WE STAND
WITH CHRIST
AN ESSAY IN CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS
JOSEPH CLIFFORD FENTON, S.T.D.
Assistant Professor of Fundamental Dogmatic Theology
The Catholic University of America
THE
BRUCE PUBLISHING COMPANY
MILWAUKEE
CONTENTS
Introduction
CHAPTER
I The Work of Apologetics
II The Concept of Revelation
III The Characteristics of Revelation
IV The Possibility of Revelation
V The Necessity of Revelation
VI The Discernibility of Divine Revelation
VII The Process of Proof
VIII The Historical Evidence About Jesus of Nazareth
IX The Claims of Jesus
X The Doctrinal Content in the Message of Jesus
Part I : The New Dispensation and the Old Law
XI The Doctrinal Content in the Message of Jesus
Part II: The Trinity and the Incarnation
XII The Doctrinal Content in the Message of Jesus
Part III: The Redemption and the Church
XIII The Apostolic Witnesses
XIV The Holiness and Wisdom of Jesus
XV The Testimony of Miracles
XVI The Resurrection
XVII The Witness of Prophecy
XVIII The Church As a Motive of Credibility
XIX The Conclusion of Apologetics
XX The Story of Apologetics
Index
INTRODUCTION
When
Origen wrote his introduction to the book Against Celsus, he drew a picture
no apologist can afford to forget. He described our Lord standing alone and
silent before His accusers in the judgment hall. Shrill voices bore
discordant charges against Him, and He would not speak in His own defense.
The great Alexandrian made it very clear that the silence of Jesus was
freighted with meaning. The important thing there in that courtroom was
Jesus Himself. The men who surged about Him knew well what He had said and
what He had done. The Saviour wished them to consider only that.
Now Origen
knew very well that Jesus of Nazareth never would and never could stand in
need of any earthly advocate. His is not a cause to which men are to be won
over by skilled pleading or any merely rhetorical tactic. He wills only that
men should understand what He has spoken and what He has accomplished.
Hence it is that, when a man is privileged to stand with Christ, it becomes
his duty so to conduct himself that through his speech or writing the men of
his age and of his little circle may perhaps gather some more accurate
appreciation of the Lord.
It was
with this spirit that Origen .took up the contest against Celsus. It is in
this same spirit that every successful apologist since the dawn of
Christianity has faced his task. The men who stand with Christ come and go.
The Master remains. Each man who is privileged to plead for Him takes
cognizance of the objections and calumnies that the world casts at Him. Then
he bends every effort to enable men clearly to see the life and the words of
Jesus. All the time he is aware that our Lord seeks for more than some mere
refutation of the idle calumnies that are issued against Him, for He stands
clothed in that blood which was shed for many.
The
efforts of each man or group of men are sharply limited. The effective work
of one defender of Christ May reach a few listeners for a short time. Others
will come and these in turn will go. But while men live upon this earth
there is no more precious and sacred 'privilege than that of standing forth
and speaking for Christ.
At the
moment this privilege is ours. The American Catholics of our generation are
empowered, as perhaps no similar group in the world is now, to point
effectively at Christ. Through our efforts the men of this warring world can
come to know Him better, and knowing Him achieve that eternal life He died
to procure for them. This at least is certain. If we do not show Christ to
men, we shall have failed.
Each man
must speak in the language of his people and according to the mentality of
his time. Our people are capable of and habituated to a language of
scientific accuracy. The time in which we live is by far too difficult to
admit of much concern over fanciful systems and theories. We must 'present
the claims of Jesus clearly. It is our business to show the proofs He
offered in support of His claims, and to point out how they demonstrate.
In far-off
lands theorizers who had no pressing business might sit around in salons and
indulge their fancy about some never-never country in which perfectly
impartial men set out on a search for the true religion. Now we must take
cognizance of facts and act in accordance with them. The Church of God does
not wait for men to come to her seeking the divine message. Urged on by the
insistent command of her divine Founder, she carries that message to men who
suffer and work. With that message she carries credentials, showing it to
be a communication from the real and living God, which men ought to accept
with the unwavering assent of divine faith and through which alone they can
achieve an unending and ineffable happiness. We who are privileged to stand
with Christ must be able to show that message and those credentials.
In this
book I have ventured to cite the texts of pertinent documents a bit more
extensively than is usual in a work of this type. I believe this to be an
effective and satisfactory procedure since American readers are notoriously
interested in direct evidence. In this way they can see what Jesus has said
and what others have said about Him much more effectively than through a
mere recapitulation with the inevitable references to other books. For
scriptural citations, the Challoner revision of the Douay version has been
used in practically every case.
CHAPTER I
THE WORK OF APOLOGETICS
1.
In general, the term “apologetics” designates a defense of Catholic
teaching.
Although the word apologetics
did not come into general
use until the nineteenth century, the activity which it connotes is as old
as Christianity itself.
