06.01 Articles of Sacred Theology cont'd

cont’d ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XVIII. That there is an universal Church, that there has been, from the beginning of the world, and will be even to the end , we all acknowledge. The appearance by which it may be recognised is the question. We place it in the word of God, or, (if any one would so put it,) since Christ is her head , we maintain that, as a man is recognised by his face, so she is to be beheld in Christ: as it is written, "Where the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together," (Matthew 24:28) Again, "There will be one sheepfold, and one Shepherd," (John 10:16) But as the pure preaching of the gospel is not always exhibited, neither is the face of Christ always conspicuous, (1 Corinthians 11:19) Thence we infer that the Church is not always discernible by the eyes of men, as the examples of many ages testify. For in the time of the prophets, the multitude of the wicked so prevailed, that the true Church was oppressed; so also in the time of Christ, we see that the little flock of God was hidden from men, while the ungodly usurped to themselves the name of Church. But what will those, who have eves so clear that they boast the Church is always visible to them, make of Elijah, who thought that he alone remained of the Church? (1 Kings 19:10) In this, indeed, he was mistaken, but it is a proof that the Church of God may be equally concealed from us, especially since we know, from the prophecy of Paul, that defection was predicted, (2 Thessalonians 2:3) Let us hold , then , that the Church is seen where Christ appears, and where his word is heard; as it is written, "My sheep hear my voice," (John 10:27) but that at the instant when the true doctrine was buried, the Church vanished from the eyes of men. This Church, we acknowledge with Paul, to be the pillar and ground of the truth, (1 Timothy 3:1-16)because she is the guardian of sound doctrine, and by her ministry propagates it to posterity, that it may not perish from the world. For, seeing she is the spouse of Christ, it is meet that she he subject to him. And, as Paul declares, (Ephesians 5:24; 2 Corinthians 11:2-3) her chastity consists in not being led away from the simplicity of Christ. She errs not, because she follows the truth of God for her rule; but if she recedes from this truth , she ceases to be a spouse, and becomes an adulteress. Let those who tie down the Church to power in its ordinary sense, and to other external pomp, hear what Hilary says on that subject: "We do wrong in venerating the Church of God in roofs and edifices. Is it doubtful that in these Antichrist will sit? Safer to me are mountains , and woods, and lakes, amid dungeons, and whirlpools ; for in these, either hidden or immersed, did prophets prophesy."

ARTICLE XIX. That to the visible Church belong definitions in doctrine. If any controversy or doubt arises with regard to any thing in the Scriptures, it belongs to the foresaid Church to define and determine.

PROOF.—Horrible confusion would arise, if the Church had not the power of pronouncing a definitive sentence on disputed doctrines, as in the present day the Lutherans would fain have a voice in the Chapter, and would boast the word of the Lord, did we not oppose to them this reply, which has no exception,-That it belongs to the Church to determine ultimately, without contradiction. In no other way could we shut their mouth. Then we ought to know that Scripture is like a nose of wax, because it can be bent hither and thither. But the determination of the Church is fixed and stable. For if the heretics choose to cavil at one, the next day another more stringent can be adopted.

ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XIX. A definite rule, as far as regards particular Churches, is prescribed to us by Paul, when he says, (1 Corinthians 14:29) "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace." If any dissension arise among the Churches, we acknowledge that the legitimate method of establishing concord, which has always been observed, is for the pastors to assemble, and define from the word of God what is to be followed. But if we are to hold the determinations of the visible Church for oracles, it was the visible Church which Micah stood alone in resisting, (1 Kings 22:10) It was also the visible Church which said, "Come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor the counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet," (Jeremiah 18:18) In short, in the time of Christ, the visible Church was represented by the high priest and his council, (John 18:28) For their hierarchy was much better founded, and was confirmed by a surer testimony than that on which those who in the present day usurp the title of Church plume themselves. Those, therefore, who will have their definition of the visible Church to be received indiscriminately, and without exception, lay the faithful under the necessity of denying Christ, abandoning the truth of God, and oftentimes adhering to impiety.

ARTICLE XX. OF THE ARTICLES OF FAITH DELIVERED
BY THE CHURCH.

It is certain that many things are to be believed which are not expressly and specially delivered in the sacred Scriptures, but which are necessarily to be received from the Church by tradition.

