. At the same time
they will refute the contention of heretics that the ancient Church
in this or that century, say at the time of the Eastern Schism or
of the Protestant Reformation, had become corrupt through a
substantial degradation of her teaching.3
110
1. It is well known that the Church was set apart by many
miracles at the time of her institution and early expansion. St. Luke,
in the Acts of the Apostles, recounts many miracles performed by
the Apostles * and others? St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, gives eloquent testimony to the frequency of miracu­
lous gifts (charisms) in the early Church (see 1 Cor. 12ff). Near
die end of the second century St. Irenaeus wrote: “It is impossible
to reckon die number of graces which the universal Church receives
from God, and which, in the name of Jesus Christ who was cruci­
fied under Pontius Pilate, she uses every day for the benefit of the
people” (Adversus Haereses, bk. 2, c. 32, 4)? In the same passage
Irenaeus records various types of miracles and adds that miracles
do not take place among heretics.
2. During the period of the Catholic Church’s struggle against
Arianism many outstanding miracles were wrought to bear witness
to her divine origin.
a. When the patroness of Arianism, Justina, the mother of
Valentinian II, was persecuting St. Ambrose, a certain blind man,
well known in Milan, recovered his sight by touching the relics of
Sts. Gervase and Protase, which were discovered at that time
(386) as the result of a revelation. This was but one among many
other miracles, as is known from the writings of St. Ambrose 7 and
of St. Augustine,8 who was in Milan at the time. Paulinus, a deacon
of St. Ambrose, describes the effect of these miracles in this
fashion: “Thanks to these good deeds wrought by the favor of
the martyrs, the faith of the Catholic Church was growing steadily
and the faithlessness of the Arians declined” (Vita sancti Ambrosii,
5, 14).
b. In 484, in the forum of Typassa (modem Tefessed, near
Algiers), a large group of Christians, unwilling to join the ranks

( 192)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

of the Arians, had their tongues and right hands cut off by order
of King Hunneric. Victor, bishop of Vita, tells us that:
when this had been done, a singular favor of the Holy Spirit
enabled them to speak as they had always spoken, and they
enjoy this power to the present day. But if anyone is unwilling
to believe this, he can go to Constantinople, and there he will
find one of these favored ones, the subdeacon Reparatus,
delivering polished sermons without the least trace of an
impediment. And it is for this reason that he is held in such
veneration in the palace of Zeno the emperor (Historia perse­
cutionis vandalicae, bk. 5, c. 6).

Other witnesses to this miracle are the emperor Justinian I,®
Aeneas of Gaza,’" and Marcellinus, Comes of Illyria," all of whom
assert that they saw with their own eyes some of these tongueless
martyrs speaking quite fluently. Procopius of Caesarea,12 a con­
temporary author, says the same thing.
3. After the Greeks, under the leadership of Michael Caeru- 111
larius, had in 1054 withdrawn from the Catholic Church which
they accused of corrupting Apostolic tradition, St. Bernard, Abbot
of Clairvaux (d. 1153), a man thoroughly devoted to the Church
and to its head, the Roman Pontiff, worked many miracles. One
noteworthy case occurred in the region of Toulouse, where St.
Bernard was combatting the Petrobrusian and Henrician heretics.
There is a place in that region called Sarlatum, where at the
end of one of his sermons, they brought this servant of God
several loaves of bread to be blessed, in accordance with the
universal custom. Raising his hand and blessing them in the
name of God with the sign of the cross, he said: “This will be
a sign of the truth of our teaching and of the falsity of that of
the heretics, if your sick regain their health upon eating this
bread.” But the venerable Bishop of Chartres, who happened to
be present and found himself quite close to the man of God,
was a bit fearful and said: “If they eat it in good faith they will
be cured.” The holy father, entertaining not the slightest doubt
of God’s power, replied: “I should not ordinarily say this, but
the fact is that no matter who eats it he will be cured, and this
will be a sign to them that we speak the truth and are true
messengers of God.” Such a great crowd of sick persons grew
well after having eaten the bread that the event was spread
broadcast throughout the whole province, and when the holy

( 193)

THE TRUE RELIGION

man tried to make his way back through the neighboring dis­
tricts he was besieged by such insistent crowds that he turned
aside, afraid to pass that way (Vita Sancti Bernardi bk 3
c. 6, 18).
This is the account of Gaufridius, secretary of St. Bernard, who
prefaces his biography of the saint with the words: Our account
deals chiefly with those events at which I was present in person,
but I have sometimes included also a few things which I learned
on the trustworthy testimony of the brethren who witnessed
them.”18
112
4. At the time of the Reformation, when whole nations deserted
die Church to follow the “pure Gospel,” the Catholic doctrine
found solid approbation in the miracles of St. Francis Xavier,
Aposde of the Indies and of Japan (d. 1552). Very many of these
miracles, among them the raising of four people from the dead, are
recorded in the work of Orazio Tursellini, who in writing the
biography of St. Francis used the authentic records prepared by
die viceroy of India at the order of the king of Portugal.14 One
outstanding prodigy is taken from the Bull of Canonization:18
When the servant of God was preaching to the infidels in a
certain church at Cape Comorin, and was making no progress
at all because of the hardness of their hearts, he brought the
sermon to a close and ordered that a tomb be opened in which
a man had been buried the day before. He then announced to
the people that as proof of the truth of the Christian faith the
dead man, by God’s will, would live again. Cutting away the
cloth in which the corpse had been wrapped, he commanded
the dead man to come to life. To the amazement of all, the
dead man came alive on the spot. Moved by this compelling
miracle, those who were present, and many others besides,
came to believe in God.
113

5. Finally, in our own time, when almost all the sects were
accusing the Church of inventing a new dogma, the Immaculate
Conception of the Blessed Virgin, many miracles took place just
outside the town of Lourdes at the invocation of her who deigned
to reveal herself under the title of the Immaculate Conception.10
In this connection one may well mention the amazing cure of
Peter de Rudder, whose leg, broken eight years before and still
broken in spite of all the work of his doctors, was suddenly and
( 194)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST*» WORK

completely restored in 1875, when the poor fellow, who lived in
the village of Oostacker, implored the aid of the Blessed Virgin
of Lourdes.17
Although these miracles corroborate more directly the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception, they can be used also as confirma­
tion of the whole Catholic religion. On the one hand, the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception is peculiar to the Catholic Church
alone 18 and is intimately connected with the rest of her dogmas,
and on the other hand, these cures are obtained only through
participation in Catholic belief and worship.

Scholion. Some general observations about the miracles which have 114
always been a characteristic of the Catholic Church.
To the very few examples adduced above it would be well to
add some observations on the Church’s miracles in general.
1. It is a well known fact that not all of the marvelous deeds
narrated in the lives or acts of the saints merit belief.19 There is
therefore need of caution, even in laudatory sermons; for Christian
people are not to be fed on fables or on tales which are suspect.
Setting aside those which are historically or philosophically doubt­
ful, there remains a huge mass of real miracles. It is indeed true
that real miracles have never been lacking at any period of the
Christian-Catholic Church’s history. The matter is so certain that
no one who acknowledges the worth of properly certified human
testimony could call it into question. It is likewise certain that no
other religion or sect stands approved by a like endowment of
miracles.20
2. These miracles were quite frequently performed as direct
proof of Christ’s mission and teaching. This we know either from
the explicit assertion of the miracle-worker or from the accompany­
ing circumstances (when, for example, preachers of Catholic doc­
trine performed miracles precisely as such preachers, as happened
in the case of the Apostles and generally in the case of missionaries,
or when martyrs were favored with miracles because they suffered
for Catholic teaching). But although there are a great many
miracles which were not performed directly in support of the
Church (but rather to prove, for instance, the holiness of this or
that person), still their very' frequency and unbroken continuity
bear witness at least indirectly to the truth of the Catholic religion.
For who cannot see that God, by the very fact that He continually
works miracles in the Catholic Church, and graces with miracles
( 195)

THE TRUE RELIGION

the outstanding children of that Church in every age of history,
is thereby strongly recommending the Church herself and the
religion she teaches? All the saints who were remarkable for their
miracles either during their lifetime or after their death acknowl­
edged and loved the teaching of the Church as something divine,
and were most avid in their use of the means of sanctification
provided by the Church; in a word, they were remarkable for their
devotedness to the Church. Who would not, therefore, say that
God, by testifying to their holiness by miracles, at the same time
set His seal of approval on the Church? For it was to this Church
that they rendered honor as the source of their holiness, and it is
this Church which claims them as children.
3. All are aware of the fact that miracles took place more
frequently during the early years of the Church than in later cen­
turies. St. Augustine recognized that even in his day.21 St. Gregory
the Great thus expresses the chief reason underlying this fact:

If the faith was to grow, it had to be nourished by miracles,
just as when we plant saplings we water them constantly until
we can see that they are firmly rooted in the soil. And as soon
as they have taken firm root, we stop watering them (Homilia
29 in Evangelium, no. 4).

In fact, the more widely the Catholic religion is spread throughout
the world and the longer it has been in existence, the less need it
has of miracles (on the physical plane). This is true not only
because its first advance was retarded by greater difficulties than
were its subsequent conservation and further spread, but chiefly
because the older and the more widespread the Church becomes,
the more easily it can be recognized on its own merits as the work
of God. This is due to miracles of the moral order which are a
constant phenomenon in the Church.
There may be still other reasons for God’s wishing to perform
more miracles at one time than at another.22 It is plausible that the
earlier centuries were richer in miracles for the reason that in those
days men were more remarkable for their deep faith, especially
since the gift of miracles was promised in a special way as a reward
for heroically staunch faith.23 Would not God’s punishment have
been perfectly just if He were to withdraw the grace of abundant
miracles from nations which arrogantly rejected a faith they had
once embraced?

(196)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST'S WORK

Notes
1. We have abundant proof that the title Catholic Church was already
used at the beginning of the second century. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes:
Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus
Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (To the Smyrnaeam, ACW, I, 93).
In an early Christian document, The Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp Bithop of
Smyrna, we read:
The Church of God which resides as a stranger at Smyrna, to the Church
of God residing at Philomelium, and to all the communities of the holy
and Catholic Church, residing in any place: may mercy, peace, and love
of God the Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ be yours in abundance!
(Salutation. ACW, VI, 90).
The whole world-wide Catholic Church (Chapter 8, p. 93).
he [Polycarpl glorifies Cod and the Father Almighty, and blesses Our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of our souls, the Captain of our bodies, and
Shepherd of the world-wide Catholic Church (Chapter 19, p. 99).
See also the Muratorian Fragment in ML, III, 191; Tertullian’s De praescript.
30, and St. Cyprian’s Epistola 52 ad Antonianum, no. 1.
In the middle of the fourth century St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:
If you ever stop in [other] cities, do not ask simply where the Lord’s
House is, for others, impious sectaries and heretics, try to dignify their
dens by calling them the Lord’s House. Nor should you ask merely where
the church is; but ask where the Catholic Church is. For this is the unique
name of this holy Church which is mother of us all and indeed the Spouse
of our Lord Jesus Christ (Cat. 18:26).
And towards the end of that century St. Augustine said:
Whether they like it or not, heretics themselves and schismatics, too, when
they are speaking not to those of their own circle, but to people outside
of it, refer to the Catholic by no other than its own name, the Catholic
Church. For no one would understand them if they did not call it by this
name which the whole world uses to designate it (De vera religione,
Bk. 7, ch. 12).
St. Pacian (370 A.D.) writes:
Under the apostles, you will say, no one was called catholic. Granted! But
after the Apostles, when heresies had arisen and were, under various
names, striving to tear apart and divide the dove and the queen of God,
did not the apostolic people need a special name to distinguish the unit
of the people who had remained uncorrupted. . . . Suppose this very day
I were to enter a large city. After running into Marcionites, Apollinarians,
etc., by what name should I know the congregation of my own people
unless it were named Catholic? . . . Christian is my name, but Catholic
is my surname. The former gives me a name; the latter distinguishes me.
. . . Consequently our people, when called Catholic, are separated by this
appellation from the heretical sects. (Ep. 1, 5-6).
See P. Batiffol, L’Eglise naissante, 2nd ed., p. 166. We purposely referred
to the Catholic Church as “a group of Christians bound together by the
profession of at least the same faith.” Since we are investigating in this chapter
only the truth of the religion which the Catholic Church professes, we are
deliberately omitting anything having to do with the Church precisely as a
society. Consequently we care nothing at present about such questions as
whether the Church was endowed by Christ or the Apostles with a fixed and

( 197)

THE TRUE RELIGION

immutable constitution, or whether the Church always kept its primitive social
structure, etc. We shall have occasion to touch these matters in the treatise
on Christ's Church.
2. That the Church did excommunicate from the very beginning those
who held false doctrine is clear from Titus 3:10-12; 2 John 9—10; the letters
of St. Ignatius To the Trallians (ACW, I, 75-80) and To the Smymaeans
(Ibid., pp. 90-96). St. Irenaeus tells us how the Apostle John, having caught
sight of Cerinthus, left the baths without washing, "because Cerinthus, the
foe of truth, was inside," and how St. Polycarp dubbed Marcion "the first­
born of Satan.” He continues: "Such was the horror which the Apostles had
even of entering into conversation with anyone who perverted the truth"
(Adversus Haereses, bk. 3, ch. 4).
3. See Wilmers, De vera religione, pp. 633fF; Dieringer, Die Gottlichen
Taten des Christentums, II, 422ff; M. d’Herbigny, "Les arguments apologé­
tiques de S. Augustin; L’Eglise,” in RPA, IX (1910), 565.
4. See Acts 3:6, 5:15, 9:40, 14:7, 19:12, 20:10.
5. See Acts 6:8, 8:6-13.
6. See bk. 32, ch. 2 of Adversus Haereses. Worth reading are St. Justin’s
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, no. 30; Tertullian’s Apologia, bk. 23, 93-97;
bk. 37, 126.
7. Epistola 22, no. 2 and 19.
8. Confessions, bk. 9, ch. 7, City of God, bk. 22, ch. 8.
9. Codex Justiniani, bk. 1, 27.
10. In Theophrastus, or De immortalitate animae et corporum resurrec­
tione.
11. In his Chronicles for the year 484.
12. De bello vandalico, bk. 1, ch. 8. See Hurter, Opuscula ss. Patrum,
22, p. 222, and Stimmen, 37, 270; 40, 415, where Hurter has a special defense
of the philosophical truth of this miracle as well as of its historical truth.
These articles are aimed at the Englishman, E. Twistleton, who published in
1873 a short book called The Tongue not Essential to Speech.
13. The question of the historical and philosophical truth of St. Bernard’s
miracles is treated by G. Hiiffer, “Die Wunder des h. Bernhard und ihre
Kritiker,” in Historisches Jahrbuch des Gorresgesellschaft (1889), p. 748.
14. Vita Sancti Francisci Xaverii, 6.1. On the historical truth of St. Francis
Xavier’s miracles, see Anal, bolland., 16.52, 17.485, 33.107.
15. In Bullar. Rom., 4, Appendix, 3.
16. Dr. Boissairie, L’oeuvre de Lourdes, 10th ed. (1909); Lourdes: Les
guérisons, 3 vols. (1913); G. Bertrin, Histoire critique des événements de
Lourdes, (1905); J. Bricout, Les merveilles de Lourdes, (1910); A. Castelein,
Le surnaturel dans les apparitions et dans les guérisons de Lourdes, (1912);
A. Gemelli, La lotta contre Lourdes, (1912); J. P. Baustert, Lourdes und
die Gegner vor dem Forum der Wissenschaft, (1913); L. Cros, Histoire de
Notre Dame de Lourdes d’après les documents et les témoins, 3 vols., ( 19251926); Dr. A. Marchand, Les faits de Lourdes et le bureau des constatations
médicales, (1923); RPA, XII, (1910), 816; Etudes, 118 (1909), 161; 174
(1922), 423; 180 (1924), 359; Rev. de philosoph., (1911), pp. 48, 553;
NRTh, (1909), p. 129; RAp, 34 (1922), 568.

(198)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

17. Récit et étude d’une guérison subite de fracture, by Drs. Van Hoestenberghe, Royer, and Dechamps (1899); see De Katholiek, 118, 474-, Dr. A.
Dechamps and Dr. le Bec, Le cas Pierre de Rudder et les objections des
médecins. On the miracle of St. Januarius see L. Cavenne, Le célèbre miracle
de saint Janvier d Naples et à Pouzzoles (1908): Dr. C. Isenkrahe, Neapnlltanische Blutwunder, (1912); L. Silva, Il miracolo di S. Gennaio, (1918);
G. B. Alfano and A. Amitrano, Le scienze occulte e il miracolo di san Gennaio,
(1922).
18. Even the Church of Constantinople, in its encyclical of 1895 against
the "church of corruption” (i.e., the Catholic Church), upbraids us for holding
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or at least for defining it. See
J. B. Baur, Argumenta c. orientalem ecclesiam ejusque synodicam encyclicam
anno 1895, (Innsbruck, 1897), p. 56.
19. See, for example, DTC, under the headings "Acta martyrum," “Acta
sanctorum”; Giinter, Legenden-Studien, (1906).
20. We do not claim that no one outside the Church was ever granted a
miracle in answer to his prayers—a matter which would be difficult to investi­
gate. We do claim a. that no undoubted miracle was ever performed in such
a manner as to serve as approval for another religion and b. that miracles, if
indeed they are found outside the Catholic Church, are extremely rare.
21. Retractationes, bk. 1, ch. 14, 5.
22. See Dieringer, Die gottlichen Taten des Christentums, II, 448.
23. See Matthew 17:19; Luke 17:6; Mark 6:5.

( 199 )

Article II
THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION
IS PROVED BY ITS MARVELOUS SPREAD AND CONSERVATION

Preliminary Remarks: Spread and Conservation, Though Really
Distinct, Are Yet One.
Proposition 1: The far-flung and swift spread of Christianity, taken
in conjunction with all its accompanying circumstances, must
be acclaimed as a moral miracle.
1. Christianity spread throughout the world very quickly:
a. during the lifetime of the Apostles;
b. and after their death.
Corollary: The Church characteristically preached the Gos­
pel to the poor.
2. This vast expansion defies explanation on purely natural
grounds.
Proof: based on a study of the circumstances surrounding
the expansion:
a. very serious obstacles:
1. intrinsic impediments: the very Person of Christ;
Christian teaching; exclusiveness.
2. extrinsic impediments: for the Jews; for the Gen­
tiles; for both groups.
b. natural means at hand pitifully few and poor.
Conclusion: An effect of such magnitude demands a propor­
tionate cause. The natural means at hand were almost
completely inadequate. Supernatural intervention alone
offers an adequate explanation.
Scholion: Solution of difficulties:
1. attempts at natural explanations;
2. the wide expansion of other religions: Buddhism,
Mithraism, Mohammedanism, Protestantism.
Proposition 2: The conservation of the Christian-Catholic religion
throughout all ages, considering all the circumstances, must
be acclaimed a moral miracle.
( 200 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST*» WORK

1. Fact of unbroken conservation self-evident, but nature
of this stability demands close attention.
2. This unbroken stability cannot be explained on natural
grounds.
a. Extremely grave dangers have always threatened it:
1. diversity of peoples within the Church;
2. bitter attacks, heresies, and schisms.
b. Natural means inadequate to insure such stability.
Conclusion.
Some difficulties answered:
1. natural conservation through principle of authority;
2. long existence of other religions.

(201 )

Article II
THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION
IS PROVED BY ITS MARVELOUS SPREAD AND PRESERVATION 1

115

Preliminary remarks. The marvelous spread and preservation
of Christianity seem to demand distinct treatment, since both are
different matters. However, both shall be treated in this article.
Although the miraculous character of Christianity's expansion per­
tains especially to the first three centuries, and its amazing stability
more particularly to subsequent times, yet a consideration of both
miracles together will clearly demonstrate that the ChristianCatholic religion, throughout the entire period of its existence, has
always enjoyed divine protection. In short, this study will show
that the Christian-Catholic religion has been supported and
approved by a miracle of divine omnipotence for as long as it has
been in existence.
By taking both miracles together a common objection of heretics
can be anticipated. They indeed admit divine intervention in the
early diffusion of Christianity, but claim that this in no way
constitutes an argument in favor of the Catholic religion, since
the latter and true Christianity are, in their opinion, poles apart.
This difficulty is forestalled by a joint treatment of both miracles.
Who will be so rash as to claim that God would miraculously
conserve a religion which would be only a spurious imitation of
the religion miraculously established by the same God throughout
the world?
The linking of the miracles of the diffusion and preservation of
Christianity is not at all arbitrary; for they are, of their own nature,
intimately related. If the wide and swift expansion had not been
accompanied by an unshaken stability, one might well conclude
that the expansion had not been the work of God. Indeed, one
would be hard put to it to convince anyone that a religion which
would so quickly fall to pieces had been established with God's
help. To put it another way, if the Christian religion needs God’s
help to be preserved throughout the world, how could it have been
spread among the Gentiles in the first place by purely human
means? Beginnings are always most difficult.

( 202 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

Proposition 1. The far-flung and swift spread of Christianity, taken 116
in conjunction with all its accompanying circumstances, must
he acclaimed a moral miracle.
I. Christianity Spread Throughout the World Very Quickly
In particular, this section will consider the spread of Christian­
ity from the time of the Apostles to the end of the third century.2
1. Its spread during the lifetime of the Apostles. Compara­
tively few men threw in their lot with Christ while He was still
alive, but after Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, there were added . . .
about three thousand souls (Acts 2:41). A short time later there
was added a group of five thousand (4:4), and in short order
the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord
increased still more (5:14). Not long after, a persecution broke
out in Jerusalem and the Apostles and their aides scattered through­
out Judea and Samaria preaching the word (8:4). When Paul came
to Jerusalem about the year 58 and recounted what God had done
among the Gentiles through his ministry, . . . they said to him,
"Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of believers there are
among the Jews” (21:19-20). This was the situation in Palestine.
That many churches existed outside Palestine, even during the
lifetime of the Apostles, is suggested by St. Peter in the greeting
of his First Epistle: to the sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. The same conclusion is
indicated by the accounts of St. Paul’s journeys, by his own epistles,
and by the Apocalypse wherein St. John is commissioned to send
a letter to the seven churches of Asia; to Ephesus, and to Smyrna,
and to Pergamum, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadel­
phia, and to Laodicea (Apoc. 1:11). That these primitive churches
were in some cases quite large can be gathered from the remarks
which Tacitus 3 and St. Clement of Rome4 make about the church
in the city of Rome at the time of the Neronian persecution. Again,
St. Paul writes that even in his own time the Christian faith was
being preached and was making strides throughout the whole
world.5 Though Paul’s expression can hardly be understood liter­
ally, it does argue for an expansion which under the circumstances
was very broad indeed.
2. Witnesses to post-Apostolic expansion: St. Ignatius of An- 117
tioch (martyred 107 a.d.) writes: "Jesus Christ, our inseparable life,
for His part is the mind of the Father, just as the bishops, though
appointed throughout the vast, wide earth, represent for their part

( 203 )

THE THUE RELIGION

the mind of Jesus Christ" (Epistle to the Ephesians, .3, 2. ACVV,
I, 61).
Pliny the Younger, the propraetor of Bithynia, wrote (about
112 A.D.) to the emperor Trajan for advice as to treatment of
Christians and remarked:

I thought the matter called for consideration particularly
because of the number of those in danger. For many people
of every age, of every social station and indeed of both sexes
are being brought into peril of their lives by their accusers; and
this dangerous situation threatens to continue. Not only are the
cities involved; this contagious superstition has infected even
the villages and rural areas. Yet I think it can be checked and
corrected. It is certainly clear that the temples, which were
formerly almost deserted, have begun to fill again and that the
long neglected sacred solemnities are being celebrated once
more. Fodder for sacrificial victims is again being sold, whereas
until recently scarcely any market could be found for it. It is
easy to imagine what a throng of people could be brought round
were they given a chance to mend their ways (Epistolae,
10:97).

St. Justin Martyr (100-164 a.d.) declared: “There is not a
single race of men, whether Greeks or Barbarians, or whatever else
they may be called, nomads living in wagons, homeless vagrants or
herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and thanksgiving
are not offered to the Father and Creator of all through the name
of the crucified Jesus” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, no. 117).
St. Irenaeus (125-202 a.d.) mentions churches in Germany,
Spain, Gaul, the Orient, Egypt and Libya in his work Adversus
haereses, bk. 1, ch. 10, no. 2.
Tertullian boasts to the Roman governors of Africa: “We are
but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—
cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the camp itself,
tribes, companies, the palace, senate, forum—we have left you
nothing but the temples of your gods” (Apology, 37).
In the year 212 the same Tertullian warned the Pro-consul
Scapula, who was planning to launch a persecution, that the
“majority of Carthage” was Christian:
What will you do with so many thousands, with such a multi­
tude of men and women, persons of every sex and age and of
( 204 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

every rank who will step forward to surrender themselves to
you? How many fires, how many swords will you need? What
will be the sufferings in Carthage alone, which you will have
to decimate. ... (To Scapula, 5, ML 1. 783).
Clement of Alexandria testifies: "The word of our Master did
not remain in Judea alone, as philosophy did in Greece. No, it
was spread throughout the whole world, winning over Greek and
barbarian nations alike, villages and whole cities, bringing to the
truth entire households and individually each of those who heard
it, even quite a few of the philosophers themselves” {Stromata,
bk. 6, c. 18).
Lactantius, describing the condition of the Church before the
Decian persecution of 249, said: “It stretched forth its hands to the
east and west, so that there was at that time no corner of the earth,
howsoever remote . . . , whither the religion of God had not pene­
trated; no nation so savage that it did not turn to gentle works of
justice once it had embraced the worship of God” (De morte
persecutoris, c. 5).
Maximinus Daza, the emperor, wrote that Diocletian and Maximian had raged against the Christians "because they saw nearly
everyone abandoning the worship of the immortal gods and joining
the sect of the Christians” (Quoted by Eusebius in his Historia
Ecclesiastica, bk. 9, c. 9).
Testimonies mentioning the whole world are, of course, to be
restricted to the then-known world, and at times even to the Roman
Empire. One must also remember that some of the authors cited
above sacrificed truth to rhetoric. Even granting all this, it is still
abundantly clear that the Christian religion had been very widely
spread before the end of the third century, not only within the
confines of the Roman Empire but also beyond, so much so that it
had reached many, many peoples in widely scattered districts of
the (known) world. No one who considers even for a moment the
difficulties involved in international contacts at that era of history
could possibly deny that this expansion was extremely swift.®
Corollary

A special mark of the Christian religion was its regard for the
poor and the care taken to preach the Gospel to them. During the
early years of its existence there were in fact not many wise . . .
not many mighty, not many noble (1 Cor. 1:26). However, some
of the more well-to-do and better educated are found giving their

( 205 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

allegiance to Christ from the very beginning. Among the Jews
there were, for example, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, St. Paul,
Crispus, Apollo, and a goodly crowd of priests and several Phar­
isees. The Epistle of James suggests that many of the Christians
were quite well off. Among the Gentiles during the first century
are found Cornelius the centurion, the proconsul Sergius Paulus,
Denis the Areopagite, and not a few noble women at Thessalonica
and Beroea, the consul Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla,
Acilius Glabrio, also of consular rank, and many others. Burial
inscriptions at Rome, around the year 200, testify that quite a few
members of the most respectable families had given themselves to
Christ.7 At the beginning of the fourth century Arnobius of Sicca
could address these words to the pagans:
Do not even these considerations give you reason to believe: the
fact that through all lands in such a short period of time the
sacred doctrines of this great name have been spread abroad;
that there is no nation of so wild a character and so impervious
to gentle sentiments which has not under the influence of His
love softened its harshness, and, adopting tranquility, passed
over into peaceful dispositions? that men endowed with great
ability—orators, grammarians, rhetoricians, lawyers, and physi­
cians, even those who explore the profundities of philosophy—
eagerly seek instruction in these things, having abandoned
those to which a little while before they were devoted? (The
Case Against the Pagans, bk. 2, c. 5, ACW, VII, 117).
With good reason P. Allard writes: “Hardly out of its cradle,
Christianity broke down the barriers of race, language and culture;
and right from the beginning recruited its disciples and its martyrs
from all classes of society. This penetration of society by the
Church was no less remarkable than its geographical expansion”
( Dix leçons sur le martyre ( 1906 ), p. 152 ).

118 H. This Vast Expansion of Christianity Defies Explanation
on Purely Natural Grounds
The above statement finds its proof in a consideration of the
circumstances surrounding that expansion. Such circumstances were
the magnitude of obstacles and the dearth of natural means avail­
able to overcome those obstacles.
Very serious obstacles made the spread of the Christian religion
extremely difficult. Some of these obstacles were intrinsic; others
extrinsic.
( 206 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

Intrinsic impediments were:
a. The very person of Christ. Born of the despised Jewish race
and put to death by crucifixion, He was now proposed to men as
God, as the object of adoration. This was to the Jews indeed a
stumbling-block and to the Gentiles foolishness (1 Cor. 1:23).
b. Christian teaching. The doctrine taught by the Christians
contained the deepest of mysteries and the moral code accepted
and lived by Christians, though chaste and beautiful in itself, put
a check on all sinful passions, and for this reason was hated by
the perverse and was most difficult for the weak.3
c. The unavoidable exclusiveness of Christianity, outlawing as
it did every other form of religious worship.
Extrinsic impediments:
a. For the Jews: the expectation of the Messias who would be
an all-powerful ruler freeing his people from foreign domination;
the deep-seated reluctance to allow Gentiles to participate in
religion on an equal footing; the authority of the priests and the
Pharisees, entrenched in the Chair of Moses and fiercely defending
its inviolability.
b. For the Gentiles: devotion to the religion of their forebears,
a devotion made staunch by centuries-long custom. This religion
catered to their passions and was furthermore so closely bound to
each nation’s history, political condition, social and domestic life,
laws, institutions, festivals and arts, that anyone who embraced
Christianity practically cut himself off from all society.® Another
important factor was the authority of the pagan priests, whose
prestige, social position and livelihood depended on the worship
of the local gods. The authority of the civil leaders, themselves
either high-priests of pagan superstition or convinced that the
well-being of the state depended on the worship of the gods,
was an added factor.10 Finally, there were the philosophers, who
taught that Christianity was a deadly superstition, beneath the
dignity of a Greek or Roman.
c. Affecting both groups were the calumnies devised against
Christians wherever they went—chiefly through the efforts of the
Jews ’’—and the frightfully cruel persecutions which, when not
actually raging, were always threatening.
2. There is hardly any need to explain that the natural means ] 19
at hand for spreading the Christian religion were pitifully few and
poor. Certainly the Apostles were favored with neither worldly
wealth nor influence. They were in no position to promise temporal

( 207 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

advantages to their followers, nor could they rely on erudition and
compelling eloquence. They were all members of the detested
Jewish race and, at least for the most part, were unschooled and
unlettered, quite clumsy in their handling of Greek, the common
coin of expression. What intelligent person could honestly believe
that this handful of obscure fishermen—burning with zeal, indeed,
but completely lacking in the usual natural aids—had the power
to effect this remarkably vast and difficult expansion of a new
religion?12
120
Conclusion. There is, on the one hand, an effect of the highest
magnitude—the rapid conversion of very many men in diverse
parts of the world to a religion which is in itself quite difficult, an
object of general hatred, attacked in every possible manner. On the
other hand, there is a natural cause, somewhat efficacious, to be
sure, but evidently out of all proportion to an effect of such
magnitude. Since every effect demands a proportionate cause, and
since the natural cause at hand is almost completely inadequate
to account for the effect, one must acknowledge the activity of
another, and much more powerful cause, namely, the supernatural
intervention of God, efficaciously moving men by His light and
His grace to embrace Christianity.
121 Scholion. Solution of difficulties.