Since the days of Jesus of Nazareth, men have written and spoken to
refute the charges advanced against His followers and His doctrine and
to show decisive reason why their fellows should accept His teachings with
the assent of divine faith. St. Justin the Martyr and
Athenagoras pointed out the injustice of that persecution which the
Roman Empire raised against the followers of Christ; Origen
triumphantly overthrew the accusations of evil and inconsistency which the
philosopher Celsus had leveled against Christian teaching; Eusebius of
Caesarea and St. Athanasius were able to disprove claims which
had been set forth in favor of a cultural superiority of paganism over
Catholicism; St Augustine demonstrated that the Roman Empire's
acceptance of Christianity had in no way been responsible for the calamities
which befell the state during the barbarian incursions.
When men attacked the intellectual claims of Christianity in the name of the
old paganism, or of Judaism, or later of Islamism, there were always erudite
followers of Christ able to examine these writings and to reply victoriously
to them. Again from the time of St. Irenaeus until our own, the scholars of
the Catholic Church have had to keep up a running battle against those men
who have attacked the Church in the name of one or another of those sects
which have disputed with it the title and the prerogatives of the true
Christian society. Finally there have been Catholic writers who, in more
recent times have taken up the replies against rationalism and naturalism,
and who have developed what we may term a theory for the defense of the
Christian Church.
All of the writings which these men have produced can be collected under the
heading of “apologetics.” Thus a history of apologetics, properly written,
should take cognizance of all the controversial literature designed to
defend the claims of Catholicism. However, the apologetics which is taught
in our seminaries and universities, which has been brought into scientific
order within the past century and a half, is far more than a mere
compilation of controversial information. It considers the contributions of
traditional controversial literature in positive and scientific form.
2.
The science of apologetics is meant to demonstrate that Catholic dogma is
rationally acceptable.
Catholic dogma consists in those truths which are found in sacred scripture
and in tradition, and which are presented by the Church, either by way of
solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium, as having been
revealed by God to be accepted by all men with the assent of divine faith.
It is a body of teaching which claims at once to be living and immutable. It
is living in the sense that it has been and is proposed to people of all
ages and of every variety of intellectual endowment. The Church expounds
this dogma in terms of every language and every cultural environment and in
face of the difficulties which have arisen through every crisis of world
history. Catholic dogma is immutable in that, through all this complexity of
cultural approach and expression, the same identical truths are always
presented to the people as having been revealed by God. Their meaning never
changes.
The science of apologetics, then, takes up the defense' of a doctrine which
is not merely set down in a book and then left to the varying
interpretations of different ages and cultural conditions. It defends this
dogma by demonstrating, clearly and with certitude, that it gives evidence
of having been revealed by God. A doctrine which offers naturally
ascertainable evidence of having been communicated by God is obviously one
which men can accept prudently and rationally with the assent of divine
faith. The defense of Catholic dogma then consists in an examination of the
claims advanced in favor of this teaching, and then in the demonstration of
the way in which these claims are justified by manifest signs of divine
origin.
The term defense, as ft is used in connection with the function of
scientific apologetics, must be properly understood. The science of
apologetics is in no way construed as an answer to some definite attack
.which has been made against the integrity of Christian doctrine. Such a
reply must be classified as a work of individual controversy or polemics.
Neither is this science merely to be thought of as a repertory out of which
answers may be found to any charge which might be leveled against the Church
or its teaching. All of the ecclesiastical sciences hold information which
may be utilized in replying to such attacks. In the same way the science of
apologetics is quite distinct from what is known as the apology of dogma. In
this latter discipline the student learns to defend some individual dogma
against the misrepresentations which have been made against it by the
enemies of the Church.
The science of apologetics differs from controversy and polemics in that it
is positive and irenic rather than negative. It is distinguished from the
apology of dogma in that it inquires into the acceptability of the body of
revealed doctrine as a whole rather than into that of some individual
statement contained in the body of divine teaching.
3.
Catholic dogma is intellectually acceptable only in so far as it is
rationally credible.
The Catholic dogma which the science of apologetics sets out to establish as
intellectually acceptable is a body of teaching which claims to have, been
revealed by God Himself. Included in this body of teaching are certain
truths which are known as the supernatural mysteries, verities absolutely
beyond the natural capacity of any creature, actual or possible, to
comprehend. Such truths can be seen clearly only in the light of the divine
intelligence, or in that of the beatific vision which God grants as a
supernatural and eternal reward to the blessed in heaven. If these truths
had not been revealed to man, that is, communicated to him in a way which is
at once distinct from and superior to the manner. in which man naturally
obtains his knowledge, he could • never know of their existence. But even
after they have been supernaturally revealed, and accepted with the assent
of divine faith, man does not see them clearly in this world.
For this reason it is idle to attempt any proof of acceptability which would
claim to show that all the verities contained in the deposit of Christian
revelation are evidently true. As long as man is in this world he will be
incapable of effecting any such demonstration. The only recourse left to
one who wishes to establish the intellectual acceptability of Catholic
dogma is the demonstration that these mysteries have actually been revealed
by God.
The revelation with which we are here concerned is mediate and public rather
than immediate and private. In other words, it is a body of doctrine which
comes to the individual "destinary" through the preaching of some one of his
fellow men. It is intended for the body of mankind as a whole, rather than
merely for one individual or for a limited number of persons. Hence, it is
impossible for the apologist to appeal merely to the individual, experience
of one of the "destinaries." A man can be certain that the dogma of the
Catholic Church is intellectually acceptable only when the divine origin of
that doctrine is attested by evident and certain guarantees.
