3. The Second Harangue
The Second Harangue Pronounced at Poissy, in the presence of the Queen Mother, the King and Queen of Navarre, and other great Princes and Lords of the King's Council, with Gentlemen the Cardinals, Prelates, and Doctors present:
On the twenty-fourth day of the month of September, 1561.
RESPONSIVE TO THE ORATION OF MONSIEUR, the Cardinal of Lorraine.
THE SECOND HARANGUE OF THEODORE BEZA,
pronounced at Poissy on the twenty-fourth day of the month of September, 1561.
*** M ADAM, after having invoked the name of our God, that it may please Him to assist us with a special grace in a matter of such great consequence, and to strip us of all particular opinions and passions, planting in our hearts in their place a right knowledge of His truth, together with a
true desire to set it forth to the honour of His holy name, for the advancement of your greatness, and the repose of all Christendom, and especially of this Kingdom: We will respond briefly to what it recently pleased Monsieur the Cardinal of Lorraine to declare to us concerning only two points of our Confession, which has been presented three times to Your
Majesty: namely, concerning what regards the Church and its authority, and then concerning the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is true that if we had had the good fortune to be able to respond to the chapter while we still had fresh in our memory what we had heard, or better yet, to have in our hands and to consider the aforementioned Harangue, we could have responded more distinctly point by point, and perhaps more pertinently. But, whatever the case may be, we will say what God gives us, so that it may be understood wherein we can already be in agreement, and likewise the points that are still in difference, for which we beseech our God that, according to His great mercies, it may please Him to grant us accord.
Thus, therefore, as to the first point concerning the Church, we will treat three points. The first is what the Church is; the second, what are its marks; the third, what is its authority.
Now, it is a thing without difficulty that this name Church, which is Greek, is drawn from another word that signifies as much as to call from one place to another. But we find in Scripture that there are two manners of calling: The one is conjoined with the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, of which it is spoken in chapter 8, verse 28 of the Epistle to the Romans, when it is said that God justifies those whom He has called. The other, although it is outwardly the same as the first, is nevertheless of no value as to salvation; not that the fault comes from God, but from men, who will to be deaf, following what is said in the common proverb, There is no worse deaf
person than he who will not hear. And of this calling the Lord spoke when He said that many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). That is why, consequently, this name of Church, which signifies the company of those who are gathered by the voice of God who calls them, must be taken in two senses. For when it is taken generally for all those who make an outward profession of responding to God who calls them, there is no doubt that many hypocrites and reprobates are included therein. And for our part, thanks be to God, we have never spoken or written otherwise, seeing that it is a thing too clearly expressed in Scripture and confirmed by perpetual experience.
But if it is a question of taking this word Church more properly and more strictly (as we must very often do), then we say that it includes only the assembly of the elect and predestined of God. And so that it may be understood that we have not fabricated this manner of speaking, nor still less this doctrine: when it is said that the Church is the body of the Lord
(Ephesians 5:30), bone of His bones, flesh of His flesh—even to the point of attributing to Him the proper name of Christ, by joining the head and the members, as the Apostle does in writing to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians
12:27)—how could the reprobates be included in this number, seeing that they are members of the devil? For it is impossible to be a member of Christ and of the devil at the same time. This Saint Augustine very well noted, namely in Book 2, Chapter 21, against Cresconius.
Of this distinction in the name of Church, the same author made use on Psalm 64, when he says that the Church, which is signified by Jerusalem, began with Abel, and Babylon with Cain. And nevertheless, in the first book on Baptism against the Donatists, Chapter 16, taking the Church in the more general signification, he says that she who begot Abel, Enoch, Noah,
Abraham, and the Prophets also begot Cain, Ishmael, Dathan, and others like them.
For conclusion, therefore, we will take what the same Saint Augustine wrote in the same treatise, Book 7, Chapter 51 (which is also recited in 24.q.1, C. Omnibus consideratis), where it is said that there are two kinds of men with respect to the Church. For (he says) some are members of Christ and of the true Church, and so much of the house of God that they are the house itself; the others are indeed in the house of God, but they are not of it: for they are like the chaff with the wheat until they are separated out.
Now, from this proposition arises a question, namely, whether the Church is invisible, which it seems one must conclude, seeing that God alone can know His elect; joined to the fact that we say we believe in the holy
Church, and what is believed is not seen. But from this, a great inconvenience follows, if one speaks of it thus simply and plainly. For if it is so, to what company shall one join oneself, and what means shall one hold to have salvation, if one does not know the Church to adhere to it, seeing that in the Church alone Jesus Christ deploys His salutary virtue and power?