1. Many rationalists, following Gibbon’s lead, have tried to
offer a natural explanation for the wide expansion of Christianity.
Among the more important causes which they allege are the
following:
a. The promise of eternal life. But did not all religions promise
a happy life in the future?
b. The great purity of the life displayed by the first Christians,
in particular their love for and generosity to the poor. This assumes,
and falsely, that the outstanding virtues of the early Christians were
naturally acquired. As far as generosity is concerned, who honestly
believes that in those early years the Christians were so wealthy
that they could attract by their alms so many thousands of men,
especially when one considers that the profession of Christianity
exposed one to all sorts of difficulties and dangers?
c. The doctrine of the equality of all men in the sight of God,
which attracted slaves—and they made up a large part of the
population—by the hope of freedom which it held out to them.
This doctrine was certainly most welcome and heartening for such
poor persons, but at the same time we must realize that the slaves
( 208 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

were for the most part men given to the most degrading immoral­
ity, an immorality which certainly did not find an ally in the moral
teaching of Christianity. Although Christian teaching finds its
logical conclusion in the abolition of slavery, the primitive Church
did not promise freedom to slaves. At that time the abolition of
slavery was not one of its aims; on the contrary, following the
example of the Apostles," the Church urged slaves to obey their
masters, whether the latter were Christian or not. Most likely a
few slaves obtained their freedom from Christian masters or from
others through the good office of fellow Christians. But what are
these few among so many?
d. The unification of many peoples under the one Roman rule.
This union of peoples undoubtedly helped to spread knowledge of
Christianity more quickly. In fact the Fathers often expressed the
opinion that God had extended Roman domination so far and wide
precisely in order to prepare a way for a swifter promulgation of
the Gospel. But it is one thing to know the Christian religion and
quite another to accept it. And from another point of view the
far-flung power of the Roman empire was just as much a factor in
effectively checking Christianity as it was in its swift expansion.
Of course one can readily grant that some natural causes aided
in the spread of the Christian religion. But that these natural
causes, even taken cumulatively, offer an adequate explanation for
the wondrous spread of Christianity is simply untenable.
The rapid expansion of Christianity finds no explanation at all
in a supposed syncretism which would have brought about an
accommodation of the new religion to the current convictions and
customs of the pagans, an adoption by the new religion of what­
ever vital and fruitful elements it found in these convictions and
customs. This should be clear from what has already been said.15
The whole history of Christianity cries out that no such syncretism
ever existed.
2. Others claim that the argument based on the spread of 122
Christianity is considerably weakened by the fact that other
religions and other sects have enjoyed wide expansion: Buddhism,
Mithraism, Mohammedanism, Protestantism. But the cases are not
at all the same. The argument in favor of Christianity is based,
not on the simple fact of expansion, but on the fact that such a
difficult and austere religion, hampered by so many obstacles, and
with practically no natural advantages on its side, still attained
such far-flung expansion.
Buddhism proposes no mystery for belief; in fact, it has no

( 209 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

firmly established theoretical doctrine. Popidar Buddhism, which
alone is widespread, is accommodated to all the existing supersti­
tions of the people and incorporates the worship of national gods
under the name of Devas. It proposes its moral doctrines, often
quite pure in individual precepts—especially the negative onesnot as binding under the divine law, but simply as commendable
from a human point of view. It has no desire to change social
customs, forbids neither polygamy nor divorce. It was founded by
the son of a prince (Siddhartha Sakyamuni, Gautama Buddha)
and from its very inception was preached by members of the upper
social classes.
It has not been subject to persecution; the tales sometimes told
about persecutions leveled against Buddhism are quite untrue. On
the contrary, it has always found in the secular arm a favorable
propaganda machine. In spite of this, its expansion was relatively
insignificant until the zealous efforts of King Asoka, who died in
232 B.C. (at least 150 and more probably 250 years after Buddha's
death), extended its influence.10
The worship of Mithra saw a wide expansion throughout the
western provinces of the Roman empire during the second and
third centuries after Christ, as Cumont has pointed out quite well
in his book, Les mystères de Mythra (1900). Mithraism, however,
was not an exclusive cult, but adapted itself and became almost
indistinguishable from the other religions then in vogue. It was
also much like the cult of the Phrygian gods (Cybele, the great
mother, and Attis) which the Roman authorities had officially
allowed the people to practice.
Roman Mithraism, which was essentially the worship of the
unvanquished Sun, found favorable support in the philosophy of
the day which taught that the heavenly bodies had souls and were
in fact divine, and strove to arrange all the gods in a sort of
hierarchy under the head of one supreme deity. This was a very
strong point of contact with Mithraism, which set the unvanquished
Sun above all other gods. Politics favored it. The emperors, espe­
cially since the time of Heliogabalus, were considered emanations
from the sun, indeed, “of the same nature as the sun.” The cult of
Mithra included that of the emperors and as a result was quite
flattering to imperial absolutism, and emperors and military leaders
did the most to spread Mithraism.17 As soon as it encountered
repressive measures, it died out.
The religion of Mohammed fostered lust and greed and was
(210)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST'» WORK

spread largely by means of violence and war. As long as Moham­
med tried mere persuasion he made little headway.”
Protestantism was nothing but a passing from a difficult religion
to one whose doctrine and moral practice were, from almost every
point of view, more lax. It grew strong, not by converting pagans,
but by welcoming apostate Catholics.19 Its rapid spread was due in
large measure to greed and politics,20 and after a half-century of
rapid expansion, popular excitement gradually subsided and its
advance slowed to a shuffling walk.
Proposition 2. The preservation of the ChristianrCatholic religion j 23
throughout all ages, considering all the circumstances, must be
acclaimed a moral miracle.
I. The fact of the unbroken preservation of the Catholic Church
and of her religion is self-evident; the matter of special concern
here is the nature of that stability which has been a characteristic
of the Church throughout twenty centuries. It is one thing for an
institution hidden away in a comer of the world to lead a long,
but sterile existence. It is another matter for a religion, spread all
over the face of the globe, constantly engaged in controversy with
clever adversaries, part and parcel of the ever changing social scene,
to go on living an always active life and to continue to grow and
become stronger day by day. Since it is a well-known fact that
the Catholic Church is characterized by the latter and not the
former type of stability, that stability is assumed as the basis for
the following discussion.
II. The unbroken stability of the Catholic religion cannot be 124
explained on natural grounds. This conclusion flows from a con­
sideration of the magnitude of the perils which have constantly
threatened it, and of the inadequacy of natural helps.
1. Extremely grave dangers have threatened to bring about the
ruin of the Catholic Church and of her religion throughout the
entire period of Church history.
a. One constant source of danger is the diversity of the peoples
which the Catholic Church gathers to her bosom. National partic­
ularism and the aversions felt by some peoples to others make
difficult their joining in one society, and even more difficult their
remaining together. The difficulty increases in proportion to the
number of nations involved and to their differences in character,
culture, and customs. These factors explain why all the great
empires which have included many different peoples were founded
(211)

THE TRUE RELIGION

only by armed might, and why they eventually came to naught.
They explain, too, why all other religions and sects were more or
less national in character. But from the time of its earliest expan­
sion, the Catholic religion gathered into a real unity many widely
separated peoples, and with the passing of the centuries the Church
has continued to bring ever more and more within the fold. In view
of such a great diversity of peoples united in her fold, she should
have encountered, and history witnesses to the fact that she did
encounter, many perilous obstacles. Kings and princes did more
than their share to increase the natural peril. Sometimes they were
themselves Catholics who time and again strove to extend their
rule so that it would include also spiritual matters; sometimes they
were non-Catholics who thought, or at least pretended, that
“ultramontanism” was a threat to the welfare of the state. The
danger was increased rather than diminished by the fact that those
professing the Catholic religion in such a nation often formed a
weak minority.
b. Another danger, or rather an endless series of dangers, comes
from the bitter attacks and calamities which have always scourged
the Catholic religion. On the heels of the cruel persecutions of the
first centuries came Neo-Platonic philosophy, the mother of many
heresies. Soon there followed the great heresies often sponsored by
the Byzantine emperors: Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism.
During the same period the barbarians, partly pagan and partly
Arian, flooded Europe, overran the Roman Empire, and threatened
the ruin of all that the Church had built. At the dawn of the Middle
Ages a new threat came in the shape of Mohammedanism, one
of the fiercest enemies the Church has ever seen. Even within the
Church was the menace of Caesaropapism, which caused the great
Greek Schism in the East and in the West the struggle for bishoprics
and lay investiture.
Not long afterward came the sad Western Schism which helped
pave the way for the Protestant Revolution of the sixteenth century.
Protestantism was followed in subsequent centuries by Jansenism,
Gallicanism, Josephinism, the French Revolution, rationalism, lib­
eralism, and Modernism. The latter three were perhaps the fiercest
enemies which the Church ever had to face. Add to these the
internal difficulties, worst of all, the attacks on religion occasioned
by the corrupt morals of the clergy. If all these facts are taken
into careful and mature consideration, the statement of a con­
temporary non-Catholic becomes eminently justified:
(212)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

As a general result of historical investigation we can say
that the Church has constantly been in a situation which forces
human reason to forecast: 'It can’t last a fortnight longer”’
(Dr. R. Pierson, Geschiedenis v.h. Roomach-Katolicisme, IV,
330).

However, that end, so ardently desired in many quarters and
so often foretold, has not materialized after nineteen centuries and
is far from doing so at present.21 Certainly, the Catholic Church,
oppressed by calamities, has often groaned deep within her heart
and has wept at the loss of so many of her children, indeed of whole
nations. But, purged in the fire of battle, she has always emerged
from the front more vigorous than ever, has recouped her losses
elsewhere with interest, whereas her adversaries perished alto­
gether or lay wounded in the field.
2. Where are the arms, where are the weapons which the Cath- 125
olic religion has used to overcome so many enemies, to survive so
many calamities with the flush of youth still fresh on her cheeks?
It is quite true that the Church has never neglected the natural
means of learning and persuasion. When she was in a position to
use these honorable means, her adversaries used deceit, calumny,
lies, corruption, subterfuge, and tricks of every kind, which are
ordinarily most effective in fooling men. Secular princes frequently
attacked the Church herself or sponsored her adversaries. And even
when they sided with the Church, in many instances they restricted
her liberty to a large extent, so that their protection, though advan­
tageous from one aspect, was exceedingly harmful from another.
Consequently, one can make the general statement that the Church’s
adversaries have almost always won over her by force of arms
and natural means, while throughout it all the Church has remained
unarmed, strong in patience alone. “This is a characteristic of the
Church; to be victorious in defeat, to be understood when
maligned, to hold fast when deserted.” So wrote St. Hilary (De
Trinitate, bk. 7, c. 4).
Conclusion. Just as the first expansion of the Catholic religion, j 20
so is its perennial conservation an effect which can be in no way
explained as due to visible and merely natural causes. Conse­
quently, unless one is ready to admit an effect without a propor­
tionate cause, the conclusion follows that the inviolate stability of
the Church is due for the most part to the special help of God,
who constantly and efficaciously moves men throughout the world
to embrace the faith. The whole history of the Catholic religion
(213)

THE TRUE RELIGION

shows how true were the words spoken by Gamaliel when Christi­
anity was but a few years old:

So now I say to you, Keep away from these men and let them
alone. For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown;
but if it is of God, you will net be able to overthrow it. Else
perhaps you may find yourselves fighting against God (Acts
5:38-39).
127 Scholion. Some difficulties answered.
1. There are those who claim that the Catholic religion was
preserved naturally through the principle of authority which has
always been very strong within it. Certainly a proximate means of
the Church’s preservation is the principle of authority, the authority
of a ruling body together with a corresponding obedience on the
part of the faithful. For the government of pastors could not pre­
serve religion, if the faithful did not subject themselves to that
government. And it is precisely this obedience with which untold
numbers of men of every age freely accept the burden of the faith
and continue to carry it that cannot be explained without appeal
to the special action of God.
2. Some object that other religions, also, have enjoyed a long
existence. Examples are Buddhism, Mohammedanism, some Chris­
tian sects in the East. There is, however, a vital and complex differ­
ence. Those religions do not impose such difficult obligations, nor
do they reveal the same unity, nor are they spread throughout so
many widely differing nations, nor do they make new gains, nor
are they caught up in the disputes of the learned,22 nor are they
attacked very frequently or very severely. Withal, they are torpid,
almost like corpses which owe their preservation to the skill of the
embalmer. The case of modem Judaism is not much different. The
Jewish people, stubbornly adhering to the abrogated Law, scattered
throughout the nations, but not absorbed by them, are preserved
by a decree of Providence as a perpetual argument in favor of the
Christian religion.23 Although the Jews exert a great influence as a
result of their intelligence, astuteness, and industry, Judaism, as a
religion, exerts little influence.

Notes
1. P. Muck, Das groszte Wunder der Weltgeschichte, 1905.
2. Excellent treatments of this matter are to be found in A. Hamack’s
Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhun·
derten, 3rd ed. (1915), and in F. Spitta’s ]esus und die Heidenmission

(214)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

(1909). Apart from their treatment of this point, however, the books of
Hamack and Spitta are definitely not recommended. See also:
M. Meinertz, "Jesus und die Heidenmission," NtAb (1908);
P. Heinisch, "Die Idee der Heidenbekehrung im Alten Testament," Bibl
Zf, VIII, 1 and 2;
P. Batiffol, L'Eglise naissante et le Catholicisme, 2nd ed. (1922);
J. Rivière, "La propagation du Christianisme dans les trois premiers
siècles," Coll. Science et religion, nos. 454-455;
P. Allard, Dix leçons sur le martyre (1906), pp. 10-83;
Der Kath. (1903), I, 240 (against Harnack), and 289 (against Loisy).
3. Annal., bk. 15, ch. 44; "a huge crowd.” See no. 75.
4. "These men [Peter and Paul] who had led holy lives were joined by a
great multitude of the elect that suffered numerous indignities and tortures
through jealousy and thus became illustrious examples among us" (Epistle to
the Corinthians, 6. 1, ACW I, 12).
5. Romans 1:8: Your faith is proclaimed all over the world; see 10:18.
Colossians 1:6: The gospel truth which has reached you, even as it is in the
whole world, both bearing fruit and growing; just as it does among you. So
also St. Clement of Rome writes of St. Paul: "He taught the right manner of
life to the whole world” (Epistle to the Corinthians, 5. 7, ACW I, 12).
6. A. Hamack concludes his book, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des
Christentums, with these words:
Did the spread of the Christian religion take place with startling rapidity?
Permit me to answer this question in the affirmative. The impression enter­
tained by the Fathers of the fourth century, like Arnobius, Eusebius, and
Augustine, that their faith had spread, generation after generation, with
inconceivable swiftness, continues valid. Seventy years after the founding
of the first Gentile-Christian community at Syrian Antioch, Pliny writes
in the strongest terms of the spread of Christianity in distant Bithynia,
and sees the continued existence of the remaining local worship already
threatened in that province. Seventy years later, the Easter controversy
reveals a confederation of churches stretching from Lyons to Edessa, with
Rome as their capital. Another seventy years later the emperor Decian
(Ep. 55 s. Cypriani, no. 9) declares that he would rather have to put up
with a rival emperor at Rome than with a Christian bishop. And then it
takes hardly seventy years more for the cross to be stitched upon the
Roman military pennants (1st ed., 1902, p. 545).
7. P. Allard writes:
In the cemetery where Callistus held sway [later, 218-222, he was Supreme
Pontiff], the greatest families of Rome are represented. You can find there
the burial stones of Caecilii, Cornelii, Aemilii, Bassi, Annii, Jallii and
Pomponii. There you may run across tombs of people related to the
imperial families. Just as there were Christian Flavians in the first century,
there were Christian Antonines at the end of the second century and at
the beginning of the third (Histoire des persecutions pendant la première
moitié du 3* siècle, 1894, p. 191).
8. The difficulties which Christian teaching presented to the minds of
the pagans can be more readily appreciated if the words of a modern unbe­
liever, who was brought up in Catholic surroundings, are examined. SullyPrudhomme writes:
Catholicism offends every human faculty. It offends the intellect with its
mysteries, which are as baffling in the realm of ideas as miracles are in the

(215)

THE TRUE RELIGION

realm of facts. It offends (he senses with the mortifications it imposes upon
them and with the illusions by which it ensnares them in the matter of the
Eucharist. It offends the heart by repressing all stirrings of passion and
even inborn inclinations. It offends the will by the self-denial which it
imposes in the practice of obedience and humility. Finally, it offends the
conscience with its teaching on the consequences of original sin, which is
wholly incompatible with the sentiment of personal responsibility (La
vraie religion scion Pascal (1905), p. 154).

9. This is the origin of the accusation of "hatred for the human race”
recorded by Tacitus. P. Allard states:
Even in the eyes of enlightened people, who held themselves above vulgar
rumors, the care which the faithful took to avoid profane festivals, their
hatred for the theater, their voluntary aloofness from public functions,
which were all too often tainted with idolatry—all this gave grounds for
a charge which was all the more formidable because of its vagueness.
They saw Christians as a class apart, and those who did not charge them
with secret murders or clandestine orgies, accused them at least of hating
the human race—Le Christ et l'empire romain (1897), p. 13.

10. Again Allard states:
The fortune of Rome seemed linked with its religion. The more sophisti­
cated contemporaries of Augustus or Tiberius were no less imbued with
this conviction than had been the rude inhabitants of the primitive city on
the Palatine. They were perhaps not too concerned about the basis of this
religion, about its absolute certitude or its historical origin. But the
national gods were sacred to them because of political interests, and
because of an overweaning superstition from which even the most skep­
tical among them did not try to defend themselves. They believed that
Roman power would be cursed the day its traditional religion crumbled.
So ingrained in Roman paganism is this idea that it will reappear unaltered
in its last proponents, contemporaries of St. Augustine and St. Ambrose.
Ibid., p. 4.
Consequently Tertullian stated that the people thought that “Christians were
at the bottom of every public disaster, of every common misfortune If the
Tiber rose to the walls, if the Nile did not inundate the fields, if heaven stood
still or the earth moved, if famine came, or plague, immediately the cry went
up, ‘Throw the Christians to the lion!’ So many Christians for one lion?”
(Apolog., bk. 40, c. 136).
In a similar strain St. Augustine recalls a “popular adage: ‘We are suffer­
ing a drought; the Christians are to blame’ ” (City of God, bk. 2, ch. 3). Even
Porphyrius, according to Eusebius, wrote: “And now let no one wonder if the
city has been sorely tormented by this pestilence for so many years, since
Aesculapius and the other gods have withdrawn from familiar association
with men. For from the time people began to worship Jesus, no one has
experienced the aid of the gods in the matter of the common, public weal”
(Praeparatio evangelica, bk. 5, c. 1). And Porphyrius, we must recall, was an
eminent philosopher of the third century—one who sought wisdom.
11. “In the pagan empire, every time the persecution had begun afresh,
on either the official or the popular level, the Jews turned up in the vanguard,
fanning the flames of anger or abetting the acts of violence” (Allard, Julien
Γapostate, bk. 3, p. 187).
The synagogues, which Tertullian (Scorpiac., c. 10) calls “well-springs
of persecutions,” spread false rumors not only among the Jews, but, through

(216)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

their ubiquitous emissaries (St. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 17), even among
the pagans. They claimed, for example, that Christ had seduced men through
the use of magic (Origen, Contra Celsum, bk. 1, c. 28), that His crucifixion
had been fully justified (St. Justin, op. cit., 93), that His resurrection was a
fable and that His corpse had been stolen (ibid., 108), and that the accounts
of His activities were the figments of His disciples' imaginations (Origen,
op. cit., bk. 2, c. 13). They added for good measure that the Christians killed
and ate little boys during their meetings, then put out the lights and gave
vent to their lust in the most shameful manner possible (St. Justin, Apol.,
bk. 2, c. 12; Tertullian, Apolog., bk. 7, c. 32, Origen, op. cit., bk. 6, c. 27);
and that they worshipped the genitalia of their priests (Minucius Felix,
Octav., 9).
Christians were further accused of being atheists (St. Justin, Apol., bk. 1,
c. 6), of adoring the sun (Tertullian, Ad Nat., bk. 1, c. 13) or an ass’s head
(Tertullian, Apolog., bk. 16, c. 79); etc. This last mentioned accusation has
been immortalized in one of the famous graffiti of the Palatine. See Jack
Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, Princeton, 1947, p. 292, figure 124.
12. Even Paulsen writes: "Of all the events recorded in world history,
none is so amazing as the conversion of the ancient world to Christianity.
Never has there been a spiritual movement which was so very poor as
Christianity in all those resources which, in the ordinary course of events,
would be requisite for conquering the world” (System der Ethik (1889),
p. 78).
13. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1777), ch. 15.
14. 1 Timothy 6:12; 1 Corinthians 7:20-22; Ephesians 6:5ff; St. Ignatius
Martyr, Ad Polycarpum, 4. See F. X. Kiefl, Die Theorien des modemen
Sozialismus iiber den Ursprung des Christentums (1915); ZkTh (1909),
p. 625; J. von Walter (a non-Catholic) admits: "The New Testament, in spite
of the fact that it considers slavery a condition unbecoming to Christian free­
dom, does not demand the abolition of slavery, but rather exhorts slaves to
maintaii) their actual position” (Die Sklaverei im N. T. (1914), pp. 4ff).
15. See above, no. 74a. A. Harnack is an outstanding proponent of the
thesis that the spread of Christianity finds its explanation in syncretism.
16. See Broglie, Problèmes et conclusions de l’histoire des religions
(1913), p. 22, article by L. de la Valée Poussin; Joseph Dahlmann, Buddha
(1898); O. Maas, Der Buddhismus in alien und neuen Tagen (1913); A.
Roussel, Le Boeddhisme primitif (1912); Dr. E. Hardy, Der Buddhismus nach
iilteren Pali-Werken, 2nd ed. (1919); Der Kuth. (1913), I, 165, 276, 415;
II, 90, 217.
Buddhism brought little advantage to its adherents. E. von Hartmann
states:
“This indifferentism drugged the nations converted to Buddhism like a
daily dose of opium, induced a quietistic enervation, and through its
contempt for science, art, and all material progress paralyzed all move­
ment towards higher cultural standards. Thus it repressed the basically
sound instincts of these peoples, eliminated them from the vital stream of
history, kept them perforce in dreamy ignorance, and thereby planted the
germ which infallibly brought about the dissolution of religious life itself”
(Das religiose Bewusstsein der Menschheit, p. 347, cited by Cutberlet,
Apologetica, II, 2nd ed., 61).
17. Harnack states: “The emperor and the military supported it and

(217)

THE TRUE RELIGION

thereby endowed it with importance for wider circles" (Die Mission und
Ausbreitung des Christentums, p. 536).
18. B. Carra de Vaux, La doctrine de l'Islam (1909); II. Lainmens,
L’Islam: croyances et institutions (1926); J. Huby, op. cit., p. 541.
19. We may apply to Protestantism and, generally speaking, to any sect,
the reprimand which Tertullian leveled against the heretics of his day:
They set themselves the task not of converting pagans, but of perverting
our brethren. They consider it a greater glory to knock down those who
are standing than to raise up those who are prostrate, for their edifice is
not of their own building, but is founded on the destruction of the truth.
They undermine ours to build theirs (De praescriptione, c. 42).
There is in fact no nation, or hardly any nation, even of those now divided
by heresy or schism, which received its first knowledge of the Gospel from
heretics or schismatics. See Wilmers, De religione revelata, no. 640.
20. For example, Brochmann, a pastor of the Reformed Church, writes:
“Dr. Luther gave monasteries to the princes, wives to the priests, freedom to
the common man,—and that helped matters considerably.” Frederick the Great
stated: “If you want to reduce the causes of the progress of the Reformation
to simple principles, you will find that in Germany it was a matter of political
interest, in England of love, and in France of novelty” ( Quoted in Liebermann,
I, 10th ed., 370).
21. In 1840 Macauley, a Protestant author, wrote a passage of surpassing
beauty and power in his Critical and Historical Essays:
There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy
so deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history
of that Church joins together the two great stages of human civilization.
No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the
times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when
camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proud­
est royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the
Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from
the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century, to the Pope
who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the
august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic
of Venice was modem, when compared with the Papacy; and the republic
of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in
decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Cath­
olic Church is sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries
as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustine, and still confront­
ing hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila.
The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her
acquisitions in the new world have more than compensated her for what
she has lost in the old. . . . Nor do we see any sign which indicates that
the term of her long domination is approaching. She saw the establish­
ment of all the governments and of all the 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. She was great and respected before the Saxon
had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when
Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, when idols were still wor­
shipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished
vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a
vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch

(218)

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

the ruins of St. Paul's.—We often hear it said that the world is becoming
more and more enlightened, and that this enlightening must be favourable
to Protestantism, and unfavourable to Catholicism. We wish that we could
think so. But we see great reason to doubt whether this be a well-founded
expectation. We see that during the last 250 years the human mind has
been in the highest degree active, that it has made great advances. Yet
we see that, during these 250 years, Protestantism has made no conquests
worth speaking of. Nay, we believe that, as far as there has been a change,
that change has, on the whole, been in favour of the Church of Rome. We
cannot, therefore, feel confident that progress of knowledge will necessarily
be fatal to a system which has, to say the least, stood its ground in spite
of the immense progress made by the human race in knowledge since the
days of Queen Elizabeth.
22. De Maistre states:
Λ11 the churches separated from the Holy See at the beginning of the
12th century can be compared to frozen corpses whose shapes are pre­
served by the cold. This cold is ignorance. But when the wind of knowl­
edge, which is warm, comes to blow on these churches, that will happen
which must happen according to the laws of nature: the ancient forms
will disintegrate and there will be nothing left but dust (Du Pape, IV, 2).
23. St. Augustine wrote:
They are scattered throughout all nations, with no stability, no fixed habi­
tation. If there are still Jews, it is that they may carry our books, books
which serve to confound them. For when we want to prove that Christ
was referred to in prophecies of old, we show those books to the pagans.
And lest, resisting belief, they claim that we Christians composed them
and created the prophets together with the Gospel which we preach, we
convince them by pointing out that all those books in which Christ was
foretold are in the possession of the Jews. We borrow books from one set
of enemies to confound another set. The Jew carries the book which serves
as a source of faith for the Christian. They have become our librarians,
just like the slaves who frequently follow their masters and carry their
books. The former grow weary from carrying; the latter grow strong from
reading (In Ps. 56, no. 9).

(219)

Article III
THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION IS
PROVED BY ITS PERENNIAL FRUITFULNESS IN THE
FIELD OF HOLINESS

Proposition: The harvest of holiness produced by the ChristianCatholic religion must be acclaimed a moral miracle.
1. Christianity has brought forth an abundant harvest of
holiness:
a. on the intellectual plane;
b. on the moral plane;
c. on the social plane.
d. This harvest has been constantly preserved and
continued.
2. This harvest of holiness cannot be explained on merely
natural grounds:
a. Supernatural help is necessary for even a knowledge of
religion.
b. The moral reform effected by the Church is morally
impossible for any merely human institution.

( 220 )

Article III
THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION IS
PROVED BY ITS PERENNIAL FRUITFULNESS IN THE
FIELD OF HOLINESS

The Christian-Catholic religion has produced a harvest of 128
sanctity greater than merely natural means could ever produce,
and hence this harvest must be in great part attributed to the direct
influence of God on men’s souls. By making the Catholic religion
so wondrously holy God clearly puts His seal of approval on that
religion. It is obvious that He could not approve a religion which
falsely claimed a divine origin.
This fact is self-evident once it has been established that the
Christian-Catholic religion truly produces such a harvest of holi­
ness as is impossible apart from the very special help of God.
Indeed, this marvelous harvest is in truth a miracle of the moral
order.

Proposition: The harvest of holiness produced by the Christian- 129
Catholic religion must be recognized as a miracle of the moral
order.

I. Christianity has produced an abundant harvest of holiness.1
1. On the intellectual plane it has filled all the peoples whom
it has reached with sound theoretical and practical doctrine con­
cerning God and matters divine.2 With the sole exception of the
Jews, all peoples, before the Christian religion reached them, erred
greatly in this matter. (See no. 25.)
2. On the moral plane, wherever Christianity took root, it
brought about a truly great moral reform.
Writers, both Christian and pagan, bear eloquent testimony to
this fact for the early ages of Christianity.3
For references to converted Jews see the Acts of the Apostles,
2:42—47; 4:32-35.
The following Christian writers tell us of the converted Gen­
tiles:
St. Clement of Rome wrote thus to the Corinthians:
(221)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Indeed, was there ever a visitor in your midst that did not
approve your excellent and steadfast faith? Or did not admire
your discreet and thoughtful Christian piety? Or did not pro­
claim the magnificent character of your hospitality? . . . You
certainly did everything without an eye to rank or station in
life, and regulated your conduct by God’s commandments
(First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1:2-3, ACW, I, 9).
Aristides, in his apology to Antoninus Pius, says:
Christians have the commandments [of God] engraved upon
their hearts and observe them in the expectant hope of the
world to come. And so they do not commit adultery or fornica­
tion, or bear false witness, or embezzle what they hold in
pledge, or covet the goods of others. They honor father and
mother, love their neighbors and judge with equity. They
appeal to those who injure them and try to win them as friends;
they are eager to do good to their enemies. Their wives are as
pure as virgins, and their daughters are modest. Their men
keep themselves from any illicit union and from any manner
of uncleanness. They observe the commands of their Christ
with great care and live chaste and holy lives as the Lord their
God commanded them (Apologia, 15).

St. Justin Martyr relates:
We who formerly used to delight in fornication now embrace
chastity alone. We who formerly used to practice magical arts
have consecrated ourselves to the good and unbegotten God.
We who used to value above all else the acquisition of money
and property now donate our possessions to a common fund and
share it with anyone who may be in need. We who used to
hate and destroy one another and would have no truck with
people who were not of our own tribe because their customs
differed from ours, now, since the coming of Christ, live with
them and pray for our enemies. And we try every means of
persuasion to soften those who persecute us out of malicious
hate. . .. Indeed, many people of both sexes who were instructed
in Christ’s teaching as children look back at the age of sixty
or seventy on a life of unsullied purity; and I claim to be able
to show you such people in every race of mankind (Apology,
bk. 1, chs. 14-15).

Athenagoras wrote:

( 222 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

But among us you will find uneducated persons, simple laboring
men, and old women, who, even if they cannot express in words
the advantages of our doctrine, by their deeds show forth the
benefits arising from their persuasion of its truth. They do not
compose fine speeches and commit them to memory, but let
their actions speak for them. When struck they do not strike
back; when robbed they do not go to court; they give to those
that ask of them, and they love their neighbors as themselves
(Legatio pro Christianis, 11).
Tertullian exclaims:
It is always with your [pagan] peoples that the prison is
steaming, the mines are sighing, the wild beasts are fed. It is
from you that those who run the gladiatorial shows always
receive their herds of criminals to feed up for the occasion.
You find no Christian there, unless it is precisely because he
is a Christian (Apologia, bk. 44, ch. 148; see bk. 39, chs. 130133).

Origen says that one should seriously consider:

to what acts of injustice and covetousness [Christians] were
addicted before [their conversion] . . . how, from the time
they accepted that doctrine they became more just, more serious
and more steady, to such an extent that some of them, out of
a desire for perfect chastity and a wish to worship God with
greater purity, abstain even from those pleasures of love per­
mitted them by law (Contra Celsum, bk. 1, ch. 26).
The same author also testifies:
The churches of God which are instructed by Christ compared
with the assemblies of the districts in which they five are as
beacons in the world. For who would not admit that the inferior
members of the Church and those who suffer by comparison
with the better, are vastly superior than those who belong to
the popular assemblies? (Ibid., bk. 3, ch. 29).

St. Denis of Alexandria tells of the great charity of those Chris­
tians, who during a plague attended the sick and buried the
dead, “even though the survivors were continually following those
who had gone before them. But with the heathen everything was

( 223)

THE TRUE RELIGION

quite different” (Quoted by Eusebius, HE, 7, ch. 22). The heathen
fled from those who became sick, even from their dearest ones,
and threw corpses out to lie unburied.
Eusebius, the early historian, writes:
Persians no longer marry their own mothers once they have
accepted the teaching of Christ; nor do Scythians feed any
longer on human flesh. Other barbaric tribes have given up
incestuous relations with their daughters and sisters. The men
of other races have ceased to bum with mad lust for their
fellow men and no longer indulge those other pleasures of the
flesh which violate the law of nature (Praeparatio Evangelii,
bk. 1, ch. 4).

There is, in addition, the testimony of pagans. Pliny the Younger
testifies:
But the [Christians] insisted that this was the full extent of their
guilt or error—call it what you will—namely, that they were
accustomed to assemble before dawn on a given day, and to
sing together a hymn to Christ as to a god. They claimed that
if they bound themselves by an oath, it was not with a view to
committing some crime or other, but rather with a view to
avoiding theft, robbery, adultery, disloyalty, or the refusal to
hand back a deposit upon request (Epistolae, bk. 10, no. 97,
ad Trajanum).