PROOF.—From the inconvenience or absurdity of holding otherwise. For without this it would almost be necessary to make the world anew: since not a hundredth part of those things which we firmly hold, and which are received amongst us , without any doubt, can be proved expressly from the Scriptures, but being elicited, after a long process, by the subtle deductions of the Doctors, maintain their certainty. It is proved, also, from probability. For it must be believed, that though the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit, and had a command to instruct the Church perfectly, they were yet willing to leave something to their successors, that they might not, by anticipating them in all timings, clip their wings too much. It is proved, likewise, from analogy. For, as in jurisprudence, there is a law written, and a law unwritten, so ought there to be in theology.

ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XX.

"God," says an apostle, (Hebrews 1:1) "who, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things." But what kind of expectation the Israelitish people had of the doctrine of Christ, appears from the expression of the woman of Samaria, "When the Messiah is come, he will tell us all things," (John 4:25) We ought, therefore, to stand fast in the doctrine in which we know that all the fullness of heavenly wisdom is included. On this very ground does Augustine decide, that nothing not delivered in the Scriptures is necessary to salvation, (Lib. ii. De Pecc. Mer. et Remiss. cap. ult.) For, if it were necessary to be known, God would not have omitted it. There is also a remarkable sentence of Chrysostom, (De Sanct. et Ador. in Spiritu,) "As Christ declares that he spoke not of himself, because he spoke from the law and the prophets; so, if any thing beside the gospel is obtruded upon us under the name of the Spirit, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, so is the Spirit the fulfilment of the Gospel" On the whole, since the certainty of faith should be sought from none but God only, we conclude that true faith is founded only on the Scriptures which proceeded from him, since therein he has been pleased to teach not partially, but fully, whatever he wished us to know, and knew to be useful.

ARTICLE XXI. OF THE POWER OF EXCOMMUNICATION. With the same full conviction of its truth ought it to be received, that the power of excommunicating is immediately and of divine right granted to the Church of Christ, and that, on that account, ecclesiastical censures are to be greatly feared.

There are many minute questions among the Doctors, Whether, in exercising the power of excommunication, the key of knowledge and discernment is required? But do you say expressly-it being fixed that the Church cannot err, this power is plenary? This, too, seems to have been the meaning of our masters, who speak thus without drawing any distinction. But if it is asked, Whether he who has been excommunicated unjustly , has been excommunicated by the power of Christ? say it is enough that it is in his name.

ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XXI. As the power of excommunicating has been committed to the Church, so the due mode of using it has been prescribed. First, Let judgment be given only from the mouth of the Lord, (Matthew 2:7) Secondly, Let edification be studied, not destruction, (2 Corinthians 10:8) If it is done otherwise, the well-known sentiment of Gregory applies, "he who abuses the power committed to him deserves to lose his privilege" But we speak of the external form of the Church. For the true Church, as it is governed by the Spirit of Christ, will never, in judging, recede from the rule of his word. But , as it often happens, that those who are invested with ordinary power in the Church exercise tyranny instead of legitimate judgment, this distinction is to be carefully observed. Otherwise, Christ would in vain say to the apostles, "They will cast you out of their synagogues." We need not fear, therefore, at being excommunicated from any society from which God and his truth are exiled. But we ought not only to fear, but to guard with special care, against being excommunicated from that Church which has for its bond of unity the pure doctrine of God; for there is no salvation out of her communion, (Isaiah 2:3; Joel 2:32; Ezekiel 13:8) ARTICLE XXII. OF THE AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS.

It is certain that a General Council, lawfully convened, representing the whole Church, cannot err in its determination of faith and practice.

PROOF.—A General Council, always, and without exception, represents the Church, which otherwise would not be visible. But remember, it must be a Council in which the Pope presides. For though, in the Council of Nice, the legates of Saint Sylvester had not the first place, but the fourth, that was owing to the rudeness of the times-the Church not being fully constituted. But if any one objects the Council of Basle, say that it ought not to have any authority, as Eugenius had recalled his mandate, and withdrawn from the Cardinal of the Holy Cross his right to preside. But when our masters speak of a lawful assembly, it is to be observed, that for the lawfully assembling of a Council, it is sufficient that the legal forms and solemnities be duly observed. For should any one begin to dispute whether or not the prelates who sit there have a right intention, and whither or not they are learned, and whether or not they have a knowledge of sacred literature. and whether or not they are disposed to obey sound doctrine , the process would be endless.

ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XXII.

Christ promises that he will be in the midst of those who are assembled, provided it be in his name, (Matthew 18:20) Therefore, faith is not to be placed in all kinds of councils indifferently, but in such only as shall appear to have been assembled in the name of Christ. The prophets exclaim, "From the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely," (Jeremiah 6:13) Again, "His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant," (Isaiah 56:10) Again, "There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof." "Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things," (Ezekiel 22:25-26) Since the Israelitish Church, which was the true Church of God, was liable to this misfortune, why should not the same thing happen to us? Nay, the apostles even announced that it would be so. "But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you," (2 Peter 2:1) Our conclusion then is, that a council, that has been assembled in the name of Christ, is governed by the Holy Spirit, and is under his guidance led into truth. But those councils over which Christ does not preside are governed by their own sense, and so can do nothing but err, and lead into error. We maintain, moreover, that in some councils, though guided at the outset by the Spirit of God, the will of the flesh creeps in and turns them aside from the truth. For it is in Christ alone that the fullness of the Spirit dwells, and to each man grace is given in measure, (John 1:16; 1 Corinthians 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:27; Ephesians 4:7) ARTICLE XXIII. OF THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. Nor is it less certain that in the Church militant there is, by divine right, a Supreme Pontiff whom all Christians are bound to obey, and who, indeed, has the power of granting indulgences.

PROOF.—It was said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock," &c. But when the Lutherans say that Peter is there praised as one among the number of the faithful, and that the Rock, which ought to be the foundation of the Church, is Christ, since Peter, in as much as he denied Christ, would not have been a good foundation, and, according to Paul, no other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid, viz., Christ, never yield this to them. For, seeing there is a different interpretation in favour of the Roman see, the well known rule of law is, that favours ought to be liberally interpreted. The Lutherans have also another answer, viz., that, supposing Christ gave the primacy to Peter, it does not follow that he gave it to his successors, unless, indeed, they are all to be also called Satans, it having been said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan." Their argument is, that those who succeed to the one title succeed equally to the other. But answer, that, by the rule of law, odious terms are to be strictly interpreted. Or, give another explanation, viz., that in the first instance Christ spoke to Peter as a future or incipient Pope, in the second spoke to him as a private individual.

They argue besides in this way; why did Peter confer the inheritance of the primacy on the Roman see rather than on that of Antioch, since he was bishop in both? Answer, that the place acquires dignity from his having died in it, especially from its being the place where the blood of martyrs, which is dear in the sight of the Lord, was shed, according to the Antiphone which is sung on his festival. They also object, why did not James and John acquire for the Churches in which they presided the second and third degree of primacy and dignity, in the same way as Peter acquired the first at Rome, since Paul says that those three were considered pillars? To this answer, that if others were not sufficiently zealous or magnanimous in maintaining their right, it does not follow that this ought to prejudice Rome. Therefore, Jerusalem and Ephesus, on account of their negligence or false shame, were deservedly put into the background. But Rome, which stood stoutly up for her honour, deserved to remain first.

They also use ridicule, saying, that if Rome ought to be the prime see, because Peter preached and died there, for the same reason the desert ought to have been the prime see to the ancient people, for there Moses, the prince of the prophets, both preached and died; likewise Aaron, the first high priest, there exercised his office until death. Nay, they maintain, that Jerusalem ought rather to take precedence of Rome and all other cities, for there our Lord fulfilled his ministry, and there died. But answer, that under the old dispensation, the succession to the priesthood was a personal , but is now a real right, and goes with the place. As to Christ, solve the difficulty thus: that he did not choose to found a primacy in his own person, for he himself says, I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. Still, however, they object, that even if there had been a primacy at Rome, it could endure only so long as the Church remained there, and as long as the Pope was a bishop. But they deny that there now is a Church there, because there is the greatest confusion, and they deny that the Pope is a bishop, because he does nothing episcopal. But tell them that this objection is not to be admitted, because the thing is impossible; for it is written, "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not."

ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XXIII.

Scripture often mentions Christ the universal Head, but no where mentions the Pope. And when Paul pourtrays the Church, he does not make it the universal bishopric of one, but says that Christ governs the Church by his ministers. And yet the passage especially required that one should be named as over the others, if that were the fact, (Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15; Ephesians 5:2; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 2:20) In commendation of unity, he mentions one Lord, one faith , one baptism, (Ephesians 4:11) Why does he not add one Pope, the ministerial head? Moreover, the hierarchy, which, as the flatterers of the Pope pretend, consists chiefly in the primacy of the Roman see, is there professedly described. Why, then, does he omit what would have been most appropriate to the subject? He elsewhere says,(Galatians 2:8) that his office of apostle towards the Gentiles was equal to that which Peter received towards the Jews. Whence we infer two things-that Peter was not his head, and that the apostleship of Peter does not properly extend to us. He there also relates that he had entered into fellowship with Peter, but not to acknowledge him as superior. And Peter himself, when he writes to pastors, does not command with authority, but makes them his colleagues, and exhorts them in an affable manner, as is usual among equals, (1 Peter 1:5) When he is accused of having gone in to the Gentiles, though this accusation was unfounded, yet by clearing himself before the Church, he professes subjection, (Acts 11:4) And being justly reprimanded by Paul, he does not claim exemption, but obediently suffers himself to be corrected. Being ordered by his colleagues to go to Samaria with John, he obeys the order.

Let us, therefore, hold fast what Paul says, (Ephesians 4:15) that Christ is the head, "from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." For he there places all men, without a single exception, in time body, and leaves the name and honour of head to Christ alone. Besides, to each of the members he attributes a certain measure and a definite and limited function, in order that the supreme power of government may reside with Christ alone.

Cyprian, too, when he describes the unity of the Church, says, (De Unitate Ecclesiae, cap. ii.) "There is one bishopric, a part of which is held as a whole by each bishop, just as there are many rays, yet one light, and many branches in a tree, yet only one trunk fixed by its root ; and as several streams flow from one fountain, and being more than one seem divided, yet notwithstanding of the apparent numerical diffusion through the copiousness of the discharge, unity is preserved entire in the source; so also the Church, pervaded with time light of the Lord, sends its rays over the whole world, yet it is but one light which is everywhere diffused; it extends its branches, it pours out its refluent streams over the entire globe; still there is but one head, and one original."

We see how he makes the bishopric of Christ alone universal, and teaches that portions of it are held by his ministers. For this reason it was forbidden by the Council of Carthage, (cap. 47,) to give to any one the name of chief of the priests, or prime bishop, or more than bishop of the prime see. And Gregory execrates the name of universal bishop as profane, nay, blasphemous, and the forerunner of antichrist, terming it an invention of the devil, (Epist. 76, ad Maur., Augustin. Epist. 78, ad Const., Augustin. sequenti ad Enodium.) Cyprian does not honour the Roman bishop with any other appellation than that of brother and co-bishop and colleague. In writing to Stephen, the Roman bishop, he not only makes him the equal of himself and others, but even addresses him in harsher terms, accusing him of arrogance and ignorance. Nay, even Jerome, a Roman presbyter, hesitates not to make that see subordinate. If, says he, (Epist. ad Anion.) the question of authority is raised, the world is greater than a city. Why talk to me of the custom of one city? Why, against the laws of the Church, vindicate the few, from whom superciliousness has sprung? Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, there is the same merit, and the same priesthood. The power of riches, and the humbleness of poverty, do not make one bishop superior, and another inferior Lastly, were every thing else conceded to the Romans, he cannot be the chief of the bishops who is no bishop at all.

ARTICLE XXIV. Of HUMAN CONSTITUTIONS.

Ecclesiastical constitutions, such as those concerning fasting, the choice of food, abstinence front flesh, and many others, truly oblige in the forum of conscience, even to the exclusion of all offence.

