Containing newly translated excerpts of refutations of the errors of the Pontiffs, attested to by Francis Coster, Doctor of the Jesuits, in the ENCHIRIDION OF CONTROVERSIES.
By Franciscus Gomarus — Acclaimed Dutch Reformed Professor of Theology
Against Coster’s Book III On the Church
CHAPTER ONE
Coster, since we postponed the primary and most important controversy of the Christian religion in the previous book, defending the dignity, perfection, ease, and use of sacred Scripture against the errors of the Roman Church, what remains is to carefully examine the doctrine of the true Church of Christ, as well as the order established by you. To provide a clearer and necessary explanation—since a clear definition and distinction need to be given—let us consider how properly you do this.
JESUIT COSTER
Since the whole world, filled with various errors and sins, was placed in evil and, from its creation onward, would have strayed away from eternal salvation, Christ called certain people from among all humanity by His grace and mercy. He joined them together under certain laws and established a society or commonwealth (which He wished to be called the Church), separate from other people, so that it would not focus on the fleeting things of this life but rather direct the mind’s eyes toward the everlasting happiness of the future. And since God is the greatest lover of the human race, He did not want His congregation to be limited by the narrow bounds of one nation, people, or place; rather, He gave the power to all humans across the entire world—without distinction of race, age, gifts, nature, or fortune—to come to this assembly and be admitted into it. For as John 1:12 says, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in His name.”
GOMARUS
From these words, we can gather a description of the Christian church as a society of certain people called by Christ’s grace and mercy from among all humanity, joined by specific laws to attain eternal happiness. However, without discussing those specific laws, it is certainly unreasonable and against all logic that you completely ignore the necessary distinction of the term “calling.” Since the Church is a society of those called, as both the meaning of the name and your description attest, the term is used differently depending on the variety of the calling. Some who are called are chosen, others are not. And your Gloss rightly states: “The external calling is made through preachers and is common to both good and bad; the internal calling belongs only to the elect.” Regarding the external calling, it is said, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” Similarly, although the Church of Christ is one, it is distinguished by certain circumstances. Sometimes, relating to the internal calling, it refers only to those called into God’s covenant and the community of the elect’s life, and because of its nature, it is called invisible. Part of this Church triumphs with Christ as its Head and King in heaven; another part struggles and fights laboriously against the world, Satan, and the flesh on earth, hence the common distinction between the triumphant and militant church. In this sense, the Church is properly called the house of God built upon the rock and the bride, flesh, and body of Christ, which He animates and preserves by His Spirit. For this reason, the reprobate, though present in the Church, do not belong to the Church itself, as sacred Scripture and orthodox Fathers carefully explain and demonstrate. “Even without the Church knowing it” (says Augustine) “those condemned by Christ because of a bad and polluted conscience are no longer in the body of Christ, which is the Church: for Christ cannot have condemned members.” And he says the same elsewhere; “All things considered, I think I am not speaking rashly, that others are in the house of God in such a way that they themselves are also the same house of God, which is said to be built upon the rock; which is called the only dove, which is the beautiful bride, without spot or wrinkle, and a closed garden, a sealed fountain, a well of living water, a paradise with the fruit of trees. This house also received the keys and the power of loosing and binding, etc. But others are said to be in the house in such a way that they do not belong to the framework of the house, nor to the fellowship of fruitful and peaceful justice, but as chaff is said to be among the wheat.” In the same way long ago, among the pontifical doctors, Hugh of Saint Victor taught: “The Church” (he says) “is the holy body of Christ, vivified by one Spirit, united by faith, one and sanctified.” And a little before: “As it is written: He who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. He who does not have the Spirit of Christ is not a member of Christ. In one body, there is one Spirit. There is nothing dead in the body: nothing outside the body is alive.” The same is confirmed by Bernard, who interprets the bride as the “Church of the Elect”: Finally, not the least among the Scholastics, Gabriel Biel says; “The Church is also accepted for the whole multitude of the predestined.” And this is the first meaning of the word ‘Church,’ which regards the internal calling, and embraces only the elect who have eternal life. The other meaning, however, refers to the external calling, common to both the elect and the reprobate, and designates the assembly of those called to the external communion of God’s covenant, in the profession of the Christian faith and the use of divine sacraments. Hence, from its external form, it is called visible, and it is distinguished into particular, which covers the part of the called, and universal, which contains all. According to the former reasoning, many churches are said to exist, such as those of the Corinthians, Philippians, Ephesians, and similar. Thus, John writes “to the churches of Asia:” and Paul, “to the churches of Galatia:” and elsewhere he says; “The churches of Christ greet you.” According to the other reasoning, the church is said to be one, yet three main modes of this meaning are commonly established: namely, either simply and absolutely all from all times from the beginning to the end of the world; or in some respect churches of a certain time; which either from Christ to the end of the world (which Church is also called universal in a special sense, because it embraces not only Jews but also churches of any peoples) or existing at one and the same time in the whole world. Finally, the Fathers synecdochally and more narrowly called particular churches, which are universal members endowed with faith and charity of that Church, by that name. Therefore, since there is so great an ambiguity in the word Church, you could at least have prefixed some distinction. For that description you propose is so diffuse and general that it applies no less to the Church of the elect than to those generally called, nor less to the particular (if you consider rightly) than to the universal.
CHAPTER 2
Therefore, the path to the explanation of this controversy being already laid out, let us proceed to the matter itself. At the entrance to the treatment of which, you put forward three privileges of the church.
JESUIT COSTER
“Moreover, to this Republic certain exceptional privileges have been granted, such as you will find nowhere else outside this congregation. The first of these is that in the Church alone there is true knowledge of God, and the understanding of divine things allowing no error, and that it thus remains constant under the guidance of the Spirit of Christ in true religion, so that error cannot have a place in faith there.” For the church is the foundation and pillar of truth, “which sustains the truth of faith, that is, it provides testimony and authority. Therefore, in this alone there is a sincere preaching of the word of God, a complete explanation of the Scriptures, and an interpretation of the divine will.