It is true, Monsieur the Cardinal, if I remember correctly, that you alleged yet another inconvenience, of which we are not at all satisfied: namely, that if the Church were invisible, we would not even recognize our King; which we cannot accept, because Scripture teaches us to recognize our superiors and to obey them in all things (saving the honour we owe to God alone), even if they were unbelievers. But let this be said as if by the way.
I return to my point. We say, therefore, that although the true Church is, as it were, invisible with respect to what we have said, nevertheless, when it is a question of knowing to what company we ought to associate and join
ourselves, we have certain marks: namely, the pure word of God and the sincere administration of the sacraments. These marks are clear and perceptible, such that where they are found, there we ought not to doubt that the true Church of God is present, and we must, according to the rule of charity, hold as faithful all those who make a profession of the pure religion, unless God has revealed their hypocrisy. And of this, Saint Paul gave us a good example when he calls the Corinthians and the Galatians saints and faithful, and attributes to them the name of Church in general, even though there were great faults among them, both in ignorance of doctrine and in their lives. This he also declared elsewhere, saying that all those who hold the foundation do not always build with gold or silver or precious stones, but also with hay and stubble (1 Corinthians 3:12).
Behold, therefore, how we speak of the Church without making it an imaginary and fantastical thing, and without giving occasion, in our opinion, to number us among such fanatics as formerly were the Cathars and Donatists, and in our time still these furious Anabaptists, against whom this matter has so often been debated by those of our side.
I come now, therefore, to the marks and testimonies of the Church, which it is necessary to know well and to note carefully, since outside of it there is no salvation, and there is nothing that Satan our ancient adversary endeavours more to disguise. I have said that it has two certain and infallible marks: namely, the pure preaching of the word of God and the sincere administration of the sacraments. Some add the discipline of the Church and the fruits of the preaching, as indeed every assembly, to maintain itself, must be governed by some superior who is obeyed. But inasmuch as our iniquities are very often the cause that these two marks do not appear, for that reason, we will content ourselves with the first two.
As for the word, that it is a certain mark of the Church appears from the fact that this word is compared to seed, both by Jesus Christ and by Saint
Peter (Matthew 13 and 1 Peter 1:23). For this reason also Saint Paul said that he had begotten the Corinthians in the Lord, namely by the preaching of the word (1 Corinthians 4:15). And for this cause in so many passages it is also called pasture and nourishment, according to what the Lord said: that His sheep hear His voice and not that of the stranger (John 10:4-5).
I add the sacraments, since the Lord did not wish only to teach us by the ears, but also by the eyes and by the other bodily senses; and therefore He willed that the sacraments should be certain and visible testimonies and seals of the union of His children—first with Him, and then also among themselves. That is why it was said under the old Covenant that the uncircumcised should be cut off from among the people of God (Genesis
17:14); and for this cause also it was necessary that all the heads of families appear at least three times a year in Jerusalem to testify by the same sacrifices their unity of faith and religion (Exodus 34).
And afterwards, when the wall of separation between the two was broken down, the Gentiles and the Israelites were reduced to one body, not only by preaching, but also by Baptism and by the holy sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. And following this, Jesus Christ said to the Apostles:
'Go, teach all nations' (behold the word); 'baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' (behold the sacraments)
(Matthew 28:19). For with Baptism we must join what Saint Paul says he also delivered concerning the Supper, after having received it from the Lord
(1 Corinthians 11:23).
It is also what he says in another passage: that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles (Ephesians 2:20), that is to say
upon Jesus Christ, who is the substance of the Prophetic and Apostolic doctrine (1 Corinthians 3:11). Thus must one understand another passage of the same Apostle, in which he says that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15)—that is to say, that the word of God, which is the truth (as it is written in Saint John), sustains and supports the Church, following the exposition of Saint John Chrysostom; or else because it is placed in the Church as in a firm and eminent place, inasmuch as God shows His power in it to every believer, as Saint Paul declares to the Romans (Romans 1:16). Behold, therefore, the true and visible marks of the Church, for which reason she is called the mother of believers, begotten and nourished in her by the true and incorruptible pasture.
Now, if there is preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, it must also be concluded that there are pastors and doctors to whom this charge is committed, according to what Scripture testifies everywhere, and particularly in what Saint Paul writes to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to Timothy, and to Titus. That is why some add a third mark, namely, ordinary succession from the time of the Apostles. To this, we respond that such succession is greatly to be prized, provided it is well considered and applied—as the ancients often used it as a help against the novelty of heretics, as may be seen in Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Saint
Augustine against the Manicheans and Donatists.