PROOF FIRST, from similitude, or from example. For the Rabbis of the Jews also say that the precepts of the wise ought to be observed as the laws of God are, and this without doubt. PROOF SECOND , from reason. For the Church is the substitute of Christ, and represents his person; therefore, it should be able to do as much as Christ can. PROOF THIRD, from authority, because it is said, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; and whatever things they say unto you do." But when the Lutherans reply, that this is said of the law which the Pharisees taught when they were in that seat, and adduce, in confirmation, the order elsewhere given us to beware of their leaven, that is, their doctrine, and also the exposition of Augustine, where he asks, What else does the Lord mean than that they hear the voice of the pastor through the medium of hirelings? For sitting in the chair, they teach the law of the Lord; therefore, God teaches by them. But if they choose to teach what is their own, refuse to hear, refuse to do : To all this answer, that it is impossible that the Church can teach anything else than the will of God, because it is directed by the Holy Spirit. There is also another proof from authority. For it is said, "Obey those who are set over you." But when the Lutherans say that this ought to be restricted conformably to the rule which Peter lays down to those who have rule, viz., not to exercise dominion over the heritage; and also, to the rule which Paul says that he observed among the Corinthians, not lording it over their faith, there is nothing in the objection. For , even if those who preside issue improper orders, still those under them are hound to obey. Then, we ought always to return to the principle-because they are the Church, they cannot err in determinations of practice. Finally, there is a proof from utility. For it is scandalous to make great changes. And Solomon forbids us to remove the ancient landmarks which our fathers placed. But the greater part of the observances by which the world is governed in the present day are traditions of the Church, and, therefore, it would neither be convenient nor useful to cause so much confusion by changing every timing. Add, that they contribute to decency and comeliness of conduct. If anyone say that they do not by this bind consciences, I answer, that this is done accidentally, in consequence of their ratification. For the Church intended this, and the people consented.

ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XXIV.

"There is one Lawgiver," says James, (James 4:12) "who can save and destroy." And the reason for this is twofold; because the will of God is to us a perfect rule of righteousness and holiness, and he alone possesses authority over souls-an authority which he resigns to none. Therefore, the Lord everywhere urges obedience, and obedience to himself alone. Hence those expressions, "Obedience is better than sacrifice," (1 Samuel 15:22) Likewise, "Whatever I command you, that observe and do. You will not add ought or diminish." Likewise, "Let not everyone do what seemeth to him good, but do only what I command you." Likewise, "Did I ever command your fathers to offer sacrifices to me ?" and not this rather, "Hearing, hear my voice," (1 Samuel 15:22; Deuteronomy 12:5, Deuteronomy 12:32; Deuteronomy 4:2; Jeremiah 7:22) Paul declares it unlawful to bind the conscience by any human laws. "Stand fast," says he, (Galatians 5:1) "in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage." He elsewhere gives the reason, (Colossians 2:23) For even those things which have a show of wisdom are frivolous and vain, if they are according to the precepts and traditions of men. In like manner, he declares, when he treats of marriage, that he is unwilling to lay a snare for believers, (1 Cor. v. 35.) Therefore, the spiritual kingdom of Christ is violated, and his authority over souls infringed, when men usurp the right of binding consciences by their own laws. Besides, it is abomination in the sight of God to frame to him a worship which he does not require, or to embrace one devised by man without the sanction of his word, as Isaiah testifies, (Isaiah 29:13) when for this cause he denounces dreadful judgments from God upon the people, because they worshipped him with the commandments of men. Also, we have the well-known declaration of Christ, "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (Matthew 15:9) As to the choice of meats, we have the doctrine of Paul, "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink," (Colossians 2:16) Also, "The kingdom of Christ is not meat and drink," (Romans 14:17) We have also the declaration of Christ, "That which entereth into the mouth defileth not the man," (Matthew 15:11) And in another passage Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, predicts that impostors would arise, prohibiting the use of meats, which God had created, and also of holy matrimony, (1 Timothy 4:3) It is impossible to listen to the quibble, that, in the former passages, Paul is disputing with the Jews, and that this prophecy is directed against the Tatians and their followers. For if God has abolished the distinction of meats which he had introduced into the law, and has subjected all meats indifferently to the power of men, who can now assume to himself the right of making new laws, by which the liberty allowed by God is taken away? if Augustine, even in his day, justly complained that the Church, which God in his mercy wished to be free, was so burdened, that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable, in what terms shall we deplore the bondage which now exists?