From the first follows the second, that in the church alone there is true worship of God, sincere administration of the sacraments, and holy ceremonies accepted by God.”
GOMARUS
So far you have described the privileges of the church, as if placed beyond controversy; but let the readers judge with what sincerity and consistency. For who is so ignorant and inexperienced in these matters as to be unaware that the first and third privileges are gravely disputed between the Orthodox and the Papists? For the first is asked; “Can the visible Church of Christ on earth err in doctrine or not?” The Orthodox affirm it: but you, on the contrary, assert, “that in the Church alone there is true knowledge of God and the understanding of divine things and this without error.” And you strive to confirm this by divine authority; “For the church is” (you say) “the foundation and pillar of truth.” Who denies it?
But the conclusion you draw from this is false. First, because this praise describes the dignity and office of the Church; namely, that truth ought to shine and be eminent in it: not that it must shine with full light perpetually. Then, just as the building up of the church on the truth (for the Gospel is indeed the pillar and foundation of the church, as Irenaeus says) has its own degrees, so also the support of truth among men in the Church is variable. Some build sincerely on a solid foundation and are true pillars of truth, while others contribute partially or in less substantial ways; both are referred to similarly in common language and scripture. Therefore, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth does not exclude all error. Thirdly, because this belongs not only to the universal Church but also to particular churches (which can certainly err), it does not free them from all doctrinal error: yet it is fitting that particular churches also be pillars and foundations of truth, because the church of Ephesus is given by the Apostle as a subject of prayer, as the context and words show. “This” (he says) “I write to you, hoping to come to you soon. But if I delay, that you may know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” At that time Timothy was circulating in the Ephesian church: which once was a distinguished pillar of truth: but where is it now? This pillar fell and all solidity of truth was removed from there. The same is also proven from Revelation, in which the Ephesian church (like the other seven Asian churches) is indeed a candlestick of truth, in the same sense in which it is called a pillar: yet its removal was foretold by God and confirmed by a sad event. Thus, Paul says about the Philippian church; “Among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life.” Furthermore, from the first part of this statement the same can be proved. For those that are houses of God are also pillars of truth because where falsehood presides, there is not the house of God, but Satan’s synagogue, who is the father of lies; and Paul rightly joined these two things that cannot be divided.
Truly, all particular churches of Christ are houses of God. Who then would deny that they are the pillar and foundation of truth? And the same is confirmed by the interpretation of the Fathers. “The pillar” (says Chrysostom) “and foundation of truth, not as the Jews had with their temple pillars, for this pillar and foundation is what holds faith and preaching. Indeed, the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.” Thus Theodoret, for he called the house of God and the Church the assembly of those who have believed. He called them the pillar and foundation of truth. For those founded upon the rock remain stable and immovable and bring forth the truth of doctrines. Therefore, since particular churches are pillars of truth, and you acknowledge that they can err, it necessarily follows that the pillar of truth can deviate from the truth: and you wrongly conclude from this that the church cannot err. The falsity of this opinion can be gravely and clearly refuted by many other arguments. And first by frequent experience of the Church before and after Christ. For before Christ the Israelite church (not to go further back) often departed from sincerity of faith. And first in Egypt: as Joshua testifies; “Take away the gods which your fathers served in Mesopotamia and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.” Then in the desert, Exod. 32:8; Ezekiel 20:13. Afterwards very frequently in Canaan, indeed at the time of the judges immediately after their death, as plainly indicated in Judges 2:10 and 19, and by induction from various examples shown in Judges 3:7, 12; 14:2, etc., sometimes even under superstitious judges, Judges 8:27. Under the kings many and very notable examples of the visible church departing from faith are recorded in sacred scripture. First indeed under Jeroboam the ten tribes of Israel fell into vile idolatry away from God, 1 Kings 12:28; this apostasy was shortly imitated by the remaining tribes under the reign of Rehoboam, 1 Kings 14:22, so much so that Scripture openly says, “When the kingdom was established under Rehoboam and strengthened, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him.” 2 Chronicles 12:1.
Then under King Asa the Church was foretold to suffer error and calamity by the prophet Azariah; 2 Chronicles 15:2-3: “Many days shall pass in Israel without the true God, without the priest, without the teacher, and without the law.” This indeed was confirmed during the reigns of Joram, 2 Kings 18:18; Ahaziah, 2 Kings 18:27; and Athaliah, 2 Chronicles 24:7. Furthermore, towards the end of the reigns of Joash, 2 Chronicles 24:20; and Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 25:15; reigning Ahaz, 2 Kings 16:11 and 2 Chronicles 28:24-25; Manasseh, 2 Chronicles 33:9; Amon, 2 Chronicles 33:22; Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin 2 Chronicles 36:5-9; and finally Zedekiah 2 Chronicles 36:12. In those times, the Holy Spirit attributed this praise to the visible church; “But also all the chief priests and people transgressed, did wickedly according to all the abominations of the heathen, and defiled the house of the Lord which he had sanctified for himself in Jerusalem,” 2 Chronicles 36:14. And the same are severely reproved throughout by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets. Afterwards, how foul and miserable a state the Church was in under the cruel Antiochus is known to no one obscurely. Moreover, in Christ’s times how gravely the visible Church departed from the truth is first shown by the ferment of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which was not only borne in the Church but also openly preferred over truth, Matthew 11:25 and 16:12; John 7:48. Then to this is added the Jerusalem council by which Christ was condemned; and the consent of the people, whose unrestrained shouting led to his crucifixion. John 19:22; Mark 15:14. After Christ, numerous and not obscure examples of error in the church existed. First described by the Evangelists is the doubt among the Apostles and other disciples concerning belief in Christ’s resurrection. Matthew 28:13-15; Luke 24:11, 25. This error is so greatly extolled by many of the foremost Pontiffs and teachers that they assert that during the time of the Passion faith and holiness endured in the Virgin Mary alone. As your holy Bernard says in his treatise On the Passion of the Lord, “I am the vine,” concerning the Virgin Mary; “Through that sad Sabbath she stood in faith so that saving faith was found in her alone. And because of this the Church has accustomed itself to celebrate in praise and glory that same Virgin, the Sabbath-keeper, throughout the whole year’s cycle.”