But since it has been made a shield against us, as if we were inventors of new things, it is more than necessary that one understand what we hold concerning it. We say that there is a succession of doctrine and a succession of persons. As to that of doctrine, we acknowledge it as an infallible mark of the true Church, according to what we have said about it. For notwithstanding that the Evangelical doctrine is not in itself more worthy of
belief because of its antiquity, and that it often happens—through our iniquities and by a just vengeance of God—that it seems as new to men as it ought to be familiar and accustomed to them: nevertheless, the testimony of an ancient and continual succession serves greatly among men to authorize it the more.
As to personal succession, we acknowledge it also, but under the condition that it be conjoined with that of the Prophetic and Apostolic doctrine, at least in the substantial and fundamental points, and not otherwise. And note, if you please, Gentlemen, that I speak particularly of doctrine, and not of morals; for although it is required to be entire in doctrine and in life in order to be a good and true Pastor, nevertheless for ignorance, or for diversity of opinion in points of doctrine that are not substantial, and also for morals, we do not cease to tolerate a Pastor as Pastor, provided he retains the foundation. We are taught to speak thus by the saying of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said that insofar as the Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses's seat, one must do what they teach, and not what they do (Matthew 23:2-3).
This passage, Saint Augustine, writing on Saint John, Tractate 46, declares must be understood of mercenaries who do not cease to have sound doctrine, and not of false prophets, of whom Jesus Christ also said the contrary: 'Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees' (Matthew 16:6). Being, says Saint Augustine, seated on Moses's seat, they teach the Law of God, and therefore God teaches through them; but if they wish to teach their own doctrines, listen not nor do what they say. The same author expounds this yet more amply in Sermon 49, De verbis Domini [On the words of the Lord].
Thus, therefore, Gentlemen, to return to the point: because false prophets can succeed the true ones, and wolves the true shepherds—behold a peremptory reason why we regard personal succession not only as not receivable, but also as altogether to be condemned, as giving colour to falsehood, unless the succession of doctrine is added to it as foundation.
Furthermore, if this personal succession were simply held as an infallible mark of the Church, it would be necessary to show us some promise of God by which He had bound His grace to certain sees or regions, which we do not think can be found in the new Covenant. But rather that there will always be a Catholic Church—that is to say, universal—because the particular members of it are scattered here and there throughout the universal world, according as it pleases God to exercise His judgments upon those whom He utterly cuts off, or whom He chastises for a time; and to deploy His mercies upon those whom He sustains from good to better, or whom He calls anew to the knowledge of Himself. For in some places the Lord, using His just vengeance, seems to raze everything, to the point of leaving no trace of the Church: as happened in the land of Barbary, and in most of the Levant; and in other countries He still leaves some trace of the Church, as we see in the Churches of Greece, and still closer to us. On the other hand also, the Lord sometimes only interrupts this personal succession of Pastors, as happened in Antioch in the time of Paul of Samosata, and in Alexandria in the time of the banishment of Athanasius, and in so many other Churches at the time when heresies held sway.
Even without searching further for the present, there was an interruption of personal succession, at least in the time when Honorius I held the see, around the year 623, condemned for the execrable heresy of Eutyches around the year 681. And in the time of Pope John XXII, likewise
condemned as a heretic—unless one wished to say that notorious heretics were Pastors. Beyond this, what happened in the time of the female Pope
Joan, around the year 854, and during so many schisms of Antipopes that are read in the histories.
By these reasons I conclude that, without stopping at personal succession, to rightly know the Church, one must always come to the purity of doctrine and the sincere administration of the sacraments: such that those are to be held as true successors of the Apostles who, being legitimately called, build upon the foundation of those—whether there has been a perpetual personal succession, or whether it has been interrupted for some time, or even whether they are the first announcers of the Gospel in some place. On the contrary, those who do not preach at all, or who instead of Apostolic doctrine preach their own—even though they allege a thousand consecutive predecessors—ought not to be heard as Pastors (Matthew 7:15), but shunned as wolves, by the express commandment of Jesus Christ and His
Apostles.