A doctrine thus guaranteed is termed rationally credible. It is, in other
words, a teaching which men may prudently and reasonably accept with the
assent of divine revelation. A statement is said to be rationally credible
only in so far as it is capable of being accepted with the assent of divine
faith by a man who does not do violence to his own human nature in believing
it.
In proposing Catholic dogma as something which is evidently credible as
divine revelation, the science of apologetics' is quite cognizant of the
fact that accepting a statement on the authority of God revealing it is
indeed a serious business. Rather than honoring God, a man would commit an
offense against Him were he to believe without reason that some statement
had been communicated by the Creator. Christian teaching censures the man
who believes without having cause to know that the statement which he
accepts is actually one which should be accepted. “He that is hasty to
give credit, is light of heart, and shall be lessened.” (Eccles.19:4)
Furthermore in the scripture itself there is the direct assertion that the
revealed message is actually credible. “Thy testimonies are become
exceedingly credible.” (Ps. 92:5)
In general a judgment of credibility involves three elements. First of all,
the man who receives a message on the authority of the one who has
communicated it to him, rather than by reason of any evidence of truth
manifest in the communication itself should know whether the statement is
genuine, that is whether it has actually come from the person who was
supposed to have sent it. Then, he should know whether the person who has
sent the message actually has knowledge of the object about which he wishes
to instruct. Finally, the “destinary” should be able to judge whether the
sender of the message actually intends to tell the truth.
In dealing with a message which claims to come from God, obviously only the
first element need be considered. Our natural knowledge about God shows us
clearly enough that He is at once all knowing and all truthful. Consequently
one may not reject a message which purports to come from God on the ground
that He might deceive us. However, it is not only possible but even
necessary to inquire as to whether this particular message actually has
come from God.
The standard by which we determine the divine origin of a particular or any
communication is analogous to that which we utilize in ascertaining the
origin of any other message which we might receive. We recognize a message
from another human being principally by means of his signature. This
signature is so intensely personal that it can be considered as perfectly
proper only to the individual human being involved. Others may counterfeit
his signature, they can never duplicate it. A message which bears the
signature or the seal of a man is rightly considered as emanating from his
person, and as worthy of credence as he himself is.
Although God Himself is invisible to bodily eyes, there are certain visible
effects which He alone can produce, and which are manifestly distinct from
and superior to any and all counterfeits of these same effects. Such works,
evident in themselves and manifestly attached to the body of a doctrine
which claims to be revealed, show this doctrine to be of authentic divine
teaching. The all-wise and all-just God could never permit Himself to
deceive His creatures by attaching His signature to a doctrine which He knew
to be false. He could never allow Himself to be called in as a witness, and
to attest a claim that was unsubstantiated.
A message which claims to come from God, and which is authenticated by
these visible and manifestly divine effects is properly termed credible. It
is the business of the apologist to show that such is the case with Catholic
dogma. The man who accepts with the assent of divine faith a doctrine which
gives evident indications of coming from God obviously acts in accordance
with the dictates of his own reason. In believing a message which gives
manifest indications of its own divine origin, the Catholic acts prudently
and wisely.
4. The
conclusion of Catholic apologetics is meant to be acceptable in the light
of pure human reason.
A demonstration of rational credibility would be to no purpose, unless it
were visible in the light of natural reason as such. In other words, a man
need not possess the gift of divine faith in order to see that the content
of that faith is something which he can accept prudently with the assent of
divine faith. A man must have the gift of divine faith in order connaturally
and perfectly to accept with certainty the teachings contained in the body
of divine revelation. But he does not stand in need of any gift of faith in
order to be able to demonstrate and to realize that the acceptance of this
doctrine is perfectly in harmony with the tendencies and the demands of his
own human nature.
Since it contains supernatural mysteries as a definite and specifying
element, the body of divine revelation remains something above and beyond
the natural intellectual capacity, not only of the individual man, but of
any creature actual or possible. In order that the human mind may possess
these truths according to the perfection of intellectual certitude it must
be strengthened and confirmed supernaturally by God. However, since the
indications of divine authorship are visible to all men and comprehensible
to any person who is aware of that by which the Creator is distinguished
from His creatures, the evidence of credibility is attainable by any
individual who will examine the realities in which the divine testimony is
made manifest.
Moreover, the historical and critical doctrine which necessarily enters into
the demonstration of credibility offered in support of the claims of
Catholic dogma must be available to the natural understanding of man. The
apologist is concerned with offering naturally ascertainable evidence that
Jesus Christ really lived, that He actually taught the doctrine which is
ascribed to Him, that He claimed that His doctrine was a divine message
which was to be accepted as such, and finally that He adduced, in support of
His claims, unmistakable evidence that His teaching actually had been
revealed by God. Catholic dogma could never be accepted prudently as divine
revelation, unless all of this evidence can be offered to the natural mind
of man.