ARTICLE XXV. OF VOWS, AND THEIR OBLIGATION. In the same forum of conscience, vows are obligatory, although they be monastic, such as perpetual continence, poverty, and obedience.

PROVED, First, by the true stanza, "Words bind men, ropes the horns of bulls." For, (arguing from the less to the greater,) if we keep our promises to men, how much more to God? But when the Lutherans object that a contract is not completed without the consent of both parties; also, that pactions against law are not valid: answer, that whatever is done with a good intention is pleasing to God. And if anyone vows with a bad intention, yet, on account of the honour due to vows, it is the same as if he had vowed with a good intention. This holds especially in the monastic vow on ac count of the dignity of the profession, because, as St Thomas says, it is like a second baptism.

When, in regard to perpetual continence, the Lutherans adduce another argument, viz., that no man is bound to observe it, unless it be given him from above: answer, that, according to the Doctors, a vow does not cease to be obligatory, because the faculty of performance is defective. But they ask, Which of the two is better for a monk or a priest-to marry, or to commit fornication? And, moreover, they produce the authority of Cyprian, who, in his eleventh Epistle, says of sacred virgins or nuns, that if they will not or cannot persevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by indulgence. But a contrary reason prevails, according to the determination of the Canonists also, on account of the contumacy, and more direct infringement of the vow. It is proved, moreover, that vows are obligatory, from their being dispensed with and loosed. The Pope could not dispense with vows, were it not for the power of the keys, and hence it follows that they bind the conscience. The only remaining doubt arises from its being said by our masters, "although they be monastic," the expression seeming to imply, that monastic vows are less obligatory than others. But, observe that this was set down on account of the difficulty of observance, a difficulty which, but for this curb, might tempt monks to draw back.

ANTIDOTE TO ARTICLE XXV. In vows three things are to be attended to: First, Whether the thing vowed is in our power; Secondly, Whether the purpose of the vow is right ; Thirdly, Whether what we vow is in itself pleasing to God. When these, or any one of these, is wanting, we conclude that vows are fruitless and of no avail. Moreover, Scripture tells us that perpetual continence is not in every man’s power; for Christ declares, that all do not receive this word, (Matthew 19:11) And Paul, speaking of this very gift, and so giving us to understand that it is a special gift not granted to all, reminds us, (1 Corinthians 7:7) that the gifts of God are distributed. And, therefore, he enjoins all who burn to seek their remedy in marriage. "Whosoever," says he, "cannot contain, let him marry. Likewise, to avoid fornication, let every one have his own wife." But that in vowing monastical obedience, the end is vicious, is plain from a single expression of Paul, in which he condemns all that is voluntary modes of worship which men institute at their own hand. For this is the term which he uses in the Epistle to the Colossians, and which the translator has rendered by superstition. But when monks thus vow obedience to their superiors, they just worship God by human fictions. We maintain that the poverty which they vow is not only not acceptable to God, but is utterly displeasing to Him. For God orders every man to live by his own labour; and Paul says, (1 Thessalonians 3:10) "He who does not work should not eat." And he calls it a disorderly life for any man to live in idleness by another’s sweat, commanding that such be excommunicated. Then the voluntary poverty which God recommends to us is, that he who is rich should, by bestowing his goods to relieve the wants of the brethren, make himself poor after the example of Christ. So Paul tells us, (2 Corinthians 8:9) But the poverty which the monks profess is one by which, though idle, they never hunger, but devour the goods of the poor, and deprive themselves of the power of well-doing. On the whole, we conclude, First, That vows conceived by superstition are of no value, and have no power to bind the conscience; Secondly, That vows rashly made from a foolish confidence in the flesh, ought to be speedily renounced, before God punishes their obstinate arrogance. THE NEW STATUTES OF THE FACULTY. The Faculty of Theology prohibits the Masters of Arts and Bachelors of their own body and others, desirous, now or in future, to take a theological degree, from maintaining, on any account, in sermons or lectures, or from otherwise teaching counter to the above mentioned articles. On the contrary, when the subject and opportunity offer, they must announce them sincerely, and declare them openly to the people. Moreover, the Faculty has decreed that each Master and Bachelor shall confirm them by his subscription. And since it is not safe to nourish the disorderly and contentious, like wolves in the flock, the Faculty has resolved that all who shall refuse to obey this decree, or who shall teach, or in future preach, propositions contrary to those aforesaid, shall be expelled for ever from their body. But as, from a love of contradiction, and of departure from the customs of our ancestors, very many, studious of change and novelties in doctrine, neglect the laudable custom of imploring the grace of the Holy Spirit through the intercession of the blessed Virgin, we warn them not to be so averse to the angelical salutation which the gospel has prescribed to us, nor, as many are wont, when the name of the Lord our Saviour occurs, preposterously to disdain to use the name of Jesus, contenting themselves with calling him the Christ, (ie Christ,) especially seeing that, as Peter testifies, there is no other name given under heaven among men by which we can be saved. In like manner, when mention is incidentally made of the divine apostles and prophets, and holy doctors, let them not, as they are wont, designate them, without any title of honour, Paul, James, Matthew, Peter, Jerome, Augustine, nor consider it a grievance to prefix the word saint, calling them Saint Peter, Saint Paul, &c. And, lastly, let them not neglect to commend the souls of the dead to the prayers of the people. 10th March, Anno Domini 1542. The Faculty of Theology, convened on oath in the College of Sorbonne, to consider the preceding Articles, approved of said Articles in the form in which they are written.