But someone will say: Is it then said that it is permitted to each one to announce the doctrine and administer the sacraments? Certainly not. For all things must be done in good order in the house of God, as the Apostle says
(1 Corinthians 14:40). Who then are the true Pastors? Those who are legitimately called. It remains, therefore, to know what legitimate vocation is, and to understand this point. We say that there is an ordinary form of vocation, and an extraordinary one. The ordinary is that in which the order that God established in the Church is kept. In this order, there is first the examination of doctrine and life, then legitimate election, and finally the imposition of hands. This is seen in several passages of Scripture put together and joined, such as the election of Saint Matthias and of the seven
Deacons in the Acts of the Apostles, together with what is written in the Epistles of Saint Paul to Timothy and to Titus (Acts 1, 2, 6:5; 1 Timothy 3,
5:22; Titus 1:6). Behold therefore the ordinary vocation, from which it is easy to gather that the extraordinary is that in which (notwithstanding that it is legitimate by the authority of God) one of these two things is lacking, or both, or all three.
Now that the Lord has very often used such extraordinary vocations appears throughout Scripture. For who imposed hands on Moses to consecrate Aaron? (Exodus 28:1.) And who anointed into the office of prophet Isaiah (6:9), Daniel (1:17), Amos (7:14-15), and several others?
And when did this happen? When those who held the order in their hands abused it. Then, I say, it was necessary for God to put His hand extraordinarily to His work: not to bring confusion into His house, but to correct those who, under the shadow of their ordinary succession, had overturned and perverted everything. And that this is so, I appeal to the writings of the Prophets, addressing themselves principally against the Priests. (Isaiah 28:7; Jeremiah 7:4, 23:11.) If it is replied above that such personages, nevertheless, had some external miraculous and heavenly testimony of their vocation, I respond that this is indeed true in some cases, but not in all, unless one wishes to divine what is in no way apparent by any other testimony. For even I do not know if one will find many prophets of the race of Aaron, or upon whom hands were imposed in the ordinary manner. If it is also alleged that the aforementioned prophets contented themselves with arguing and rebuking, without wishing to meddle in sacrifices, I respond first that this will not be found true everywhere. For Samuel, who was not of the race of Aaron but only of Korah, sacrificed at
Mizpah, as it is written in 1 Samuel, chapter 7. And Elijah the Tishbite sacrificed on Carmel, as it is written in 1 Kings, chapter 18.
Secondly, it is no wonder if the prophets of that time did not extend their extraordinary commission to circumcising and sacrificing, seeing that this charge was assigned as an inheritance to the race of Levi, which has no place today.
Behold, Gentlemen, what we call the Church, and what we hold concerning its marks and the vocation of its Pastors. Of these things, if you wish to make application either to our Churches or to our persons, we hope, with the help of God, to show such good signs that no one will have just occasion to doubt them, according to the word of God—and what is truly written, as it seems to us, in the treatise found among the works of Saint
Augustine, entitled Dialogue of 165 Questions, in the last question.
Now, let us come to speak of the authority of the Church. It appears from the things said above that we in no way derogate from the precious and high titles that the Holy Spirit attributes to her. But we say that she is so much the body of the Lord that she is still in part in her pilgrimage, awaiting the full enjoyment of her Head (Hebrews 11). Such is the house of God, but one that is still being built and grows from day to day (Ephesians 4); she is governed by the Spirit of God, but still combating against the flesh
(Galatians 5); she is purified, but it is to be little by little brought to this perfection of beauty, where there will be no spot nor wrinkle whatsoever; she knows God, but it is in part (1 Corinthians 13:9).
And when I speak thus, Gentlemen, I believe that you recognise the very words of the Apostle. In short, we confess that outside the Church there is no salvation, since life is nowhere else but in Jesus Christ, and that He does not deploy His life-giving virtue elsewhere than in His members, whose
union and assembly is called the Church. But the question is to know if she can err, and if she is above Scripture, or else entirely subject to it.
On this, I respond that it is a thing beyond doubt that the particular members of her can err—and err every day, both in doctrine and in morals
—following what Saint Paul says, that we know in part; and Saint John, that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8). Now, if someone wishes to exclude from this number the ancient Doctors, he will pardon us if we do not believe him. For certainly it would be difficult for us to assemble several testimonies of the faults found in the greater and more ancient ones (which let it be said saving the reverence due to their excellent piety and doctrine); but we do not wish to dwell on this, both for the honour we bear them—and rightly so—and also inasmuch as, if I have well understood the saying of Monsieur the Cardinal, he is no more inclined than we to receive them without exception.