Since the conclusion of apologetics is meant to be something naturally
evident, the process of proof from which this conclusion is derived must
itself be ascertainable according to the demands and the conditions of
natural reason. Obviously, for the examination of the claims of
Christianity, a man must look into the content of the Christian message
itself. However, such an examination in no way compels an acceptance of this
dogma according to the certain assent of divine faith. A man may see that
the Christian dogma claims to be a doctrine actually revealed by God, a
message communicated by God to man in a supernatural way, without ever
accepting this message on divine faith. Likewise, he can recognize through
the exercise of his natural faculty of understanding alone that this message
is set forth as public and mediate revelation and as a necessary and
beneficial teaching.
In the same way, a man can judge the historical competence of those books
which the Christian accepts as the written word of God. In forming his
judgment he may use the same standards of recognition which he would utilize
in attempting to ascertain the historical value of any other documents.
Moreover by the use of his natural reason alone, man can decide as to the
possibility and the probative value of miracles, and can recognize the
testimony of miracles with reference to the essential claims of
Christianity. It is the business of the apologist to utilize all of the
equipment of• natural reason in bringing out that conclusion to which his
own science is primarily directed.
Obviously the demonstration of credibility cannot depend in any way upon the
assent of divine faith. Catholic dogma is rationally acceptable as divine
revelation only through actual evidence that it has been communicated by God
to man, and not merely through any claim to credibility contained. in the
body of doctrine itself. It is perfectly true that within the body of
Christian dogma there is the assertion that this doctrine is designated as
divine revelation through certain unmistakable indications of divine
authorship. The proof of credibility however consists essentially in showing
that such indications actually exist, and are manifestly attached to the
teaching of Jesus Christ.
5. The
judgment of credibility to which the science of apologetics is essentially
orientated must be objectively certain.
A certain judgment is made without fear or danger of the contradictory
proposition being true. It is essentially firm. As such it differs from
those acts of the intellect which are designated as doubt, conjecture, and
opinion. In doubt the mind is faced with two contradictory propositions,
and is unable, either because of a paucity of motive, or because the claims
of each appear to be equally balanced, to adhere firmly to either of them.
By conjecture the mind assents to one of two contradictory propositions, but
without an indication or motive which would be objectively sufficient for
such an adherence. By an opinion the mind assents to one of two
contradictory propositions, but not firmly, since there is valid and
objective reason for supposing that the other contradictory may be true.
(Cf. Summa Theologica, IIa, IIae q. 2, a. 1; Disputed Questions on Truth, q.
16, a. 1)
The judgment of credibility which would be sufficient for a doctrine which
claims to be divine revelation would obviously have to be certain. The
matter under consideration is far too important to lie within the field of
mere opinion.
A message which God sends
to man, and which man cannot reject without a serious moral fault would
necessarily be one which carried objective and certain indications in favor
of its own claims.
This is the case with the Christian message. It is on this ground, and in
function of these claims that it must be judged. The history of the Church,
and the life of the Church in the world around us are indications that
certain evidence has always been presented in favor of the fact that
Catholic dogma is rationally credible as divine revelation. A course in
apologetics, or a book on the science of 'apologetics, must be evaluated
according to the clarity and the perfection in which they bring out this
certainty.
CHAPTER II
THE CONCEPT OF REVELATION
1. The
declaration of the Vatican Council on Revelation.
Since apologetics sets out to explain and to demonstrate that "Catholic
dogma is rationally credible as divine revelation," it is absolutely
necessary that we know at the very outset in what sense Catholic teaching
claims to have been revealed. Naturally, Catholic dogma is intellectually
acceptable only if it can be demonstrated that the same has come from God
in the very manner claimed. When we can adduce certain evidence that God
has revealed this doctrine in the way that Jesus Christ and the Church say
that it has been revealed, then the task of apologetics will have been
accomplished. In examining the concept of revelation, we shall consider the
manner in which Catholic dogma insists that it has come to man.
The Catholic Church has effectively summarized her teaching on the origin of
her dogma in one paragraph in the Constitution, Dei Filius, of the Vatican
Council: “The same holy mother Church believes and teaches that God, the
Principle and the End of all things, can be known with certainty in the
natural light of human reason from created things, ‘for His invisible
things, from the creation of the world are seen, being understood by those
things that are made.’ (Rom. 1:20) Nevertheless it has pleased His
wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will to
the human race in another, and this a supernatural way. 'Diversely and in
many ways in times past, God speaking to the fathers in the prophets, last
of all in these days hath spoken to us in His Son.’ ” (Heb. I:1-2; cf.
Denz. 1785)
In the light of this statement it is evident that the Church considers
revelation actively as a process of speech by which God communicates truths
about Himself and His works to men in a manner at once distinct from and
superior to the natural way in which man obtains knowledge. Objectively it
is the body of truth thus communicated. The ultimate and essential purpose
of apologetics is to demonstrate that the teaching which the Catholic Church
proposes as a divine message and which the members of that Church accept on
divine faith is actually such a revelation.
2. The
word “Revelation.”