Signed by order of his Lordship the Dean, and of the Faculty.

FOURNIER CUM PARAPHO.

ANTIDOTE THE NEW STATUTES.

Isaiah prohibits all the disciples of God from saying, "conspiracy," as often as the multitude have conspired, (Isaiah 8:12) By this he intimates that we are not to obey or consent to any counsels of the wicked. Let us, therefore, follow what he afterwards enjoins, i.e, let us sanctify the Lord of Hosts, adhering to him with fear, that he may be our sanctification. Whosoever tempts us to withdraw from this fear, let him be to us anathema. And, like the blind man who received sight, let us not be afraid of being expelled from the synagogue of the wicked, since Christ will meet with us, and receive us into the fellowship of his body. It were better to die a hundred times, than to pollute our hands with a nefarious subscription abjuring the truth of God. For the Sorbonnists, who so often make mention of their herd, (gregis,) have here proved, that they are a herd of swine. That invocation of the Virgin, which they have hitherto used in seeking the grace of the Spirit, who sees not to be execrable blasphemy? to say nothing of those titles full of anathema, by which, while they would honour the Virgin, they most grievously insult her, calling her "the Queen of Heaven, and Treasury of Grace." We hear how Christ tells us, that he will send the Spirit of truth from the Father, and bids us ask in his own name, (John 14:26; John 15:26) This, therefore, is the right rule of asking, and the sure method of obtaining. But to flee to the Virgin, passing by Christ, and in prayer to address her instead of God, who sees not to be a profane practice? It is assuredly altogether alien from the Word of God. Nay, there is extant a Canon of the fourth Council of Carthage, forbidding the invocation of saints at the altar. Here, also, they (the Sorbonne) give a still clearer manifestation of their absurdity, when they say that this salutation is prescribed to us by the gospel. It is true, Gabriel was sent, as Luke relates, to salute the Virgin in these terms; but are we Gabriel? When was this ever commanded to us? What access have we to the Virgin, for the purpose of holding conference with her? Besides, why use the salutation at the time when they implore the influence of the Spirit, unless to pervert it into a form of prayer? As to the name of Christ, how can ears so assinine be so delicate, as to be offended at modes of expression which the Holy Spirit employs? The name of Christ occurs every where in the Scriptures. All the writers of the Church used it; but it is not relished by our masters. And that they may not want a pretext, they bring forward that magical device of the Jews, as if the salvation of the Church were included in two syllables. Since they rave so absurdly about the name of Christ, it is not strange that they are so fastidious as to the names of saints. But by what reason, or what example, do they impose it as a law upon preachers to commend the souls of the dead to the people? Many homilies of the ancients are extant, and from them it will be seen that nothing of the kind was ever done in the ancient Church. Accordingly we see that they take the usual course of tyrants. When unable any longer to support their domination by moderate measures, they have recourse to truculence and barbarian ferocity. But what, on the other hand, does the Lord declare, "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand," (Isaiah 8:10) For "there is no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel, against the Lord," (Proverbs 21:30)

.