Behold what we hold concerning the members of the Church in particular, whose imperfection nevertheless does not prevent the Church from being composed of them; for little by little they profit both in the knowledge of God and in the amendment of life. But if one considers the parts of the Church more generally, as she is distributed in various dioceses and provinces, shall we say that they can err? Once again, if I remember rightly,
Monsieur the Cardinal was recently of the opinion that even particular Churches and provincial Councils can err, and have often erred: and in fact this is confirmed by such long experience that, in our opinion, no man of good judgment can doubt it. It remains, therefore, to consider the whole
Church in her universality. But in what manner? For if we consider her in the representation of a universal Council, first, there is not much appearance in estimating that all the virtues which the Holy Spirit deploys in the
Church should be restricted to a certain number of Prelates, who are not always the most learned nor the best, even though they represent the whole multitude of those who sent them. For how often will it happen that a simple person will have more understanding for a moment than the most learned in an entire company? And therefore it has long been said, by a gloss on the chapter you pointed out in De electionibus [On Elections], that one should rather believe a private man who is faithful and who has better authority or reason, than an entire Council, or the Pope. And even in that great Nicene Council, to what did it come that the law of celibacy—which has since brought so much filth into the Church—was not established then?
To a single Paphnutius, as the history says.
Furthermore, when has a Council been assembled so general that a great part—not only of the most learned and most holy persons, but also of the Prelates—has not remained behind? And who will assure us that the absent ones cannot sometimes have more revelation than the present ones? Beyond all this, you know, Gentlemen, how long a horrible confusion has reigned in the Church, and principally in the greatest estates and dignities of prelature: such that the greatest desolation of the house of God is in the very place that ought to be the most entire and best adorned. At least, for a long time examples of it have appeared, and good Bishops have uttered sighs so high and so clear that we still hear them. And in fact, what Saint Bernard writes in the books De Consideratione [On Consideration], and in Sermon 33 on the Canticles, and again in the Sermon on the conversion of Saint Paul, is no less notorious than true. Alas, Lord, says he, those whom one sees loving the first places in the Church and holding the Principality are the first to persecute You: they have taken the Ark of Zion, they have occupied the castle and then by power have put the whole city into servitude.
Let this be said, Gentlemen, not to injure anyone, but to show that the principal vocations in the Church having long been so confused and disordered, it is impossible to conclude well that universal Councils, which have for a long time been gathered from a multitude of ill-qualified persons, have been conducted by the Holy Spirit to the point of not being able to err.
An ancient Priest (of whom I would not wish to make mention in this company, if his example were not alleged for this purpose) prophesied well, although he was worth nothing, but we do not read that he did not err with his company in condemning Jesus Christ. Joined to this, the Holy Spirit in this place prophesied, and not he, who did not know what he said, and who spoke being moved by a spirit entirely contrary—namely diabolical— seeing that he concluded to kill an innocent, namely Jesus Christ, the Son of God (John 11:49-52).
Furthermore, if a universal Council has received this privilege of not being able to err, neither in the rule of doctrine nor in the form of morals, we ask from what time this privilege is dated: for there has never been but one faith and one same Church. Now that there has been error in the ancient
Church under the old Covenant, the Prophets testify openly, and the histories give good proof. All their watchmen, says Isaiah chapter 56, are blind, they know nothing, they are all dumb dogs; and Jeremiah chapter 6,
From the Prophet even to the Priest, all deal falsely. And so that this may not be restricted to the life of particulars, it is expressly said in chapter 14 of the same Prophet, They prophesy false things and a lying vision. And in Isaiah chapter 29, the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall vanish, that God will close the eyes of the Prophets and of the Rulers. And in Ezekiel 7, chapter: That the law shall perish from the Priest (Ezekiel 7:26). And in fact, who has condemned the
Prophets—like Jeremiah, Micah, indeed the very Son of God, and after Him the Apostles—if not the assemblies of the Prelates of Israel? If it is replied to this that these things happened in the time of the old Covenant: I respond that this is not sufficiently said, nor pertinently answered; for the conclusion will always stand firm, that the assembly of the Prelates of the Church, however universal it may be, has often been governed by the spirit of error rather than by the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, if we come to the new Covenant, has not Saint Paul expressly admonished the whole Church—in the person of the Ephesians—that wolves would come forth from among the Pastors, and that the son of perdition would sit in the temple of God (Acts 20:29; 2 Thessalonians 2)?
And in fact, in comparing the Councils one with another, so many contradictions will be found among them themselves that it is necessary to confess that the Holy Spirit has not always had audience there: but rather that Satan has long since transfigured himself into the light of the general
Councils, to disguise his falsehood.