Bernard is followed by Marsilius in the Second Sentences, question 20, article 3, and (as Dominic Bannes in 2.2, Thomas question 1, article 10, page 177, records) many others. Finally, you yourself, Coster, acknowledge this in the third mark of the church, page 100. This opinion, although false, nevertheless clearly refutes your doctrine. For if all but one can err in faith: who is so imprudent or shameless as to deny the church can err? Then even under the Apostles the Galatian and Corinthian churches deviated not a little from the purity of faith, as Paul’s epistles demonstrate. Afterwards, how great a mass of errors inundated the church in fragments (from which even Rome was not free under Liberius as is sufficiently clear from ecclesiastical history and the deplorable ruins of churches in Asia, Africa, and much of Europe). Moreover, since general councils (which you commonly call the “representative church”) have not infrequently seriously erred from the truth and have greatly dissented among themselves, as we show in book 2, chapter 4, it follows that the visible church can err.
Furthermore, since the ‘Antichrist’ is said to be “sitting in the Church,” 2 Thessalonians 2:4, how then will the Church not be led away from the truth? Indeed, this is also proven by clear testimonies of the sacred Scriptures. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and Matthew 24:24, in which places the apostasy and seduction of the Church are predicted.
And to add that as a kind of reinforcement, since the Roman Pontiff can be and has often been a heretic (as the orthodox Fathers, councils, and pontifical doctors, indeed, some Pontiffs themselves have confessed), how do you defend the premise that the church cannot err? For you openly acknowledge that both particular and general councils can err; but you commonly boast that only the Pope is free from the danger of error. And therefore, since this whole controversy about the truth of the church (as I recall elsewhere) turns on this hinge, “Can the Pope err or not?” while in other matters you agree with us, to what end do you propose your opinion under the specious title of the Church? Namely, so that the eyes of the more ignorant may be covered as if with a veil, and the truth of the matter obscured. Since these things have already been sufficiently revealed and defended, let us proceed to the third privilege which you attribute to the church (for according to the examination of the first, it can be sufficiently judged).
JESUIT COSTER
“The third [major point] is that Christ has deposited the most sacred merits of His passion and sufferings in the one Church alone: of which those only become participants who receive themselves into union with the Church. Therefore, in this one Church alone, the remission of sins, the grace of God, justification, sanctification are received; only the children of the Church by good works merit before God either an increase of righteousness or eternal life: only they are pleasing and accepted by God, friends and children of God; only they have communion with the holy merits of the saints; only they are adorned with true or Christian virtues; only they have a certain promise and expectation of eternal life. Indeed, great privileges and most true: for outside the Church none of these are found, no holiness, no Christian virtue, no operation acceptable to God, no merit, no hope of salvation. Truly, heretics will perhaps not fully agree with us in this.”
GOMARUS
Just as in the first property of the Church you have truly erred, so in describing the third you seem to have cast off all piety and modesty. For indeed your words appear pious, “Christ has deposited the most sacred merits of His passion and sufferings in the one Church alone;” but in your meaning there is nothing more impure; because you pervert the dignity, efficacy, and distribution of Christ’s merits. For since the sacred scriptures acknowledge “no savior” except Christ alone, and place no merits of eternal life except in the perfect justice and satisfaction of Christ (by whose “blood we are purified from all sin”): affirming “all men indeed are sinners and debtors; eternal life is a gift of God”: you on the other hand bring forth from the common and shameful workshop of the Pontiffs that “the children of the Church by good works merit before God either an increase of righteousness or eternal life.” Nor do you stop at this degree of impiety, but even go further, asserting that the children of the Church not only have merits before God of their own, but also “have communion with the merits of the Saints,” namely for the remission of sins. For, having followed Clement VI and other Pontiffs, you fabricate a treasury of the Church composed from the merits of Christ and the saints (as you speak more explicitly about the Pontiff, p. 164), from which human indulgences remit sins. And of these merits, (as appears from Nicolo Vignerio) you fabricate two foundations: the first is that “the saints endured many torments which exceeded the punishments for those sinners; and performed many works of supererogation, that is, acts of counsel to which they were not bound. The second is that “the saints were not rewarded for their excess in themselves:” whence you conclude “since no good remains unrewarded, it follows that the excess and supererogation has been deposited in the treasury (that is, the treasury) of the Church.” But as to the distribution of Christ’s merits, the Pope not only ascribes to himself the praise of announcing to the penitent and faithful, according to Christ’s word, the remission of sins, but also arrogates to himself free power and supreme authority, by which at his discretion “he dispenses it to whom he wishes, and as much as he wishes.” All these things, since they most openly contradict the word of God and the glory of Christ, are rightly and openly condemned by the orthodox. And contrary to that very famous speech of Pope Leo which they praise as pious and elegant: “Although” (he says) “the death of many saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the slaying of not one innocent person was a propitiation for the world: for the righteous received rather than gave crowns: and from the fortitude of the faithful examples of patience were born, not gifts of righteousness. For, indeed, deaths were singular in individuals, nor did anyone pay the debt of another by his own end; since among the children of men there has been only one Lord Jesus Christ, in whom all were crucified, all died, all were buried, and all also have been raised.” Therefore, just as you violate piety in defending these errors, you cast off modesty when you say; “Indeed, heretics will perhaps not fully agree with us in this.”
CHAPTER 3
Having therefore examined the privileges of the Church, let us inquire into the marks by which it can be recognized: which, lest they be unknown, ought in fact to be made clearer. But since the marks of things are generally of two kinds; some proper and certain, derived from the essence or property of the thing, which are called Τεκμήρια [‘proofs’], and necessarily demonstrate the thing to be known; others common, from accidents [i.e., external visible properties] and uncertain; which both name and indicate the thing only in a probable manner: our question concerns the former. On this matter you say:
JESUIT COSTER
Moreover, the difficulty lies in those who, without warrant, attach the name of ‘Church’ to their individual congregations. For the clear resolution of this dispute, Christ the Savior, out of His love for mankind, left certain signs and marks by which His commonwealth might be distinguished from other assemblies; so that if any of the faithful wishes to join the Church, he may not be uncertain as to which, amid the existing diversity of congregations, he ought chiefly to embrace, each of which boasts many privileges under the name of Church. And the marks to be inquired about must be of such a kind that they are both clearer than the things themselves and not alien to common usage.