Galen, a pagan physician and philosopher:
The majority of men cannot understand a speech involving a
long logical argument. That is why they need examples and
illustrations. We see an instance of this in our own day in
these people who call themselves Christians. They have based
their faith on parables. And yet they sometimes reach practical
conclusions not unlike those reached by men who are skilled
in philosophy. Their scorn for death, for instance, is wellknown to all of us. Again, some sense of shame leads them to
stay far away from the pleasures of love. For there are men
and women among them who have abstained from intercourse
throughout their whole lives. There are among them also men
who have made such progress in the ruling and disciplining of
their minds and in an assiduous striving for goodness that they
yield not at all to men who are real philosophers (De sententiis
politiae platonicae).
*
( 224 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRISTAS WORK

Julian the Apostate wrote to Arsacius, a pagan priest:

Have we not noticed what has been principally responsible for
the growth of the religion of the Christians? Is it not their
kindness to strangers, their diligent care in burying their dead,
and their feigned seriousness of manner? I am of the opinion
that we too must adopt each of these policies. For while none
of the Jews goes begging, and while the impious Galileans
provide not only for their own poor but for ours as well, it
would indeed be disgraceful if we were to let our own needy
appear deprived of the help and assistance we can give them
(In Sozomenus’ Historia Ecclesiastica, bk. 5, ch. 16).
Such activity occurred not only during the first centuries of
Christianity but marked its progress throughout all subsequent
generations. Every time a nation was converted to the ChristianCatholic religion, a remarkable moral reform followed. This fact
is clear from the history of individual Christian nations and from
the history of missionary activity.
3. On the social plane: little by little the Christian religion
used its influence to restore the family, urging the unity and
indissolubility of marriage, the dignity of women,5 the rights and
duties of children. At first it alleviated the rigors of slavery and
finally brought about its abolition;6 it reformed civil society itself
by promoting freedom, charity, and the rights of nations.7
4. These holy and wholesome effects which the Christian 130
religion caused everywhere among recently converted nations, it
still continues to produce throughout the world.
Never has that religion ceased to impart religious truth to the
nations within its fold. Never has it allowed religious doctrine,
whether theoretical or practical, to be toned down or obscured. On
the contrary, it has consistently attacked all error, no matter who
fostered it, and has zealously kept it from infecting the followers
of the truth. Every age has seen the Church urging countless men
to an earnest and persevering search for virtue, to a truly noble
life.8 Never has it lacked men of heroic sanctity. Rather it has been
always and everywhere conspicuous for the host of men and
women who have followed the evangelical counsels to the point
of dedicating themselves completely to the service of God and
neighbor. In every age it has had its martyrs, at times in great
numbers. It cannot be denied, however, that at times the morals
of a nation and even of the Catholic clergy have become shame­
fully loose in one place or another. Yet, even in those instances

( 225)

THE THUE RELIGION

there was no lack of wheat in the midst of the weeds; although
religion was at a low ebb in one region, it was flourishing else­
where; it frequently happened that nations which became depraved
were restored by the Church to even greater holiness.
It would be a mistake to think that the above remarks bearing
on Christianity’s fruitfulness are applicable at least in general to
all Christians, Catholics or not. Since there is scarcely any nation
in existence which first heard of the Gospel from an heretical sect,
the marvelous moral reform which has accompanied the advance
of the Christian religion throughout the world is due to the Cath­
olic Church alone. There is no heretical or schismatic sect whose
origin was remarkable because of a notable moral improvement.
In fact, the case was more frequently just the opposite. In the
pseudo-Reformation the results caused Luther to say: “Men are
now more vindictive, more greedy, more pitiless, more immoral and
unrestrained, and much more evil than they were under the
papacy” (Postilla in Evangelium Dominicae lae Adventus).0 No
sect has ever produced the vast number of outstandingly holy men,
the untold throngs of martyrs that the Catholic Church has pro­
duced. It is therefore beyond doubt that the Catholic religion alone
has brought to maturity the marvelously abundant harvest of holi­
ness described above.10
131
II. This harvest of holiness which is produced by the Catholic
religion cannot be explained on merely natural grounds.
1. If it is morally impossible for men to gain a fitting knowledge
of religion by purely natural means, and if the Catholic religion
has brought men such knowledge, clearly it has performed a task
for which natural powers alone are inadequate.
2. No other religion, no philosophical system, no merely human
institution has ever brought about a moral reform even remotely
comparable in breadth, depth, or duration with the one effected by
the Catholic Church, not only centuries ago but even in our own
day. What human means have never accomplished must be labeled
as morally impossible for them. No one who considers how difficult
it is to get even one sinner to mend his ways will deny the moral
impossibility of this type of reform.
It is certainly not unfitting to apply to the revolution which
Christianity has effected in the realm of morality these words of
the Psalmist: By the Lord has this been done: it is wonderfid in
our eyes (Psalm 117:23).

( 226 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

Notes
1. Christian customs from the Apostolic age up to the time of Hadrian
are quite soberly and in general quite well described by the non-Catholic
author, E. V. Dobschütz, Die urchristlichen Gemeinde, Sittengeschichtliche
Bilder, 1902.
2. We mean a knowledge of natural religion.
3. The extent of moral corruption among the pagans before the rise of
Christianity, especially in the Roman empire, is sufficiently well-known. See
A. M. Weisz, Apologie des Christenthums, v. Ill, Das Ende der alten Welt.
4. This passage seems to be taken from the opusculum named in the text;
see ZkTh (1899), p. 569. The testimony of Lucian, In morte peregrini, is
found in Ottiger’s Theologia fundamentalis, I, 862 and 874.
5. G. d'Azambuja, Ce que le Christianisme a fait pour la femme, in Coll.
Science et Religion, n. 64.
6. Allard, P., Les esclaves chrétiens depuis les premiers temps de ΓEglise,
5th ed., 1912;
Steinman, A., Die Sklavenfrage in der alten Kirche, 1910;
Van Meerveldhoven, Paschasius, Historisch-apologetische schets der slavernij, 1913.
7. Read the following for fuller treatment of this matter:
Hettinger-Müller, Apologie des Christentums, IX, Kirche und Bildung,
5, 176-462;
Schanz, Apologetik, III, 3rd ed., no. 15;
Tanquerey, De vera religione, no. 155ff;
Van Oppenraay, Apologie des Christendoms.
Even V. Hellwald, who was quite hostile to anything Christian, could write:
Disinterested parties, however, grant that in spite of this [in spite of its
later degeneration in warmer climes], Christianity brought to maturity
among tbe ancients views which are usually declared noble according to
modem notions. Such, for example, were their views on abortion, infanti­
cide, abandonment of babies, suicide. It finally brought about the sup­
pression of gladiatorial combats, awakened a disgust for capital punish­
ment and an extensive taste for charity which was altogether alien to
classical antiquity. All in all, humaneness is an almost exclusive acquisition
of the Christian era (Kulturgeschichte, 1875, p. 435, quoted by Schanz,
op. cit., p. 642).
8. Anna de Savornin Lohman states:
In the east and west Indies, in the Roman Catholic Rhineland, I have
observed very closely the exemplary lives of Roman Catholics, missionaries
and pastors, and the great assistance provided by nuns as teachers, nurses,
etc. Not only 1 but men and women who in our country unthinkingly
ridicule the Roman Catholic religion out of ignorance or fear—there, in the
midst of laborers and despised Negroes, in the midst of the fear of death
and of loneliness, I have heard others acknowledge with shame that
Roman Catholic charity surpasses all others (De Tijd, 1902, Nov. 28,
no. 16805; see 1907, March 6, no. 18097).
See J. Ferchat, “Apologie du Christianisme par la loi de partage des habitudes
morales,” in RPA, XIII, 675 ff.
9. Melanchthon and Erasmus speak in practically the same strain. Their

( 227 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

remarks are recorded in De Groot’s Summa apologetica, 3rd ed., q. 7, art. 1,
p. 223.
10. The above remarks suffice for the argument we have based on the
superabundant harvest of holiness. But lest anyone think that this argument
is nonetheless somewhat weakened by the fact that quite a few sectaries also
lead truly Christian lives, we add these observations:
1. The societies which fell away from the Church kept many of the aids
to holiness which the Catholic Church had given them. There is nothing
strange in the fact that these aids still produce results, especially in those
people who are not culpably in error.
2. We must not overlook the fact that sectaries, for whatever reason they
may be separated from the Church, still continue to profit by the salutary
influence of the Catholic Church, whether they like it or not, since they arc
constantly being motivated by the preaching and example of Catholics—if
only to outdo the latter. The sects are doubly indebted to the Catholic religion.
They owe it for what they took with them when they seceded and for the
direct influence it has on them every day. And so even that stunted harvest
of holiness found in the separated societies is to be attributed not to the sects
themselves, but to the Catholic Church, whose influence extends even beyond
its own limits. The same is true, in varying degrees, of modern rationalists;
for they too, reared in a Christian society and in constant contact with Chris­
tians, still share generously in the riches of the Catholic religion. Who would
set less value on the ability of a tree to bear fruit because its lopped-off
branches are not completely sterile? See RSR, 1922, p. 1.

( 228 )

Article IV
THE MIRACULOUS STEADFASTNESS OF THE MARTYRS PROVES THE
DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION

Proposition: Considering all the circumstances, the steadfastness
of the Christian martyrs must be acclaimed a moral miracle.
1. The steadfastness of the martyrs is truly amazing.
a. The Christian-Catholic religion has had innumerable
martyrs.
b. They withstood the most painful tortures, often pro­
longed, and often made more difficult to bear by the
pleas and tears of relatives.
c. All this they endured in a truly wonderful manner.
2. The steadfastness of the martyrs, such as we have
described it, cannot be explained on merely natural
grounds.
Conclusion: Unless we are ready to admit an effect without
a proportionate cause, we must admit that the steadfast­
ness of the martyrs is a moral miracle.
Scholion: Some objections answered:
1. Some have claimed that the martyrs suffered death
from a desire for empty glory, from a natural hope of
heavenly bliss, or from sheer fanaticism.
2. Others allege instances of rare fortitude occurring
elsewhere.
3. Still others claim our argument involves a vicious
circle.
Conclusion to the Chapter

( 229 )

Article IV
THE MIRACULOUS STEADFASTNESS OF THE MARTYRS PROVES THE
DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN-CATHOLIC RELIGION

132

By martyrs (witnesses) are meant those who have testified to
the truth of their religion by patiently suffering violent death.1
The argument of this article can be summarized thus: If God,
by an extraordinary aid, sustained those who suffered torture and
death for the truth of the Catholic religion, He thereby quite
clearly acknowledged the truth and consequently the divine origin
of that religion. It cannot be denied that God supported the martyrs
with supernatural strength if their steadfastness was such that it
cannot be explained on merely natural grounds. Such steadfastness
is, indeed, another miracle of the moral order.2

133 Proposition: Considering all the circumstances, the steadfastness
of the Christian martyrs must be acclaimed a moral miracle.
I. The steadfastness of the martyrs is truly amazing.
Fortitude under torture is the more to be wondered at, the
greater the number of those who are tortured, the more excruciat­
ing the tortures they endure, and the more nobly they bear them.3
1. The martyrs of the Christian-Catholic religion are so many
as to be practically innumerable.
Under Nero a “huge crowd” suffered martyrdom; under Marcus
Aurelius, there were “almost innumerable martyrs throughout the
whole world” (Tacitus, Annales, bk. 15, c. 44; See Eusebius, HE,
bk. 5, intro.). In the middle of the third century, St. Cyprian said
that the Christian martyrs were past counting.1 Concerning the
persecution of Diocletian, Sulpicius Severus wrote that almost the
whole world was drenched in the blood of the holy martyrs and
that no war or series of wars had ever exhausted the world more
than this war against the Christians.5
Martyrdom did not cease after the first three centuries, which
are called the “age of martyrs.” Here are a few examples by way
of illustration.
During the fourth century many thousands of Christians per­
ished in the Persian persecution under King Sapor II; e in the fifth

( 230 )

DIVINE ORIGIN

OF CHRIST'» WORK

century the fierce persecution conducted by the Vandals in Africa
claimed a bitter toll.7 In ensuing centuries very many of those who
carried the Gospel to the barbarian tribes of Europe suffered death
for Christ; scarcely any nation was converted to the faith without
being baptized in the blood of martyrs. Then there were the untold
numbers martyred by the Mohammedans, especially in Spain.
*
It is a notorious fact that many suffered martyrdom in France,·1
Germany, Holland, Sweden, and England at the time of the
Reformation.” During the seventeenth century a relentless and
very bitter persecution raged in Japan.12 At the time of the French
Revolution in the eighteenth century many valiant men and women
were condemned to death because they unhesitatingly refused to
take the oath or to do anything else which was opposed to religion
and to justice.13 In our own day many have suffered a glorious
martyrdom, nativesH as well as missionaries: the Koreans,13
Chinese,10 and Annamites 17 in Asia; the people of Uganda18 in
Africa. And the world would stand aghast if it knew the full
number of those who have suffered and are suffering diabolically
inspired and devised tortures and death at the hands of God-hating
Communists in so-called Iron Curtain countries.
Yes, in every age and in every part of the world the Catholic
Church has had her martyrs. The roster includes men and women,
boys and girls, feeble old men and women, noblemen and servants,
soldiers, fanners, in a word, people of every nationality, age, tem­
perament, and social position.19
2. The martyrs endured the most painful tortures.20 Tortures 134
devised by fiendish cruelty were the order of the day. Modem
tyrants are no less adept in the use of instruments of torture than
were the ancients.21 In 1886 thirty-one newly converted youths of
Uganda were individually wrapped about with brushwood and laid
face down on the earth. Then the wood was lighted near their
feet.22
Tortures were often prolonged for days or inflicted again and
again. Lactantius bears eloquent testimony to this:
Their chief concern is to avoid killing their victims; they see
to it that once tortured they be diligently cared for, so that their
limbs will be fresh for new tortures, so that there will be plenty
of fresh blood to spill anew (Institutiones, bk. 5, c. 11).

St. Jerome declared that a “cunning foe, in using punishments slow
to kill, aimed at strangling souls rather than bodies. Cyprian, him(231 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

self a victim, says those who wished to die were not allowed to be
killed" (Vita Pauli eremitae, 2). Under the emperor Galerius slow
fire was used so that death would not occur until "the flesh had
been roasted for hours on end and the fire had penetrated to a
man’s bowels” (Lactantius, De morte persecutoris, 21). In the sev­
enteenth century some martyrs in Japan were cut with saws in
various parts of the body during a period of six days.23
Some martyrs had to contend with the pleas and the tears of
relatives. On this point St. Augustine writes:
The eyes of those who wept for them wrought more violence
than the torture of their persecutors. How many children held
on to their fathers to keep them from going to torture! How
many wives threw themselves at the feet of their husbands,
beseeching them not to leave them widows! How many children
begged their parents not to diel (In Psalmum 47:13).
135

3. The martyrs endured all this in a truly wonderful manner.
Not only did they steadfastly ignore the promises, the threats, and
the tortures of tyrants, but they suffered cheerfully and without any
indication of anger or vexation. In fact, most of them longed
humbly for martyrdom.24 Arraigned before judges, they gave
answers marked by wisdom and prudence, and in the midst of
injustice preserved their equanimity. They suffered not with
unfeeling stoicism, nor with enthusiastic elation, but meekly and
calmly, trusting in God alone rather than in their own strength,
humbly begging the prayers of others, showering with love the
tyrants themselves and the torturers employed by them.25 In a
word, they were models of the highest virtue held up for the
admiration of men and angels.

136

II. The steadfastness of the martyrs, such as we have
described it, cannot be explained on merely natural grounds.
Human nature cringes from suffering. No one will deny that
steadfastness in the midst of most painful torture, torture endured
to the point of death, is a supremely heroic act, especially if this
steadfastness is accompanied by patience and meekness. Granted
that this or that individual could reach such a height of fortitude
by dint of exceptional natural endowments, it is at least doubtful
that many would ever do so.
But in bearing witness to the truth of the Catholic religion, not
just a few, but very many people of every age, temperament, and
( 232 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

social position arrived at the highest peak of fortitude, with no
human motive pushing them on; and this happened not once only,
or in one corner of the world, but whenever and wherever tyrants
raged against the Church.
Conclusion. Unless one is ready to grant an effect without a 137
proportionate cause, he must of necessity admit that Catholic
martyrs suffered with inspired patience, supported by the special
help of divine grace. In fact, the martyrs themselves admitted that
they were sustained by God’s grace.28 All Christians have been
deeply convinced of it, and many pagans who witnessed the
martyrdoms felt what Lactantius has expressed in these words:
When the people see men being tom to shreds by various kinds
of tortures and yet maintaining an unruffled patience while their
executioners grow weary, they come to the conclusion, as is
really the case, that neither the unanimity of so many people
nor the steadfastness of the dying is meaningless, and that
patience itself could not rise above such great tortures without
God’s help ( Institutiones, bk. 5, c. 13).
There is, in addition the famous dictum of Tertullian: “Torture
us, torment us, condemn us, grind us to dust. The more you mow
us down, the more we grow in number. The blood of the Christians
is a seed” (Apologia, 50, no. 176).
Indeed, the blood of the martyrs was the seed of Christianity,
because the pagans clearly perceived that such tortures could not
be endured without the help of God and thus learned from the
patience of the martyrs the divine origin of the Christian religion.27

Scholion. Some objections answered.
138
1. Some have sought to explain on natural grounds the martyr­
dom of Christians, claiming that the martyrs suffered death:
a. from a desire for empty glory;
b. from a natural hope of heavenly bliss;
c. from sheer fanaticism.
a. The martyrs showed no desire for empty glory, but rather
a great humility. Besides, they knew that they would be considered
stupid and insane by many. A large number of the martyrs suffered
in such circumstances as to be certain that their names would
never be committed to posterity. And who can honestly believe
that so many people, even those of the lower classes, children and
servant girls, preferred an empty glory to life and security?
( 233 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

b. There is no denying the fact that the martyrs were buoyed
up by hope of eternal happiness, but this was no merely natural
hope. Λ realization of the goods of eternity so vivid, constant, and
effective that one would endure such frightful tortures for them
is unthinkable apart from some supernatural help.
c. The manner in which the martyrs suffered, with equanimity,
restraint, meekness, humility, shows clearly that they were not
beside themselves with wild fanaticism. Furthermore, who can
honestly believe that this fever of fanaticism, appearing as it did
in most diverse regions, always broke out whenever some tyrant
raged against the Church, and continued to burn only as long as
the tyrant’s fury flamed?
139
2. Others try to escape the argument based on martyrdom by
alleging instances of rare fortitude occurring elsewhere, as with
soldiers or criminals, or in other religions. But there is no com­
parison.
a. A soldier is exhorted to fight; in fact, he is usually forced to
do so, and then, motivated by anger or hate, exposes himself to
danger rather than to certain death, or, at the most, to a sudden
and glorious death. A martyr freely advances to meet long drawnout and horrible tortures with a calm spirit and without any desire
for vengeance goading him on. In a word, the heroism of battle is
one thing; that of patience is quite another.
b. It is true that some criminals, for example, some anarchists of
our own day, have faced death bravely and with a certain show of
bravado. But they were facing a death which they could not escape,
and, at least usually, a death inflicted speedily, without prolonged
suffering. It is one thing to die despondent, blaspheming and
cursing, and quite another to endure a prolonged martyrdom with
meekness and humble patience.
c. In referring to other religions or sects one must first exclude
those individuals who quite evidently met their death out of sheer
fanaticism (like those in India who threw themselves to the ground
to be crushed by the wheels of a cart carrying their idols;28 and
the Circumcellions [Donatists] who in Augustine’s day used to
jump off cliffs).29 These are not martyrs, but suicides. Also to be
excluded are those who died in war, even though in a so-called
Holy War, or as a result of a just condemnation for crimes they
had committed. Apart from cases like these, the number of those
who really died freely to bear witness to the truth of a religion or
sect other than the Catholic is so insignificant that the matter can
( 2-34 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

be explained on natural grounds, especially if all the circum­
stances are taken into account. The remarks of the Fathers con­
cerning Christian sects separated from the Church are universally
applicable.

St. Irenaeus:
In every place, the Church, out of the love it has for God, is
always sending on to the Father a host of martyrs, while all
others not only have nothing of this sort to point to among
themselves but even claim that martyrdom of this kind is not
necessary at all (Adversus Haereses, bk. 4, 33.9).
St. Cyprian:
The foe of Christ persecutes and attacks only Christ’s camp
and Christ’s soldiers; heretics he despises and passes by, once he
has brought them low and made them his own ( Epistola 61 ad
Lucium, no. 3).30

3. Finally, the adversaries claim that the Catholic doctrine on 140
martyrdom involves a vicious circle. Apologists, so they say, prove
the truth of the Catholic religion from the fact that it can claim so
many martyrs. But if you ask Catholic theologians who are truly
martyrs they will answer: only those who die for the true religion,
for “It is not suffering, but motive that makes a true martyr.” And
so in the argument based on martyrdom they clearly presume
what they are setting out to prove, namely, the truth of the Catholic
religion.
This argument has the appearance of a vicious circle because
the word “martyr” is taken in different senses, first in the ordinary
sense, and then in the theological.
In the apologetic argument just used, the word is taken in the
ordinary sense to indicate all those who patiently undergo a violent
death for their religion, prescinding from the question of whether
that religion is true or not. When the question of martyrs is trans­
ferred to the province of theologians and canonists, then the term
is understood of those whom the Church has officially recognized
as witnesses to Christ, worthy of the promises which He made to
such men.31 Obviously witnesses to Christ purely and simply are
those who die for the religion of Christ, the true and pure religion.
So it is true that suffering alone does not make a martyr in the
theological sense, but the cause for which suffering is inflicted.’1'

( 235 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

CONCLUSION TO THIS CHAPTER

It has been seen that the Christian-Catholic religion is divinely
approved by many miracles of both the physical and moral orders.
It is true that some of these prove directly only the truth of
our religion, but even so they mediately or indirectly demonstrate
its divine origin. How would Catholic doctrine, containing as it
does so many mysteries beyond the power of human inventiveness,
be true if it were not divinely revealed? Furthermore, the Church
claims for its preaching not just any authority, but divine authority,
and requires men to accept her doctrines as the word of God. The
only conclusion is that God, by showering His favors on the Cath­
olic religion and thus approving it, is at the same time testifying
to its divine origin. With right, then, does the Vatican Council state:
The Church considered completely on her own merits is a solid
and ever present motive of credibility, and an irrefutable wit­
ness to her own divine mission. The reasons are her wonderful
expansion, eminent holiness, inexhaustible fruitfulness in all
good works, her truly catholic unity and her unshaken stability
(DB 1794).33

Moreover, if the Catholic Church carries out a divine mission,
she does so only because she is continuing the mission of Christ
Himself. She has never claimed divine authority for her preaching
on any other grounds than that she is preaching in Christ’s name
the doctrine which she received from Him. Consequently, though
the arguments set forth in this chapter had as their immediate
object the divine origin of the Catholic religion, they at the same
time indirectly confirmed the divine mission of Christ Himself.
Notes
1. See The Catholic Encyclopedia, IX, 736 ff; Der Kath., 1918, I, 205;
E. Hocedez, “Le concept de martyre,” in NRT, (1928), pp. 81, 198.
2. RPA, IV, 625; VII-VIII, 801, 33.
3. See P. Allard, Dix leçons, 1906; DAFC under the heading "Martyre."
4. Epistola ad Fortunatum, De exhortatione martyrii, 2; see RPA XXII,
(1916), 160.
5. Historia ecclesiastica, bk. 2, c. 32. Towards the end of the seventeenth
century Dodwell made the assertion that only a few martyrs were put to
death in the early persecutions. He was refuted by Ruinart, Acta martyrum
Preface, and Zaccaria, Raccolta di dissertazioni, p. 42. Some present-day
writers contend that martyrs were not so numerous, at least before the middle

( 236 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST'S WORK

of the third century. For a refutation of this view, see Allard, op. cit., p. 134;
DAFC, III, 349. Some savants, like Mommsen, Hamack and Max Conrad,
claim that numberless Christians were indeed put to death in the Roman
Empire, but not because of their religion. This view is refuted in Stimmen,
LV (1898), 1 and 122. See RPA, X, 298.
6. Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica, bk. 2, c. 14, mentions sixteen thou­
sand martyrs known by name.
7. See Victor Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Vandalicae.
8. See Leclercq, Les martyrs, 1905.
9. During the Council of Trent the Cardinal of Lorraine told how within
a few months more than three thousand religious had suffered a cruel
martyrdom in France because they wanted to remain under obedience to the
Holy See, Pallavicini, Histoire du Concile de Trente, XXIV, 3, no. 7.
10. Read, for example, Spillmann, Die Englischen Miirtyrer; B. Camm,
Lives of the English Martyrs; see the Decree (Feb. 12, 1915) of the Beatifica­
tion or declaration of martyrdom of 257 Servants of God in Ireland in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, AAS (1915), p. 125.
11. See DAFC, loc. cit., p. 393.
12. See Kirchenlexikon, under the heading "Japan.”
13. Read, for example, the Decree of Beatification or declaration of
martyrdom in ASS (1916), XL, 162; XLI, 398; and in AAS (1916), VIII,
67 and 228.
14. See Constantius Kempf, Die Heiligkeit der Kirche im 19en Jahrhundert, 4th ed. (1914), pp. 278-352.
15. Etudes, 185 (1925), 541.
16. L. von Kammerstein has produced a few very touching examples
which were originally published in the periodical Katholischen Missionen, in
his Katholicismus und Protestantismus (1894), pp. 406-429; see Le Blant,
Persécuteurs et martyrs, p. 343.
17. Hilarius Walter, Leben, Wirken und Leiden der 77 seligen Mdrtyrer
von Annam und China, (1903).
18. See Msgr. Carlo Salotti, I martiri dell' Uganda (1921); Etudes, 164
(1920), 5.
19. See Allard, Dix leçons, ch. 5.
On July 7, 1867, Pius IX enrolled on the list of the Blessed the following
martyrs: Antoine Coray, his wife, and their twelve year old son Jean; also
Lucy Fleites, an octogenarian. Ned. Kath. St. (1900), no. 30; see the Decree
of Beatification or declaration of martyrdom (Aug. 14, 1912) of twenty-two
venerable Servants of God: Charles Luanga, Mathias Murumba and their
companions, commonly referred to as the “Martyrs of Uganda,” who were
killed, we are told, out of hatred for the faith; AAS (1912), p. 567.
20. See DAFC, loc. cit., p. 357.
21. Indeed, modem psychological torture had added a satanic intensity
to the physical torment inflicted in ages past.
22. From a letter (Sept. 29, 1886) of Msgr. Livinhac, Vicar Apostolic at
Lake Nyanza; Handelingen der gelukzalige Neger-Martelaren van Oeganda
(Boxtel, 1921).
23. Kirchenlexikon, under the heading “Japan,” VI, 1253.
24. This is why Julian the Apostate was clearly unwilling to “start war"

( 237 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

against the Christians, "for," as he said, "they will fly to martyrdom as bees
to a beehive" (St. John Chrysostom, Oratio in Juvent, et Maximin.). Still,
bishops used to insist that the faithful avoid their persecutors as much as was
feasible. See RPA, VII, 881; Etudes, 150 (1917), 537.
25. St. Cyprian and St. Thomas More both gave money to their execu­
tioners; Allard, op. cit., p. 284.
26. So St. Felicity, for instance. While in prison she gave birth to a
child. One of the guards heard her moaning in labor and asked, "If you are in
such pain now, what will you do when you are thrown to the beasts?" Her
confident reply was, “What I suffer now I suffer alone, but then there will be
another within me who will suffer for me, because I in my turn will be suffer­
ing for Him.” Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis, 15.
27. Hurter, in his Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, v. I, 11th ed.,
no. 90, argues:
There is still another way of using the heroism of the martyrs of the early
centuries as an argument. Going to an excruciating death for the faith
after what was often a long imprisonment, the martyrs clearly evince a
very staunch conviction of the truth of the Christian faith. Now such a
strong conviction in men of widely varying character, including even
men of outstanding learning and genius, would not have existed unless
they had known objectively strong arguments for the truth of Christianity.
But those arguments, as far as the early Christians were concerned, were
above all the frequent miracles and charisms of the first centuries. These
martyrs had either seen these feats as eye-witnesses or had got first-hand
reports of them. We must conclude that these facts must have been
altogether certain and evident for them.
Minucius Felix, in his work Octav., no. 37, alludes briefly to both arguments
when he says to the pagans: “Do you not understand, poor wretches, that no
one would want to suffer pain without reason or would be able to undergo
torture without the help of God?”
28. In the same class as these we must put the poor widows of India who,
not freely, but from practical necessity and despondency, used to throw them­
selves into the flaming funeral pyre of a deceased husband. See Ottiger,
Theologia fundamentalis, I, 890.
29. See St. Augustine, De haeresi, no. 69.
30. Still there is nothing to prevent a material heretic from winning
through with the help of a special grace. But this grace would be granted
because he was subjected to torture not precisely for his heresy, but because he
was suffering for his Christian faith. See DTC, I, c. 538ff. This might be said,
for instance, of the Protestant martyrs who were put to death in 1885-86 in
Uganda. The circumstances show that they rendered testimony not precisely
to Protestantism, but to Christianity. And cases of this sort, from the very fact
that they are exceptional, present no threat to the argument in favor of the
Roman Church based on Catholic (universal) martyrdom.
31. See Matthew 10:32, 16:25.
32. Some propose as an argument for the truth of the Christian religion
the very mysteriousness of the hate with which Christ’s foes attack Him and
His most holy religion in spite of the unique love which Christ elicited and
deserved on His own merits. See, among others, Hurter, op. cit., nos. 84
and 88.

( 238 )

DIVINE ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S WORK

33. Leo XIII wrote:
Anyone who uses honest and prudent judgment will experience no diffi­
culty in seeing which is the true religion. For very many and clear argu­
ments show to be uniquely true that religion which Jesus Christ Himself
founded and entrusted to His Church to be safeguarded and propagated.
Such arguments are the truth of the prophecies, the frequency of miracles,
the extremely rapid growth of the faith throughout the very camp of its
enemies, notwithstanding formidable obstacles, the testimony rendered
by the martyrs, and other arguments of like calibre (Immortale Del,
Nov. 1, 1885).
We have said nothing specifically and ex professo in this chapter about
the marvelous unity and universality of the Catholic Church, as we shall have
to treat these matters in our discussion of the marks of the Church. Still, our
remarks about the spread and preservation of the Catholic religion necessarily
suppose and involve its “catholic unity.”

( 239 )

CHAPTER

IV

God Foretold Christ and His Work

Article I
THE EXISTENCE OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

Proposition: Messianic prophecies existed among the Jews many
centuries before Christ.
1. The Jews attributed, but vaguely, a threefold function to
the future Messias:
a. political;
b. religious;
c. eschatological.
2. Their expectation was based on the Books of the Old
Testament.
3. Rationalist objections to prophecies.
Scholion: Some remarks aimed at helping in the understanding of
Messianic prophecies:
1. They were made at different times, and a progressive
development is discernible.
2. Divine truth was not manifested to the prophets with
completely sharp clarity.
3. There is in the prophecies an evident lack of temporal
perspective.

(241)

CHAPTER

IV

God Foretold Christ and His Work *

Christ’s divine mission and the divine origin of the Catholic j42
religion have been demonstrated from arguments based on the
divine facts surrounding Christ and His religion. It remains now
to complete the proof by showing that God had foretold and pre­
pared for Christ and His work many centuries before Christ’s actual
coming to earth. Who cannot see that the arguments thus far
advanced in favor of the Christian religion would be marvelously
corroborated if it could be shown that in Christ and in the Catholic
religion are fulfilled the ancient prophecies about a future divine
legate and his kingdom? 1
It is but natural, then, that this chapter should treat of the
so-called Messianic prophecies. First the real existence of such
prophecies must be shown, prophecies which promised that a legate
would someday come from God to found a kingdom. Then, a brief
consideration of these prophecies will show that they find their
fulfillment in Christ and in the Church.2

Article I
THE EXISTENCE OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

Proposition: Messianic prophecies existed among the Jews many ^3
centuries before Christ’s birth.
At the time of Christ the Jews expected an outstanding prophet
to be sent by God, a prophet whom they called the Messias or
Christ. All classes shared this expectation: the people, the lawyers,
the priests, the king. Nor was it the exclusive possession of the
Jews, as it was found also among the Samaritans.3
The Jews, though somewhat confusedly, attributed a threefold
function to the future Messias: political, religious, and eschato­
logical.
’ See special bibliography on p. 248.

( 243 )

THE TRUE

RELIGION

a. The political function. As flic son of David the Messias
would restore the kingdom of David and bring foreign nations
into subjection, b. The religious function. He would be, like David,
at one and the same time king and prophet, indeed, the greatest
of all the prophets. He would deliver his people from their sins
and like Moses would perform great wonders, establish a new law
and bring all nations to the worship of the true God. c. The eschato­
logical function. He would live forever, and through his efforts the
earthly kingdom would be transformed into a kingdom of eternal
glory. The dead would be raised and the Messias would then judge
all nations, reign with his saints, and cast his wicked enemies into
the fires of hell.4 How these three functions would work together
and how they would be carried out was unknown. Though many
considered first and foremost the idea of political grandeur, there
were many sincere and pious souls who were quite mindful of the
religious functions of the Messias and indeed considered these the
most important.
One thing is certain, and all agree on this point—Christians,
Jews, and rationalists—the Jews based their expectation of the
Messias on their sacred books, the books of the Old Testament.5
This is not the place to discuss the time of the composition of
these books. That task is best left to writers on Scripture. Certainly
these books were in existence long before the birth of Christ, since
the Alexandrian translation (the Septuagint), begun in the third
century' B.C., was completed about 130 B.C. According to the
rationalists, the books which have relevance here were written from
the fifth century b. c. onward.® At any rate, there is not the slightest
doubt that for several centuries before Christ there existed in
written form various statements which the Jews understood as
applying to the future Messias. These statements are known as the
Messianic prophecies.