There is an express passage on this in Saint Augustine, Book 2 On Baptism against the Donatists, chapter 31, which I alleged in my first
Harangue, and which I will allege again, and for cause. There it is expressly said that the letters of particular Bishops are corrected by provincial
Councils, and the provincial by the universal; and the earlier universal ones amended by the later ones, when by some experience of things what was closed is opened, and what was hidden is brought to evidence. To this,
Monsieur the Cardinal responded in his Harangue that this is to be understood of external things which can and ought to vary according as necessity requires. But considering the whole more closely, it will be found that this word emendari presupposes a fault committed and then corrected.
Joined to this, if this response were receivable, one would have to say the same of the letters of the Bishops and of the provincial Councils—which is directly contrary to the intention of Saint Augustine, who disputes in that place not about some external polity, but about a point of doctrine, namely the opinion of Saint Cyprian and the Council of Africa concerning rebaptism.
If one also alleges another accustomed argument, namely that if our Lord promised to be in the midst of two or three assembled in His name
(Matthew 18), much more so is He present in a universal Council: we concede that this is to be presumed, but there is a difference between a presumption and a necessary conclusion. For since the malice of men often comes to the point of abusing the name of God to establish falsehood, such ones can have God in their mouth while having His enemy in their heart; and the weakness of man's understanding being so great—as is ordinarily seen—besides an infinity of disordered affections that blind our eyes, we say that he who has no other foundation than the advice of men and the outward appearance of a Council is more often in danger of being deceived than otherwise.
What then? Do we wish the doctrine of the Church to be uncertain, since she can err? Far from it. For we confess that although we know only in part, as Saint Paul says (1 Corinthians 13:9), and although in this respect error is always mixed with truth: nevertheless God does not permit that the truth of the substantial points of our salvation should ever be so buried in His whole
Church that there is not always some remnant—now smaller, now greater— which understands what must be understood and follows what must be followed. As we see happened in the time of Elijah in Israel, and in the Babylonian captivity, and at the coming of Jesus Christ: when there was
scarcely a Zacharias, an Elizabeth, a Joseph, a Virgin Mary, a Simeon, an Anna the prophetess, who recognised and had the right understanding of the fulfilment of the Prophecies amid so many corruptions of the Scribes,
Pharisees, and Sadducees. Such interruptions, therefore, in the Church of God—proceeding from the iniquity of men—are like a storm or like a fog, which He afterwards causes to vanish by the sun of His word, when it pleases Him, and according as He dispenses the secrets of His judgments and of His mercies. Do we also wish to condemn the ancient Councils? God forbid! For even you know that if it is a question of regulating ourselves by them, you will change more things than we, and you have laboured at this in recent days. But we only require that Scripture be the touchstone to examine everything that is done and said in the Church.
If this seems strange to you, I pray you, Gentlemen, to consider this so celebrated passage of Saint Augustine writing to Maximin the Arian, Book
2, chapter 14. Is there a universal Council more approved than the first one called Nicaea? I believe not. And what is the Council of Ariminum? A Council rejected and rightly condemned. And what does Saint Augustine dispute there? A principal article of faith, already several times fully resolved—namely, the consubstantiality of the Son of God. Yet behold Saint
Augustine, who testifies that his party is not bound to the Nicene Council, nor he himself to the Council of Ariminum: but that he wishes to fight by the Scriptures, which are, he says, common witnesses to both parties. Now, if on this one alleges the obscurity of the Scriptures, we must well confess what Saint Paul says (1 Corinthians 2:14), that the natural man does not know the things of God; and what Saint Peter says, that the Scriptures are not of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). But meanwhile, if this obscurity of the Scriptures is so great that they cannot enlighten us of
themselves, whence comes it that Jesus Christ does not send us elsewhere when He says, Search the Scriptures (John 5:39)? And whence comes it that Abraham, being asked by that wretched rich man to send someone from the other world to warn those here, said: They have Moses and the Prophets; if they do not believe them, they will not believe even if someone rose from the dead (Luke 16:31)?
Beyond this, what would those have done who had only the writings of the Apostles, before there were commentaries written by the Ancients? On this point, I recall, Monsieur the Cardinal, that in your Harangue, your opinion was to receive as firm interpretation and as Apostolic tradition what has always been received in the Church, and everywhere, and by all. But who assures us of these three points? Certainly, no one, in my opinion, for an infinite diversity will be found in the books of the Ancients, even in some articles of faith.
Furthermore, if we must come to this word always and by all, by what time shall we begin, if not with the Apostolic Church? And who shall be the first counted, if not the Apostles, whose history has been so faithfully written by Saint Luke, and which can also be known by their writings?