GOMARUS
With these words you precisely propose the hypothesis that Christ left certain signs and marks by which His Church could be recognized from other assemblies: however, what those marks are is called into question. For the Pontiffs establish antiquity, unity, holiness, and greatness: but we, along with the other orthodox, teach that the chief visible marks of the church are the true preaching of the Word of God and the legitimate administration of the sacraments. We define the truly preached Word of God as the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel which is faithfully presented and expounded in the Holy Scriptures; and the sacraments legitimately administered are those which exactly accord with the standard and rule of the divine Word. Wherever these two prevail, there is the true Church of Christ, to which we are called by the Lord as by certain and established signs and banners, and to which the faithful can and ought to attach themselves. The more this Church is governed by these things, the purer it is: and the less, the more impure it is. However, that which obstinately departs from these in its foundations is not to be honored as the Church of Christ, but to be shunned as a workshop of errors. We confirm this orthodox opinion concerning the marks of the Church in this way: privileges and properties which belong solely to the Church and can be perceived by the senses are certain marks of it. But the truly preached Word of God (Ephesians 2:19-20) and the sacraments legitimately administered (1 Timothy 3:15) are such marks because the Church alone is built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles. It alone is the pillar and ground of truth joined by covenant to God. The tablets of this covenant are the Word of God; the signs and seals are the sacraments of God which He added to the preached Word, so that He might unite the church as a fellowship of confederates to Himself and bind together its members among themselves, and distinguish it from others.
You openly confess the certainty of these marks when you say in the first property: “Therefore, in this alone is the sincere preaching of the Word of God:” and in the other: “In the one church is the true worship of God, the sincere administration of the sacraments.” And thus, you define a Christian: “one who, initiated by the sacrament of baptism, professes the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ, true God and man, in His Church; nor adheres to any sects or old opinions alien to the Church.” And Bellarmine, in his fourth book, chapter II, openly demonstrates that the holiness of doctrine is a true mark of the Church. And more explicitly, the handbook of Christian instruction published at the provincial council of Cologne says, “We have notes and signs most certain, which do not allow us to doubt wherever we are about the Church. At the beginning, no one denies that in the Church there must be sincere Evangelical and Apostolic doctrine, and that this is the chief mark of the Church. According to that: “My sheep hear my voice;” and what Paul says, “If anyone preaches a different gospel, let him be anathema.” Therefore, Augustine’s opinion is rightly celebrated: “Among us” (he says) “and the Donatists there is a question, Where is the church? What then shall we do? Shall we seek it in our words or in the words of the head, our Lord Jesus Christ? I think we ought rather to seek it in His words, who is the truth and knows His body best.” And the commentaries on Matthew, commonly attributed to Chrysostom, say: “Therefore, whoever wants to know how great the true Church of Christ is, whence will he know it except only through the Scriptures?” But let us hear in what way you oppose this opinion.
JESUIT COSTER
Individuals who assert that their congregation represents the true church of Christ, based on their sincere interpretation of the Word of God and proper administration of the sacraments, do not sufficiently substantiate this claim. Such assertions remain subject to doubt and are not clearly evident to others, as has previously been noted. For, as we have said, these are privileges and properties of the Church; whoever transfers the name of the Church to his own assembly will certainly say that he has all its properties; and whoever among the Gentiles seeks the true Church will find nothing certain when he hears all boasting of sincere preaching of the divine Word and administration of the sacraments, and accusing others of falsehood. For the Lutherans teach that these are with them, not with the Calvinists, Anabaptists, Schwenckfeldians. On the other hand, the Calvinists want these things to be found only with themselves, not with others, and so with the rest.
GOMARUS
You are completely mistaken, Coster, when you say, “Those who claim that the true Church of Christ is with them because they affirm that they sincerely interpret the Word of God and administer the sacraments purely do not demonstrate this clearly enough:” Because we wish the judgment about our Church to be made not from our affirmation, but from the reality of its agreement with the norm of the sacred Scriptures. But what you add, “these marks are no less doubtful than the Church which is sought,” is far from the truth, and the proof you bring is weak. Although all boast about these privileges and properties, that does nothing to detract from the certainty and clarity of those marks. Indeed, the judgment about its certainty and clarity is not to be made from vain human boasting, but from the reality itself. Otherwise, what could be certain or clear in human or divine matters of judgment? For (to speak first of human matters) although those who litigate in court strive to obtain the case they defend on the grounds that (as they say) it is in accordance with the laws: nevertheless, a judge is not deterred from knowledge of the matter or judgment, but by comparing established facts and laws he recognizes no other mark of the goodness of the cause and adjudicates to one party than what he finds to be in accordance with the laws. Thus, it is in sacred judgments concerning religion. The Pharisees and Sadducees boasted of their true preaching of the divine Word, and Christ also boasted. Yet was the matter therefore doubtful and obscure to those who loved the truth? Did Christ therefore reject this mark as uncertain because it was disturbed [by the confused preaching of His antagonists]? On the contrary, He challenged examination of the sacred Scriptures: “Search,” He said, “the Scriptures; and they are they that testify of me.” Thus, He refuted the Sadducees from the sacred Scriptures.
Hence the prudence and diligence of the Bereans are praised by the Holy Spirit, for although the Jews boasted of the truth of their religion, and Paul claimed it for himself against them, yet they did not lightly reject either him or them, nor did they remain in doubt; but they received the message with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore, although individuals boast of the true preaching of the Word of God, we ought not on that account to be wavering and doubtful, nor to resort to other marks; but examination is necessary, as in all things. Let it be compared with the rule [of faith] and the truth will be revealed. “For their very doctrine” (as Tertullian says) “when compared with the Apostolic, will pronounce from its diversity and contradiction that it is neither Apostolic nor of any Apostolic author. Because just as the Apostles would not have taught differently among themselves, so also the Apostles would not have published contrary things, except those who have departed from the Apostles and preached otherwise.” Therefore, we respond with Augustine: “Let us not hear ‘I say this,’ or ‘You say that;’ but let us hear what the Lord says.”