The very term "revelation" gives us some insight into the claims made by the
Catholic Church in favor of her doctrine. The word is an adaptation of the
Latin ‘revelare.’ As such it implies the removal of a veil, the taking away
of some factor which has hitherto rendered an object unintelligible or
invisible. A person is said to reveal something when he exhibits or makes
known that which was previously concealed.
The Church claims that this is verified in her own dogma. Asserting that God
has chosen "to reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of His will to the
human race," she places the body of this dogmatic teaching in the class of
truths which the children of men would otherwise not have known. Now it is
essential that we understand that the message as a whole expresses truth
which has hitherto been concealed from man. There is obviously nothing to
prevent God from including in this communication some individual truths
which man knew independently of the revelation.
3. The
supernatural way of knowing about God.
Furthermore, when the Catholic Church insists that the truth we possess in
her dogmatic utterances has come to man "in another, and this a
supernatural way," she makes obvious reference to a means of knowing about
God which is within the natural competence of man and at the same time is
quite distinct from revelation. We cannot hope to appreciate what the Church
means by "a supernatural way," unless we are aware of her teaching about
the purely natural manner by which man can learn about God. She has made
this teaching most explicit, not only in the decrees of the Vatican Council
to which we have already alluded, but in the section of the "Oath Against
Modernism" which is meant to guard against misinterpretation of the Vatican
doctrine. "First of all I profess that God, the Principle and End of all
things, can be known with certitude and even demonstrated in the natural
light of reason through those things which are made, that is through the
visible works of creation as a cause (is known and demonstrated) through its
effects." (Denz. 2145) The Church has condemned as heretical any denial that
"the one true God, our Creator and Lord can be known with certitude in the
natural light of human reason through those things which are made." (The
Vatican Council, Canon I, "De Revelatione" Denz. 1806) Moreover, she has
taken pains to eradicate incompatible doctrines, like those of fideism and
traditionalism, even when these have been set forth by her own children and,
ostensibly at least, intended for her benefit. (Cf. Denz. 1622-27; 1649-52)
4. The
natural way of knowing about God.
Clearly then, the Church considers that way by which we know God as the
First and absolutely Necessary Cause of the universe to be the mode of
knowledge within the sphere of man's natural intellectual competence., The
man who attains to this knowledge gains first a clear understanding of the
visible and palpable realities which go to make up the material universe.
Once he begins to realize what these things are and what they are doing, he
notices that they give evidence of real and immediate dependence upon some
Cause which Itself is absolutely and ineffably independent. In much the same
way, a man who looking out of his window sees a wire swinging to and fro in
front of it is perfectly well aware that this wire is held by something
above his window. The fact that he is unable actually to see the fastening
in no way militates against his certitude that it exists.
The existence, the extent, and the scientific reliability characterizing
this natural manner of knowing about God are obviously matters of supreme
moment in the science of apologetics. In the first place we must understand
this process thoroughly in order to appreciate the way in which it differs
from the supernatural means of revelation. More important still it is the
process by which we gain our basic natural notion about God, upon which, in
the last analysis, every explanation and demonstration in all the science of
apologetics must depend. For when we say that God has revealed, we
understand by God no mere figment of imagination, but the one, infinitely
perfect, First Cause whose existence we know naturally with the utmost
certitude. Finally, when we assert that Catholic dogma is rationally
credible as divine revelation, we Must be able to demonstrate apodictically
that this doctrine carries with itself manifest indication that such a God
has communicated it to men and wills that all men should accept it.
5. The
five ways and the existence of God.
We can obtain no adequate idea of the natural process by which we know God
without considering the product of that process. As we have seen, man
begins with an awareness of the visible things in the universe. He sees
these bodies as moved, caused, contingent, admitting of various degrees of
excellence, and, finally, as ordered to some purpose. It is, of course, not
at all necessary that he should acquaint himself with every object in the
universe, or for that matter, with every aspect of dependence manifest in
these beings. It is enough that he should see that some thing is moved by a
being distinct from itself, that some thing is cause, that some reality is
contingent upon another, that one being is better than another, that a
design or purpose is manifest in some reality.
When man reflects upon the matter, he cannot fail to realize that the being
which moves another must either receive movement from a third object, or
must act independently of any other. Likewise the being which exercises
efficient causality upon a reality distinct from itself must be one which
acts either as acted upon by another or as utterly independent. Hence, even
at this stage of the proof, man can see that there must be some Prime Mover
or some First Cause (God), if there is to be any movement or causality
whatsoever. For, if the agency which moves or causes the visible object with
which we are concerned, is dependent upon a being beyond itself, we know
that there cannot be unending series of such beings. Just as we know that
ultimately something must support the final link of a suspended chain, so we
realize that finally some adequate and absolutely independent factor must be
responsible for the movement and causality evident in the universe. By
multiplying a series of dependent superior agencies, one succeeds only in
finding added reasons for the existence of one absolutely necessary and
independent agent by whom these lesser objects are influenced.
Much the same procedure is followed in observing the implications of the
contingency which we find in the world. We observe that some things are
contingent upon others. These others either depend upon an absolutely
necessary being or are such themselves. Since contingency implies a
dependence, there must be some utterly independent reality upon which the
contingent being is founded.