And thus, therefore, Gentlemen, for conclusion: since all truth comes from God, who has taken as His spokesmen in what concerns our salvation the Prophets and Apostles—we always return to this foundation of the Scriptures. We do not reject, however, the advice of the Councils nor of the Fathers, but only insofar as they confirm their saying by good testimonies from these same Scriptures—which, as Saint Augustine very truly says in the books On Christian Doctrine, are so seized upon by the Holy Spirit that what is said obscurely in one place is most clearly said elsewhere, together with several other rules for rightly understanding Scripture that are
contained in the said books of Saint Augustine On Christian Doctrine, and others who have treated this matter.
Nevertheless, there still remains one difficulty to resolve, which lies in this: that several have thought that the will of God concerning all that is required for our salvation has not been fully written by the Evangelists and Apostles. But if this were the case, I pray you, Gentlemen, to consider what opening would be made to introduce all the reveries one might wish? And in fact, we see that this has been the passage through which Satan has entered to devastate the vineyard of the Lord.
Nevertheless, we do not deny that before Moses, God governed His Church by visions and revelations, and that the Apostles planted the Churches by living voice before their doctrine was written. But why is it that, as the malice of men grew with their numbers, and on the contrary their life declined, the Lord willed that this doctrine should be registered in a common language understood by all? Was it not to obviate those who know how to adorn their reveries with the title of tradition, or of revelation, or of custom? Now, if this doctrine is written only in part, of what use will this remedy be? Certainly, Saint John does not speak thus of the Scriptures when he says that the things he has written are written so that by believing them one may have life (John 20:31)—which would be false if there were some other doctrine necessary for salvation. Saint Paul also declared the use of Scripture, and wishing to instruct—in the person of Timothy his faithful disciple—all the Ministers of the Church of God, did not say that they render the man of God (that is to say, the Minister of the word of God, or even if you will, every faithful man) perfect and complete (2 Timothy 3:1617), if it were still necessary to add something unwritten.
However, we do not doubt that there have been and are unwritten traditions at all times concerning order and manner of proceeding. But because this name has long been abused, it is necessary to show which ones are receivable: which will not be difficult if one proposes two points for rightly judging them, namely, whether they are conformable to the doctrine and proper for edification. For it is a thing altogether assured that the Apostles and true Pastors never established manners of proceeding that were directly or obliquely contrary to the true doctrine, nor likewise that turned men even a little from spiritual service. When, therefore, this rule is kept, then it will be easy to discern doctrine from traditions, and false traditions from true ones.
And you can know, Gentlemen, how strange Tertullian found—in his treatise On the Prescription against Heretics—the saying of those who estimated that the Apostles left something to teach, either by mouth or by writing, of what is required for our salvation. I will say further: namely that even what the Apostles were found to have done in this regard is not always perpetual—not that they are not witnesses without reproach, but because according to the rule of charity they conceded something to the infirmity of the Jews: as in what they ordained concerning things strangled and not eating blood (Acts 15:20, 29). And in what Saint Paul taught and practised himself in Timothy, and in his own person (Acts 16:3; 18:18)—things which would have no place today except by following the general rule of accommodating to the neighbour in things indifferent. From such things also other manners of proceeding can be gathered that they accommodated to their times, as when it is spoken of the kiss (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians
16:20), and of having the head uncovered as a sign of authority in the manner of doing today among several nations (1 Corinthians 11)—among
which it would be found very strange for men to kiss one another, or for a man to kiss a woman other than his own; just as today speaking with head uncovered is a sign of an inferior condition. All these things therefore must be considered before founding a custom as Apostolic: in order not to abuse the authority or custom of the Apostles to trouble the Churches, as we see has happened since the time of the Apostles concerning the feast of Easter; and even in the time of the Apostles concerning those who abused the authority of the Church of Jerusalem to mix Judaism with Christianity, as it is written in the history of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 15). There it was ordained that no one should burden consciences with anything.
How then shall we esteem that the Apostles invented so many ceremonies, in which, since then, the remission of sins and merits are placed, seeing that they made such an express protestation to the contrary, and did not even wish to give place to the Mosaic ceremonies, of which God Himself was the author? Saint Augustine has long complained of this in writing to Januarius, but there is no doubt that if he had lived in a time such as ours, he would have spoken of it quite differently. In short, therefore, we appeal to Scripture, which is entirely clear on this point, to discern between good and bad traditions, sacred and profane, profitable and harmful, necessary and superfluous. These points being resolved, it is easy to decide this question: whether the Church is above Scripture, which seems to me a question as impertinent as if one asked whether the child is above his father, the wife above her husband, or indeed man above God. And in fact, the true Church will never bring suit against God in such a quarrel, but will always pass condemnation.