“There are certainly books of the Lord, to whose authority both sides consent, both sides believe, both sides serve. It is there we shall seek the Church; there we shall discuss our cause, etc. For I do not want the holy Church to be demonstrated by human documents, but by divine oracles.” Therefore, from these things it is clear what should be thought about your conclusion which follows.
JESUIT COSTER
Hence it is clear that it is more proper for those to demonstrate it, and, as the Philosophers say, to show the thing from the prior, who teach from this that they have the aforementioned; truly, I say, the sense of the Gospel and Scripture, the sincere administration of the sacraments, etc., that they have the true Church with them.
GOMARUS
You conclude poorly, Coster. The Church is not prior to the preaching of the Word because this first proceeded from God and began in paradise, whence it afterwards came forth to men as ministers of God. Then the seed by which the Church is regenerated and the foundation on which it is built are prior to the Church itself. So, the Word of God truly preached is the seed and foundation of the Church, as the sacred Scriptures demonstrate. Hence Peter: “Having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of the living and abiding God, etc. This is that word which was preached to you.” And Paul: “You are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles.” And elsewhere: “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Therefore, the preaching of the Word of God is prior to the Church. Indeed, it is the assembly of those called together by the preaching of the Word of God coupled with the sacraments of the covenant of God. And for this reason He commanded that these two be proposed to His Church as heralds of His covenant and builders of His Church.
CHAPTER FOUR
Therefore, with the orthodox truth defended, it remains that we hear the pontifical doctrine concerning the marks of the church and examine it according to the norm of truth.
JESUIT COSTER
The true church is shown by clear signs that even its enemies can’t deny. These signs come in two types: one from its origin, and the other from visible traits that are well known. To explain, think of Colonia Agrippina, a city founded long ago by Agrippa, with many privileges, a city of the Empire, and a free Republic. Imagine some critics who, having started new towns 50 or 100 years ago, claim those towns have the same name and rights as old Colonia. If a newcomer asks about Colonia, they point to their new buildings. But this visitor can learn the truth from two signs: first, by checking the town’s history, which shows old Colonia dates back to Agrippa, while the others are much newer. Second, by looking at clear features described by historians—its location on the Rhine, near Bonn, its buildings, temples, and customs. If these signs are missing in the new towns but present in old Colonia, the visitor will know where to go, no matter what others say. Those who falsely claim otherwise deserve punishment.
GOMARUS
What the Pontiffs generally think about the marks of the Church, you propose with these words and illustrate with a certain similitude. If you were to pause here and explain piously, there would be no reason for you to contend with us. But since you depart from the precept of the sacred Scriptures and falsely rely on another foundation, as will be clear later, I do not know on what face you affirm, “that the true Church is demonstrated to you by those marks which not even your own adversaries can deny.”
And so that we may say something about the proposed similitude (which otherwise proves nothing), it will not be difficult to adapt it to our cause.
For just as Cologne, which exists at this time, is certainly known to be that old colony founded by Agrippa from the fact that it alone agrees with the description of ancient annals and histories, and is endowed solely with certain properties of Colonia Agrippina: so also the true Church is to be known from the indication and description of the sacred Scriptures (which describe the origin, form, and properties of the true Church).
For since Christ’s Church alone is the “pillar of truth,” wherever truth reigns, then by this it is also clearer than meridian light that it has its origin from God and is truly Christ’s Church.
Therefore, moved by truth, you confess the same a little later. But in the meantime, let us hear by what reasoning you abuse this similitude to fabricate your cause.
JESUIT COSTER
In like manner, the prudent man seeking the Church, whether he is newly converted from the Gentiles or Jews to the true and Catholic religion, or (as often happens) in this great diversity of sects is doubtful as to which party he should join himself. For he will not measure the Church by doctrine, but doctrine by the Church; nor will he claim authority to judge from doctrine, but the Church, detected by certain marks, will stand in all things by its own judgment, which he has learned from the divine Scriptures cannot err nor deceive. Therefore, first he will trace those several assemblies back to their origin, which offer themselves as the true Church of Christ. He will find that the Lutheran Church was begun by Luther in the year 1517; the Calvinist Church also later by Calvin; the Anabaptists by Balthasar Pacimontanus [Hubmair] about the year of our Lord 1522; the Swenckfeldians by Swenckfeld, much more recently; the House of Love by Heinrich Nicolai, a sailor, perhaps around the year 1550. And if he investigates carefully, he will clearly perceive that in those first years the whole faith was not perfect as it is now handed down by them but gradually accepted and rejected; Until now, it has rarely been maintained intact for thirty years as it is cultivated today.
Certainly, from the Common Places of Philip Melanchthon and the Augsburg Confession, which in nearly every edition brought forth something new for the doctrine of faith, he will learn of this mutation. Moreover, if he investigates more seriously, unfolding ancient histories, he will plainly recognize that before Luther and Calvin there was not even one man in the whole world, whether Catholic or heretic, who taught or thought about matters of faith as their sectaries today profess to believe. And as for heretics indeed, it must not be doubted that new sectarians have always revived some ancient errors, which is not obscure in our writings, who borrowed their doctrine of faith alone from Flavius Aetius and Eunomius; from the Manichaeans concerning marriage; from the Novatians concerning penance; from Vigilantius concerning relics of saints; from Jovinian and Helvidius concerning celibacy; from Berengar concerning the Eucharist; from Leo the Isaurian and Copronymus concerning sacred images; from the Hussites concerning the necessity of both species; and then from almost all others something different for the fabric of their perverse dogmas they transferred. For it is also no secret rumor that Calvin became an Arian and Bucer with Sebastian Münster Judaized.