Where there are degrees of perfection and nobility, quite evidently there
must be a distinction between perfection itself and the thing which
possesses it or shares in it. If one thing is better than another, there
must be some goodness which has made the various mundane realities good.
Finally, since purpose is manifest among the beings of the world, there
necessarily is some intelligent being who has wrought the design. Now this
intelligent person is either designed by another or he is an understanding
who is at once his own act and his own purpose. Thus naturally we form the
basis for our notion of God.
There are two facts which we must realize carefully in evaluating and using
these proofs of the existence of God. In the first place, such proofs are
entirely outside of and superior to the order of time. We do not look for a
cause which once, long ago, set the various substances in the material
universe in motion, much as a billiards player starts the movement of the
balls upon the table. On the contrary, we look for and find the necessary
and primary Agent from whom this observable movement proceeds here and now;
and we seek and require the necessary First Efficient Cause in this
observable process of causality, the absolutely necessary being upon which
the contingent 'reality depends at this moment. The reality we find is the
subsistent goodness which actually communicates nobility and worth to the
varying objects about us. It is the subsistent intelligence which gives
order and design to the things we encounter.
In the second place, we must not expect too much from these demonstrations.
Directly and in themselves they give us only the information we have seen.
There is nothing within the beginning of this natural process to enable us
immediately to recognize the full number of those divine attributes which we
are naturally capable of knowing. We must not allow ourselves to forget that
the natural process through which we learn about God involves the ways of
causality, removal, and excellence. Merely to 'avail ourselves of the data
gained by way of causality is certainly not to exhaust the resources of this
natural method for the other two ways are most helpful.
6.
Removal of imperfections.
In order to find out more about God we must perfect our natural
investigation by the ways of removal and excellence. The process of removal
comes first. The first statements we can make about the First Cause or
subsistent Intelligence whose existence we recognize through the way of
causality must be denials. At first we can know at least what this Being is
not. Although the resultant propositions are negative, they are most
valuable in so far as they enable us effectively and accurately to
distinguish God from creatures.
Now it is evident that God cannot be denominated by any quality or
characteristic proper to a being that is moved or caused or is contingent,
one which merely receives perfection and order. God is immovable. It so
happens that movable or caused beings are as such composite. Consequently
this subsistent Understanding is not and cannot be composed in any way
whatsoever. He can have no composition of integral or substantial parts.
Therefore He is not a body and cannot, in any way, be subject to the
extension or limitations of a body. He differs from any being distinct from
Himself in that there can be no distinction between His essence and His
existence, between His nature and His operation. Limitation is a
characteristic of beings that are subject to causality and motion. Hence
God is obviously and certainly infinite in the order of being or perfection.
Time is the measure of bodily movement. Since the First Cause is supremely
above all the conditions and vicissitudes of bodies, He is eternal. Because
place is a bodily modification, God is not contained by any location but,
on the contrary, all things existent depend upon Him, He is in all created
things in so far as He can bring about change in them, inasmuch as He holds
them in existence and gives them their operation, and because He
understands every fiber and aspect of their being. Finally, we are aware
that there could not be a multiplicity of beings infinite in perfection, and
therefore we assert the sure and evident conclusion that God is One.
7. The
entirely perfect attributions.
The way of excellence governs the terms which we use in designating God. We
find upon examination that certain terms, although commonly used to
designate the finite and corporeal beings from which we draw our natural
knowledge about God, do not in themselves express any significance of
limitation or imperfection. When we say, for example, that some man is
good, we fully realize that his goodness is definitely of the finite order.
Yet the word good itself carries no implication of limit or imperfection.
Hence there is nothing to prevent our properly using this term to denominate
the subsistent Understanding Himself. We use such terms when we say, as the
natural means for knowing about God show us, that He is good, perfect,
understanding, wise, and provident, endowed with the fullness of will, and
loving, just, merciful, powerful, and blessed.
8.
Analogy in apologetics.
We use all these terms analogously. In other words, we are quite cognizant
that, applied to God, they express a meaning and a reality infinitely
distinct from that which they signify when they are utilized to designate
His creatures. Yet these terms can properly be used of God because of a
similarity of reference. The understanding of man is an act, limited,
imperfect, and quite distinct from his existence and nature; the
understanding of God, on the other hand, is manifestly identical in reality
with Himself and thus with His own existence. Yet there is a certain
similarity in the reference of the objects known by God to Him and that of
the objects perceived in human understanding to that faculty and to the
person possessing it. We know that God perceives all things in function of
being and not merely according to some accidental modification. Thus the
word understanding applies to God in its proper meaning and not merely by
metaphor. We say that there is metaphorical denomination when the word
applied does not fit the object according to its formal and proper
signification. Thus we have metaphorical analogy when we describe God as a
lion, remarking the effect which He produces upon His enemies. We use proper
analogy when we designate Him as intelligent or as merciful, since neither
of these two terms carries within itself any implication of finiteness which
would be incompatible with the divine nature.