143a Rationalist View of the Prophecies
Rationalists and Modernists, naturally, claim that those state­
ments are not real prophecies inspired by God, but rather lucky
guesses, premonitions, or mere wishes, completely natural inven­
tions 1 of the “prophets,” corresponding to the natural genius of
the Israelites and to the various circumstances in which that race
found itself. Moreover, the rationalists insist, subsequent events
often gave the lie to these predictions.
( 244 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

This contention of the rationalists does not square at all with
the character of the prophets or of prophetic messianism. On the
one hand, rationalists are all too prone to lump together the
prophets of Israel and the soothsayers and diviners of other peoples,
and on the other hand they extol them as men pre-eminent for
religious and moral knowledge, men who instructed their people
in pure monotheism. But there is an evident lack of consistency
here. Pagan soothsayers, as all will agree, were not shining
examples of virtue and they neither purged nor tried to purge their
national religion of polytheism and idolatry. Hence, if the prophets
of Israel did perform such outstanding services, they constitute an
altogether singular phenomenon, for which there is no analogy
to be found anywhere, and for which any merely natural explana­
tion is completely inadequate. Nor does this explain how the
prophets, who were men outstanding for moral and religious con­
victions, could so apodictically call their empty promises divine.9
If real prophecy is eliminated, it is impossible to explain how
the prophets could conceive the notion of a Messianic rule involv­
ing the spread of their own religion throughout the whole world,
and how the whole nation could accept such a notion and con­
tinuously foster it. No nation, even among the Semites, ever con­
ceived such a hope, and such a grandiose prospect matched not
at all the historical condition of the Jews, who were often beaten
in battle, and, as far as culture and civilization went, were far
inferior to many other nations. Note that this Messianic hope was
not an ephemeral thing, but centuries-old, and so firmly rooted
that, when prophecy ceased in the fifth century,9 this hope did not
wither and die, but persisted so much so that, though it had been
before a calm expectancy, at the time of Christ it burned with
feverish intensity. Some insist that popular feelings are sometimes
agitated by a premonition of coming changes which can already
be discerned. Granted. But a hazy premonition of things about to
happen is one thing, and a centuries-old expectation quite another.
Furthermore, in the case under consideration, the actual event
corresponded perfectly with the ancient prophecies, but quite
imperfectly with the premonitions of the later period. In fact, the
Messias and His kingdom were quite at variance with the breath­
less expectations of the Jews of His time.
The best argument against the rationalist school is the actual
presentation of the prophecies and their comparison with the
history of Christ and His religion. Such a study will show:

( 245 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

a. that the books of the Old Testament contain predictions,
many of them quite detailed, of many things depending on the free
will of God and of man, and
b. that these predictions are fulfilled in Christ and the Church.
Once these two facts are established, no one will be able to enter­
tain a reasonable doubt as to the philosophical truth of the Mes­
sianic prophecies.
144 Scholion. Some remarks to help understand the Messianic

prophecies.
So that the Messianic prophecies may be discussed without
frequent interruptions and some attention may be given to the
more serious difficulties advanced by the rationalists, it is wise to
present here some general observations on prophecies. These
observations are not purely arbitrary inventions, but deductions
from the true notion of prophecy and the results of a study of the
prophecies themselves.
1. The Messianic prophecies were made at different times, and
in such a way that a progressive development is discernible. In the
oldest books of the Old Testament there appear just a few dim
sketches, shadowy and without precision, of the Messianic picture.
As time went on, these sketches were gradually developed and
perfected by various additions. Was it not most fitting for God to
paint the picture of the Messias in this long-range and gradual
fashion? Does not the fact, evident at least in retrospect, that
many details, added by different authors at different times, dove­
tailed into one historically true picture show quite clearly that one
and the same Spirit guided all the painters? Moreover, if God
wished to paint the picture of the Messias in this manner, it follows
that for a correct understanding of the picture all the prophecies
must be studied together, so that one may shed light on another,
that they may complement each other. It is clear, too, that the
true, divine meaning of individual prophecies is not necessarily that
which contemporaries may have understood from a glimpse of
just a fragment, but that which is seen to harmonize with the other
fragments now that the picture has been completed.,u
Since the progressive and piecemeal development of the Mes­
sianic picture, in the sense just explained, cannot a priori be called
impossible or improbable, and can be proved a posteriori to have
taken place in reality, rationalists are unjustified in their demand
that each prophecy be considered by itself and explained on the
( 246 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

basis of the immediate context alone. This procedure enables
them to obscure the meaning of many Messianic prophecies, but
makes it impossible for them to explain the history of the Jewish
people, in which the Messianic hope plays such an essential role.
Furthermore, once they have rejected the Messianic meaning, they
are often at a loss to replace it with another meaning which makes
sense."
2. Divine truth was not manifested to the prophets themselves I45
with complete clarity: more often than not it was clothed in figures,
symbols, and types. And they preached these things to others just
as they had seen or heard them. Consequently, Messianic prophecies
are full of figures and pictures. Although it should have seemed
antecedently probable, given the peculiar genius of the Oriental,
that certain clear truths were expressed in a figurative way by the
prophets, still it must be admitted that their readers were not
always able, before the fulfillment of the prophecies, to discern the
precise extent of the figure or what was the exact sense intended
by God. It is furthermore probable that the prophets themselves
did not always perceive the clear and full meaning of their own
prophecies. “With respect to the principal agent [the Holy Spirit]
the mind of the prophet is an imperfect instrument” (S.Th. II-II,
q. 173, a. 4). Much less did the prophets and their contemporaries
always understand the typical meaning hidden in the prophecies,
or rather in the events prophesied. If that is the case, then the
rationalists are guilty of rashness when they conclude that some
prophecies were never fulfilled just because they were not fulfilled
in their obvious sense, perhaps the only sense the ancients per­
ceived. The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.1*
3. In revealing the future to His prophets, God did not intend 146
to give a running account of coming events or to satisfy human
curiosity, but to buoy up flagging hope or to banish fear. Conse­
quently, He sometimes let the prophets see future events some­
what as we see stars in the sky. We see them, it is true, but we
cannot tell which are close to us and which are far away. So it is
with prophecies. Often there is no indication of the passage of
time, ami various events are grouped which have some causal or
typical interrelation, but are widely separated in point of time. Su
it is that the Messianic kingdom is sometimes joined with one of its
types as if it were to follow immediately. At other times, the whole
Messianic kingdom is described as a compact unit, under one
figure which includes all at once Christ’s first coming, the progres­
( 247 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

sive development of the Messianic kingdom, and its final con­
summation. Some of these elements are even now not at all, or at
most imperfectly, fulfilled. No wonder, then, that those who read
the prophecies before their fulfillment often thought that events
prophesied at the same time would be fulfilled at the same time.
But it is wrong to conclude from these phenomena that the prophets
really meant to indicate simultaneous fulfillment. On this point they
have nothing to say.
The above are the more important causes of that obscurity
which surrounds many prophecies before their fulfillment. That
obscurity proves nothing as far as the truth of the prophecies is
concerned, since at least after their fulfillment it becomes suffi­
ciently clear that they were based on a true and sure knowledge
of the future. They do, however, point to the wise providence of
God, who so enlightens men that, if they have the proper disposi­
tions, they can recognize the truth without being swept to it by
a flood of evidence.13
Special Bibliography for Messianic Prophecies

Gaillard, Jésus-Christ et les prophéties messianiques, 1905.
Cerfaux, L., et al., L’Attente du Messie, 1954.
De Broglie, Les prophéties messianiques.
De Broglie, Les prophéties et les prophètes (in Compte-rendu
du 3 Congrès scientifique international des Catholiques, 1894,
II, 137).
Hoberg, G., Katechismus der messianischen Weissagungen,
1915.
Le Hir, M., Etudes bibliques, 1869, pp. 54-84.
Reinke, Messianischen Psalmen.
Reinke, Messianischen "Weissagungen.
Schulte, Die messianischen Weissagungen, 1908.
Touzard, J., Comment utiliser larguaient prophétique, 1911.
Wolff, M., Messianische Weissagungen, aus dem massoretischen
und Vulgata-Texte für akademische Übungen zusammengestellt, 1911.
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, under the
heading “Messianic Prophecy.”

( 248 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

Notes
1. St. Augustine wrote:
For all things that you now see happening in the Church of God, and in
the name of Christ throughout the whole world, were already foretold
ages before. And even as we read them, so also do we see them; and
thereby are we edified unto faith (The First Catechetical Instruction,
ch. 27, no. 53, ACW, II, 84). See City of God, bks. 17-18.
2. We are here considering the Church not precisely as a society in the
strict sense, with a fixed constitution, but as the kingdom of religious truth,
as suggested by onr Lord’s words: "Thou sayest it; I am a king. That is why
I was horn, and why I have come into the world, to hear witness to the truth.
Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice" (John 18:37).
3. See the passages quoted in no. 76. But the truth of the matter rests
not on Christian sources alone, but also on Jewish testimony, such as the
Psalms of Solomon, IV Esdras, Henoch, etc. Josephus tells us that nothing
provoked the Jews to desert the Romans and to defend the city stubbornly
more than their hope in the Messias who was to come at that time (see The
Wars of the Jews, bk. 6, c. 5). Rumor of this expectation had reached the
ears of the Gentiles too. Tacitus says:
Very many were convinced that the ancient books of the priests con­
tained a prediction that at that very time the Orient would grow strong
and that, beginning with Judea, they would gain control of affairs
(Hist., bk. 5, c. 13).
Suetonius testifies:
Throughout all the Orient there had become prevalent that old undying
conviction that it had been predicted that at that time, beginning with
Judea, they would gain control of affairs (Vespas., 4).
Tacitus and Suetonius, it is true, applied the prophecies to Vespasian, who
was commanding the army in Palestine when word reached him that he was
emperor. But for all that they still witness to the existence of the ancient
“conviction.” See Dôller, “Die Me.ssiaserwartung im A.T.,” BiZ, IV (1911),
6-7; M. Lagrange, Le messianisme chez les juifs (1909); DAFC, II, 1615;
RPA, XII, (1911), 401; Der Kath. I, (1917), 16, De Katholiek, CLXII (1922),
141; Zkth, (1927), pp. 370, 473.
4. The idea of the Messias which the Jews had fashioned for themselves
was incomplete and in great part false, especially for the reason that they
ignored a whole group of prophecies, those, namely, dealing with the humil­
ity, passion, and death of the Messias and with the repudiation of Israel
as a nation. If they had heeded these, they would not have so confidently
interpreted the prophecies about the restoration of the kingdom of David in
the literal sense of an earthly kingdom and political domination. See Volz,
Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (1903); Joseph Keulers, Die
eschatologische Lehre des vierten Esrabuches (1922).
5. See Dôller, op. cit.
6. Except for the Book of Daniel, which they usually assign to the second
century B.C., and label an apocalypse. But the reasons behind this opinion,
even if they have found favor with some Catholics, do not seem to be strong
enough to rule out the traditional thesis concerning the date and literary form
of the book of Daniel. See, for example, Der Kath., II (1906), 201, 206.

( 249 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

7. This is the opinion of those who reject « priori everything super­
natural, whether miracles (physical and moral) or prophecies strictly so-called
which are miracles on the intellectual plane. They distort all the (acts of
histon’ to make them fit this completely arbitrary norm.
8. Tin’s occasioned the answer of the Biblical Commission ( June 28. 1908)
to Dubium /
Whether it may be taught that the prophecies which are read in the Book
of Isaias, and here and there in the Scriptures, are not real prophecies,
but either narratives composed subsequent to the event, or, if it must he
acknowledged that something was foretold before the event, that the
prophet foretold the same, not from a supernatural revelation of God who
foreknows the future, but by conjecturing through a happy sagacity arid
acuteness of natural intelligence from things that had already happened.
Answer: In the negative.
Dubium II asked:
Whether the opinion which holds that Isaias and the other prophets uttered
prophecies concerning only those things which were to take place imme­
diately or after a short space of time, can be reconciled with the
prophecies, particularly the Messianic and the eschatological, which were
undoubtedly uttered by the same prophets about the remote future, as
well as with the common opinion of the Fathers who unanimously assert
that the prophets foretold also those things which should be fulfilled after
many ages.
Answer: In the negative.
See ASS (1908), p. 613; translation in RSS (1946), pp. 111-112.
9. See 1 Mac. 9:27, 4:46; Josephus, C. App., bk. 1, c. 8.
10. Note the response of the Biblical Commission to Dubium III, which
asks:
Whether it may be admitted that the prophets not only as correctors of
human wickedness and heralds of the divine Word for the good of their
hearers, but also as foretellers of future events must always have addressed
themselves to a present and contemporary and not to a future audience,
so that they could be clearly understood by them, etc.
Answer: In the negative. See ASS (1908), p. 613, translation in RSS (1946),
p. 112.
11. Thus Lagrange:
We should find reassuring the fact that those who reject their messianic
character are very embarrassed when they try to supply another sense that
will be satisfactory (in RBibl [1900], p. 474).
12. Prophecy is a word of God addressed to future generations and it
need not be understood until after its fulfillment. It is a puzzle to which
the actual event is to give the key. If God wanted the prophecy to be
intelligible only after the event, the meaning grasped by contemporaries
(of the Prophet) is only an apparent meaning, an inexact meaning, a
meaning which God permitted to occur to men’s minds, but the truth of
which lie did not affirm. The divine meaning is that which the events
reveal and which those living at the time of the event are in a position to
grasp. Prophecy is a long-range vision, and the event is glimpsed in a
cloudy fashion, intermingled with other intermediate or even distant
events. It is only when it draws near that its proper lineaments disengage
themselves. Sometimes the same event appears under successive, different

( 250 )

GOD

FORETOLD CHRIST AND Ills WORK

aspects; it is only irom close up that one can see how they harmonize.
The non-realization of the Jewish meaning does not at all prove that
prophecy is not from God ( De Broglie, Compte-rendu du 3 Congrès
scientifique international des Catholiques, 1894, II, 137).
De Broglie's statement makes one think of some words spoken by St. Irenaeus
many years before:
Before any prophecy is fulfilled it presents puzzles and obscurities to men.
But when the time has come and the event prophesied has occurred, then
prophecies have a clear and sure explanation (Adversus Unerases, bk. 4,
c. 26, no. 1).
13. If the future had been revealed to us with as much precision and
consistency in details as we require of a history of the past, human liberty
in the face of this sharp light would be badly frightened. Either it would
be constrained to bring about what had been predicted of it, or it would
tend to resist it with might and main, in order to hold on to itself and to
convince itself that it [liberty] is not just an empty dream. The argument
which we draw from prophecies would be considerably weakened. For
there would always be the lurking fear that their fulfillment was really
the effect of wills determined to conform to them (Le Hir, Etudes
bibliques, I, 82).

(251)

Article II
A SUMMARY EXPOSITION OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

I. The Protoevangelium
II. Prophecies of the Messias' Genealogy
III. Prophecies of the Messias' Life:
1. the events of His life;
2. His passion and death;
3. His exaltation.
IV. Prophecies of the Messias Offices:
1. prophet and founder of a new and universal covenant;
2. priest;
3. king.
Corollary: Apparent mutual incompatibility of some proph­
ecies made them quite obscure before their fulfillment.
V. Prophecies About the Time of the Messias’ Coming:
1. The prophecy of Jacob;
2. Daniel 9:24-27:
a. eschatological interpretation;
b. exclusively historical interpretation;
c. directly Messianic interpretation;
d. combination interpretation: literally Maccabean,
typically Messianic.
3. Aggeus 2:7-10.
4. Malachy 3:1.
VI. Prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom:
1. It will supplant the old, imperfect covenant.
2. It will begin in Jerusalem, but will become universal.
3. It will banish idolatry, and an unfailingly certain knowl­
edge of things divine will flourish.
4. It will be outstanding for remission of sin, true holiness,
peace, a lavish effusion of the Holy Spirit, and charisms.
5. It will have priests from all nations and a true, unbloody
sacrifice which will be offered everywhere.
6. It will be assailed everywhere but will stand firm forever.
Conclusion to this Chapter
Conclusion to the Whole Treatise

( 252 )

Article II
A SUMMARY EXPOSITION OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

It is impossible to treat in summary fashion all the critical and
exegetical questions complicating the matter of Messianic proph­
ecies. Consequently this section presents a synthesis of only the
more important prophecies, states their meaning as briefly as
possible, and shows how they are fulfilled in Christ and in His
religion. The argument is drawn not from individual prophecies,
but from all taken together.
I. The Protoevangelium
147
Our first parents received the first ray of Messianic hope. After
the serpent, with the woman’s help, had caused Adam to fall, God
passed judgment on the serpent with these words: “I will put
enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her
seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his
heel” (Genesis 3:15). Here God promises that the woman will
beget one who will be completely victorious over the devil and his
allies, but not without being wounded himself in the fray. The
prophecy does not state precisely whether this “seed of the woman”
will be an individual or a collectivity, but since a crowd cannot
have victory without a leader, there is at least an implicit promise
of a leader and a liberator who will lead many men to victory
over the devil. The expression “seed of the woman” is also very
fitting for the Christ who would be bom of a virgin.

II. Prophecies of the Messias' Genealogy
148
The early prophecies are marked by a gradual progress in pre­
cision. They start with the vague insinuation that the Messias will
take his origin from human stock, and then indicate successively
the exact branch of this stock: the nation, the tribe, the family.
In the protoevangelium it was stated that the liberator would
take his origin from human stock: “seed of the woman.”
1. In Noe’s prophecy the branch of this stock is foreshadowed:
Then he said: "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Sem; let Chanaan
be his slave. May God expand Japheth; let him dwell in the tents
( 253 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

of Sem; let Chanaan be his slave” (Genesis 9:26-27). Both Sem
and Japheth receive a blessing. Sems blessing consists in the fact
that Yahweh will be with him in a special way.' Japheth’s blessing
consists in a natural expansion and in the fact that he will dwell
in the tent of Sem. will share in the benefits promised the Semites
by virtue of God’s covenant. Thus, the spiritual blessing pro­
claimed in the protoevangelium will begin with the Semites, but
the descendants of Japheth will also profit notably from it. This
is an indication, admittedly obscure, that the promised Redeemer
will be a Semite.
2. In the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob the
nation from which the redeemer will come is specified. To Abraham
was said: “In your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed, because you have obeyed me” (Genesis 22:18). The same
promise is made then to Isaac 2 and to Jacob.3 It is also found in
the famous prophecy of Balaam: ‘7 see him, though not now; I
behold him, though not near: A star shall advance from Jacob, and
a staff shall rise from Israel” (Numbers 24:17).
3. The dying Jacob indicates the tribe from which the redeemer
will come: “Juda, your brothers shall praise you; . . . the sons of
your father shall bow down to you. . . . The sceptre shall not
depart from Juda, nor the staff from between his feet, until he
comes to whom it belongs. To him shall be the obedience of
nations” (Genesis 49:8-10).
4. In the choice of David is shown the choice of the family
which will beget the Messias. Nathan the prophet says to David
in the name of God: ‘7 will raise up thy seed after thee, which
shall proceed out of thy bowels . . . and I will establish his king­
dom forever” (2 Kings 7:12-13). “Once, by my holiness, have I
sworn; I will not be false to David. His posterity shall continue for­
ever, and his throne shall be like the sun before me; like the moon,
which remains forever—a faithful witness in the sky” (Psalm
88:36-38). And there shall come forth a shoot from the stock of
Jesse, and a sapling shall sprout out of his root, and the spirit of
Yahweh shall rest upon him (Isaias 11:1-2). — Behold the days
come . . . and I will raise up to David a just branch . . . and this is
the name that they shall call him: The Lord Our Just One ( Jeremias
23:5-6).
In regard to the fulfillment of these prophecies in Jesus of Naz­
areth there is the clear testimony of St. Paul: For it is evident that
Our Lord has sprung out of Juda (Hebrews 7:14), and: Remember

( 254 )

COD FOHETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and was descended from David
(2 Timothy 2:8).4

III. Prophecies of the */'Aessias Life
149
Many details were foretold concerning the Messias’ life, passion,
and exaltation.
1. Touching on the events of his life are the following·.
He will have a forerunner: Behold I send my angel, and he
shall prepare the way before my face. And presently the Lord
whom you seek, and the angel of the testament whom you desire
shall come to his temple (Malachias 3:1; see Isaias 40:3; Matthew
11:10).
He will be born in Bethlehem: And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata,
art a little one among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall he
come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going
forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Michaeas
5:2).®
He will be born of a virgin-mother: Behold a virgin shall con­
ceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel
(Isaias 7:14).
He will be meek and merciful: He shall not cry out nor shout,
nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets; the bruised reed he
shall not break, and the dim wick he shall not quench; he shall
bring forth right in truth (Isaias 42:2-3; see Matthew 12:19-20).
His light or preaching will shine chiefly on Galilee: In the
former time he afflicted the land of Zabulon and the land of
Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people that walked in darkness
behold a great light, and upon them that dwell in a land of gloom
a light shines (Isaias 9:1-2; see Matthew 4:14-16). The meaning
is: the land of Zabulon and Nephthali, near Lake Genesareth.
called Galilee of the Gentiles because of its many Gentile inhabi­
tants, was held in contempt by the Jews, but at a later time it would
be held in greatest honor because there the light of the Messias
would shine more brightly.
He will perform miracles: God’s requital has come; he himself
has come to save you. Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened,
and the ears of the deaf be unstopped; then shall the lame leap like
a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing (Isaias 35:4-6; see
Matthew 11:5).
He will enter Jerusalem humbly, riding an ass. O daughter of
( 255 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

Jerusalem, behold thy king will come to thee, the just and the
saviour. He is poor and riding upon an ass and upon a colt, the
foal of an ass (Zacharias 9:9; see Matthew l:2ff).
150
2. The following speak of the passion and death of the
Messias:
He will be sold for thirty silver coins: And they weighed for my
wages thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me: Cast it into
the statuary, a handsome price, that I was prized at by them. And
I took the thirty pieces of silver, and I cast them into the house of
the Lord, to the statuary (Zacharias 11:12-13; see Matthew 27:9).
He will be flogged and spat upon: I have my back to the
smiters, and my cheek to them that plucked my beard; I have not
hidden my face from insult and spitting (Isaias 50:6; see Matthew
26:27, 27:30).
He will be condemned to death like a criminal: Like a lamb
that is led to the slaughter, and like a ewe that is dumb before its
shearers. . . . Because he shall have poured out his soul to death,
and been numbered with the rebellious (Isaias 53:7, 12). And:
Christ shall be slain (Daniel 9:26).
His hands and feet will be pierced: They have pierced my
hands and my feet; I can count all my bones (Psalm 21:17-18).
In his thirst he will be offered gall: Rather they put gall in my
food, and tn my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink (Psalm 68:22;
see John 19:28).
He will be shamefully mocked: All who see me scoff at me;
they mock me with parted lips, they wag their heads: “He relied
on the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, if he loves
him” (Psalm 21:8-9; see Matthew 27:39-43).
His clothes will be divided: They divide my garments among
them, and for my vesture they cast lots (Psalm 21:19; see John
19:24).
He will be stabbed: They shall look upon me, whom they have
pierced (Zacharias 12:10; see John 19:37).
3. The following refer to his exaltation:
The glory of his tomb: He shall give the ungodly for his burial,
and the rich for his death (Isaias 53:9; see Matthew 27:57-60). In
the Hebrew: They assigned his grave among the wicked, but in his
death he is with the rich man.
Freedom from decomposition and victory over death: My body,
too, abides in confidence; because you will not abandon my soul
to the nether world, nor will you suffer your faithful one to undergo

( 256 )

COD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

corruption. You will show me the path to life, fulness of joys in
your presence, the delights at your right hand forever (Psalm
15:9-11; see Acts 2:31).
IV. Prophecies of the Messias' Functions
151
1. The future Messias is announced as an outstanding
prophet, that is, as a legate sent by God to teach men. A prophet
like me will the Lord, your God, raise up for you from among your
own kinsmen; to him you shall listen (Deuteronomy 18:15).’
And I will make with you an eternal covenant, I will give you
the sure blessings of David. Behold, I appointed him a witness to
peoples, a chief and commander of nations (Isaias 55:3-4).
The spirit of the Lord [Yahweh] is upon me, because Yahweh
has anointed me: he has sent me to bear good tidings to the
afflicted, to encourage the brokenhearted; to proclaim liberty to
captives, to prisoners deliverance (Isaias 61:1).
Behold, my servant . . . 1 have put my spirit upon him, he shall
bring forth right to the nations; . . . and the isles wait for his law.
. . . And [1 will] appoint thee for the covenant of the people, for
the light of the nations (Isaias 42:1, 6).
The texts cited show not only that the Messias will be an out­
standing prophet but also that he will be the founder of a new and
universal covenant.
Jeremias promises in unmistakable terms a new covenant:
Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda: Not
according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the
day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
Egypt. . . . But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel after those days. ... I will give my law deep in
their bowels and I will write it in their hearts: and I will be their
God, and they shall be my people (Jeremias 31:31-33).
Isaias teaches the universality of this new covenant: It were
too little that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of
Jacob, and to bring back the preserved of Israel; and I will make
thee the light of the nations, that my salvation may be to the end
of the earth (Isaias 49:6).
2. He is proclaimed as a priest. He will offer himself as a
victim for the sins of mankind: But it was our sufferings that he
bore, our pains that he endured; . . . But he was wounded for our
rebellions, he was bruised for our sins; upon him was the chastise( 257 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

nient which made us whole, and by his stripes we were healed.
. . . And Yahweh made to light upon him the iniquities of us all;
he was afflicted, but he was resigned. . . . Though his own life be
made a sin-offering, he shall see a seed that shall have length of
days (Isaias 53:4-10).
Thus will he sanctify many nations by sprinkling them, spirit­
ually, with his blood: He shall sprinkle many nations ( Isaias 52:15).
(This verse, however, is of very doubtful reading in the Hebrew.
Kissane, for instance, prefers to translate; So shall many nations
be amazed at him.)
It is further said of the Messias: You are a priest forever, accord­
ing to the order of Melchisedech (Psalm 109:4). There is a promise,
too, of the institution of a new unbloody sacrifice to be offered
everywhere, given by Malachias (1:11).
152
3. He is proclaimed as a king: I myself have set up my king
on Sion, my holy mountain (Psalm 2:6).
His rule is described as a rule of justice and of peace, which
will bring a blessing to all nations: He shall defend the afflicted
among the people, save the children of the poor, and crush the
oppressor. . . . Justice shall flower in his days, and profound peace,
till the moon be no more. . . . In him shall all the tribes of the earth
be blessed; all the nations shall proclaim his happiness (Psalm
71:4, 7, 17). It is described as a perpetual kingdom: May he endure
as long as the sun, and like the moon through all generations . . .
till the moon be no more (Psalm 71:5, 7). It is described as a
universal kingdom: Ask of me and I will give you the nations for
an inheritance and the ends of the earth for your possession. . . .
May he rule from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the
earth. . . . All kings shall pay him homage, all nations shall serve
him (Psalms 2:8; 71:8, 11).
153

Corollary

The Messias is proclaimed now as a most powerful king,7 now
as a humble and meek man, remarkable not for strength of arms
or worldly power, but for spiritual endowments alone,8 and again
as subject to the most abject wretchedness.0 How all these char­
acteristics would be realized in one and the same person must
have been very obscure before the fulfillment of the prophecies.
But after their fulfillment it can be seen that even the prophets
themselves proclaimed their mutual coherence at least to some
extent. Isaias hints that the Messias will be born in a lowly spot,’0

( 258 )

COD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

will quietly and peacefully preach justice,11 and will ascend his
throne only by the path of suffering and death: Though his own
life be made a sin-offering, he shall see a seed that shall have
length of days, and the purpose of Yahweh shall prosper in his
hand. Because of his soul’s sorrow he shall see it, through his suffer­
ing he shall be filled; a righteous one, my servant, shall make many
righteous, and their iniquities he shall bear; therefore will I give
him a portion with the mighty, and with the powerful shall he
divide the spoil (Isaias 53:10-12).
Zacharias, too, gives sufficiently clear indication that the Mes­
sias, humble and meek, will achieve domination not by force of
arms, but will attain to a universal rule in a thoroughly peaceful
manner: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O
daughter of Jerusalem: Behold thy king will come to thee, the just
and saviour. He is poor and riding upon an ass and upon a colt, the
foal of an ass. And I will destroy the chariot out of Ephraim and
the horse out of Jerusalem: and the how for war will be broken.
And he shall speak peace to the Gentiles: and his power shall be
from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the end of the earth
(Zacharias 9:9-10).
At the same time, these prophecies make it obvious that the
notion of a Messias such as that conceived by the carnal among
the Jews, in which the idea of political domination is pre-eminent,
is not the notion revealed by an over-all study of the Old Testa­
ment. Although some prophecies may seem to favor this notion,
others exclude it.
Fulfillment. There can be not the slightest doubt that Jesus of 154
Nazareth was a prophet, indeed the greatest of all teachers and
the founder of a new order of reality.
He was also a priest, for He offered Himself as a sacrifice for
His disciples and for the whole human race.12 At the Last Supper
He instituted the unbloody sacrifice which, on the basis of its
visible elements, bread and wine, bears a great likeness to that of
Melchisedech.13 This sacrifice has been offered in the most remote
regions of the earth throughout nineteen centuries.
Finally, Jesus of Nazareth was and is a king, not a temporal
one, it is true, but a spiritual one.14 He founded and unceasingly
governs, invisibly by Himself, visibly through His representatives,
the Catholic Church, the kingdom of justice and of peace, the
universal and unfailing kingdom.

( 259 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

155 V. Prophecies About the Time of the Messias’ Coming
Four prophecies are involved in this question of time.
1. The prophecy of Jacob. Jacob, on his deathbed, summoned
his sons and said: "Come together, I will tell you what shall befall
you in days to come. . . . Juda, your brothers shall praise you; your
hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; the sons of your father
shall bow down to you. . . . The sceptre shall not depart from Juda,
nor the staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it
belongs. To him shall be the obedience of nations" (Genesis 49:1,
8,10).,e
In these words there is a clear statement on the part of Jacob
that power, rule of some sort (symbolized by the word sceptre),
will remain in the house of Juda.
Although there is a great deal of discussion about the word
Shiloh (translated above as to whom it belongs, by Jerome he who
is to be sent) and the literal meaning of the passage, the entire
context indicates that it is a reference to the Messias. In fact, not
only Christians, but also the Jews of old understood this passage
to refer to the Messias, a rare, but illustrative, instance of almost
universal agreement.18
The word until can be taken to mean that the ( temporal ) rule
will be taken away from Juda when the Messias comes, or that the
rule (in a general sense) will remain forever in Juda and even that
through the good offices of the Messias it will one day be extended
to include the Gentiles also. The latter interpretation seems prefer­
able, particularly in light of later prophecies dealing with the
permanent establishment of the throne of David.17
If until is taken in the first sense, to denote the definitive end
of Juda’s rule, then the prophecy positively specifies the time of
the Messianic era, and is fulfilled in this way: when the first foreign
king, Herod the Idumaean, was ruling the Jews, Jesus of Nazareth
was bom, and subsequent events proved quite clearly that He had
been justly proclaimed the one to come, to whom shall be the
obedience of nations. Hardly had the Gentiles begun to pay Him
obeisance when, with the destruction of Jerusalem, the temporal
rule was completely and irrevocably snatched from Juda. This was
the more common interpretation held by older theologians and
exegetes.
If until is taken in the second sense, as not excluding the con­
tinuance of Juda’s rule, at least in some general way, then the
prophecy helps to determine the time of the Messianic era only
( 260 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

negatively and retrospectively. It permits the conclusion that the
Messias was to come before Juda clearly and irrevocably lost any
domination worthy of the name. Of course, if any member of the
tribe of Juda won the obedience of the Gentiles, and the tribe
itself at almost the same time lost all other kind of power definitely,
one should have to conclude that the individual through whom the
tribe of Juda had power over the Gentiles, and apart from whose
realm the tribe had no ruling power, must have been the promised
Messias. Moreover, from the time of the complete destruction of
the Jewish state in 70 A.D., all earthly power of any kind was taken
from Juda, whereas a short time before the destruction there had
emerged from Juda’s tribe Jesus of Nazareth, to whom the Gentiles
became obedient.
How the sceptre remained in the tribe of Juda up to the time 1
of Christ.
From Numbers 1:20-27; 10:14, and Judges 1:1-2; 20:18, it
is evident that Juda’s tribe enjoyed special prominence even in
the desert and during the period of the Judges. With David and
Solomon it ruled gloriously over all the tribes. From Roboam to
the Babylonian Captivity, it had the obedience of Benjamin and
Levi and many others who had migrated from other tribes to
that of Juda.18 Moreover, Juda (together with Benjamin and others)
almost equalled the other ten tribes in population and resources.
At the time of the Babylonian Captivity, the rule was inter­
rupted for a comparatively short time, an interruption which later
prophecies pointed to as a punishment sent by God.19 When the
Captivity ended, Juda ruled so completely over all who returned
that all Hebrews, regardless of their tribe of origin, called them­
selves Jews, Judaei, belonging to Juda.20
The remarks above are based on the opinion which we think
is more probable. Some claim that the sceptre was taken away in
fact at the time of the Babylonian Captivity and remained in Juda
only as a matter of right. In reality, however, the actual taking
away of the sceptre no more destroys the validity of this prophecy
than it does the promise of an everlasting throne which had been
made to David.21
2. The prophecy of Daniel. Daniel lived during the period 157
of the Babylonian Captivity. One day, while prayerfully con­
templating the promise made by Jeremias that the people would
be liberated after seventy years,22 he was given information by the
archangel Gabriel. He wrote:

(261)

THE TRUE

RELIGION

Seventy weeks are shortened 1Λ upon thy people and upon thy
holy city, that transgression may be finished and sin may have
an end and iniquity may be abolished and everlasting justice
may be brought and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled and
the Saint of Saints u may be anointed
Know thou therefore and take notice: that from the going forth
of the word to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the prince,
there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks: ami the street
shall be built again, and the walls in strailness of times.
And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain ami the people
that shall deny him 20 shall not be his. And a people, with their
leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary:
ami the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the
war the appointed desolation.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and
in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail:27
and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation.
And the desolation shall continue even to the consummation
and to the end (Daniel 9:24-27).
The only certain and firmly established factor of this prophecy
(held as certain and firmly established by the Fathers and theolo­
gians) is that the benefits listed in verse 24 are Messianic benefits,
and that the prophecy consequently has some Messianic mean­
ing. Apart from this single point of general agreement, there
is no unanimous interpretation of the literal meaning of the
prophecy. In fact, hardly any other prophecy has been so variously
interpreted.28
157a
All attempts at an explanation fall into three classes.20
a. The Eschatological Explanation.30 According to this interpre­
tation the “seventy weeks” symbolize the whole history of the
theocracy, divided into three parts. The number “seven” symbolizes
the time of the Messias’ coming—the Messias who has all power
in heaven and on earth. There follows a period between the first
and second comings of the Messias (Lord), a time for the hidden
plans of God, symbolized by the number “sixty-two.” The final “one
week” signifies the time of the Parousia with all its attendant
circumstances:
7 weeks = the coming of the Messias,
62 weeks = the time between the first and second comings,
1 week = the Parousia (second coming).