And it avails nothing to say that the Church is before Scripture: for although this is so, yet this word which has since been written is always
more ancient, seeing that by it the Church was conceived, begotten, and nourished, as has been said. One alleges on this point the saying of Saint
Augustine: I would not believe in the Scripture if the authority of the Church did not move me (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, chapter 5).
But it must be considered that Saint Augustine speaks there of himself as a Manichean. When, therefore, two parties are in debate about the truth of an instrument, to whom shall we have recourse if not to the notary who keeps the register? But meanwhile, this is not to say that the register is founded on the testimony of the notary, who would not cease to be true and authentic even if the living man did not render testimony. The same must be answered to those who think that the authority of the canonical books is founded only on what the Church has determined therein, even though there will be found determinations of Councils in this regard that are all diverse, which can be more fully deduced in the subsequent Conference. Now it will suffice for me to allege, beyond all that has been said above, a single reason accompanied by the authority of some well-approved ancients.
The reason is this: Jesus Christ Himself so honoured the doctrine of the Prophets whom He had sent that He approved the doctrine by their testimony. Saint Paul suffered the Thessalonians to do the same, as it is written in Acts 17. Saint Peter expressly praises this manner of proceeding
(2 Peter 1:19). It is not necessary, therefore, that those who call themselves vicars of Jesus Christ and successors of Saint Peter and Saint Paul should refuse the same condition.
Moreover, behold what Saint Jerome says, chapter 9, book 2, on Jeremiah:
One must not follow the error either of one's fathers or of one's ancestors, but the authority of the Scriptures. And Saint Chrysostom on the 24th of Saint Matthew, Homily 49: He who wishes to know what is the true Church
of Christ—how shall he know it in so great a confusion of such resemblance, except by the Scriptures? Again, in the same place: 'Let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains'—that is to say, that those who are in Christendom should withdraw to the Scriptures. And why is it that in that time all Christians must withdraw to the Scriptures? Because, since the time that heresy has occupied the Churches, one can have no certain proof of the true Christianity; and there can be no other refuge for Christians wishing to know the truth of the faith except the holy Scriptures. Whoever, therefore, wishes to know what is the true Church of Jesus Christ, how shall he know it, except only by the Scriptures? Again, the Lord, knowing such great confusion must come in the last days, commands that Christians who wish to take the firmness of true faith should have refuge in nothing except the Scriptures: otherwise if they look to other things, they will be scandalized and perish, not understanding that this is of the true Church; and by this they will stumble into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy place of the Church (Matthew 24; Daniel).
And Saint Basil, in the ninth of his Moralia, chapter 22: If everything that is not of faith is sin, as the Apostle says (Romans 14), and faith comes by hearing (Romans 10), and hearing is by the word of God—all that is outside the divinely inspired Scripture is sin. Likewise, in a sermon on the confession of faith: If God is faithful in all His promises, and all His commandments are firm and established forever, made in truth and righteousness—then it is manifestly turning away from the faith, and a crime of pride, to reject anything that is written or to introduce anything that is not written.
Up to this point, Madam, I have responded amply, and according to the measure of the knowledge that God has given us in part, to the first point of
the last Harangue of Gentlemen the Prelates, concerning the state and authority of the Church of our Lord—on which we are still all ready to hear anything that shall be shown us by the pure word of God.
It remains the article of the Supper, of which I will defer speaking, if it pleases Your Majesty—both because we have already detained you too long, along with all the illustrious company, and because of the desire we have that this Conference should be begun and continued with better order.
Joined to this, in speaking summarily of a matter that has hitherto been so obscure and enveloped, it is difficult that many words should not escape— however true they may be—which offend the hearts of those who hear them.
Nevertheless, if it pleases Your Majesty that we proceed further, we are ready to say what the Lord has given us to know: always submitting ourselves to what shall be shown us by the holy Scriptures, and most humbly beseeching Your Majesty to be persuaded that, after the glory of God whom we serve, there is nothing we pursue with greater desire than the repose of this Kingdom.
*** To the Reader Dear Reader, I am constrained to warn you once again that this second
Harangue (as also the first and third of the same printing) is the true one, extracted from the original of M. Theodore de Besze: so that you may not give credence to those you have seen before or may see hereafter that are not similar and corresponding to this one, even though the name of the Author has been abused.