It is important that we realize the extent and the competence of this
natural way of knowing about God, particularly with reference to those
attributes which have the most influence in drawing out the conclusions of
scientific apologetics. The process of causality brings us to understand
the existence of a subsistent Understanding, one which is not designed or
planned by any intelligence distinct from and superior to itself. The way of
denial shows us that this subsistent Understanding is not a part of anything
else but is Its own nature and operation, embracing in Itself all the
perfections proper to the order of intelligence. We can see at once that the
subsistent Intelligence possesses and is the fullness of perfection in the
order of will and power.
It would be utterly and evidently impossible to have a subsistent
Intelligence or an absolutely necessary First Cause which would not be
endowed with every perfection in the order of understanding, will, and
power. Hence God is manifestly omniscient. He causes the creatures which He
conserves in being by planning what they shall do and how they shall achieve
the purpose He has set for them. He is provident. He loves His own goodness
and wills that His creatures should possess or share in that goodness. He is
eminently disposed to give to His creatures all that they should have as
well as the benefits which they may possess only because of His supreme
benignity. Thus He is ineffably just and merciful, all powerful and
infinitely blessed.
In fine, the natural means available to man for knowing about God are
effective in showing that there is an infinite, eternal, and personal
Creator and Lord of the created universe. Since He alone is absolutely
necessary, and since all other things possess existence only in so far as He
is willing to give it to them, He makes them ultimately, utilizing no
pre-existent subject whatsoever. The intelligent beings whom He has created
certainly owe Him a real and serious debt of acknowledgment and service. In
this way the natural means for showing us about the existence and nature of
God bring us to the knowledge of an omnipotent supreme Being who is
perfectly capable of communicating with men, and quite prepared to manifest
the authenticity of any message which is offered as His own. Infinitely just
and veracious, He will not be party to deception. Omniscient, He cannot be
deceived. Omnipotent, no other agency can prevent His communication with
man or successfully imitate the means by which He verifies His message.
9.
Catholic Dogma claims to have come to man through a process quite distinct
from that by which man gains his natural knowledge.
When the Vatican Council states that the message of the Catholic Church has
been revealed to men in another, and this a supernatural way, the Council
tacitly admits that there is reason for calling the natural mode by which
man learns about God a revelation. Obviously God is the supreme Source of
all knowledge which comes to man even in the natural manner. In the first
place God has fashioned the human mind itself. He is the Principle at once
of understanding and of intelligibility. He has been the First Cause in all
of that activity by which the ideas existent in the human mind have been
formed. The understanding is able to grasp objects in so far as they
possess being, and whatever being, reality, or intelligibility they have
they owe to God. The archetypes of those essences which belong to created
things are ideas existent from all eternity in the mind of God. Finally, as
Supreme in the order of understanding, God is the Prime Mover and the First
Cause of that act in which the mind understands. His influence is all
pervading and intimate. The act of knowledge is one which the creature
elicits as moved by God.
Yet the Catholic Church teaches, as did Jesus of Nazareth, her Founder, that
the message she delivers to the world has come to man through channels quite
distinct from those used in the natural process of learning about God. She
tells us that her doctrine has come to man in a supernatural way and that
God has given it to man by way of speech.
Man acquires knowledge in a supernatural way, when he attains some truth in
a manner distinct from and superior to that in which he is naturally
competent to gain it. In other words, the way is supernatural when it is
something which human nature as such is neither able to produce by its own
unaided powers nor which it needs for its own essential operation. The
knowledge which we are able naturally to obtain about the living God is
quite sufficient to assure us that He is infinitely just, and that He will
give to every creature whatever is requisite for its own proper activity.
Now man is equipped with a faculty of understanding by which he is able to
perceive the objects in the world around him. When he has examined these
things closely enough, he will find, as we have already seen, that they can
be as they are and act as they do only because they depend upon and are
supported by an infinitely perfect God. As a result, if God chooses to speak
to man, and thus further to inform him about the divine life and about his
eternal destiny, He is thereby conferring a favor upon man; He is giving him
something quite over and above ,that which is due to human nature as such.
This is precisely the claim which Jesus Christ made for the doctrine He
advanced while on earth. It is the claim made today in His name by the
Catholic Church.
The Church has been most insistent upon this point. She has asserted, time
and time again, that man is naturally capable of learning about God.
Furthermore she has taken the trouble to correct those of her loyal but
misguided children who, wishing to further her interests, have stated that
man could gain no certain knowledge about God other than by means of a
message, spoken by God to men and conserved among them by means of
tradition. Her rejections of fideism and traditionalism mark the high claim
she sets forth in favor of her own teaching. For if her message is something
which God has deigned to give man by way of utterance or speech, if it is
something which man receives in a supernatural way, then manifestly it is a
message which will never be certified by the simple demonstration that it is
conformable to or demanded by human nature itself. Some higher criterion
must be adduced in order that men may see this teaching as acceptable.
10. God
speaks to man.
The doctrine which the Church presents as divinely revealed contains
numerous indications that it is something which God has spoken to man. We
have already seen that the Vatican Council used the words of St. Paul to the
Hebrews in describing the way in which man has acquired the message with
which the Catholic Church has been entrusted. "God, who, at sundry times and
in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers, by the prophets, last
of all in these days hath spoken to us by His Son." (Heb. 1:1-2; cf.