This interpretation, the result of a wild and arbitrary mysticism,

( 262 )

COD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

is a gratuitous assumption and is quite commonly rejected.
b. The Exclusively Historical Explanation." On the assumption
that the Book of Daniel is not a prophetic, but an historical work
written by an unknown author of the Maccabean period, this
interpretation asserts that verse 24 truly is a promise of Messianic
benefits wliich are to materialize after the seventy weeks,12 but
the remaining verses represent an apocalyptic presentation of the
past history of the Israelites up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
This history is divided into three periods.
The first period extends roughly from 587 to 536 B.C. The point
of departure is the “going forth of the word,” the prophecy of
Jeremias about the rebuilding of the Holy City (Daniel was reflect­
ing on this prophecy).33 The end of this period is taken as the first
year of the reign of Cyrus, who gave orders for the rebuilding of
the Temple of Jerusalem.34
The second period, “sixty-two weeks,” during which “the street
shall be built again, and the walls in straitness of times,” begins
with the year 536 and ends in 171 B.C., when “the Christ” or
“anointed one,” the high priest Onias III, was killed.35
The third is the period of one week, from 171 to 164 B.C.
During this week the city and the sanctuary will be ravaged, vic­
tims and sacrifices will cease to be, and in the temple will appear
the abomination of desolation, part of the tyranny of Antiochus
Epiphanes. All of these events are narrated in the Books of the
Macchabees.36
In short, this interpretation sees the author presenting past
events in prophetic form:

“The going forth of the word” = the prophecy of Jeremias,
7 weeks = c. 587-536 (accession of Cyrus),
62 weeks = 536-171 (murder of Onias III).
This opinion is untenable. We cannot accept it even as a solidly
probable hypothesis, even though it is ingeniously contrived and is
by no means contrary to the teaching of the Church. In the first
place, it lacks solid arguments, and in the second, it involves many
difficulties. Its assumptions as to the date, author, and literary
character of the Book of Daniel contradict the traditional view. It is
less in harmony with the mind of the ecclesiastical magisterium; 17
indeed it seems to contradict Christ Himself, foretelling the abom­
ination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet
(Matthew 24:15) as something still in the offing, even in His day.
( 263 )

THE

TRUE RELIGION

It offers no explanation for the fact that the second period of
sixty-two weeks comprises not 434 years, but only 365 (from 536
to 171 B.C.).38
157b
c. Messianic Interpretation. The more common opinion, which
respects the traditional view and is in our opinion the truer
interpretation, holds that the “anointed leader” whose death is
predicted is the Messias, and that the seventy shortened weeks
last until the time of the Messias.
Assuming that this is the true interpretation, the Messias and
his benefits will come within seventy weeks from the issuance of
the edict to rebuild Jerusalem. This period is divided into three
parts.
Within the first seven weeks the street and the walls will be
restored. There will take place the complete material and moral
restoration of Jerusalem “in straitness of times.”39
After sixty-two weeks more (now a total of sixty-nine after the
edict), there will be a leader for the people who will presently die
a violent death. The destruction of the Temple and of the city is
linked with the slaying of the Messias, and in that destruction can
be seen a result of, and punishment for, the murder of the
Anointed One. Still, the prophecy does not say that it will follow
immediately or that it will take place within the limits of the
seventy weeks.
In the one remaining week, the seventieth, he shall confirm the
covenant with many. In other words, in that week the new cove­
nant promised by God 10 will be established and irrevocably rati­
fied. Moreover, in the half of that week there will be an end to
victims and sacrifice—to the bloody and unbloody sacrifices of
the Mosaic Law.
158
What are these seventy weeks? The Hebrew word shàbûa‘ sig­
nifies a period embracing seven units. The Jews were familiar with
periods in which the seven units were years; doubtless because of
the law dealing with the sabbatical year?1 The ordinary usage of
the word among the Jews was strictly for seven days, but one
could easily maintain that the term as used by Daniel refers, not
to days, but to years.
Since a week of seven days is too short to satisfy the demands
of the other terms of the prophecy, the obvious conclusion is that
the angel meant to indicate groups of seven years. The seventy
weeks, then, add up to 490 years. The angel probably expressed
this span of time in terms of seventy weeks for the reason that
( 264 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

Daniel was reflecting on the seventy years of the captivity when
the revelation was given. It was thus fitting that the great and true
liberation which the Messias would effect within seventy groups
of seven years should be linked with the liberation from the
Babylonian Captivity which would come about after an interval
of seventy years.
When do these "seventy weeks” begin?
They begin with the going forth of the word to build up Jeru­
salem again. These words seem to indicate very clearly a decree
of some sort issued by a ruler to allow or to order the restoration
of the city and its walls.
Although there exist many varying views on the matter, exegetes
more commonly think the decree issued by Artaxerxes I Longi­
manus in the seventh year of his reign 42 or the one issued by him
in the twentieth year of his reign 43 is the one referred to in
Daniel’s prophecy.
Modern scholars consider it practically certain that Artaxerxes
ruled by himself from 465 B.C. onwards, and for some time before
that (from 473?) he had shared the throne with his father. Those
who say that the decree was issued in the seventh year usually
count those years during which Artaxerxes reigned alone, and so
express the view that the seventy weeks begin with the year
458 B.C. Those who believe the decree was issued in the twentyfirst year feel that the years of joint rule should be taken into
account, and in their opinion the seventy weeks begin with 453
B.C. But all have to admit that these numbers are not so definite
as to exclude a possible margin of one or two years. Since the first
year of Artaxerxes, just as the years of accession of other kings of
this period, has to be determined by computing the number of
years during which individual rulers were in power, an error of a
few years is quite understandable.
Fulfillment. Since the exact year from which to start the reckon- 159
ing of the seventy weeks is not known, the fulfillment of the
prophecy cannot be mathematically verified.44 Yet it is sufficiently
clear that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth.
The different reckonings proposed, though varied in detail, all
come to within a few years of 30 A.D.43
At this date, and during the general period preceding the over­
throw of the city and Temple, no one else besides Jesus can be
found to whom one might apply the prophecy. Jesus, publicly
anointed by the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism, preached
( 265 )

THE TRUE

RELIGION

for about three years. At the end of this period, on April 7, in the
year 30 A.D. (783 A.U.C.),
*
He suffered a violent death to atone
for the sins of men and to inaugurate the reign of justice. During
the middle of the final week the Temple’s veil was rent.
*·
and the
Mosaic cult, at least as far as it was the rightful and acceptable
cult, passed out of existence. The same seventieth week, since it
witnessed the institution and first spread of the Church, indeed
established a new covenant for many. Finally, about forty years
later a people with their leader that shall come ravaged the Temple
and the city of Jerusalem, because it had not recognized its
anointed leader, had not known the time of its visitation.
*
1
The above interpretation may be represented thus:

7 weeks = rebuilding of Jerusalem;
62 weeks = from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the
coming of the Christ;
1 week = a. the life, work and death of Christ,
b. the birth and first growth of the Church,
c. the end of the Mosaic cult.

160

3. The Prophecy of Aggeus.
*
8 When the Jews who had re­
turned from the Babylonian Captivity were plunged in grief at
the lowliness of the Temple as restored by Zorobabel. Aggeus
announced that the glory of the Temple of Jerusalem would be
greater in the future than ever before, and that this would be due
to the future Messias and to the peace which he would bring.

For thus saith the Lord of hosts: Yet one little while,
*"
and I
will move the heaven and the earth and the sea and the dry
land. And I will move all nations: and the desired of all
nations50 shall come: and I will fill this house with glory, saith
the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine and the gold is mine, saith
the Lord of hosts. Great shall be the glory of this last house
more than of the first,61 saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place
I will give peace62 saith the Lord of hosts (Aggeus 2:7-10).
Meaning. God, who in Old Testament times shook the earth
with His miracles,53 will soon move all nations to offer precious
gifts in His House. To a certain extent this took place during the
Maccabean period,5* but it was perfectly realized only after the
• Ricciotti, G.: The Life of Christ ( 1947), p. 166. For the method of com­
putation. and variant dates given by other scholars, cf. the same work, pp.
161-167.

( 266 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

Messias had come, when the converted nations offered themselves
and their goods to God in His spiritual temple, the Church, of
which the Temple in Jerusalem was a figure. The Temple itself
will achieve its highest glory from the fact that in it God will give
His peace, the Messias himself, the source of all the Messianic
blessings.
The Messias was to come while the Temple was still standing.
4. The Prophecy of Malachias. What Aggeus had stated in 161
rather vague fashion Malachias stated quite clearly: The Messias
will appear at the Temple in Jerusalem. Behold I send my angel,
and he shall prepare the way before my face. And presentlyss the
Lord whom you seek, and the angel of the testament whom you
desire shall come to his temple. Behold he cometh, saith the Lord
of hosts (Malachias 3:1).
Meaning. The ruler whom the Jews desired, and who was to
establish a new covenant, can be none other than the promised
Messias. The Messias, whose divinity is fairly clearly indicated in
this passage,58 will come to his Temple at Jerusalem, the only
legitimate sanctuary of the true God before the Christian era.
To enable the people to recognize the Messias, a divinely appointed
forerunner is to appear, then the Messias himself is to appear, while
the Temple at Jerusalem is still standing.
Fulfillment of the prophecies of Aggeus and Malachias. Jesus
of Nazareth, the mediator of a new covenant (Hebrews 9:15), at
whose birth the angels sang on earth peace among men of good
will (Luke 2:14), to whom numberless people gave their allegiance,
was heralded by John the Baptist and arrived while the Temple
was still in its great glory. He entered this Temple frequently, and
while there revealed Himself as the source of all grace and peace.57
The elements of both prophecies fit Him admirably. Indeed, they
fit Him alone, for no one else appeared in the Temple of Jerusalem
to whom these prophecies might possibly apply.
Since later rabbis were of the opinion that the time foretold
by the prophets for the coming of the Messias had long since
passed, they forbade further attempts to reckon these dates. Hence
Moses Maimonides wrote in the twelfth century:

The wise men, whose memory is blessed, forbade us to compute
the date of the Messias’ coming, because the people take scandal
at the fact that the time has gone by and he has still not
appeared. This is why the wise man said: “Let the swollen
( 267 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

bones of those who compute periods of time be crushed to bits,
for they scandalize the people.”58
162 VI. Prophecies of the Messianic Kingdom
1. The Messianic Kingdom, as the perfect covenant, supplants
the old, imperfect covenant between God and the Jewish nation.
The beginning of the Messianic Kingdom necessitates the end of
the old dispensation. Read Jeremias 31:31-33; Daniel 9:24-27;
Malachias 1:10-11.
2. The kingdom of the Messias will begin in Jerusalem and will
be proclaimed to the Gentiles. The coming of the latter will
insure a steady growth and it will become a universal kingdom.

The law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord
out of Jerusalem (Micheas 4:2).
And I will set a sign among them; and I will send such as escape
of them unto the nations, Tarshish, Put and Lud, Meshek and Rosh,
Tubal and Greece, and the distant isles that have not heard my
name nor seen my glory, and they shall declare my name among
the nations. And they shall bring all your brethren from all nations
as an offering to Yahweh (Isaias 66:19-20).
Enlarge [O Sion] the place of thy tent, and let them spread out
the curtains of their dwelling; spare not, lengthen thy tent-ropes,
make thy tent-pegs strong; For thou shall break forth to the right
and the left, and thy seed shall dispossess the nations (Isaias
54:2-3).
And it shell come to pass in the last days that the mountain of
the house of the Lord shall be prepared in the top of mountains
and high above the hills: and people shall flow to it. And many
nations shall come in haste and say: Come let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob: and
he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths. For the
law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of
Jerusalem (Micheas 4:1-2).
1^3
3. The kingdom of the Messias will banish idolatry; the knowl­
edge of things divine will flourish, and this knowledge will be
unfailingly certain.
And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts,
that I will destroy the names of idols out of the earth, and they
shall be remembered no more (Zacharias 13:2).

( 268 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

For the land shall he filled with the knowledge of Yahweh, as
the waters cover the sea (Isaias, 11:9; see 54:13).
I will give my law in their bowels and I will write it in their
heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And
they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man
his brother, saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know me from the
least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord (Jeremias,
31:32-33).
As for Me, this is My covenant with them, said Yahweh: My
spirit which is upon thee, and My words which I have put in thy
mouth, shall not depart from thy mouth, nor from the mouth of
thy seed nor from the mouth of thy seed’s seed forever, said
Yahweh (Isaias, 59:21).
4. The kingdom of the Messias will be outstanding for remission 164
of sin, true justice or holiness, and peace, a lavish outpouring of
the Holy Spirit, and spiritual gifts.
In that day there shall be a fountain open to the house of David
and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem: for the washing of the sinner
and of the unclean woman (Zacharias 13:1).
Justice shall flower in his days, and profound peace (Psalm
71:7).
And it shall come to pass after this, that I will pour out my
spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy: your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men
shall see visions (Joel 2:28; see Zacharias 12:10).
5. The kingdom of the Messias will have priests chosen from
every nation, and a true unbloody sacrifice which will be offered
everywhere.
And of these also [the Gentiles] will I take as priests and levites,
said Yahweh (Isaias 66:21).
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name
is great among the Gentiles: and in every place there is sacrifice
and there is offered to my name a clean oblation. For my name is
great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts (xMalachias
1:11).’·
6. The kingdom of the Messias will be assailed wherever it 165
exists, but, thanks to God's protection, will never be vanquished
and will stand firm forever.
Why do the nations rage, and the peoples utter folly? The kings
of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the
Lord and against his anointed: "Let us break their fetters and cast

( 269 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

their bonds from us!" He who is throned in heaven laughs; the
Lord derides them (Psalm 2:1-4).
And it shall come to pass in that day that I will make Jerusalem
a burdensome stone to all people. All that shall lift it up shall be
rent and torn: and all the kingdoms of the earth shall be gathered
together against her (Zacharias 12:3).
No weapon that is fashioned against thee shall avail, and every
tongue that will contend with thee in judgment thou shalt confute.
This is the heritage of the servants of Yahweh, and this is their
reward from Me, said Yahweh (Isaias 54:17).e0
But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up
a kingdom that shall never be destroyed: and his kingdom shall
not be delivered up to another people . . . and itself shall stand
forever (Daniel 2:44; see 7:13-14).
Note: The magnificent prophecies of Messianic peace should
be interpreted, to some extent at least, in a spiritual sense as
referring to internal peace of heart, or as referring to that perfect
peace which the grace of the Messias would bestow were everyone
to accept it wholeheartedly. The prophecies which speak of the
universality of the Messianic kingdom do not necessitate an abso­
lute universality, only a relative. The prophets sometimes painted
the Messianic picture in general terms, not distinguishing the tem­
poral and spiritual elements to too great an extent.
166
Fulfillment. An examination of the Catholic Church and the
religion she professes, in the light of the ancient prophecies, force­
fully brings out that she and she alone verifies all the elements of
the Messianic kingdom described by the prophets.
1. The Catholic religion has always claimed to be the perfect
religion, the fulfillment of the old dispensation. It came into exist­
ence precisely at the time when the observance of the Old Law
ceased. When the Church began to grow, the city and Temple of
Jerusalem were completely and irrevocably destroyed.
2. The Catholic religion originated in Jerusalem, then reached
even the most distant nations by the work of zealous missioners.
The conversion of these nations assured, and still assures, its steady
growth. It became and has remained a universal kingdom, a reli­
gion extending throughout the whole world.
3. Wherever the Catholic religion has become deeply rooted,
idolatry- has been destroyed and the knowledge and practice of a
revealed worship has flourished. Throughout many centuries the
Catholic Church has treasured and kept safe the true knowledge
( 270 )

GOD

FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

of the Lord for her numberless children, and the Church promises
to safeguard this knowledge forever, claiming infallibility in mat­
ters divine.
4. The Catholic religion teaches that all men can receive true
forgiveness of sin and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit. It
constantly produces a remarkable harvest of holiness, and has
never experienced a complete lack of miracles and special spiritual
gifts. Truly, the Catholic religion is the kingdom of peace. It brings
to man peace with God and with himself; it brings the peace of
God which surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7), the peace
of Christ which the world cannot give. Love is the bond of union
within this kingdom, uniting all under one shepherd, making all
men brothers. If wars occur among nations and peoples, it means
only that those nations and peoples have refused the Catholic
religion, or have given it only lip service.
5. The Catholic religion has a visible priesthood, restricted not
to one family or to one nation, but including men of all nations.
It has an unbloody, spotless sacrifice offered everywhere from sun­
rise to sunset.
6. As long as the Catholic religion has been in existence, it has
been attacked by men using both material and spiritual weapons.
Yet after nineteen centuries they have not been able to conquer
it, a fact which emboldens one to predict that it will never be
vanquished, come what may, but will stand firm forever. Note how
strikingly these words of the prophet Isaias are realized in the
Catholic Church: Every tongue that resisteth thee in judgment
thou shalt condemn (Isaias 54:17). From the beginning till now
the Catholic Church has condemned any and all who proclaim as
divine any religious teaching contrary to that received by her from
Christ.
o

·

·

Just as the Catholic Church perfectly fulfills the prophecies of 167
the Messianic kingdom, so there exists besides her no society pos­
sessing all the characteristics noted above.
Non-Christian societies may be dismissed. Since it is clear from
the arguments given that Christ is the true Messias, a religion
which has no link with Christ could not possibly be the kingdom
of the Messias. Nor would it require much labor to show that the
characteristics of the Messianic kingdom are not realized in any
of the non-Christian religions.

(271)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Christians separated from the Catholic Church are the Oriental
sects and the Protestant churches. Neither the Oriental sects nor
the Protestant churches enjoy that universality which the prophets
pointed to as a prime characteristic of the Messianic kingdom. In
addition, the Protestant churches have no sacrifice. Nor can it be
said of any Christian society other than the Catholic Church that it
has been the object of constant attack and that it has condemned
every’ tongue speaking in opposition to it. The conclusion is
evident.
168

CONCLUSION TO THIS CHAPTER

From the remarks made in the article concerning the Mes­
sianic prophecies and their fulfillment, one fact stands out above
all others—the Old Testament predictions about the Messias and
his kingdom are true, divinely inspired prophecies. Who would
seriously dare to maintain that so many details predicted of the
coming Messias, predicted in different ages and by different per­
sons, were only hazardous guesses that accidentally turned out
to be true!
If the philosophical truth of the prophecies is admitted, then
their fulfillment in Christ and in the Catholic Church demonstrates
beyond shadow of doubt the following conclusions:
1. Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messias, the special divine
legate whom God who . . . spoke in times past to the fathers by
the prophets (Hebrews 1:1), promised to the human race.
2. The Catholic Church is truly the kingdom of the Messias,
the kingdom to which all nations are invited, and in which the
knowledge of the Lord is unswervingly and faithfully preserved.
169

CONCLUSION TO THE ENTIRE TREATISE
It has been shown by various arguments that the Catholic
religion is the religion divinely revealed in and by Christ.
Internal arguments served as persuasions for the divine origin
of this religion. Such arguments were based on the wondrous excel­
lence of this religion whereby it surpasses anything that man could
discover of himself.
External arguments demonstrate the divine origin of this reli­
gion. Such arguments are based on divine signs which point out
immediately Jesus Christ as the author of this religion; or directly
recommend that religion, the Catholic religion, which has flour( 272 )

GOD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

ished for over nineteen centuries; or show that Christ and His
work, the Catholic religion, had been promised long before by
God Himself and prepared by Him.
The arguments prove irresistibly the credibility of the Catholic
religion in such a way that they are enough to give any man
who considers them with earnestness and sincerity, real moral
certitude about the fact of revelation and the divine origin of the
Catholic Church. This certitude is moral because it is based on
human testimony. Still, it is real certitude in the strictest sense
of the term, positively excluding any possibility of prudent doubt.
The reason why one cannot have metaphysical or physical certitude
about the matter in question is quite simple. Since this is a fact of
history, the only type of certitude possible is moral.61
Two conclusions follow from this demonstration:
1. Every religious teaching is false to the extent that it contra­
dicts the Catholic religion. Since this is true of all religions other
than the Catholic, then the Catholic religion is the only true and
legitimate one.
2. Every man who becomes aware of the divine truth of the
Catholic religion has a strict obligation to embrace that religion
and to be loyal to it. Christ Himself said quite clearly that His
religion must be accepted by all under penalty of damnation:
“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, there­
fore, and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe
all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20). “He who
believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe
shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16).
Notes
1. Later, in the same sense: ‘7 am . . . the Cod of Abraham, the Cod of
Isaac, the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6), and "Blessed be the Lord, the God
of Israel” (Luke 1.68).
2. See Genesis 26:4.
3. See Genesis 28:14.
4. See Luke 1:31-33; Feldmann, “Die Weissagungen iiber den Cottesknecht im Buche Jesaias,” Bibl Zf, II (1908), 10.
5. Bethlehem Ephrata (see Genesis 35:19), to distinguish it from the
other city of the same name in the tribe of Zabulon (Josue 19:15-16), was too
small to have a chiliarch put in charge of it.
6. In view of the context the passage is apparently to be understood not
of the Messias alone, but of the whole series of prophets whom God was to
send after Moses. The Messias would of course be included in this series.
That the prophecy was applied to the Messias at the time of Christ is clear

( 273 )

THE THUE RELIGION

from John 1:45, 5:45-47, 6:14, but especially from Acts 3.22 and 7.37. fn the
light of these passages, at least we Christians are sure that the term "prophet"
in Deuteronomy 18:15 includes also, and indeed chiefly, Christ. Sec A.
Clamer, La Sainte Bible, II (Paris, 1946), 633 ff.
7. See, for example, Psalm 109 and Isaias 9:6-7.
8. Isaias 11:1-5, 42:1-4, 61:1-3; Zacharias 9:6-10,
9. Psalm 21; Isaias 52:14; 53.
10. Isaias 7:15, 53:2.
11. Isaias 42:2-3, 61.1.
12. "And for them I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in
truth" (John 17:19). "I lay down my life for my sheep" (John 10:15). For
there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man,
Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:5-6).
13. Luke 22:19-20; see Genesis 14:18.
14. Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world" . . . Pilate there­
fore said to him, "Thou art then a king?" Jesus answered, "Thou sayest it;
1 am a king" (John 18:36-37).
15. See Kevin Smyth, "The Prophecy Concerning Juda: Gen. 49:8-12,"
CBQ, VII (1945), 290-305; A. Clamer, La Sainte Bible, I (Paris, 1953),
498-499.
16. For this passage see Lagrange in RBibl (1898), p. 525; Zapletal,
Alttestamentliches (1903), p. 26; Burg in Pastor Bonus, XXVI, 257.
The interpretation of many rationalists: “until he comes to Silo [the
city]” (See Josue 18:1), is at variance with all the versions and older com­
mentators, and is voided by the following phrase “And he will be the expecta­
tion of the nations.”
17. See 2 Kings 7:12-16; Psalm 88:29-38; 1 Paralipomenon 28:4.
18. See 2 Paralipomenon 11:13-17.
19. See 2 Kings 7:12-16; Psalm 88:28-38.
20. “It was Zorobabel of the tribe of Juda and of the royal line who led
them back from captivity. Those who belonged to this tribe came back in
droves and filled the whole country. The ten scattered tribes vanished among
the Gentiles, except for those who, united under the name of Juda and under
its standard, re-entered the land of their fathers” (Bossuet, Discours sur l’his­
toire universelle, II, 8).
21. See, for example, Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, I, no. 225; Hoberg,
Die Genesis; Schuster-Selbst, Handbuch der biblischen Geschichte, v. I.
22. See Daniel 9:2; Jeremias 25:11-12, 29:10.
23. Shortened, that is, fixed, determined.
24. Saint of saints, that is, the Messias Himself, anointed with the divinity
at the time of the Incarnation and publicly proclaimed as such on the occasion
of His baptism (Matthew 3:16). But since the Hebrew text has abstract
terms here, holiness of holiness, many see in the expression not the person of
the Messias, but the spiritual Holy Place which He built, the Church, anointed
as it was with the Holy. Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2), or the actual Temple
of Jerusalem, according to the interpretation of Dennefeld and others. See
La Sainte Bible, VII (Paris, 1946), 690; Saydon, CCHS, p. 507.
25. Shall be slain. The Hebrew word indicates a violent death, of the
sort inflicted for serious crimes.
26. In place of all the following words, and the people that deny him

( 274 )

COD

FORETOLD CHRIST AND HÏS WORK

shall not be his, the Hebrew has simply and not to him. Knabenbauer thinks
the meaning is that the Messias' death will harm not Him, but the people and
the city, as the following verses indicate. Others, like Dennefeld, translate
apart from any guilt of his. Others offer still other renderings.
27. In Hebrew: sacrifice and oblafion-cake, that is, bloody and unbloody
sacrifices.
28. Sec Meignan, Les derniers prophètes, pp. 101, 103. By the end of the
Middle Ages there were over twenty-two different interpretations of this
prophecy, and at the present time there are more than one hundred. See
Dennefeld, op. cit., p. 688.
29. See Dr. Edmund Bayer, “Danielstudien, ATAb (1912), no. 3, pp. 5,
74ff.
30. See Wolf, Die 70 Wochen Daniels. Kamphausen gives a synopsis of
Wolf's thesis in ThLz (1899), p. 321. Among the older writers, Apollinaris
of Laodicea and Hesychius seem to have followed this opinion.
31. This interpretation seems to be suggested by the Alexandrian Version
of Daniel. Among the older writers, Julius Hilarionus, Harduin, and Calmet
defend it. It is practically the common opinion among modem Protestants,
whereas on the Catholic side Lagrange supports it (RBibl, 1904, p. 449).
Lagrange met opposition from Hontheim in Der Kath. (1906), no. 2 p. 260,
but finds support in Bayer, op. cit., pp. 78ff.
We have taken our exposition of this passage chiefly from Bayer, who
expressly avows that his opinion is only a hypothesis. Modem Catholic opinion
seems to be a leaning towards a combination of the Maccabean and strictly
iMessianic interpretations. As Saydon says:
Both interpretations have a side open to attack. The Messianic interpreta­
tion, which has always enjoyed the greatest favor in Catholic exegesis,
seems to overlook the undeniable allusions of the prophecy to the Macca­
bean age and its relation to the general plan of the visions, while, on the
other hand, the Maccabean interpretation ignores the fundamental fact
that Daniel’s interest, though centered on the age of Antiochus, extends
far beyond the limits of that age, and that the restoration described by
him, especially in 24, by far exceeds the rededication of the temple in
165 B.C. The combination of the two systems will give a more satisfactory
interpretation (CCHS, 508 b).
The prophecy, then, will refer directly and literally to the Maccabean
period, and indirectly, typically, to the Messianic. Fr. Dyson of the Pontifical
Biblical Institute favors this view, as do Dennefeld, Gottsberger, and others.
Indeed, it is a very attractive suggestion.
32. In answer to the objection that the Messianic benefits are foretold as
coming before the end of the seventy weeks, Bayer replies that prophecies,
without indicating any interval of time, often link different events which have
some causal or typical connection, but are very widely separated in time. A
good example of this is Christ’s prediction of the Parousia; see above, no. 146.
33. Jeremias 30:18 (according to others 25:11 or 29:10); see 2 Para­
lipomenon 36:20-23. Note that, according to Bayer, '‘Daniel’’ borrowed from
1 and 2 Paralipomenon and from 1 and 2 Esdras.
34. See 2 Paralipomenon 36:22. It was the ancient custom to anoint the
leader or king, and so it is Cyrus (according to this interpretation) who is
referred to in the phrase unto the anointed prince.
35. Read 2 Maccabees 4 and Daniel 11:22.

( 275)

THE TRUE RELIGION

36. See Daniel 9:26; 1 Macchabees 1:30—41; sec also 1 Macchabees
1:12-14; 2 Macchabees 4:7ff and 1 Macchabees 1:57-62.
37. The Archbishop of Siena asked the Consistorial Congregation what
the errors were for which a book of Holzhey’s had been condemned. The
Congregation answered on October 22, 1912, that "it lessens considerably, not
to say denies completely, the Messianic character of the prophecy of the
seventy weeks." See Ned. K. St. (1913), p. 41.
38. Bayer himself admits:
It must then be assumed here, if one wants to maintain the strictly his­
torical interpretation, that Daniel did not know the extent of this span
of time and hence committed a chronological error (op. cit., pp. 86-87).
39. Others, however, are of the opinion that no fixed event corresponds to
the end of the first seven weeks. As a matter of fact, the prophecy does not
clearly state what will eventualize after the seven weeks.
40. See Jeremias 31:31.
41. Leviticus 25:8; see Gen. 29:18, 28.
42. 1 Esdras 7; 9:9. Note, however, that many recent authors agree with
Van Hoonacker in placing Esdras’ mission after that of Nehemias. But if this
be true, then the decree of 1 Esdras 7 is not to be attributed to Artaxerxes
Longimanus, but to Artaxerxes II Mnemon and is to be dated 398 B.C.
43. 2 Esdras 2:1-8. In this decree alone does one find explicit permission
to rebuild the walls.
44. Besides, neither the year of Christ’s birth nor that in which He started
His public life has been definitely established. It is true that the Christian Era
begins with 754 A.U.C.., but almost all agree that our Lord's circumcision
took place not in 754 A.U.C., but some years before, some time between 746
and 752 A.U.C. For recent attempts to establish a precise chronology, see
F. Borgongini Duca, Le LXX settimane di Daniele et le date messianiche
(Padova, 1951); a summary of this work has appeared in English as Messianic
Chronology in Daniel (New York, 1952); Damianus Lazzarato, Chronologie
Christi (Neapoli, 1952); the latter discusses Borgongini Duca’s work in De ex
Danielico nuncio Christi annis (Neapoli, 1953).
45. Various reckonings are found in exegetical works and in lives of Christ.
46. See Matthew 27:51.
47. See Luke 19:41-44.
48. A. Van Hoonacker, Les douze petits prophètes (1908), p. 563.
49. The meaning is a short time later, after a little while, that is, with
respect to time already elapsed.
50. In place of the words, and the desired of all nations shall come, the
Hebrew has: “And there will come the desire (desirable, precious things)
of all the nations.” The LXX version agrees. So while St. Jerome’s version
indicates directly the coming of the Messias, the Hebrew text signifies directly
the conversion of the Gentiles, offering themselves and their possessions to
God-and this supposes the coming of the Messias Himself.
51. The Hebrew text, with which the LXX agrees, has: “The latest glory
of this house will be greater than the early (glory).” Arid so the contrast is
not precisely between the temple of Zorobabel and that of Solomon. It is a
question rather of the latest glory of the temple of Jerusalem, which, even
though materially renovated under Zorobabel and again under Herod the

( 276 )

COD FORETOLD CHRIST AND HIS WORK

Idumean, is considered practically one and the same sanctuary from the time
of Solomon up to its final destruction. Thus disappears the question as to
how the temple which our Lord entered could be the same as that of Zoro­
babel notwithstanding the renovation by Herod (John 2:20).
52. Peace consists in the totality of ail the benefits which the Messias
will bring. This is why Isaias calls the Messias the "Prince of Peace,” and
Micheas designates Him by the epithet, "Peace.”
53. Exodus 19:16; Deuteronomy 5:23; Psalm 67:8-9; see Hebrews 12:26.
54. See 2 Maccabees 3:2, 5:16.
55. Presently, that is, immediately, or, according to the Hebrew text,
unexpectedly. For many will not hear his forerunner and so will not be
prepared.
56. For a. he is called haadôn (lord), a word predicated frequently,
though not exclusively, of God; b. he comes to his temple, and God alone is
Lord of the temple; c. preparing the way before the face of the Lord to come
and preparing the way before the Lord of Hosts are considered as one and
the same thing.
57. See John 7:37-39.
58. Iggereth hatteman, 125, 4, cited by Sepp, Leben Jesu, IV, 282.
59. The word minhâ (offering) usually indicates an unbloody sacrifice.
But this is by no means its exclusive signification, and to insist upon it is both
unnecessary and unwarranted, especially since it is used throughout this very
prophecy in the sense of sacrifice in general.
60. The meaning is: every instrument of war, that is, every weapon used
against you, will prove harmless, and every tongue speaking in opposition to
you will be condemned by you. Therefore the Messianic kingdom will be
vanquished by neither material nor spiritual weapons.
61. See DB 1790.

( 277 )

Appendix I

REVEALED RELIGION BEFORE CHRIST

1. Both primitive and Mosaic revelations had God as their author.
2. They were both preparations for and distant beginnings of the
Christian religion.
3. Primitive religion contained, after a fashion, the very substance
of the Christian religion.
4. The Mosaic Law, for the Hebrew people only, was given as a
further development of primitive religion.
5. It was abrogated with the establishment of the Christian dis­
pensation, not by formal revocation, but by being sublimated
and perfected by Christ.