GOMARUS
Does the prudent man indeed use “reason in finding the Church so that the Church is measured not by doctrine but doctrine by the Church”? If you were disputing at about the time when the Apostles and Prophets, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, taught the Church, you would stray less from the truth: yet the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles wished themselves and their Church to be known from the examination of the Sacred Scriptures, and confirmed their doctrine by those same Scriptures. But what you add, that the Church will not claim authority to judge doctrine, but having been detected by certain marks, will stand in all things by its own judgment: what else is this but wishing to blind the eyes of men? For if it is doubted whether Colonia Agrippina is that ancient city, you decide that it must be compared with ancient histories and undoubted authorities, and judgment formed from them: but when it is disputed about the true Church (of which you say the rationale is equal), you seek to take away the judgment of doctrine by which the Church of Christ is recognized in the sacred Scriptures. Clearly, so that by foolish credulity (which you call prudence) you may enslave your listeners to pontifical errors. Therefore, we oppose to you the judgment and command of Christ and the Apostles: “Search the Scriptures: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test whether the spirit is from God. For many false prophets have come into the world. Do not regard prophecies as nothing: examine everything; hold fast to what is good.” Therefore, a prudent man will measure the true Church from true doctrine, not true doctrine from the Church. For what you add as a place of proof, “it will stand in all things by its judgment, which it learned from divine Scriptures cannot err nor deceive,” is indeed a too weak foundation, as I have shown above in many ways. Therefore, to turn this argument back on you, since it is established from sacred Scriptures and frequent experience that the visible Church can err: truth must be recognized not from the Church but the Church from truth. Moreover, that there may be a rationale from origin, what do you desire in our churches (for I do not speak of Anabaptists and those similar)? For their origin is not from the year 1517 or later, as you falsely assert; but from the beginning; although their splendor was long obscured by pontifical tyranny. For in the midst of the Papacy God Almighty had His faithful ones who, keeping the foundation, shunned pontifical errors and gradually recalled many from Babylonian darkness to the light of truth. Among whom were Waldo, Wycliffe, John Huss, Luther, Zwingli, and others. Just as daylight has its progress and increase, nor does it shine so clearly at dawn as at midday: so, it is no wonder if Luther and others have advanced in knowledge of truth. But as to Philip and the Augsburg Confession, upon which you cast a stain, we wiped it away in refutation of your Preface. But you proceed more harshly and insinuate novelty to Luther, Calvin, and their like because, as you say, “there was not even one man in the whole world before Luther and Calvin, whether Catholic or heretic, who taught or thought about matters of faith as their followers today profess to believe.” This is indeed your Achilles, this bronze wall of the pontifical cause which you repeat and inculcate everywhere; but the ram of truth will easily shake and overthrow it, as we showed in the first book. For its confirmation and support is so weak that lightly touched, it falls of itself. And first you toil in vain to demonstrate that no ancient heretics agree with us in all things and falsely impose errors on us, clearly according to your custom and love for truth. “It must not,” you say, “be doubted that new sectarians have always revived some errors of old: which is not obscurely present in our writings: who borrowed their doctrine of faith alone from Aetius and Eunomius.” But what was the doctrine of Aetius and Eunomius? Since you are silent, let Augustine be heard about both: “It is said” (he says) “that he was so hostile to good morals that he asserted that no one’s immoral act and perseverance in sins harmed anyone if he was a partaker of that faith which he taught.”
Is this our doctrine? Nay, indeed, Calvin says, “Faith alone justifies; yet the faith which justifies is not alone. Just as heat is from the sun that warms the earth, yet that heat from the sun is not alone but comes with brilliance.” The confessions, catechisms, and sermons of our churches demonstrate the same. Therefore, this is your first calumny, whose injustice will appear more fully at a more opportune place. The second is that you accuse us of having “borrowed the doctrine of marriage from the Manichaeans.” But how? The Manichaeans detested procreation in marriage; we, on the contrary, openly assert from the Sacred Scriptures that “marriage is honorable among all, and the marriage bed undefiled,” and that prohibition of marriage is a “diabolical doctrine.” But you do not say among whom marriage is to be honorable, but you forbid it against your priests and are not ashamed to affirm that “their marriage is more shameful than fornication,” as I have proven elsewhere. Nor is it surprising since your Syrian Pope, to defend his impure interdiction of marriage by some subterfuge, most foully perverts the Sacred Scriptures because for proof he abuses that sentence of Paul: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God: but you are not in the flesh but in the spirit.”
The shame of this is so great that your famous Parisian theologian Claudius Espensæus detests Pope Siricius by that name in his book De continentia, book 1, chapter 13. “Roman Pontiffs Innocent, and especially Siricius,” he says, “with whom I execrate as Jovinian.” And shortly after refuting the Pontiffs: “And therefore I do not understand (and this said with the greatest reverence as usual) in what sense they dared to call marriage, especially contracted with holy orders, unworthy of the sanctity of their clergy and uncleanness of the flesh in which God cannot be pleased. For the Pauline passages they allege—either ‘Nothing is unclean to the clean’ or ‘Those who are in the flesh cannot please God’—pertain no less to clerics than to laypeople. And the former passage explains itself as concerning the faithful; and the latter cannot be made against marriage elsewhere called honorable and undefiled.”
And now, Coster, you yourself may acknowledge that you unwisely serve in the ranks of the Manichaeans. Nor is there any other reason for the third accusation. For Novatian chiefly defended three errors. First, they boasted of the merits and purity of their works; hence they proudly called themselves cathari, that is, pure. Then they condemned second marriages. Finally, they denied forgiveness of sins to those who had fallen into sin after baptism. Thus, Augustine says of them: “The Cathari, who most arrogantly and most hatefully call themselves by that name because of their purity, do not admit second marriages, deny penance, following the heretic Novatus; hence they are called Novatians.” But we approve none of these errors. For from the sacred Scriptures we confess that all men, except Christ, are sinners; and with Paul we conclude, “A man is justified by faith without the works of the law.” We do not disapprove even of second marriages; and to those who have fallen and repent we announce forgiveness according to God’s will. Therefore, since we have no dealings with those heretics, experience shows that you are akin to them. For you preach that the Virgin Mary and certain saints were pure or Cathari, and not only could fully satisfy the law, but also performed more than that, namely “works” which you barbarously and impiously call “supererogation,” which can also be imputed to other men for obtaining the grace of God. It is known that such wickedness never reached Novatus, however wicked he was Then, although you exclude no one from the Church for second marriages, you nevertheless forbid them from the priesthood, as if profane; with the same abused argument as Novatus. And what is more absurd, you constitute first marriages as second in kind if celebrated with a widow; and therefore, you admit no one who had a widow for a wife to the ministry of the Church. Finally, you give and absolve forgiveness to sinners not otherwise than where they have satisfied your human inventions (“by which God is worshiped in vain”). Therefore, if any blame is to be placed on the Novatian heresy, it should be directed more towards you than towards us, since we have little doubt about them. Moreover, your accusation that our doctrine about relics was borrowed from Vigilantius and about celibacy from Jovinian cannot be proved. For we teach nothing about these matters that is not derived from the pure sources of the Sacred Scriptures. But what heretical teaching did Vigilantius teach about the relics of saints?