( 279 )

Appendix I
REVEALED RELIGION BEFORE CHRIST

I. Both the primitive and the Mosaic revelations had God as 170
their author. Both Christ and His Apostles recognized them as
divine. Christ and the Apostles considered the books of the Old
Testament divinely inspired and used them as such. These books
make it quite clear that God revealed some truths to Adam and
Eve and gave the Hebrew people a law through His representative,
Moses.
II. Both the primitive and the Mosaic revelations were prep- 171
arations for and distant beginnings of the Christian religion.
The Messianic prophecies prove this for both revelations. Those
prophecies contained, from the very beginning of the human race,
a promise of the great Liberator, the Christ, to whom all men of
antiquity must look for spiritual benefits. That promise, to be sure,
was expressed rather vaguely at first, but was given clearer mean­
ing by later revelations. That the Mosaic revelation was a prepara­
tion for Christ is clear from the words of St. Paul: For Christ is the
consummation of the Law unto justice for everyone who believes
(Romans 10:4). And again: But before the faith came we were
kept imprisoned under the Law, shut up for the faith that was to
be revealed. Therefore the Law has been our tutor unto Christ
(Galatians 3:23-24).
Indeed Christ Himself declared: “Do not think that I have
come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to
destroy, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). “Do not think that I shall
accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you, Moses, in
whom you hope. For if you believed Moses you would believe me
also” (John 5:45-46).
III. Primitive revelation contained, after a fashion, the sub- 172
stance of the Christian religion. The ancient revelation began
by placing before our First Parents as an object of belief those two
basically fundamental truths which contain, ontologically, not
logically, all other articles of our religion, and form, therefore, the
essential core of the Christian religion. These truths are the exist­
ence of the one God who is the final end and who provides for

(281 )

THE TRUE REI.ÎG ION

mankind in the supernatural order.1 The third chapter of Genesis
and the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews prove the
statement just made.
Since the substance of our religion was revealed at the very
beginning of the world, it may be said that man has always had
substantially the same revealed religion. Thus, the Christian reli­
gion can be traced back to Adam and Eve. Of course, with I hem
it existed in a very imperfect form.
173
IV. The Mosaic Law, for the Hebrew people only, was given
as a further development of primitive religion. The Mosaic Law
was given to the nation of Israel alone. Why, cannot be said, except
that that nation was chosen by God. "For you are a people sacred
to the Lord, your God; he has chosen you from all the nations on
the face of the earth to be a people peculiarly his own” ( Deuteron­
omy 7:6). As such, the Israelites were to perpetuate belief in the
Messias to come and “to enjoy a privilege of holiness because of
Christ, who was to come from them” (S.Th., Ia-IIae, q. 98, a. 5).
It was not God’s will that the Law be promulgated among other
nations, and, like the Gospel, be accepted by all.®
The Mosaic Law contained three types of precepts; moral,
ceremonial, and judicial: “moral, which were really demands of
natural law; ceremonial, which were detailed regulations for divine
worship; judicial, which were determinations of the justice men
were to observe in their dealings with one another” (S.Th., Ia-IIae,
q. 99, a. 4).
The ceremonial and judicial precepts affected foreign peoples
in no way. The moral precepts did bind them materially, but not
formally (i.e., not because they were part of Mosaic legislation,
but because of their inclusion in the natural law). See what St. Paul
has to say on this matter in his Epistle to the Romans 2:12-15.
The sanctions of the Mosaic Law were limited to the temporal
order. This was quite in harmony with the imperfection of the Law
itself and the people to whom it was given.2 It finds further explana­
tion in tire fact that the promises and threats of the Mosaic Law
generally concerned, not individual persons, but the nation of
Israel as such. Nonetheless, men living under the Law did not lack
• Foreigners could be reckoned as Jews by submitting to circumcision
and thus becoming "as natives of the land" (Exodus 12:48); or, without
being circumcised, by worshipping Yahweh and by keeping certain precepts
of the Law. The former were known as proselytes of justice or of the cove­
nant; the latter were called proselytes of the gate. Those who are called in
Acts phobounienoi theon (fearing God) seem to be practically the same as
proselytes of the gate.

( 282 )

appendix i. REVEALED RELIGION BEFORE CHRIST

faith and the hope of receiving spiritual benefits, but these were
promised, not by the Law, but by primitive religion. See the Epistle
to the Hebrews 11:6; 13-16.
V. The Mosaic Law was abrogated with the establishment 174
of the Christian. St. Paul proves that the binding force of the
Law was taken away by Christianity: But before the faith came
we were kept imprisoned under the Law, shut up for the faith that
was to he revealed. Therefore the Law has been our tutor unto
Christ, . . . But now that faith has come, we are no longer under
a tutor. . . . There is neither Jew nor Greek (Galatians 3:23-28).
The entire Law was abrogated and consequently its moral
principles bind Christians, not because they are part of Mosaic
legislation, but because they are contained in the natural law and
in the Law of Christ.3
Once the Law had ceased to bind, the sanctions which it had
formulated also lost their force. Consequently, the promises added
to the fourth precept of the Decalogue must now, in the light of
the Gospel, be understood in a spiritual sense.
*
The Mosaic Law was abrogated, however, not as the result of
any formal revocation, but simply because the purpose for which
it had been given, and the state of affairs it envisioned, no longer
obtained. It stands to reason that with the coming of what which
the Law had been designed to foreshadow and prepare, the
shadow and the preparation had no more reason for existence.
Christ Himself said: “I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill”
(Matthew 5:17). Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and the Prophets
by bringing their work to completion and perfection. He perfected
the moral precepts by giving a more perfect explanation of God’s
will; He perfected the ceremonial precepts by substituting for the
shadows and types the truth, the sacrifice and sacraments of the
New Law; He perfected the judicial precepts by establishing the
Catholic Church, of which the former people of God had been a
figure. Hence the Old Law was abrogated, not by being ruled null
and void, but by being perfected. That is why no formal revocation
of the Law can be found in the New Testament, but simply the
declaration of the Apostles that it no longer has any binding force.5

Notes
1. See St. Thomas, S.Th., II-II, q. 1, a. 7; q. 2, a. 7.
2. See Hebrews 7:19; Romans 3:20; St. Thomas, loc. cit., q. 99. a. 6.
3. This is at least the much more common view; see Catechismus
Romanus, 3.4, no. 4. However, some authors think that only the ceremonial

( 283 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

and judicial precepts were abrogated, but that the moral precepts were even
formally (as precepts of the Law) confirmed by Christ. See Vasquoz, In S.Th.,
Ill, disp. 180, c. 3.
4. Wilmers replies as follows to an objection based on Ephesians 6:2-3:
The Apostle recalls the happy life in the land of Canaan, which was of
old promised as a special reward of respect for parents in order to show
how pleasing to God this respect is. But you may not conclude from this
the same promise holds good in the New Testament. The truth of the
matter is that life or happiness as promised in each Testament must be
interpreted in the light of the conditions peculiar to each Testament. To
the temporal happiness or earthly life as promised in the Old Testament
corresponds the spiritual happiness or spiritual life as promised in the New
(De religione revelata, p. 481). See St. Thomas, S.Th., II-II, q. 122,
a. 5, ad 4; Van Kasteren, Van den Sinai, p. 58.
5. See, for instance, Acts 15, Colossians 2:16, 17; Galatians 3:24; Hebrews
7:12, 18; 8:13; see A. Th. Harmann, Die enge Verbindung des Alten Testa­
ments mit dem Neuen (1831); also RPA 28 (1919), 382; K. Benz, "Die
Stellung Jesu zum alttestamentlichen Gesetz,” Bihl. Studien, XIX (1914), 1.

( 284 )

Appendix II
CHRIST'S TEACHING ON THE PAROUSIA

1. Rationalists and Modernists insist that Christ believed that His
second coming (parousia) and the end of the world were both
imminent. Since He was sorely mistaken on this point, He was
neither a true prophet nor a divine emissary. They base their
objections on:
a. our Lord’s own words;
b. the attitude of the Apostles and first Christians.
2. Investigation and refutation of these arguments.

( 285 )

Appendix II

CHRIST'S TEACHING ON THE PAROUSIA *

Rationalist exegetes and Modernists unanimously claim that 175
Christ often and clearly foretold as quite imminent both His
parousia (i.e., His coming in glory to judge the world) and the end
of the world. Since He was sadly mistaken in this matter, He could
not have been a true prophet or an emissary of God.
Their objections are based on two arguments. The first, which
will be taken up in detail, concludes that Christ’s words, as recorded
by the Evangelists, show that He believed the parousia and the
end of the world were both near at hand. The second claims that
statements made by the authors of the books in the New Testa­
ment prove that the Apostles and Christians of the first generation
believed the day of judgment close at hand.1
1. The first argument, as noted, is based on the words of Christ
Himself. Five principal statements, or discourses, of our Lord are
advanced by the rationalists and Modernists as showing His belief
in an imminent parousia.
a. In the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel Christ
says to His disciples: “Do you see all these things [the buildings
of the temple]? Amen I say to you, there will not be left here one
stone upon another that will not be thrown down" (v. 2). His
disciples then asked Him: “Tell us, when are these things to hap­
pen, and what will be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the
world?” (v. 3). Christ then set about to answer this double ques­
tion in one and the same discourse (vs. 5-33). From this fact the
critics conclude that Christ taught that the destruction of the
Temple and Jerusalem would coincide with the end of the world.
b. After the discourse on the end of the world, Christ said:
“Amen I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these
things have been accomplished” (Matthew 24:34). Do not these
words indicate that Christ believed the end of the world would
come within a few years? Such is the conclusion of the rationalists
and Modernists.
• See the special bibliography on p. 299.

( 287 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

c. When He sent His newly-chosen disciples to preach the Gos­
pel to the lost sheep of the house of Israel ( Matthew 10:6), Christ
added: “Amen I say to you, you will not have gone through the
towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matthew 10:23).
d. Christ taught His disciples that He would come to judge
each individual on the basis of his works. He claimed that He was
to come one day with angels and in the glory of the Father to act
as judge, and He added: “Amen I say to you, there are some of
those standing here who will not taste death, till they have seen
the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28).
e. On trial before the high priest Christ said: ‘7 say to you,
hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
the Power and coming upon the clouds of heaven" (Matthew
26:64).
The five passages quoted above are those usually quoted by
the critics to support their contention. However, it is well also to
study the parallel passages in the other Synoptics.
176
It is easy to see the serious consequences of the rationalist and
Modernist contention. If their interpretation of our Lord’s words
is correct, then Christ was certainly neither divine nor a messenger
of God. But since there are so many solid arguments for Christ’s
divine mission, arguments whose force not one of our adversaries
has been able to weaken, it is very unreasonable to attribute an
error of such magnitude to Christ, unless definite and conclusive
proof can be given. Such proof has not been advanced, as shall be
clear from the following considerations.
This is not an attempt to deny that the first Christians, particu­
larly those who were Jewish converts, expected the Lord’s parousia
to come quickly. The Jews, though, pictured to themselves a Mes­
sias who would judge his own people and the Gentiles, then
inaugurate a reign of endless happiness. Consequently one must
be careful to determine whether the expectation held by many
early Christians had its source in the preaching of Christ and His
Apostles, or in an age-old Jewish conviction now clouding Chris­
tian doctrine.
177
1. Certainly Christ often and emphatically foretold that He
would one day come in glory to act as judge. But Christ clearly
signified that His coming would not be that expected by the Jews,
a coming in which He would lead the people of Israel to victory
and crush the Gentiles. His coming was to affect the spiritual world,
not the temporal. When He came in glory, He would judge all
( 288 )

appendix ii.

Christ’s

teaching on the parousia

men on the basis of their works. Just as He purified the idea of
the Messias and the Messianic kingdom, so He purged from the
idea of judgment the materialistic and nationalistic elements added
by the Jews. For illustrations of this read the Gospel of St.
Matthew, 7:22-23, 10:32-33, 13.33-50, 16:24-27, and chapter 25.
Read St. Luke’s Gospel, 13:23-26.
Christ admitted frankly that no one knew the time of this judg­
ment and the end of the world: "But of that day or hour no one
knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father
only” (Mark 13:32).2 "It is not for you to know the times or dates
which the Father has fixed by his own authority” (Acts 1:7). Since
the judge will come without warning, He emphatically warned
the Apostles and all to be alert lest they be caught unprepared:
"Take heed, watch and pray, for you do not know when the time
is. .. . And what I say to you, I say to all, ‘Watch.’” (Mark
13:33-37). This warning, based on the uncertainty of the day of
judgment, is valid whether the end of the world is imminent or not;
for since the last day of the world will find each man in the same
condition in which his own last day found him, even supposing a
delayed parousia, these words applied most aptly and still apply to
all men: "Watch, for you do not know when the time is”
Since this is the case, there was no need for Christ to assail
directly and explicitly the false notion of an imminent end of the
world. Neither can one reasonably expect of Him a refutation of
this sort, since He was wont to ignore errors which posed no threat
to religion and good moral conduct.
Indirectly, however, our Lord did rule out the aforementioned 178
opinion, especially by the prophecies of His earthly kingdom. He
clearly foretold that the Gospel would be preached to all the
nations of the entire world before His second coming. "The gospel
must first be preached to all nations” (Mark 13:10). "And this
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world, for a
witness to all nations; and then will come the end” (Matthew 24:14.
See 26:13, 28:19-20; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). The words themselves,
their subject matter, and the Messianic prophecies are clearly not
quoted as referring to a merely relative universality of the kingdom.
It is evident that preaching of this sort could not possibly be
carried out within little more than a generation or, for that matter,
within any short span of time. Further indications of a long delay
are the various accidents and perils which Christ says will be the
lot of His disciples,3 and especially the manner in which the
( 289 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

kingdom of Heaven will develop. Christ compared His kingdom to
a grain of mustard seed, to yeast hidden in flour: "Thus w the.
kingdom of God, as though a man should cast seed into the earth,
then sleep and rise, night and day, and the seed should sprout and
grow without his knowing it. For of itself the earth bears the crop,
first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear" ( Mark
4:26-28).
Christ clearly noted that the end of the world would neither
coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem, nor follow on its heels.
After He had foretold the destruction of Jerusalem He added:
"And they will be .. . led away as captives to all the nations. And
Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times
of the nations be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24).
These considerations show us that Christ was by no means
convinced that the end of the world was close at hand.
179
2. What of the words of our Lord cited by the rationalists and
Modernists? In explaining the teaching of any author, correct
method requires that a real contradiction among his assertions
should not be admitted so long as there lies at hand another
probable solution. Surely this rule is to be applied to the teaching
of Christ, whose divine mission stands established by so many
compelling arguments. An explanation which brings the objection­
able passages into harmony with the doctrine already set forth is
far from being impossible.
a. The first statement was taken from the twenty-fourth chapter
of Matthew's Gospel. From our Lord’s words there (24:4ff) the
critics concluded that He taught that the destruction of the Temple
and Jerusalem would coincide with the end of the world. The
whole difficulty disappears if the literary form of the discourse is
considered. That form is prophetic, not historical. It is a prophecy
in which two events (the destruction of the city and the end of
the world) are linked together figuratively without regard for
chronology. Christ had been asked a double question. In His
answer He prescinds from the question of time and considers those
elements which both events will have in common. As a result, in
describing the type, He inserts elements which apply to the
antitype.4
180
b. The second text brought forward by the critics is this:
"Amen I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these
things have been accomplished" (Matthew 24:34). This text (and
the parallel texts in the other Synoptics) follows the eschatological

( 290 )

APPENDIX

II.

CHHIST’s TEACHING ON THE PAROUSIA

discourse, wherein is combined a treatment of the destruction of
the city and of the end of the world. All admit that the treatment
is of such nature that it is hard to decide which of its elements
apply to the former disaster, which to the latter, and which to both.
Some believe that our Lord deliberately gave His hearers a picture
without perspective, wishing to conceal from them the exact time
sequence, much as the Old Testament prophets were wont to do.
Others, especially recent authors, think that here are found gath­
ered together into one discourse several statements about things
to come made by our Lord on various occasions, so that the con­
fusion and vagueness are due, not to Christ’s manner of speaking,
but to editorial tradition.5
According to Billot this case presents a prophecy with a two­
fold aspect. Consequently, it can be said to be fulfilled in a two­
fold manner: primarily in itself (real fulfillment), and secondarily
in the event anticipating it, in its image or figure (figurative fulfill­
ment). The secondary fulfillment, indeed, does not immediately
strike the senses, since it is not literal and material, but it is yet
based on truth. The figure as such already contains in some manner
the thing prefigured, and gives it an anticipated existence, espe­
cially when the type and the antitype had been previously com­
bined in the same prophecy. In cases of this kind, the perfect fulfill­
ment of the one cannot even be thought of apart from the complete
fulfillment of the other.8 According to this theory, everything which
concerns the last day in the prophecy under consideration was ful­
filled to a certain extent in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem,
and consequently before “this generation” had passed away. The
prophecy contains two aspects. One was fulfilled literally and com­
pletely shortly afterwards. The other is said to be fulfilled in a
figurative manner only, but still in a way sufficient to justify the
use of the phrase until all these things.
Moreover, if everything is weighed carefully, and if the word
“generation” is taken in the obvious sense of Christ’s contem­
poraries, this statement can apply not to the final judgment con­
sidered in itself, but only to the destruction of the city. After the
destruction, as is known from the words and prediction of Christ
Himself, there was to begin an era during which the Jews would
be scattered abroad and Jerusalem would be trodden underfoot by
the Gentiles until the times of the nations be fulfilled (Luke 21:2-1).
How could Christ, foreseeing the “times of the nations” following
the destruction of Jerusalem, have said that the generation of His
(291)

THE TRUE RELIGION

contemporaries would survive until the end of the world? The con­
text seems to indicate that this position is correct. After the words
“this generation will not pass away till all these things have been
accomplished,” there follows: "But of that day and hour no one
knows, not even the angels of heaven, but the Father only”
(Matthew 24:36). From this one can deduce that the words "all
these tilings” look to the nearer event, the destruction of the city,
which will take place during the lifetime of this generation, in
contrast to that day, still far away and altogether uncertain and
hidden, the day of the Lord’s coining.®
181
c. The third text adduced is this: “You will not have gone
through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Mat­
thew 10:23). Although these words were recorded by St. Matthew
on the occasion of the temporary mission of the Apostles to the
Jews, they do not refer, at least not exclusively, to that trial mis­
sion, but to the Apostles’ definitive mission to the whole world.
The context makes this clear. Were the Apostles, during that short
trial mission, handed over to councils, scourged in synagogues,
hailed before governors and kings? Was it at that time that a
brother handed his brother over to death, and a father his son?
(See Matthew 10:17-21.) Matthew gathered together in this pas­
sage admonitions and predictions which our Lord made to His
followers on various occasions, and the other Evangelists record
them in other passages. If this is kept in mind, the meaning of the
text is: the Apostles will not finish the cities where the Israelites
dwell; they will not complete the conversion of Israel before the
last day arrives. In this way Christ suggested rather vaguely what
• The foregoing explanation of this difficult passage, while satisfactory
and still quite popular among commentators, is perhaps unnecessary. It is an
attempt to unravel the apparent fusion of temporal and eschatological elements
in our Lord’s discourse. Recently, however, A. Feuillet published in Revue
Biblique a series of brilliant articles in which he demonstrated that the fusion
is only apparent. Actually, our Lord confines His remarks to the one event,
the destruction of Jerusalem. The apocalyptic style in which He couches those
remarks has misled commentators in the direction of the eschatological and has
complicated their exegesis. Feuillet’s view eliminates much of the complica­
tion, much of the confusion. His explanation is natural, unstrained, consistent
and convincing. There is question of a parousia, yes, but not of the Parousia;
of the victorious Christ's temporal judgment of Jerusalem, but not of His
eschatological judgment of mankind. This very attractive solution throws
refreshing light not only on the so-called Eschatological Discourse, but also
on many other statements of our Lord which have hitherto furnished grist for
rationalistic mills. An extended application of Feuillet’s system may be seen
in CCHS, 715b ff.

( 292 )

appendix ii.

Christ’s teaching on

the parousia

St. Paul later wrote quite clearly: For I would not, brethren, have
you ignorant of this mystery . . . that a partial blindness only has
befallen Israel, until the full number of Gentiles should enter
(Romans 11:25).
d. The fourth text is: "Amen / say to you, there are some of 182
those standing here who will not taste death, till they have seen
the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28 and
parallel passages in the Synoptics).
The meaning of these words seems to be: the Son of Man will
one day come to judge the whole world. Do not wonder that I say
this of Myself: there are some of those who are standing here who
will not die before they have seen a manifestation of My royal
power so dazzling that they will have no further doubts about My
power as a judge.
There is some dispute which manifestation Christ had in mind.
Some explain it as referring to the Transfiguration, which all the
Synoptics go on immediately to describe, and which was in fact
a sort of anticipated parousia. But the Transfiguration took place
six days later, and the words “there are some” seem to imply a
longer interval. Others think that it refers to our Lord’s Ascension,
when the Son of Man came into His kingdom,7 or to the pouring
forth of the Holy Spirit with the ensuing miracles, by means of
which the kingdom of Christ was manifested in glory. Still, many
refer the words to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was a fright­
ful judgment leveled by Christ, now reigning in heaven, against
a sinful nation, and at the same time, a sort of confirmation of the
Messianic kingdom which He had previously established. Only a
few of Christ’s hearers were to survive until this manifestation of
divine power: “There are some”
e. The fifth objection is based on the following passages: Here- 183
after you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the
Power and coming upon the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26:64);
And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the
Power and coming with the clouds of heaven (Mark 14:62); But
henceforth, the Son of Man will be seated on the right hand of the
power of God (Luke 22:69). After comparing these parallel pas­
sages, it seems more likely that the words of our Lord before the
high priest do not refer to the parousia. To see the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of
heaven are metaphorical expressions taken from the Old Testa­
ment,8 the meaning of which is to see or to have visible proof that

( 293 )

THE

TRUE RELIGION

the Son of Man has taken possession of His kingdom. Christ then
said in effect: You have said it yourself; I am the true Messias, in a
lowly state at present. But before long you will know (through My
resurrection and ascension, the descent of the Holy Spirit, the
miracles of the Apostles, etc.) that 1 have received My kingdom
from the hands of God, that through My efforts the kingdom nf
God promised by the prophets has been inaugurated.
184
3. The above remarks about the preconceived notions and the
imperfect knowledge of chronology among the first Christians may
have prepared a clear path to a fuller solution of various difficulties.
It is evident, from what has already been said, that the
opponents bring forward many sayings of Christ which seem to be
eschatological, but which in fact have nothing to do with the
parousia. The source for the eschatological flavor of those sayings
can be discovered. An examination of parallel passages shows that
the Evangelists, in general, did not always record our Lord’s state­
ments in His exact words, but in their own words or words taken
from the oral catechesis or written sources. May not the apparent
eschatological meaning apparently given by some statements
because of their wording or context be explained partly from the
fact that the day of each man’s death is for him equivalent to the
day of the general judgment, the parousia,9 and partly from the
faulty understanding of the men who edited the material used by
the Evangelists? If those editors were not certain of what precise
events our Lord’s predictions referred to, may one not suspect that
this lack of clear understanding on their part exerted some influ­
ence on the way in which they arranged our Lord’s statements?
Furthermore, every Christian knows for certain that the remarks
of our Lord in the Gospels referred to by the adversaries do not
actually say: “The end of the world is near.” Yet, at first glance
they do seem to have this meaning. What is the source of this
impression? It may be:
a. Christ Himself. In this case one must suppose with Maldonatus that Christ purposely spoke in a confused and vague way
“lest anyone should learn the time of the end of the world,” or,
more probably, lest anyone should learn how far away the parousia
was.
b. The Evangelists. If this is true, another question remains
unanswered, namely, why did they choose to be so obscure?
c. Editorial tradition, to which we must perhaps assign the
situation and arrangement of the different statements of our Lord
as they stand in the Gospels.
( 294 )

appendix ii.

Christ’s teaching on

the parousia

d. Our own understanding. Certainly prophetic style is always
somewhat obscure,10 and the texts of the Old Testament are not so
clear as they were to the first Christians, especially those converted
from Judaism, nor do present hearers have the advantage of the
explanations and oral instructions which the Apostles gave them."
4. The objections drawn from the writings of the Apostles, 185
especially those of St. Paul, may be answered as follows: 12
a. Texts expressly concerned with the parousia. Numerous texts
of this nature are found in the writings of the Apostles. Of par­
ticular interest are the words of St. Paul in his First Epistle to the
Thessalonians 5:1-6, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2:1-9,
and the Second Epistle of Peter 3:8-14.
In these instances the Apostles clearly teach that the time of
the parousia has not been revealed, that the judgment will take
place without warning at a date unknown to us: the day of the
Lord is to come as a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:2; see
2 Peter 3:10; Acts 1:7-8).
The Apostles, following Christ, teach that no one knows the
date of the parousia, and so with Christ they urge watchfulness:
Therefore, let us not sleep . . . but let us be wakeful and sober
(1 Thessalonians 5:6).13
Again, the Apostles were not of the opinion that the parousia
was near at hand. For they knew that their ministry was to continue
even to the consummation of the world (Matthew 28:20), when­
ever that should be, and consequently they took care to select not
only co-workers but also successors. They knew, too, that the
Gospel was to be preached to the whole world; 14 they knew,
finally, that various signs had to be verified before the Lord would
come: We beseech you . . . not to be .. . terrified ... as though the
day of the Lord were near at hand. Let no one deceive you in any
way, for . . . unless the apostasy comes first ... (2 Thessalonians
2:lff).
As a matter of fact, the Apostles very often intimate that the
parousia is quite distant: Do not be ignorant of this one thing, that
one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years
as one day. The Lord does not delay in his promises, but for your
sake is long-suffering (2 Peter 3:8-9).
b. In addition, many other texts are pointed out by our adver- ] 86
saries in which the Apostles speak or seem to speak of the parousia,
not expressly, but in passing. Judging from these passages it would
seem quite clear, according to the rationalists, that the Apostles
believed that the day of judgment was soon to dawn.

THE TRUE RELIGION

However, note the words “seem to speak,’’ for in very many
instances they do not consider even in passing the parousia, but
are concerned with the particular judgment or the final period of
the world’s existence.15 When the Apostles urge watchfulness, har­
mony, patience, when they exhort their readers to cast off the
works of darkness and to put on the weapons of light, when they
ask their readers to live perfect lives because the night is far
advanced; the day is at hand (Romans 13:12), The Lord is near
(Philippians 4:5), etc., they refer not so much to the nearness of
the Lord’s coming at the end of the world, as to the imminence of
the particular judgment of individual men.18 This is evident first
of all from the fact that the Apostles, when speaking of the general
judgment, always refer to the brilliance and majesty of the Judge
coming to judgment.17 It is also evident from those passages in
which the Apostles urge watchfulness, but at the same time state
quite clearly and explicitly that they are doing so because the
Lord’s coming is near at hand for individual men by reason of life’s
shortness.15 That the Apostles were not even thinking of the end
of the world and its destruction can be deduced from the fact
that they repeatedly speak not of the ruin, but of the universal
restoration of the world through the Gospel and the grace of
Jesus Christ.18
Yet, other texts are pointed to in which the Apostles seem to
speak of the parousia as close at hand, as when they say that they
are living in the last days (Acts 2:17), that it is the last hour
(1 John 2:18), that the final age of the world has come (1 Corin­
thians 10:11), and then go on to enumerate the signs appearing
at that awful time.20
But in the light of the manner of expression peculiar to Sacred
Scripture,21 such phrases are to be taken as referring to the final
period of the world’s existence, stretching from the day of the
Messias to the second coming of the Lord to judge the world. The
Apostles used terms not unlike those employed by the Old Testa­
ment prophets, who used the same words to announce that the
Messianic era was coming.22
In addition to the passages quoted, there remain some texts in
the Apostolic writings, especially in Paul’s Epistles, in which the
question of the parousia is actually considered, though just in
passing. Indeed, it must be admitted that in the texts the nearness
of the day of the Lord seems to be implied to some extent,23 but
they need not necessarily be taken as referring to that nearness.

( 296 )

appendix II. CHRIST’S teaching on the parousia

Is it not reasonable to explain difficult passages in the light of
clearer ones? Moreover, had this been the general teaching of
Christ, the Apostles would naturally have taught that the end of
the world was imminent. Otherwise they would have been contra­
dicting themselves and Christ.24 But an explanation harmonizing
the difficult passages with the doctrine set forth above is not
impossible, as the following remarks will show.
c. Rationalists find a special objection in the words of St. Paul 187
in his First Epistle to the Thessalonians: For this we say to you in
the word of the Lord, that we who live, (hêmeis hoi zôntes) who
survive until the coming of the Lord, (hoi perileipomenoi ‘eis tên
parousian tôu Kyriou) shall not precede those who have fallen
asleep (1 Thessalonians 4:15; see verses 12-13 and 15-17).
Does it not follow from these words, say the opponents, that
St. Paul thought he would still be alive when our Lord came to
judge the world? And, holding such an opinion, was he not clearly
in error?
In the light of the explanation given above, the opinion of the
rationalists is a priori extremely improbable, since in this case the
Apostle would have been contradicting himself. In his other Epis­
tles,25 and, to be sure, in this Epistle,28 he frankly admits his
ignorance of the date of the parousia. We have no right to admit
this contradiction as long as a harmonious and reasonable explana­
tion is still possible. And indeed, even though this passage is
variously explained, an explanation which excludes any real con­
tradiction is definitely possible.
It should be remarked at the outset that St. Paul’s view here is
very limited. He is not considering the general question of the
parousia. He is concerned not with all men, but only with Chris­
tians, and not even with all Christians, but only with the just.
Furthermore, his remarks are called forth by a very special difficulty
in one particular church, that of Thessalonica. And the point of
the difficulty in this instance is not precisely either the fact or the
time of the parousia, but merely the rather strange concern of his
correspondents over the question of precedence—will the dead be
at a disadvantage in comparison to the living when the Lord comes
in glory? His answer prescinds from the time element, which does
not enter the picture. And it is quite significant that in all his other
letters he hardly even alludes to the matter of the parousia. If it
were of such vital importance, of such immediate concern, how
explain this silence? Indeed, there are many clear indications, and

( 297 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

not just in his later Epistles, that St. Paul did not expect to survive
until the Lord should come in glory. Much of the difficulty arises
from a failure to study this text, and others also, in the light of
the general context of Pauline teaching and even in the immediate
context of the letter itself.
The more common opinion, advanced long ago by the Fathers,27
holds that the Apostle was using a rhetorical figure known as
enallage, or switch of person, which would amount to this: "We
who are alive, that is, whoever shall be alive, whether it be some
of us or some of those who will come after us, whose personality
I take upon myself that I may speak of them in my own name.”28
Billot29 has developed this explanation more fully and clearly,
deducing from the contrast with those asleep in the Lord (v. 15),
that we who live are those living in the Lord, those who still remain
for the coming of the Lord. And as the pronoun “we” in ordinary
conversation often is used to designate a class of people in which
we wish to include ourselves, so St. Paul, writing to living Chris­
tians, by using the phrase we who live, meant: ours, that is, those
who are on our side, the faithful, those living in the Lord, who
are still on earth when the Lord appears. This finds corroboration
in the appositional phrase who survive, for this verb suggests a
“very small remainder,” and so Paul seems to suggest that the day
of the parousia is still a long way off, since the number of the
faithful who will be alive on that day will be quite insignificant
compared with the number of those dying in Christ.
Furthermore, to insist that St. Paul, by using the expression
we who live, indicated that he expected to be still on earth for
the parousia, would be to attribute to him the absurd expectation
that all of his readers would likewise survive. For they, too, would
be included in the we who. One can use the same argument as that
advanced by the rationalists and prove that St. Paul expected not
to be alive for the parousia. In First Corinthians he writes: Now
God has raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by his power
(6:14).
Some feel that in view of the two participles in Greek (zôntes,
perileipomenoi') the sense of the phrase is conditional, namely,
“if he and his contemporaries should still be living.” 30
Others 31 think that St. Paul is expressing an opinion held by
the Thessalonians, and that he is using an argumentum ad hom­
inem. According to this opinion, a double error had crept into the
thinking of the Thessalonians; first, that those who had died would
( 298 )

appendix II. CHRIST’S teaching on the parousia

be at a disadvantage compared with the living at the time of the
parousia, and second that the parousia was very imminent. They
would have expressed their first error as follows: "we who live,
who survive until the coming of the Lord, shall precede those who
have fallen asleep.” With these same words St. Paul refutes this
first error by saying that we who live . . . shall not precede those
who have fallen asleep.
Others 32 think that the Apostle designates by the words until
the coming (’eis ten parousian) the goal to which those who are
yet alive are destined, aside from the question as to whether those
now living ( himself among them ) would reach that goal or not; "
this we cannot know, since the date of the parousia is unknown
to all.
Whatever the explanation may be, one thing is clear, and that
is that the words do not indicate that the parousia was so near
that St. Paul hoped to be present to witness the glorious second
coming of the Lord.

Special Bibliography for Appendix II
Billot, Louis Cardinal: La parousie (1920).
Schenz, A.: Der Zeitpunkt (1er Wiederkunft Jesu nach den
Sijnoptikern (1922).
Weiss, K.: “Exegetisches zur Irrtumslosigkeit und Eschatologie
Jesu Christi,” NtAb (1906), 4ff.
The following publications also contain articles of importance
for this subject:
CCHS 670a ff; 715a ff;
Etudes (1917-1918);
RBibl XII (1915), 393; LV (1948), 481-502, LVI (1949),
61-92; 340-364; LVII (1950), 43-62; 180-211;
RPA XI (1911), 176; 27 (1918), 801; 28 (1919), 5, 161;
ThGl (121), pp. 257, 321; (1922), p. 1.
Notes
1. See Romans 13:11; 1 Corinthians 7:29-31; 10:11; 1 Thessalonians
4.15-17; Hebrews 10:37; 1 Peter 4:5-7; James 5:3-9; 1 John 2:18; etc.
2. It is clear from the fact that the Son is contrasted to the Father that
the statement is to be understood of the Son insofar as He is a man. In any
respect, it makes no difference in the present discussion whether Christ as
man was at that time really ignorant about the date of the judgment or
whether He really did know it, but with a knowledge which He could not
divulge, for some reason or other.

( 299 )

THE TRUE

RELIGION

3. See Matthew 24:4-14; 10:16ff; Mark 13:5-13; Luke 21:8-19.
4. See Knabenbaner, In Matthaeum, II, 353; Le Hir, "Les prophetes
d'Israel,” in Etudes bibliques, v. 1 (1869), p. 81; Billot, La parousie, pp. 15ff.
Note that St. Luke clearly indicates the chronological sequence. Verses 10-23
have to do with the ruin of the temple and the city; verse 24 with the time
between the end of the city and that of the world; and verses 25-31 with the
parousia. Billot, op. cit., pp. 72ff, is excellent for this passage.
5. Batiffol states: "We prefer to think that editorial tradition created
the confusion by gathering into one single discourse all the statements of Jesus
concerning the future.” (L’enseignement de Jésus, p. 257). Be careful not to
confuse the "editorial tradition” with the Evangelists themselves. For the
Evangelists, according to a critical hypothesis which is at least probable, often
made use of source material in which the primitive tradition had gathered
together different sermons or remarks of Christ. The result would be that the
sequence of grouping our Lord’s statements such as we find it in the Gospels
today is not always the work of the Evangelists themselves.
6. This method is characteristic of all the prophets. See, for instance,
Isaias 7:13-16, 9:6; Malachias 4:5; Matthew 11:14, 17:12; Psalm 7:1. See
also Billot, op. cit., pp. 61ff; Le Hir, op. cit., pp. 67ff.
7. See Daniel 7:13-14.
8. Psalm 109:1—Sit at my right hand till I make (see Matthew 22:43);
Daniel 7:13-14—1 beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like
the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the
Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power,
and glory, and kingdom.
Lagrange states:
The Sanhedrin was by no means made up of apocalyptics, and when Jesus
made reference in its presence to the symbol of the Son of Man, all those
who interpreted Daniel according to the spirit of his text would have
understood it as referring simply to the establishment of the kingdom of
God, not to a dazzling vision after the fashion of a catastrophe (RBibl,
(1904), p. 508).
9. Why then does Christ say to all [Mark 13:37] what applies only to
those who will then be living, if it is not because it does not apply to all
in the manner I have explained? For that day [of the Lord’s coming] will
come for each one when the day comes for him to pass away in the condi­
tion in which he is to be judged on that day (St. Augustine, Epistola
199 ad Hesych., no. 3).
See St. Leo the Great, Sermo 19, no. 3.
10. See above nos. 144ff.
11. See 1 Thessalonians 5:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:5.
12. See Billot, op. cit., pp. 192ff; F. Tillmann, Die Wiederkunft Christi
nach den Paulinischen Briefen (1909); Ned. K. St. (1915), p. 241; ZkTh
(1916); p. 167; RBibl (1915), p. 393; Civiltà (1918-1920); RAp, 33 (1921 ),
226, 307.
13. See no. 177. Worthy of note is the response of June 18, 1915, of the
Biblical Commission to Dubium II:
Whether, keeping before one’s eyes the genuine idea of the Apostolic
Office and of St. Paul’s undoubted fidelity to the teaching of the Master;
likewise, the Catholic dogma regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of

( 300 )

appendix ii.

Christ’s teaching on

the parousia

the Scriptures, whereby all that the sacred writer asserts, enunciates, sug­
gests, must be held to be asserted, enunciated, suggested by the Holy
Ghost; also, weighing the text of the Apostle’s Epistles, considered in
themselves, which are before all in harmony with the speech of the Lord
Himself, it is meet to affirm that the Apostle Paul in his writings certainly
said nothing which is not in harmony with that ignorance of the time of
the Parousia which Christ Himself claimed to be men’s portion.
Answer: In the affirmative—See AAS ( 1915), p. 357, translation in RSS, p. 128.
14. See no. 178. When St. Paul remarks here and there that the Gospel
has been preached to the whole world, etc. (Colossians, 1:6, 23; Romans
1:8), he must be understood as meaning relative universality; see Billot,
op. cit., pp. 94ff.
15. In these explanations we are following the opinion of Billot, although
others have different explanations. We are omitting objections taken from the
Apocalypse, because in his opinion there is no question there of the parousia
(except for ch. 20), and consequently it occasions no difficulty.
16. See above, no. 177.
17. See 2 Thessalonians 1:7, 10, 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:15; Titus 2:13;
1 Corinthians 1:7; Colossians 3:4; 1 Peter 4;13ff; Apocalypse 20.
18. See 1 Thessalonians 4:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:12; 1 Timothy 2:1, James
4:13-16; 1 Corinthians 7:25-35; 1 Peter 4; 2 Peter 1:13-15.
19. See Romans 13:1-7; Ephesians 5:1-9; 1 Peter 2:13-23; 3:1-7;
Colossians 3:18-25; James 2:1-17, 5:1-6; 1 John 3:11-24, etc.
20. See Acts 2:16-21 (along with Joel 2:28-32); 1 John 2:18-19.
21. See Isaias 2:2; Jeremias 48:47, 49:39. This sort of interpretation
turns up in rabbinic exegesis too, and in the writings of the Fathers, such as
St. Augustine. See his De genesi contra Manichaeos, bk. 1, ch. 23; In Joan.
Evang., bk. 9, no. 6, etc.
It must be said that no definite chronological information can be gathered
from expressions like "it is the last hour” or other similar expressions which
we read in Scripture. For expressions of this sort are used to signify not
some short hour of time, but rather the final condition of the world, which
is, as it were, in the last era. It is like the term "old age,” which indicates
the final age of a man, but does not signify precisely any definite length
of time (St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 88, a. 3, ad 3).
22. See no. 162, 2.
23. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:12-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52;
2 Corinthians 5:3.
24. That the Apostles as hagiographers taught error in religious matters
( or any other matters ) is excluded by the Catholic principle of the inspiration
and consequent inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Nor “is it permitted to the
Catholic exegete to assert that the Apostles, although under the inspiration
of the Holy Ghost, teach no error, nevertheless express their own human
views, into which error or deception can enter,” according to the response of
the Biblical Commission to Dubium I. See AAS (1915), translation in RSS,
p. 127.
Holzmeister, in ZkTh (1916), p. 170, makes a distinction and thinks that
St. Paul did not expect the parousia as certainly imminent, but that he con­
sidered it possible, even probable. Indeed, according to the teaching of Christ,
the time of the parousia was unknown, and so it is always possible that it is

(301)

THE TRUE

RELIGION

at hand. This possibility developed into probability and finally into hope as
the result of indications then present and prevelant. In this case St. Paul did
not form an erroneous opinion, but only a judgment of probability.
Although this view does not seem to conflict with the response of the
Biblical Commission, still we cannot take a favorable view of it. Do not Christ
and the Apostles imply that the end of the world is not imminent (see nos.
178 and 185)? Furthermore, it is hard to imagine that St. Paul, in preaching
Christ’s doctrine of the parousia, played the philosopher, making a distinction
between an “opinion” and a “judgment of probability,” and that his hearers
and first readers understood this distinction.
25. See 2 Corinthians 1:8-9, 4:11-12, 16, 5:2, 8-9; 1 Thessalonians
2:1-9.
26. See no. 185.
27. St. John Chrysostom, In Ep. 1 ad Thess. 4, Hom. 8, no. 2; In I Cor.
Hom. 42, no. 2; St. Augustine, The City of God, bk. 20, c. 20; St. Thomas,
In omnes divi Pauli epistolas commentarium, Leonine Edition (1858).
The Biblical Commission weighs this patristic opinion and answers thus
to Dubium III:
Whether, attention being paid to the Greek phrase, hémeis hoi zôntes,
hoi perileipomenoi, also the explanation of the Fathers being weighed,
especially that of St. John Chrysostom, who was highly versed both in
his country’s language and in the Pauline Epistles, it is lawful to reject
as far-fetched and destitute of solid foundation, the interpretation tradi­
tional in the Catholic schools—also retained by the reformers of the six­
teenth century themselves—which explains the words of St. Paul without
in any wise implying the affirmation of a Parousia so imminent that the
Apostle added himself and his readers to those of the faithful who should
survive to meet Christ. Answer: In the negative (See AAS (1915), p. 357,
translation in RSS, p. 128).
28. Thus Cornelius a Lapide on this passage.
29. Billot’s La parousie, pp. 253-262.
30. Holzmeister, ZkTh (1917), pp. 167-182.
31. Comely, Introductio specialis in Novum Testamentum, 2nd ed.,
pp. 413ff; F. Prat, The Theology of St. Paul, volume II.
32. P. Konstantin Rôsch, TuG (1911), p. 492, and Munster Pastoralblatt
(1918), p. 18; see Tillmann, op. cit., p. 55.
33. The preposition eis rarely signifies time, but quite often purpose; see
Mark 6:8; Luke 9:13, 5:4; Matthew 8:34; 25:1, John 12:13; 1 Corinthians
16:1; Ephesians 3:2; Jude 6.
We speak in the same manner: “When a colonel reports, Of the assault
troops assigned there are still a thousand men left for the coming battle,’ he
affirms only that these thousand can be taken into account for the coming
battle, not that they are actually used therein.” See TuG (1918), p. 449.

( 302 )

Scriptural Index

1 Paralipomenon

Genesis
3:15
9:26-27
22:18
29:18,28 276,
41
49:1, 8, 10
49:8-10
49:8-12
274,

253
254
254
η. 41
89
260
254
η. 15

28:4

Isaias
260

2 Paralipomenon
261
262
262

11:13-17
36:20-23
36:22

1 Esdras
7; 9:9

264,n.42

Exodus
7:8-12
8:16-19
12:48
19:16

99
99
282
266

Leviticus
25:8

276, η. 41

Numbers
1:26-27
10:14
11:25-26
22-24
24:17

261
261
99
96
254

Deuteronomy
5:23
7:6
13:1-3
18:15

267
282
99
257

Josue
18:1

274, n. 16

Judges
1:1-2
20:18

261
261

2 Kings
7:12-13
7:12-16

254
260,261

2 Esdras
276, n.43
101

2:1-8
6:12ff

Psalms
2:1-4
270
2:6-8
258
7:1
300
15:9-11
257
15:10
175
21:8—9, 17- 18,
19
256
67:8-9
266
68:22
256
71:4,5
258
71:7
258,289
71:8, 11,17
258
260, 261
88:29-38
88:36-38
254
109:1
293, o. 8
258
109:4
226
117:23

35:4-6
38
40:3
42:1,6
42.2-3
49:6
50:6
52:15
53:4-10
53:7,9,17
53:10-12
54:2-3
54:13
54:17
270,
55:3-4
59:21
61:1
66:19-20
66:21

Jeremias
23.5-6
25:11
25:11-12
29:10
281,
30.18
31:31
31:31-33
257,
31:32-33
48:47
296. n
49:39
296, n. 21

Daniel

Isaias
2:2
7:13-16
7:14
9:1-2
9:6
11:1-2
11:9

296, □. 21
300
255
255
300
254
113,289 J

( 303 )

2:44
4
5
7:13-14
9:2
9:24-27

270
89
88,89
270, 293, n. 7
261

252, 262, 268

THE TRUE RELIGION

1

Daniel
256, 263
262

9:26
11:22

Joel
2:28
2:28-32

269
296, n. 20

Jonas
3:4

101

Michcas
4:2
4:1-2
5:2

268
268
255

Aggeus
2:7-10

252, 266

Zacharias
9:9
9:9-10
11:12-13
12:3
12:10
13:1
13.2

256
259
256
270
256,269
269
268

Malachias
268
1:10-11
258, 269
1:11
3:1
252,255,267
300
4:5

1 Machabees
1:12-14
1:30-41
1:57-62
4:46
9:27

263
263
263
250, n. 9
250, n. 9

2 Machabees
3:2
4
5:16

266
263
266

Matthew
l:2ff
1:22

256
100

Matthew
131
2:4
274, n. 24
3:16
255
4:14-16
143, n. 1
5-7
255
5:2
5:17
125, n. 12, 281, 283
144, n. 2
5:25
143, n. 2
5:39
143, n. 2
6:31
289
7:22-23
7:29 125, n. 12,134
302
8:34
83
9:6
288
10:6
10:17-21
292
288, 292
10:23
10:32
235, n. 11
10:32-33
289
10:40
133
11:3
131
11:4-6
132
11:5
255
11:14
300
133
11:27
141
11:29
11:30
142
12:19-20
255
12:22-37
168
12:34
144, n. 2
12:38-40
167-168
12:41
132
12:41—42
168
13:13
168, n. 6
13:16-17
132
13:36-50
289
13:57
132
13:58
161
14:14ff
155
15:28
161
16:5-6
172, n.17
16:15-16
132
16:21
166
16:24-27
289
16:25
235, n. 31
16:28
288, 293
17:5
162, 163
166
17:9

( 304 )

Matthew
17:12
300
17:19
199, n. 23
17:26
151
19:3-31
125, n. 12
20:18-19
148
21
125, n. 12
21:2ff
149
21:12,19
144, n. 2
21:33ff
132
22:43
300, n. 8
23:8-9
144, n.2
23:37, 39
113
24:2,3,5-33
287
24:4-14
300, n. 3
24:14
289
24:15
263
24:24
99
24:30
144, n. 3
24:34
287, 290
292
24:36
289
25
302
25:1
289
26:13
149
26:21,25
256
26:27
26:34,69-74
149
26:63-64
132
168, n. 8
26:63-66
288, 293
26:64
99
26:68
27:4, 19,24 144, n. 6
27:5ff
162
27:9,30,39-43 256
266,
n.
46
27:51
256
27:57-60
167
27:62-64
169, n. 11
27:63
174, n. 24
27:64
187, n. 48
28:2—4
172, n. 16
28:6
180
28:7
173, n. 18
28:9
180
28:9-10
172, 176
28:11-15
173, n. 18
28:12
174
28:15
28:16 173, n. 18, 180
28:17 177, n. 36, 180

SCRIPTURAL INDEX

Matthew

Luke

28:18-20
134, 144, η. 3, 273
28:19-20
289
28:20
183

Mark
2: Iff
83
143, n. 2
3:21
4:20-28
290
6:5
161, 199, n. 23
6:8
302
8:32
167
8:33
146, n. 15
9:12
180
9:32-33
146, n. 15
10:32-34
148
11:2-3
149
11:13, 15
144, n. 2
12:lff
132
13:2
150
13:5-13
300, n. 3
13:10
289
13:22
99
289
13:32
13:33-37
289
166-167
14:27-28
149
14:30
293
14:62
273
15:16
170
15:44-45
171
16:1-8
172, n. 16
16:6
180
16:7
186, n. 42
16:8
173, n. 18
16:9
186, n. 42
16:9-16
16:12-13, 14
173, n. 18
161
16:14
144, n. 3
16:15-16
134
16:16
180
16:18

Luke
2:8
2:14
2:25-26
2:49

162
267
131
146

John

2:51
145, η. 11
4:16-21
132
4:40
155
5:4
302
5:17ff
83
7:llff
157
8:49ff
157
9:13
302
10:16,22
133
10:41
146, n. 15
11:15-18
159
11:16
168, n. 5
13:2-3-26
289
14:26
143, n.2
16:22
174, n. 27
17:6
199, n. 23
18:32-33
148
18:34
177, n. 36
19:41-44 266, n. 47
19:43-44
150,152
19:45
144, n. 2
20:9ff
132
20:20-40
141
21:8-19
300, n. 3
21:24
149,151, 290, 291
21:43
150
22:10-12,13
149
22:69
293
23:27-30 146, n. 15
24:5-6 172, n. 16,17
24:9
172, n. 17
24:11
177
24:13-33 173, n.18
24:19-24 177, n. 33
24:25-27
132, 136, n. 8
24:29
149
24:34
173, n. 18
24:36-43
173, n. 18 178, n. 38
24:36-44 177, n. 34
24:39-44 173, n. 19
24:47
289
24:50-51 173, n.18

John
1:19-36,41,45

( 305 )

131

2:13-17
144, n. 2
2:14-22
167
2:20
277, n. 51
3:2
160
4:18
151
4.25
131
4:26
132
4:34
145, n. 9
4:46ff
157
4:47ff
161
5:19, 22ff
144, n. 3
5:36
151,160
5:4.5-46
281
6
162
6:14
131
7:16,28-29
133
7:31
131
7:37-39
267, n. 57
7:46
134
8:29,46
141
8:42
133
8:50
145, n. 10
8:52ff
132
9:lff
155
9:5ff
162
9:6,35
161
10:17-18
168, n. 7
10:24
131
10:24-38
160
10:25-26
132
10:30
144, n. 3
11
155
11:11-15
151
11:25
162
11:41-43
160
11:49-52
96
11:51
88
12:13
302
12:44-50
133
13:19
152
13:20
133
14:6
144, n. 3
14:30
141
15:5
144, n. 3
16:30
152
18:37
133
19:7
168, n. 8
19:24,28,37
256

THE
TRUE RELIGION
16:16
100
17:18,31,32

John
19.30,33-34
169
19:36
100
19:39ff
169, n. 9
20
177, n. 35
20.2, 15
172, n. 15,177
20:6-7
174, n. 23
20:11-17 19-23
173, n. 18
20:21
133
20:24-29
173, nn. 18, 19
20:25-27 170, n. 12
21:1-23
173, n. 18

Acts
1:3
173
1:4-5, 8
149
1:7-8
289, 295
l:9ff
173, n. 18
1:22
166, n. 1
2
274, n. 24
2:lff
149
2:16-21
296, n. 20
2:22-36
166, n. 1
2:24-31,27
175
2:29
174, n. 27
2:31 174, n. 29, 257
241
176, n. 30, 203
2:42-47
221
3:6
198, n. 4
3:14
144, n. 7
3:15-16
166, n. 1
4:1-22
174, n. 25
4:4
203
4:10-33
166, n. 1
4:32-35
221
5:1-11
96
5:14
203
5:15
198, n. 4
5:38-39
214
6:7
176, n. 30
6:8
198, n. 5
8:4
203
8:6-13
198, n. 5
9:3
187, n. 47
9:40
198, n. 4
10:10ff
88

15

284, n. 5

10:38
14:7
10:40-42

198, n.141
4
182

Acts

(

I J Corinthians
15:44,50
15:51-52
16:1

179, n. 39
296, n. 23
302

2 Corinthians
1:8-9
297, n. 25
3:17
179, n. 39
4:11-12, 16
297, n. 25
5:2, 8-9
297, η. 25
5:3
296, n. 23
5:21
144, n. 7
12:12
83

186, n. 43
198, n. 4
198, n. 4
203

19:12
20:10
21:19-20

Romans
1:8
2:12-15
3:20
6:4
6:9
10:4
10:18
11:25
13:1-7
13:11
13:12

215, n. 5
282
283, n. 2
174, n. 28
181
281
215, n. 5
293
296, n. 19
299
296

Corinthians
1:7
296, n. 17
1:23 186, n. 45,207
1:26
205
6:14
298
7:7
118
7:20-22
217, n. 14
7:25-35
296, n. 18
7:29-31
299
9:1
187, n. 47
10:11
296, 299
11:4-5
99
12ff
192
15
175
15:3
173,174, 179
15:3-4
175
15:3-7
179
15:3-8
171, 178
15:5 173, n. 18,180
15:6-7
173, n. 18
15:8
187, n. 47
15:11,12-16
179
166
15:14
179
15:35—44

( 306 )

Galatians
3:23-24
3:23-28
3:24

281
283
284, n. 5

Ephesians
3:2
5:1-9
6:2-3
6:5

302
296, n. 19
284, n. 4
217, n. 14

Philippians
141
296
271

2:8
4:5
4:7

Colossians
1:6
2:12
2:16, 17
3:4
3:18-25

215, n. 5
174, n.28
284, n. 5
296, n. 17
296, n. 19

1 Thessalonians
294, n. 11
1:5
297, n. 25
2:1-9
4:12-17
296, 297, n. 23
299
4:15-17
295
5:1-6
2

Thessalonians
1:7,10
2:lff
2:5

296, n. 17
295
294, n. 11

SCRIPTURAL INDEX

Hebrews

2 Thessalonians
2.8
g:12

296. n. 17
296. n. 18

1 Timothy
2;1
6:12
6:15

296, n. 18
217, n. 14
296, n. 17

2 Timothy
2:8

255

Titus
2:13
3:10-12

296, n. 17
198, n. 2

Hebrews
1:1
7:12,18
7:14
7:19

272
284, n. 5
254
283, n. 2

8:13
284, n. 5
9:15
267
10:37
299
11:6, 13-16
283
12:26
277, n. 53

James
2:1-17
4:13-16
5:1-6
5:8-9

296, n.19
296,n.18
296, n. 19
299

1 Peter
1:18-19
2:13-23
2:22
3:1-7
4
4:5-7
4:13ff

( 307 )

2 Peter
*
1:13-1
38-16

1 John
2:1
2:18
2:18-19
35
3:11-24

144. n. 7
28»
296, n. 20
144, n. 7
296, n. 19

2 John
1:9-10

144, n.7
296, n. 19
144, n. 7
296, n. 19
296, n. 18
299
296, n.17

296, n. 18
298

198.0.2

Jude
1:6

302

Apocalypse
1:11
20

203
296, n. 17

Index of Authors

A Lapide, 302
Abelard, xxxiii, Ivi, Ivii
Achelis, 6
Adrian of Rotterdam, xxxix
Aegidius Romanus, xxxviii
Aeneas of Gaza, 193
Albert the Great, St., xxii, xxxv
Alcuin, xxxi
Alexander of Hales, xxxv, Ivi
Alfano, 199
Allard, 135, 206, 215, 216, 227, 237,
238
Allo, 125
Alvarez, xl
Ambrose, St., xxix
Amitrano, 199
Ammianus Marcellinus, 150
Anderson, 42
Andreas, xxxvii
Anselm, St., xxiii, xxviii, xxxi ff, Ivi
Antoine, xli
Apollinaris of Laodicea, 275
Aristides, 221
Aristotle, xxxiv
Arnobius of Sicca, 158, 206
Arts, xliv
Athanasius, St., xxix
Athenagoras, 222
Attwater, lii
Atzberger, xliii
Aubert, 55, 102
Augustine, St., xxii, xxiii, xxviii ff, Ivi,
5, 56, 73, 87, 89, 120, 123, 162,
172, 192, 196, 197, 216, 219, 232,
238, 300 ff
Baader, xli
Bachelet, 101
Baierl, 12
Bainvel, Iviii, 2
Baius, 102
Balfour, 21

Banez, xl
Bardenhewer, 163
Bartmann, xlv
Basil, St. xxix
Batiffol, 125, 135, 136, 163, 197, 215,
300
Bauer, B., 129
Bauer, G., xliii
Baur, 199
Baustert, 198
Bautain, 55, 98
Bavinck, 96
Bayer, 275, 276
Becanus, xl
Becker, liv
Bellamy, 123
Bellarmine, St. Robert, xxxix
Benedict XIV, 97, 99
Bensdorp, xliv
Benz, 284
Bernheim, 81
Berti, xli
Bertrin, 198
Beysens, Iviii, 21, 55, 98
Biel, xxxvii
Billot, xlii, 124, 164, 291, 298, 300ff
Billuart, xli
Bittremieux, 47
Blondel, 101, 102
Boissarie, 198
Bonaventure, St., .xxxv, xxxvi, Ivi
Bonetty, 55
Borchert, 30
Bord, xliii
Borgongini-Duca, 276. n. 44
Bosco, xl
Bossuet, 274
Bougard, xliii. 144
Boulenger, xliv
Bréal, 30
Bricout, 198
Briefs, 134

( 309 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

Brochmann, 218
Bros. 98
Brùll, xliv
Brunet, li, Ivi
Bnincteau, 21, 97
Brunsinann, xliii
Buchberger, Iviii
Burg, 274
Burke, lii
Burkitt, 135
Buzy, 164
Caerularius, 193
Caillard, 248
Caird, 6
Cajetan, xxxviii, 42
Calmet, 275
Camm, 237
Cano, xl
Capreolus, xxxviii
Carro de Vaux, 218
Casanova, xliii
Castelein, 198
Cathrein, 7, 124
Cavenne, 199
Cayré, ix, xxx, Iv, Ivi
Cellini, 177, n. 31
Celsus, 181
Cerfaux, 248
Chable, 164
Charcot, 98
Chesterton, ix, 70-71, 84, 103
Child, ix, 20
Chryssipus, 99
Cicero, 5, 15, 91, 99, 100
Clamer, 123
Clement of Alexandria, xxix, 205
Clement of Rome, St., 203, 221
Colet, xxxviii
Comte, 30
Congar, 1, li, liii, Iv
Connell, ix, xxv
Conrad, 237
Contenson, xl
Conway, x, 19
Cooper, 31
Comely, 302
Corrigan, 19
Cotter, xliii

Cottiaux, Ivi
Cros, 198
Cumont, 210
Cyprian, St., 100, 230, 231, 235, 218
Cyril of Alexandria, St., 157
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 197, n. 1
Dahlmann, 210, n. 16, 217
D’Alès, A., xliii, 102
Daniel-Rops, 134
Dausch, 163
D’Azambuja, 227
De Broglie, 2, 217, 248, 251, n. 12
De Brosses, 30
Dechamps, Card., xliii
Dechamps, Dr. A., 199
De Geoffre, xliii
De Ghellinck, xi, xxxi, xxxiv, Iv, Ivi,
Ivii
De Grandmaison, 98, 103, 125, 134
De Groot, xliii, Ivii, 92, 101, 228
De Journel, Rouët, xi
De Lapparent, 19
De Lugo, xl
De Maistre, 219
Deneffe, 125
Denis, 101
Denis of Alexandria, St., 223
Denis the Areopagite, 206
Dennefeld, 274, 275
Dentier, 174, n. 25
Denziger, xli
Denziger-Bannwart-Umberg, xi
De Ripalda, xl
De Rohellec, 42
De Rubeis, xli
De Saint-Projet, xliii
De Smedt, 98
D’Herbigny, lii, 198
Dieckmann, 2, 170, n. 15
Diekamp, xxx, xlv, li, Iv ff
Dieringer, 198, 199
Dionysius the Carthusian, xxxviii
Disteldorf, 170, n. 15
Dobschütz, 227
Dodwell, 236
Doller, 244, n. 5
Donlan, lii
Dorsch, xliii, 2
(310)

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Dory, xlv
Douglas, 158
Drews, 135, 172
Duns Scotus, xxxvi, xxxvii, liii
Duperron, xxxix
Durkeim, 30
Durst, Iviii
Dwight, 19
Dyson, 275
Eck, xxxix
Egger, xlii, 55
Einig, xlv
Ennius, 91
Erasmus, xxxviii, 227
Eschmann, li
Esser, G., xliv
Estius, xl
Eugene IV, xxxvi
Eusebius, 135, 156, 224, 230
Eyre, 31

Feeder, xliii
Felder, 136, 163, 144
Feldman, 273
Felten, 135
Fenton, lii
Ferchat, 227
Ferland, xlvi, li, liv, 42
Feuillet, 292
Fichte, 6
Fillion, 134, 163
Finegan, 217
Fonck, 159
Fonsegrive, 102
Fouard, 134
Fournier, 2, 35, 46
Francis of Vittoria, xl
Francis Sylvester of Ferrara, xxxviii
Franon, 21
Frassen, xli
Frazer, 27, 30
Frederick the Great, 218
Freud, 30
Friedrich, 136
Funk, 135
Furrer, 158, 159
Gagnebet, liii

Galen, 224
Galerius, 232
Galvani, 19
Gardeil, li, 101
Garrigou-Lagrange, lii, Ivii, 2, 35, 42,
46, 47, 97, 99, 102, 103, 118, 164
Gaufridius, 194
Gelasius I, xxix
Gemelli, 198
Gener, xli, Iv
Gibbon, 208
Gilson, Ivii
Goethe, 124
Gondal, 2
Gonet, xl
Gossard, 46
Gotti, xli
Gottsberger, 275
Graber, 134
Grabmann, 1, Iv, Ivii
Granderath, 55, 152
Gregory the Great, St., Iv, 162, 196
Gregory of Nyssa, St., xxix
Gregory of Valencia, xl
Gretser, xxxix
Gspann, 124
Guardini, 134
Guibert, 97
Guitmond, xxxi
Giinter, 199
Giinther, xli
Gutberlet, xlii, xliii, 98, 101, 1.35

Haeckel, 30
Harduin, 275
Hardy, 217
Harmann, 284
Harnack, 74, 124, 125, 135, 136, 163.
171, 178, 181, 214, 215, 217, 237
Hase, 158, 167, n. 2, 168
Haskins, li, Ivi
Heenan, 134
Hegel, 6, 124
Heigl, 125
Heiner, 24
Heinisch, 215
Heinrich, xlii, 145
Hennemann, 146
Hennes, xli, Iviii

(311)

THE THUE RELIGION

Julian the Apostate, 255, 237
Julius Hilarionus, 275
Jung, 134
Justin, St., 156, 163, 198, 204, 217,
221
Justinian I, 193

Herrmann, xlv, 2, 6
Herve, xlv
Hesychius, 275
Hettinger, F., xliii, 135, 144, 152
Hettinger-Muller, 227
Hilarj’, St., xxix, 213
Hincmar of Rheims, xxxi
Hoberg, 248, 274
Hoffmann, A., xlvi
Hoffman, Μ. H., 80
Holtzclau, xli
Holtzmann, 143, 159, 163, 170
Holzhey, 276
Holzmeister, 301, 302
Hontheim, xlv, 275
Horace, 53
Hove, 103
Howitt, ix
Huby, 164, 218
Hiiffer, 198
Hugh of St. Victor, xxxiii
Hugon, xlv
Huguney, xlv
Hume, 76
Hurter, xlii, 1, 135, 198, 238
Huxley, T., 7

Kamphausen, 275
Kant, 6, 7, 19, 95
Katschthaler, xlv
Kempf, 237
Kettenmeyer, 98
Keulers, 134, 244, n. 14
Kilber, xli
Kissane, vi, ix, 258
Klee, xli
Kleutgen, xli, Iv
Klug, xlv
Knabenbauer, 153, 275, 300
Kneib, xliv, 143
Kneller, 19, 97, 135
Knox, 103
Koch, xliv
Koppers, x, 2, 30, 31
Kreling, lii
Kuhn, 30

Ignatius of Antioch, St., 197, 198, 203,
217
Irenaeus, St., 192, 198, 204, 2-35, 251,
n. 12
Isenkrahe, 199
Isidore of Seville, St., Iv
Jacobi, 6
Jacquier-Bourchany, 163, 170, n. 15
Janssens, xlv
Jerome, St., 231, 260, 276
John Chrysostom, St., 238, 302
John Damascene, St., xxviii, xxx, xxxi
John XXII, xxxv
John of St. Thomas, xl
John the Scot, xxxi, xxxii, Ivi
Josephus, 127,130, 135, 150, 152, 156,
250, n. 9
Jouffroy, 123
Joumet, lii
Jovino, 168, n. 4
Juénin, xli

Laberthonnière, 101
Laboulaye, 124
Lactantius, 5, 205, 232, 233
Ladeuze, 170, n. 15, 186, n. 41-42
Laënnec, 19
Lagrange, 19, 125, 250, n. 11, 274,
275, 300
Lammens, 218
Landgraf, li
Lanfranc, xxxi
Lang, 28
Langhorst, Iviii
Laquer, 135
Lattey, 103
Lazzarato, 276
LeBachelet, Ivii
LeBec, 170, n. 14, 199
LeBlant, 237
LeCamus, 177, n. 31
Lebreton, liv, 134
Leclercq, 237
LeHir, 248, 251, n. 13, 300

(312)

INDEX

Leo the Great, St., xxix
Leo XIII, 14, 17. 53, 239
Lepin, 136
Lercher, xlii
Leroy, 31
I^Roy. 47, 170
Lesètre, 99
Lessius, xl
Lewis, 103
Liebermann, xli, 163, 218
Lightfoot, 168, n. 4
Linacre, 19
Linck, 135
Lingens, 124
Livinhac, 237
Lohman, A., 227
Lohmann, H., 170, n. 15
Loisy, 170, 171, 174
Lombard, Peter, xxx, xxxiv,
xxxvii, xl, Ivi
Lott in, li
Lott ini, xlii
Louwerens, 99
Lowie, 2, 31
Lubbock, 30
Lucian, 227
Luther, 30, 226