Let the words of Jerome himself be heard: “Why,” he says, “is it necessary not only to honor you with such great honor, but also to adore that I know not what, which you cherish by transferring it into a small vessel? Why do you kiss the dust surrounded by a linen cloth by adoring it? We see almost the rite of the Gentiles introduced under the pretext of religion, in churches where the sun still shines, the mass of wax is burned, and wherever people kiss and adore some little dust surrounded in a small vessel.” What could be said more truly and more sanctly about the superstition that has arisen? The honor of relics of sacred scripture and common nature, not by barbarous digging up of corpses or tearing apart limbs (so that the head appears here, the arm there, the feet elsewhere), nor by their profane adoration; but they describe an honorable burial. What did Jovinian also teach about celibacy being alien to the consent of sacred scriptures? “Or what,” as Jerome relates, “does he assert that virgins, widows, and married women, once washed in Christ, if they do not differ from other works, share the same merit?” But does not Scripture seriously teach that we deserve nothing by our works, because they are gifts of God; then because they are debts; finally, because due to the imperfection of our flesh struggling against the Spirit? “For we all stumble in many things;” we owe God a thousand talents and are not able to pay; Christ commanded us daily to confess our debts and ask for their remission. Therefore, if God grants any reward, it is not merit of works but a gift of divine grace. Furthermore, that which is not commanded in the sacred scriptures, which are the perfect rule of all virtues, is not virtue by itself and therefore can be no merit by itself. Show then where virginity is commanded by the word of God or admit that the kingdom of God is not located in virginity or marriage by itself; but both states are valued by God according to use or misuse. For indeed God instituted marriage and commanded it to those who cannot contain themselves: Abraham and Sarah, parents of believers; the virgin Mary; indeed, Peter and most Apostles were married. Therefore, under the guidance of truth Chrysostom rightly says: “How honorable is marriage if it so greatly hinders us?” etc. “If some are hindered by marriage, let them know that marriage was not a hindrance to them but the will which misuses marriage;” for “neither wine causes drunkenness, but bad will and excessive moderation. Use marriage with moderation and YOU WILL BE FIRST IN THE KINGDOM and enjoy all good things.” Therefore, you see, Coster, how vainly you strive to stir up envy against us with the names of Vigilantius and Jovinian.
But what shall I say about the following? For you affirm the doctrine of the Eucharist from Berengar; concerning sacred images from Leo the Isaurian and Copronymus; that the necessity of both kinds was borrowed from the Hussites. But you are entirely mistaken because we have drawn our doctrine from the divine Scriptures, and you unjustly accuse those men of error for that reason. For to speak first concerning Berengar, what, I ask, did he falsely teach at the beginning about the Eucharist? Consult what we wrote on this matter in the first book: and there will be nothing for you to justly reproach. To which I add that Berengar taught what Augustine taught before him, whose opinion you rightly approved with pontifical authority. “Not this body which you see, ” he says, “will you eat and drink, but that blood which they will shed who crucify me. I have committed to you a sacrament, spiritually understood, which gives you life.” Also; “Why do you prepare teeth and belly? Believe and you have eaten.” But what you mention about the necessity of both kinds contains two errors of yours. The first is that you do not establish that bread and wine should be eaten by the faithful at the Lord’s Supper; but only the external appearance of bread and wine. For you affirm that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the body and blood of Christ, but only the accidents remain, contrary to the authority of Scripture and the sense of nature. Hence, this impure opinion entirely impure is the word transubstantiation derived. The second error is that you accuse Huss of heresy because he established the use of wine was no less necessary than bread at the Supper. For in this way you overthrow the commandment of Christ and Paul, “Drink ye all of it,” and your Pontiff’s decree. For thus Pope Gelasius says: “But we have learned that some take only a portion of the sacred body, abstaining from the chalice of the sacred blood. They (no doubt because they are taught to be bound by some superstition) either receive the whole sacrament or are deprived of it. Because division of one and the same mystery cannot come without great sacrilege.” Therefore, while your pontiff accuses and convicts you of sacrilege, neglecting your accusation, I proceed to Emperors Leo the Isaurian and Copronymus: who are hateful to you also for this reason, because they prohibited the worship of images, according to the prescription of the Divine Word and with the consent of two councils, and following the example of King Hezekiah, removed the matter of idolatry. For which reason, although thanks were owed to them, such was the madness of the Roman pontiffs in asserting idolatry so that Gregory III deprived Emperor Leo of empire and communion with the faithful on that account. Wherefore it is clear how unjustly you attack orthodox doctrine: so much so that when you are destitute of true arguments, you resort to support from false rumors. Nor is that indeed an argument of a lamentable cause. For you say also “that Calvin became an Arian, and Bucer together with Sebastian Münster Judaized is not an obscure rumor.” But by whom, I ask, are these authorities? Who refuted the Arians more solidly than Calvin? Who illustrated the Gospel more than Bucer? Who before Münster overthrew Jewish errors so clearly? But these are your arts, that when you cannot suppress truth, you strive to undermine it on the side of good men with various slanders. Therefore, leaving these aside, let us weigh the rest which you have touched upon.