Maas, 217
Macauley, 218
Madgett, x, 2, 80
Maisonneuve, Iviii
Maldonatus, 294
Manchen-Helfen, 31
Mandonnet, Ivii
Mangenot, 186, n. 41
Mannens, xlii, 46
Manson, 103
Manzoni, xlii
Marcellinus, 193
Marchand, 198
Marcus Aurelius, 230
Marett, 30
Maritain, xix, 42
Martin, li, Ivii
Marx, 21
Mattiussi, 97
Mausbach, xliv
Maximinus Daza, 205

OF

AUTHORS

Mayer, xlii
Mayron, xxxvii
Mazzella, xlii, 101
McLinnan, 30
Meffert, 134
Meignan, 275
Meinertz, 215
Melanchthon, 227
Mendel, 19
Menge, 124
Mersch, lii
Messenger, ix, 2, 4, 7, 27, 29, 31, 103
Meyenber, 134
Meyer, 170
Michel, 103
Michelitsch, xliv
Migne, xi
Minges, xlii
xxxv, Minucius Felix, 100, 238
Miller, 134
Mohan, 7, 21
Molina, xl
Mommsen, 237
Morawski, xlv
More, St. Thomas, 238
Morin, xli
Moses Maimonides, 267
Muck, 214
Müller, 14, 19, 30
Muser, 170, n. 15
Muth, 123

Neguerulea, xliv
Neubauer, xli
Newman, 103
Newton, 95
Nicholas of Cusa, xxxviii
Nicholas of Lyra, xxxviii
Nicholau, lii, 2, 46, 102
Nietzsche, 21
Noggler, xlv
Nostitz-Rieneck, 85
Odenwald, 98
Oldra, 134
Ollé-Lapnine, 102
Oppenraay, xlv
Origen, xxix, 157, 186. n. 41, 46, 217,
99.3

(313)

THE TRUE

Otten, xlv
Ottiger, xliv, liv, 2, 55, 101, 123, 159,
167, n. 3, 227, 238

Pacian, St., 197
Pallavicini. 237
Palmer, lii
Palmieri, xlii
Papias, 163
Paquet, xlv
Paré, li, Ivi
Parente, xlvi, lii, liii, 2
Paschasius Radbert, xxxi
Pasteur, 19
Paulinus, 192
Paulsen, 6, 18, 97, 217
Paulus, 129, 158, 168
Pegues, 47
Penido, 42
Périer, 97
Perrone, xli
Pesch, xliii, li, 99, 101, 274
Peschel, 14
Petavius, xl
Peter of Alliaco, xxxvii
Peter of Aquila, xxxvii
Peter Canisius, St., xxxix
Peter of Ledesma, xl
Peter of Poitiers, xxxiv
Peter of Rotterdam, xxxix
Pfleiderer, 6, 140
Phelan, 42
Philip Sidetes, 163
Phillips, 98, 102, 103
Pierson, A., 145
Pierson, R., 213
Pighius of Campia, xxxix
Pinard de Boullaye, 31
Piolanti, xlvi
Pimgrüber, 125, n. 16
Pius V, St., 102
Pius IX, 24
Pius X, St., xxvii, 1, Iv, 102
Pius XII, ix, xxvii, 19
Platel, xli
Plato, 53
Pliny, 127, 131, 135, 204, 224
Plumpe, lii
Pohl, 2

RELIGION

Pohlct, xlv
Polycarp, 197, 198
I’orphyrius, 216
Poulipiquet, 102, 103, 95, 96
Prat, 30, 134, 170. n. 14, 177 n
179, n. 39, 302
'
Preuschcn, 163
Procopius of Caesarea, 193
Pusey, 19

’

Quadratus, 156
Quasten, lii, Iv, 163

Rabeau, lii
Rademacher, xlvi
Ratram, xxxi
Raybould, x
Reginald of Piperno, xxxvi
Reim, 170
Reimarus, 129
Reinach, 7, 30
Reinhold, xliv, 101
Reinke, 248
Renan, 74, 97, 98, 125, 139, 144, 158,
169, n. 10, 173, n. 20, 177, n. 32
Renouvier, 97
Réville, 170, 174, n. 25
Ricciotti, 129, 134, 136, 170, n. 14,
177, n. 31, 266
Richard of St. Victor, 182
Ridderbos, 30
Ritschl, 6
Rivière, 215
Robert of Melun, xxxiii, Ivi, Ivii
Robert Pulleyn, xxxiii
Robertson Smith, 30
Rohr, 125
Roland, xxxiv
Rolfes, xlv
Rosch, 302
Rose, 170, n. 15, 178, n. 37
Ross, x, 2, 30
Roure, 19
Rousseau, 21, 146
Roussel, 217
Royer, 199
Ruinart, 236
Sabatier, 19

(314)

INDEX OF

Salaverri, lii, 2, 46, 102
Salotti, 237
Salvador, 168
Sanda, xlvi
Sanderens, xliii
Sanders, 134
Sawicki, xlv, 124
Saydon, 274, 275
Schanz, xliv, Iviii, 6, 14, 101, 135, 227
Scheeben, ix, xliii, xlvi, li ff
Schiffini, 2
Schill, xliv
Schleiermacher, 6
Schmid, 152
Schmidt, 2, 27, 28, 30, 31, 107, 123
Schopenhauer, 6, 46
Schulte, 248
Schultes, lii
Schuster-Selbst, 274
Schwartz, 30
Schweitzer, 129, 170
Secchi, 19
Sepp, 277
Serol, 19
Serquieff (Jean de Cronstadt), 99
Sheppard, 7
Sheedy, Ivi
Sichirollo, 102
Silva, 199
Silvius, xl
Simpson, ix, 20, 21
Sixtus V, Iv
Sloet, xlv
Smising, xl
Smit, 159
Smith, lii
Smyth, 274
Socrates, 150
Sortais, 103
Soto, xl
Souben, 124
Sozomenus, 237
Specht, xliii
Spencer, 6, 30
Spillman, 237
Spinoza, 124
Spitta, 214
Staerck, 99
Stab'n, 21

AUTHORS

Stapleton, xxxix
Staudenmaier, xli
Steffes, Iviii
Steinman, 227
Stensen, 19
Stokl, xliv, 124
Straubinger, xliv, li
Strauss, 7, 47, 97, 129
Stummer, xliv
Suarez, xl, 100
Suermondt, Ivii
Suetonius, 127, 131, 135, 13β
Sully-Prudhomme, 215
Sulpicius Severus, 230
Szydelski, xliv

Tacitus, 127, 130, 135, 150, 203, 210,
230
Tanquerey, xliii, li, liv, 118, 227
Tapper, xxxix
Taylor, 30
Tepe, xliii
Tertullian, 150, 103, 174, n. 23, 198,
204, 210ff, 223, 233
Tessen-Weisierski, 103
Thackeray, 135, 152
Thils, xix
Thomas Aquinas, St., v, xi, xix, xx,
xxiv, xxvi, xxx, xxxiv ff, xl, li, liii.
Iv, Ivi, 0, 7, 13, 14, 16, 20, 35, 41.
45, 47, 50, 64ff, 73, 96, 97. 98, 99,
100, 101, 102, 113, 118, 247, 282ff,
301, 302
Thomas of Charmes, xli
Thomassin, xli
Thompson, 134
Thone, 47
Thurston, 98
Tillmann, 300, 302
Tobac, 179, n. 39
Toledo, xl
Tolstoi, 6
Tonquédec, 97, 98, 102, 103
Tosi, 24
Tournely, xli
Touzard, 99, 248
Tremblay, li, Ivi
Tricot, 135
Tromp, S., xliii, 135

(315)

THE THUE RELIGION

Weber, xliv
Wegsehcider, 97, 100
Weiss, B., 158
Weisz, A., xliv
Weisz, J., 143
Wcllhausen, 136
Wendt, 167, n. 2
Werner, li
Whitehead, x, 7, 95
William of Auxerre, xxxiv
William of Ockham, xxxvii
Wilmers, W., xliv, xlv, 135, 164, 167,
n. 2, 198, 218, 284
Windle, 2, 19
Wisz, 227
Witasse, xli
Wohleb, 135
Wolf, 275
Wolff, 248
Wrede, 136
Wundt, 6, 18
Wylie, 144

Tursellini, 194
Tux, xliv, 163
Twistleton, 198
Vacant-Mangenot, xlvi
Valla, xxxviii
Vandervelt, 98
Van Hoonacker, 276
Van Hoestenberghe, 199
Van Kasteren, 170, n. 14, 284
Van Laak, xxiv, lii ff, 2, 46, 47
Van Leeuwen, Iviii
Van Meerveldhoven, 227
Van Noort, v, vi, liv, 101, 125
Van Oppenraay, 227
Van Walenburg, xxxix
Varro, 53
Vasquez, xl, 284
Verhaar, vi
Victor Vitensis, 193, 237
Vesalius, 19
Vigil, 24
Vollert, ix, xlvi, lii, liii
Volz, 244, n. 4
Von Hammerstein, 237
Von Hartmann, 6, 124, 217
Von Hellwald, 227
Von Walter, 217
Vosen, xliv
Walter, 237
Watterott, 163

Yelle, 2, 35, 46

Zaccaria, 236
Zaccherini, xliii, 2
Zacchi, 103
Zapelena, xliii
Zapletal, 274
Zigliari, xliv
Zizzamia, 134

(316)

General Index

preservation of Judaism, 219, n. 23;
on anguish caused martyrs by rela­
tives, 232

A

Abelard, his spur to scholastic the­
ology, xxxiii; use of term "theology,”
Ivi, n. 36; alleged rationalism, Ivii,
n. 38
Aggcus, prophecy of Christ’s coming,
266
Agnosticism, notion of, 11, n.
Allard, Paul, on Christianity’s penetra­
tion of all classes of society, 215,
n. 7; Christians accused of hatred
of human race, 216, n. 9; Roman
view of religious worship and wel­
fare of state, 216, n. 10; on Jewish
abetting of persecutions, 216, n. 11
Analogical knowledge, imperfection
of, 142; brief bibliography on,
142, n.
Anarchists, different behavior from
martyrs in face of death, 234
Animism, 27; 30, n. 6
Anselm, St., father of scholastic the­
ology, xxxii
Apologetics of Immanence, notion, 91;
critique of, 93ff
Apostles, their incredulity regarding
Resurrection, 177; their attitude to­
wards Parousia, 295ff
Apparitions of risen Christ, 172-3; dis­
crepancies in Gospel accounts, 185,
n. 31
Aristides, on moral life of Christians,
222
Arnobius, on Christ’s miracles, 158;
on the conversion of the better edu­
cated to Christianity, 205
Athenagoras, on moral life of Chris­
tians, 222-3
Augustine, St., on usefulness of mir­
acles, 73; on symbolic meaning of
Christ’s miracles, 162; on the title
"Catholic” Church, 197, n. 1; on the

B

Balfour, compares irreligious men to
parasites, 21, n. 14
Batiffol, on the reason for obscurity
in eschatological passages, 300,
n. 5
Bautain, proposition subscribed to by.
98, n. 25
Bayer, on the prophecy of the Seventv
Weeks, 276, n. 38
Benedict XIV, on miracles in false re­
ligions, 99, n. 38
Beauty of Catholic doctrine, 114ff
Bernard, St., his miracles, 193
Bernheim, on limits of psychotherapy
in curing disease, 81; nee Faith­
healing
Biblical Commission, on Isaias and his
prophecies, 250, n. 8; on the Parou­
sia, 300, n. 13; 301, n. 24
Bibliographies, special, on theology,
l-lii; on lives of Christ, 134; on apol­
ogetics and comparative religion.
2; on miracles, 102-3; on Messianic
prophecy, 248; on Parousia, 299
Billot, explanation of Eschatological
Discourse, 291
Blondel, see Apologetics of Immanence
Bodily actions, their place in religious
worship, 16
Body of Christ, not stolen from tomb,
173
Bossuet, on Juda’s ruling power after
the Babylonian captivity. 274. n. 20
Bougaud, on Christ’s holiness, 144.
n. 8
Brockmann. on the reasons for the
spread of Protestantism, 218, n. 20

(317)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Buddhism, popular B. not atheistic,
14, n.; natural explanation for its
expansion, 209, 214; unhealthy ef­
fects on adherents, 217, n. 16

of the end of the world, 287
Christian Era, beginning of, 276, n. 44
Church, the Catholic, name, 191; its
continuation of Christ's mission,
182; constant rejection of heretics,
C
191; approved by physical miracles,
191; its spread in apostolic times,
“Catholic,” why heretics could never
203;
in post-apostolic times, 203;
steal the name; St. Pacian on mean­
its marvelous stability, 21 Iff; see
ing of, 197, η. 1
also under Catholicism
Catholic doctrine, not unworthy of
Cicero, on pagan oracles, 99-100,
God, 112; sublimity of, 112ff;
n. 44
superhuman character of, 118; not
Clement of Alexandria, St., on the
result of evolution from Judaism,
spread of Christianity, 205
120; not a product of Syncretism,
Clement of Rome, St., on St. Paul as
121
a teacher of the whole world, 215,
Catholicism, its miraculous expansion,
n. 5; on the high moral tone of
203; penetration of all classes of
Christian lives, 221-2
society, 205; its miraculous preser­
Comparative religion, confusion caused
vation, 211; its wonderful fruitful­
by mixing scientific and philosophic
ness in field of holiness, 221; out­
problems, 3-4
standing for its martyrs, 230ff; fore­
“Credo ut intelligam,” meaning of
told by the prophets, 268ff. See also
axiom, liv, n. 10
under Church
Criteria of revelation, notion, 59; divi­
Celsus, on Christ's miracles, 157; on
sion
of, 59; schema of, 61; com­
the limited appearances of the risen
pared for relative value, 63; Vatican
Christ, 181
Council and, 64
Ceremonies, usefulness for religion, 16
Cronstadt, John of, miraculous heal­
Charcot, on faith-healing, 98, n. 32;
ings,
99, n. 38
see faith-healing
Cyprian, St., enemies of Christ do not
Chesterton, on rationalist dogma
attack heretics, 235
against miracles, 70-71; on fake
Cyril of Jerusalem, St., on title "Cath­
miracles, 84
olic” Church, 197, n. 1
Child, Gordon, equates religion and
magic, 20, n. 7
Christ, an historical person, 129; His
D
own testimony about Himself,
131—4; not a lunatic or ecstatic,
Daniel, prophecy of the Seventy
138; not a charlatan, 139; His per­
Weeks, 261
fect holiness, 141ff; His prophecies,
Death of Christ, a proven fact, 168;
148ff; His revealing of things hid­
foretold by the prophets, 256
den, 151; historical truth of His
De Broglie, on nature of prophecy,
miracles, 155ff; their philosophical
250, n. 12
truth, 157ff; their relevant truth,
De Maistre, on continued preservation
159; their symbolic meaning, 162;
of schismatic eastern churches, 219,
His predictions of the Resurrection,
n. 22
166; He really died, 168; He really
Denis of Alexandria, St., on moral life
came back to life, 170ff; He and
of the Christians, 223
His work foretold by the prophets,
Dentier, on theft of Christ’s body,
253ff; He had no mistaken notion
185, n. 25

(318)

GENERAL INDEX

Dodwell, on small number of the
martyrs, 236, n. 5
Dogmatic theology, see Theology
E

Economy, patristic division of theol­
ogy, Uli, n. 4
End of the world, see Parousia
Eusebius, on moral life of Christians,
224
Evangelists, their account of the ap­
paritions of the risen Christ, 185,
n. 31
Evolution, as basis for morality, 21,
n. 13
Evolution of Christianity, from Juda­
ism, 120-21
Evolutionary theory of religion, 25ff
Existence of Christ, denied by Bruno
Bauer, 129, n.

G

Galen, on moral life of the Christians,
224
Gaufridius, on St. Bernard's miracles,
194
Gervase and Protase, their miraculous
relics, 192
Gilson, defense of Abelard on the score
of rationalism, Ivii, n. 38
“God speaks,” not to be taken anthropomorphically, 35, n.
Goethe, sublimity of gospel morality,
124, n. 6
Gregory the Great, St., on the sym­
bolic meaning of Christ’s miracles,
162; on why there were more mir­
acles in early days of Church, 196
Gutberlet, description of analogical
knowledge, 42, n.
H

F

Happiness, characteristic of Catholi­
cism, 116
Faith, differs from theology, xxii;
Harnack, miracles always doubtful,
bound up with theology, xxii; some­
74; admits Christ claimed to be
times required of sick before cure
Messias, 136, n. 8; on Christ’s resur­
by Christ, 161
rection,
171; on the spread of Chris­
Faith-healing, 80-81; see Hypnotism,
tianity, 215, n. 6; on the spread of
Psychotherapy
Mithraism, 217, n. 17
Fanatics, martyrs not to be considered
Hatred for Christ, as an argument for
such, 234
Catholicism, 238, n. 32
Felicity, St., on Christ suffering in His
Heinrich, on Christ’s holiness, 145, n.
martyrs, 238, n. 26
12 and 13
Fetishism, notion, 26; not a religion,
Heretic, material, dying for religion
27, n.
of Christ, 238, n. 30
Feuillet, on Eschatological Discourse,
History of theology, patristic era,
292, n.
xxviii-xxx; pre-scholastic era, xxxi,
Fideists, exaggerate need of revela­
scholastic era, xxxii ff; modem era,
tion, 55, η. 1
xxxix ff. brief list of post-Vatican
Fig tree, cursing of, 144 and 144, n. 2
theological authors, xlii ff
Fonsegrive, preference for internal
Holiness, of Catholic doctrine, 113-4;
criteria, 102, n. 54
no double standard of in Catholi­
Francis Xavier, St., his miracles, 194
cism, 118, n.; abundant harvest of
Frazer, Sir J., see Fetishism
in Catholic religion, 221, no natural
Frederick the Great, on reasons for
explanation for this harvest, 226;
the spread of Protestantism, 218,
holiness among heretics and schis­
n. 20
matics, 226
Fundamental theology, see Theology
Furrer, natural explanation of Christ’s Holiness of Christ, 140ff, objections to,
142-3 and 144, n. 2
miracles, 158, n.

(319)

THE TRUE RELIGION

Holtzmann, miracles part and parcel
of Gospel story, 163, n. 6; natural
explanation for miracles, 159, n.; on
the theft of Christ’s body, 170
Humani Generis, on value of scholas­
tic theology, xxvii
Hume, argument against miracles, 76
Huxley, T., definition of religion, 7
Hypnotism, 80-81

Ignatius Martyr, St., his use of title
“Catholic” Church, 197, n. 1; on
spread of Church, 203
Immanence, see Apologetics of
Immanentism, notion, 11, n.
Impossibility, physical and moral, 4950; of proving miracles, 74-76
Indifference in religious matters, abso­
lute, 13ff; relative, 23ff
Irenaeus, St., on Apostles’ detestation
of heresy, 198, n. 2; on the spread
of Christianity, 204; on miracles in
the Church, 192; on martyrs as the
exclusive possession of the Church,
235; on obscureness of prophecy,
251, n. 12

Jacob, prophecy of Juda’s rule, 254;
260
Josephus, testimony about Christ, 130;
dispute over its authenticity, 135,
n. 3; on fall of Jerusalem, 150; on
Messianic hope as factor in Jewish
revolt against Rome, 249, n. 3
Jouffroy, sublimity of Catholic doc­
trine even in catechism, 123, n. 5
Julian the Apostate, on Christ’s mir­
acles, 157; on Christian practice of
virtue, 225; on eagerness of Chris­
tians for martyrdom, 237, n. 24
Justin, St, on Christ’s miracles, 156;
on spread of Christianity, 204; on
moral lives of Christians, 222
K

Kant, his definition of religion, 7, n. 2;

on uselessness of religion in strict
sense, 19, n. 3
Kingdom of the Messias, as foretold
by the prophets, 268ff
Knowledge, analogical, 42, n.; pro­
phetic, 87-9
Koppers, W., nobility of religion of
primitives, 29-30

Laberthonnière, see Apologetics of
Immanence
Laboulaye, sublimity of Christ’s doc­
trine, 124, n. 9
Lactantius, on spread of Christianity,
205; on long drawn-out martyrdom,
231; on martyrs’ superhuman endur­
ance, 233
Lagrange, M-J., on novelty of Christ’s
doctrine, 125, n. 14; on Messianic
prophecies, 250, n. 11; on Matt.
26:64, 300, n. 8
Le Hir, on obscureness of prophecy,
251, n. 13
Leo XIII, on obligation to practice
religion, 14; on obligation of public
worship, 17; on the true religion
and its proofs, 239, n. 33
Le Roy, E., objection to mysteries,
41, n. 12 and 47, n. 12; on theft of
Christ’s body, 170
Lightfoot, on the phrase: “three days
and three nights,” 183, n. 4
Loisy, on the Resurrection, 171
Lourdes, its miracles, 194
Luther, on the unhappy results of the
Reformation, 226
M

Macauley, on the astounding perman­
ence of the Catholic religion, 218,
n. 21
Maimonides, Jews forbidden to calcu­
late date of Messias’ coming, 267
Malachias, prophecy of Christ’s com­
ing, 267
Martyr, definition, 230; great number
of martyrs, 230; their frightful tor-

( 320 )

GENERAL INDEX

Morality, its foundation is religion,
tures, 231; admirable way they bore
17; Rousseau on morality without
them. 232; endurance not capable
God, 21, n. 13; evolution as a basis
of natural explanation, 232; objec­
for, state as norm of, 21, n. 13
tions to this argument, 233; they
Moral Theology, notion of, xxiii; place
were not fanatics, 234
Maximinus Daza, on spread of Chris­
in theology, xxiv; dependence on
dogmatic theology, xxiv
tianity, 205
Mediate revelation, possibility of, 43Mosaic Law, divine, 281; a prepara­
45; suitability, 45-46
tion for Christ, 281; given to Jews
Messianic prophecies, see Prophecies,
only, 282; made up of moral, cere­
Messianic
monial, and judicial precepts, 282,
Messias, Jewish expectation of, 131-2;
backed up by temporal sanctions,
the sort expected by Christ’s con­
282; abrogated not by revocation,
temporaries, 244; Messianic hope
but by fulfillment, 283
based on Old Testament, 244;
Motives of credibility, notion, 59; see
known also to non-Jews, 243
Criteria of revelation
Messias’ functions, in prophetic books,
Muller, Max, no people found without
257; in opinion of Christ’s con­
religion, 14, n.
temporaries, 243
Mysteries, notion, 36; first and second
Meyer, on apparitions of risen Christ,
class, 37; possibility of, 39; objec­
170
tions to, 40-42; usefulness of, 43
Minucius Felix, on argument drawn
Mysteries, pagan, not basis for doc­
from steadfastness of martyrs, 238,
trine of Resurrection, 181
n. 27
N
Miracles, notion, 64; definition, 65;
and instrumental causality, 65-66;
Natural laws, in what sense immu­
division of, 66; relative miracles, 67;
table, 71-72
absolute miracles, 67; purpose of,
Natural religion, notion of, 9; and
68; possibility of, 69ff; fittingness
need for revelation, 49ff; difficulty
of, 73; recognizability of, 74ff; pro­
of knowing natural religion, 51, n.,
bative force of, 83-84; moral mir­
philosophers inadequate teachers of,
acles, 85-86; objections against, 7153
73; 74; 76; 78-80; 84; marks of Naturalists, notion, 34, n.; on revela­
approval of true religion, 191; why
tion, 34
relatively rare now, 196
Nietzsche, "Superman morality,” 21,
Miracles of Christ, historical truth of,
n. 13
Nostitz-Rieneck,
description of moral
155; inseparable from whole Gospel
story, 155; philosophical truth of,
miracles, 85, n.
157; relevant truth of, 159; objec­
O
tions, 161; symbolic meaning, 162
Miracles of God the Father, in favor Object of theology, see Theology
Objections to: revelation, 39; mys­
of Christ, 162
teries, 40-42; miracles, 71-73; 74;
Mithraism, its spread naturally explic­
76; 78-80; 84; prophecies, 89
able, 210
Obligation,
to practice religion, 13;
Modernists, notion of religion, 11-12;
of external religion, 15-16; of pub­
all religions of equal value, 23; on
lic worship, 17
prophecy, 244; on the Parousia, 287
Mohammedanism, spread by natural Oracles, pagan, 87; Cicero’s opinion
of, 99, n. 44
means, 210; 214

(321)

THE TRUE RELICION

Origen, on moral life of Christians,
223
Origin of Christianity, not explainable
by evolution from Judaism, 120-1;
nor by syncretism, 121-3

Parousia, Christ’s attitude, 288ff; solu­
tion of difficulties, 290ff; Feuillet on
Eschatological Discourse, 292, n.;
Apostles' attitude, 295ff
Passion of Christ, in prophetic books,
256
Patristic Era, see Theology
Paulsen, on origin of religion, 18, n. 2;
on miracles, 97, n. 22; on spread of
Christianity, 217, n. 12
Paulus, G., natural explanation of
Christ’s miracles, 158, n.
Peschel, no people found without re­
ligion, 14, n.
Pffeidercr, on Christ’s messianic con­
sciousness, 139-40, n.
Philosophers, failure to reach correct
knowledge of natural religion, 53
Pierson, A., on Christ’s holiness, 145;
on perils besetting Church, 213
Pilate, surprise at Christ’s death, 184,
n. 13; his "Acts,” 156
Pius XII, on value of scholastic theol­
ogy, xxvii; on value of science to
religion, 19-20, n. 7
Pliny the Younger, on spread of Chris­
tianity, 204; on moral life of Chris­
tians, 224
Porphyrius, on the gods’ withdrawing
their favors because of worship of
Christ, 216, n. 10
Positive theology, relationship to spec­
ulative, xxv
Poverty, the kind praised by Church,
117
Pre-scholastic Era, see Theology
Primitive religion — divinely revealed,
281; preparation for and beginning
of Christian religion, 281
Progress, and Catholicism, 116
Progressive religious evolution, rejec­
tion of theory of, 25-30

Prophecies of Christ, about Himself,
148; about His disciples, 148; about
fall of Jerusalem, 149; their philo­
sophical truth, 151; relevance to His
mission, 151
Prophecies, messianic, philosophical
truth of, 244-6; how to understand
them rightly, 246; summary exposi­
tion of, 253ff; the Protoevangelium,
253; predictions of the Messias’
genealogy, 253; of His life, 255; of
His functions, 257; of the time of
His coming, 260; of His kingdom,
268; of His majesty and lowliness,
apparently irreconcilable, 258
Prophecy, notion, 86; definition, 87;
theological exposition of, 87-89;
corporeal, imaginary, intellectual,
87-89; recognizability of, 89; pos­
sibility of, 89
Prophets, different from pagan seers,
245
Protestantism, spread due to natural
causes, 211
Protestants, orthodox, on criteria of
revelation, 96, n. 7
Protoevangelium, 253
Psychotherapy, see Faith-healing and
Hypnotism
Q

Quadratus, on Christ’s miracles, 156
R

Rationalists, notion, 34, n.; on revela­
tion, 34; on Gen. 49:10, 274, n. 16;
on the Parousia, 287; on mysteries,
112
Reim, on apparitions of risen Christ,
170
Religion, notion of, 1 ; definition of, 5;
variety of, 2; queer definitions of,
6, n. 2; subjective and objective,
5-6; natural and supernatural, 9;
objective foundation for, 11; origin
of according to Modernists, 11 ; obli­
gation to practice, 13; foundation
of morality, 17; true and false, 23;
unity of the true religion, 23ff; reli­
gion and science, 19-20, n. 7

( 322 )

GENERAL INDEX

changeability of according to
Renan, on Christ's miracles, 74, 98, n.
Whitehead, 95, n. 3
32; 158, n.; Christ no mere perSimpson, G. G., evolution as basis for
fecter of Judaism, 125, n. 14; on
morality, 21, n. 13
Christ’s messianic complex, 139, n.;
Soldier, quite different from martyr in
on the expulsion of devils, 158, n.;
facing death, 234
on the certainty of Christ's death,
Spread of Christianity, in apostolic
184, n. 10; on the Resurrection, 185,
times, 203; up to IV century, 203;
n. 20; 186, n. 32
throughout all classes of society,
Renouvier, C., on possibility of mir­
205; obstacles in its path, 206; nat­
acles, 97, n. 20
ural means inadequate, 207; a moral
Resurrection, best proof of Christ’s
miracle, 208; objections to this argu­
claims, 166; foretold, 166, as sign of
His divine mission, 167; proof of,
ment, 208
Stability of Catholic religion, 211; ob­
172; attested not by just His friends,
181; not borrowed from pagan mys­
stacles thereto, 211; no sufficient
natural reason for, 213; objections,
tery religions, 181
Revelation, notion, 34; divisions of,
214
35-36; schema of criteria of, 61;
Sublimity of Catholic doctrine, Iliff
possibility of, 34ff; necessity of,
Suetonius, on Christ and Christians,
135, n. 5; on pagan expectation of
49ff; recognizability of, 59ff; prim­
itive, Mosaic, and Christian, 107-8;
Jewish Messias, 249, n. 3
Sully-Prudhomme, on the offensive­
279ff
Reville, on Jews’ theft of Christ's
ness of Catholicism, 215, n. 8
body, 170
Sybilline Books, 100, n. 44; see Or­
Richard of St. Victor, on adequacy of
acles, pagan
criteria of revelation, 182
Symbolism of Christ’s miracles, 162
Syncretism, cannot explain origin of
Ridderbos, on primitive monotheism,
30
Christianity, 120-3
Rousseau, morality without God ridic­
ulous, 21, n. 13; complaint against
mediate revelation, 47, n. 16; on
Tacitus, on Christ, 130; on the ruin of
holiness of Christ, 146, n. 13
Jerusalem, 150; on pagan expecta­
tions of Jewish .Messias, 249, n. 3
S
Talmud, on Christ’s miracles, 156; on
not reckoning the date of the Mes­
Sabatier, A., on religiousness of non­
sianic era, 267
churchgoers, 19, n. 7
Schamanism, see Evolutionary theory Tertullian, on Christ’s miracles, 156;
his mockery of alleged theft of
of religion
Christ’s body, 185, n. 23; on the
Schmidt, VV., defense of primitive
spread of Christianity, 204; on cal­
monotheism, 28-9; on opposition
umnies against Christians, 216, n.
between religion and animism or
10; on heretics not converting
totemism, 27, n.
pagans but perverting Catholics,
Scholastic theology, see Theology
218, n. 19; on blood of martyrs as
Schopenhauer, on revelation, 46, n. 1
seed of Christians, 233
Schweitzer, on apparitions of risen
Theology, notion and definition, xxviiChrist, 170
Science, no obstacle to religion, 19, n.
xxviii; material and forma] object of,
7; famous Catholic men of, 19, n. 7;
xix-xx; difference between dogmatic
Pius XII’s tribute to, 19-20, n. 7;
and fundamental, xx-xxii, difference

( 323 )

THE TRUE RELIGION

between theology and faith, xxii;
divisions of theology, xxiii ff;
schematic presentation of entire
field of theology, xxiv-xxv; positive
and speculative, xxv-xxvii; brief his­
tory of, xxviii ff; modem authors of,
xli ff
Thils, G., new definition of secondary
object of theology, xix 00
Thomas, St., on theological method,
xxvi; on nature of miracles, 64; on
division of miracles, 66; on fitting­
ness of miracles, 73; on prophecy,
88-9
Toledoth Jesu, on Christ’s miracles,
156
Tomb, the empty, 173
Totemism, notion of, 27; not a reli­
gion, 27, n.
Traditionalists, see Fideists
Tursellini, Orazio, on miracles of St.
Francis Xavier, 194
Typassa (Tefessed), scene of famous
miracle, 192
U

Uganda, its 32 young martyrs, 231
Unity, of true religion, 23ff. See in­
difference in religious matters

Universality of religion, 14-15
V

Vatican Council, on revelation: possi­
bility of, 38-39; necessity of, 49,
51-2; criteria of, 64; on miracles as
proof of revelation, 69
Victor of Vita, on the miracle of
Tefessed (Typassa), 193
Von Hartmann, Christian morality sel­
fish, 124, n. 7; on unhappy effects
of Buddhism, 217, n. 16
Von Hellwald, on Christianity’s whole­
some influence on ancient world,
227, n. 7
W

Weeks, Seventy, Daniel’s prophecy of,
261
Weiss, B., natural explanation of
Christ’s miracles, 158, n.
Whitehead, definition of religion, 7,
n. 2; on changeability of science,
95, n. 3
Worship, notion, 1; definition, 1; in­
ternal and external, 5; public, 7
Wundt, on nature of religion, 18-19,
n. 2

(324)

A

IN

NOTE

WHICH

ON

THIS

THE TYPE

BOOK

WAS

SET

This book is set in Caledonia, a Linotype face created in

1939 by W. A. Dwiggins, which is by far one of the best
book types created in the last 50 years. It has a simple,

hard-working, feet-on-the-ground quality and can be

classed as a modern type face with excellent color and

good readability. The designer claims Caledonia was

created by putting a little of each of Scotch Roman,

Bulmer, Baskerville and Bodoni together and producing
a lively crisp-like book type. This book was composed
and printed by the Wickersham Printing Company, of

Lancaster, Pa., and bound by Moore and Company of
Baltimore. The typography and design of this book are
by Howard N. King.