JESUIT COSTER
However, although they agree in some things, they differ in many; because either they detest some errors of the ancient heretics, or they add new unheard-of ones; that righteousness is imputed, not inherent; that sins are forgiven by a special faith by which one believes oneself to be righteous; that original sin is substance, not accident or privation; that there are only two Sacraments in the Church; that the Sacrament of Baptism does not give grace but is an indication or sign of grace conferred; that Christ present in the Supper ought to be honored by no veneration nor adored—nothing of this ever occurred to any of the previous heretics. The Mass sacrifice, which all the sectarians of this age so greatly detest, was sacred to all the ancients. For its scornful rejection, according to the prophecy of Daniel, was due to the imminent times of the Antichrist. Thus, it is clearly stated here that none of the heretics who lived before Luther strayed from Catholic truth or fully agree on matters of faith with any heretic of our era.
GOMARUS
The highest things meet at the summit! Just as you have unjustly attributed to us the errors of the ancients; so, too, with equal faith you ascribe new and hitherto unheard things. But what are they? “Righteousness,” you say, “is to be imputed, not inherent:” indeed we affirm both; but in different ways. For we assert that perfect righteousness, by which we are justified before God, is in Christ, but for us it is imputed through faith: but that the righteousness begun adheres in us through sanctification by the Spirit of Christ. What is new in this doctrine? What else does the whole Scripture teach? As for the other part, which is beyond controversy, I say nothing, “does not God impute righteousness apart from works? Are not many justified by the obedience of Christ? Is He not our righteousness; and are we not the righteousness of God in Him?” Bernard rightly says; “For if one died for all: Therefore, all died: so that the satisfaction of one is imputed to all, just as He bore the sins of all,” etc. “I would say I am righteous, but His righteousness. What is it? The end of the law is Christ to righteousness for everyone who believes.” Finally, “He who was made for us,” says Paul, “righteousness from God the Father.” And elsewhere explaining that saying of Paul: “Who became for us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption; Wisdom,” he says, “in preaching, righteousness in the absolution of sins.” And in the following discourse; “For all have sinned, and all fall short of the glory of God. Who then will accuse God’s elect? It is God who justifies. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.” It is sufficient for me to have only one propitiatory for all righteousness, to whom alone I have sinned. All that He Himself decreed not to impute to me, is as if it had not been. Not to sin is the righteousness of God, the righteousness of man, however, is the indulgence of God.” Therefore, we assert nothing new or false about justification. And the reason is the same for faith. For it is not general faith by which we believe that true believers are saved by Christ that makes us blessed (otherwise Judas and Satan would be blessed), but special [saving] faith by which we embrace the grace offered by Christ, following the example of Abraham our father: so much so that through the spirit of adoption we cry out, “Abba Father.” Who Himself with our spirit testifies that we are children of God.” For when it is commanded to us by the Gospel to believe that Christ is our Savior, that faith is true which obediently follows this command. So that each believer may say with Paul, “I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Which Bernard agrees with: “If,” he says, “you believe that your sins cannot be blotted out except by Him against whom you alone have sinned, and into whom sin does not fall, you do well: but add furthermore that you believe that through Him your sins are forgiven. This is the testimony which the Holy Spirit bears in our heart, saying: ‘Your sins are forgiven you.’ Thus, the Apostle judges that a man is justified freely by faith.”
From these most serious testimonies, it clearly appears that we establish nothing new or false about faith. However, what you mention about original sin does not concern us, since we hold that it is not an accident but a substance. But we openly assert and confirm from sacred writings and the consensus of orthodox Fathers that there are only two sacraments of the New Testament, although you object that this is new and unheard of. For what else are sacraments than divine signs and seals of the covenant of God given to the church? Just as Moses calls circumcision “the sign of the covenant,” and Paul “the seal of the righteousness of faith.” This description, abrogated by Christ who ended the legal pedagogy, fits only Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Hence Augustine says; “From the resurrection of the Lord there were a certain few signs for many, and very easy to perform, most august in understanding, pure in observance, were handed down by the Lord himself and Apostolic discipline: namely Baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.” The other five, which the Pontiffs call sacraments, partly arose from men and not from heaven (as was proper), such as Confirmation and Extreme Unction; partly indeed from God, but instituted for a different purpose: such as Matrimony, Penance, and Orders, or the ministry of the Church.
I would demonstrate each of these things in more detail if it were not inconvenient at this place. Therefore, omitting these and content with a general refutation: what do you desire in our doctrine concerning the true sacraments of the New Testament? You think it unheard of to assert that the sacrament of baptism does not confer grace but is a sign or indication of grace bestowed. Indeed, Coster, we teach more distinctly about Baptism: for it is instituted for believers and their children and therefore, since both are contained in the covenant of God, they partake in their own way of the grace of God and the Spirit of Christ. For God is “our God, and the God of our seed: And they who do not have the Spirit of Christ are not his.” Therefore, if you consider the beginning of grace, Baptism ordinarily precedes it; which in turn signifies and seals the grace bestowed: But if you consider the continuation and increase of grace, Baptism accompanies and follows it. Because God confirms his covenant by Baptism and in adults fosters and strengthens faith, by which they embrace the grace offered by Christ. To this opinion Calvin (whom we present to you as the target of your invectives) openly asserted, “Sacraments are instrumental causes by which grace is conferred upon us.” Against this your opinion about the Sacrament of Baptism is new both in words and profane in meaning. Thus, your Council of Trent: “By these sacraments of the new law, grace is conferred ex opere operato, that is, by the very act of Baptism, without consideration of human faith or Divine election and vocation.” But Sacred Scripture teaches that the reception of grace in adults arises from faith. “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned.” Faith in Christ is as it were a certain spiritual hand by which, as the Apostle teaches, “we have received remission of sins and strength among the sanctified. Hearts are purified by faith: we are justified by faith.” But the seed and maturity of this true faith exist only in the elect. Hence it is said “faith is not of all,” but “of the elect.” And its effect is “a good conscience,” which joined to external baptism properly “saves us.”
END OF EXCERPTS