Denzinger, 1785) Holy Scripture, which Jesus of Nazareth and the Catholic
Church acknowledge as a source containing the revelation explained and
defended in the science of apologetics, is filled with similar expressions
pertaining to this doctrine. The Pentateuch expressly claims that the
statements proposed to the Israelites to be accepted on divine faith were
actually spoken by God to men and meant to be transmitted to others and to
be believed with all firmness and certitude. "And the Lord spoke to Moses,
saying: I am the Lord: speak thou to Pharao king of Egypt all that I say to
thee." (Exod. 6:29) The Israelites were given assurance about their future
deliverance because God spoke to them. "And the Lord spoke to Moses,
saying: I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by
the name of God Almighty, and My name Adonai I did not shew them. And I made
a covenant with them, to give them the land of Chanaan, the land of their
pilgrimage wherein they were strangers. I have heard the groaning of the
children of Israel, wherewith the Egyptians have oppressed them: and I have
remembered My covenant. Therefore say to the children of Israel: I am the
Lord who will bring you out from the work prison of the Egyptians, and will
deliver you from bondage: and redeem you with a high arm and great
judgments. And I will take you to myself for my people, I will be your God."
(Exod. 6:2-7)
Jesus of Nazareth, likewise, was insistent that His teaching was something
God had spoken or taught. "Many things I have to speak and to judge of you.
But He that sent me is true: and the things I have heard of Him, these same
I speak in the world.” (John 8:26) "Jesus therefore said to them: When you
shall have lifted up the Son of man, then shall you know that I am He, and
that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father hath taught me, these things
I speak." (John 8:28) When our Lord refers to His teaching as containing
truths which He had seen with the Father, He voices His claim to divine
origin and dignity. He, as God, speaks to the world. "I speak that which I
have seen with My Father." (John 8:38) The burning words of St. John the
Apostle explain the import of this last passage. "No man hath seen God at
any time. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He bath
declared Him." (John 1:18)
Isaias the prophet vividly describes this process of divine revelation in
terms of speech or teaching. "The Lord hath given me a learned tongue, that
I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary. He wakeneth in the
morning, in the morning He wakeneth my ear, that I may hear Him as a
Master." (Isa. 50:4) With such emphasis upon the fact that this revelation
is something which God has spoken to man, it is imperative that we know the
meaning of "speech" as used here.
It is evident that, when God is said to speak to man, there is no
implication of any limitation which characterizes the speech of one man to
another. Normally man speaks to his fellows making use of articulated sound.
The propositions which he forms in his mind and which he wishes to bring to
the attention of another man, he expresses or signifies by means of an oral
statement. This statement, in its turn, is composed of the various words,
each manifesting some one of the ideas which go to make up the proposition
communicated. By his very nature man is prevented from achieving truth
other than by means of these propositions or sentences. Moreover, because
he can understand only what has first come to his attention by way of some
sense impression or other, man can only communicate and receive truth by
means of these external and sensible manifestations in oral, written, or
gesticulated words or signs. Materially and as applied to man, speech is
necessarily clothed with these connotations. Formally, however, speech
involves the conception of some truth in the mind of the speaker, and the
ordering of this truth to a distinct person in such a way that the one to
whom the speech is addressed will know and recognize it precisely as
something which has been communicated. In this sense we can predicate
speech, analogously but properly, of God Himself.
Catholic dogma claims to have been given by God to man exactly in this way.
It presents itself as a message sent by God. What man has received is not
the understanding of some corporeal objects; this is the type of knowledge
he can attain through the merely natural use of his own faculties. He
actually receives truths, set forth in the form of propositions or
statements of which God Himself is the Author. In presenting these
statements to man, God makes use of the ideas which man has acquired through
the natural exercise of his intellectual powers. But the statements
themselves are composed by God, and communicated to man in such a way that
man is able to understand them in some way at least and to recognize and
acknowledge their divine origin.
Thus, when the Catholic Church presents its dogma as some, thing revealed,
she does not claim that it comes to man by way of infused ideas. These
latter are concepts which God Himself can form in the mind of man altogether
independently of that natural intellectual process through which man is-
capable of forming ideas. The revelation with which we deal in the science
of apologetics involves the presentation of truth, and for men in this
world truth is expressed in a proposition or judgment rather than through
the medium of a simple idea. God wills that we should know a series of
truths. He acts in such a way that we receive these truths precisely as His
message. He tells us that we are meant to be His adopted children. We
understand the meaning of each term which enters into this proposition, and
we gain that knowledge in a natural way. But the statement, the truth
itself, comes to us as a communication from God.
11. The
Catholic definition of revelation and the process of apologetics.
The Church insists upon this concept of revelation as supernatural in the
way it has come to man. In the famous decree, Lamentabili, of July 3, 1907,
Pope Pius X of saintly memory explicitly condemned the modernist assertion
that "revelation can be nothing other than the consciousness acquired by man
of his own relation to god." If revelation were what the modernists asserted
it to be, then the message of the Catholic Church could be judged just as
any other product of human genius is evaluated. Since the message itself
claims a higher dignity and a supernatural origin, it must stand or fall in
the light of that claim. If it can produce credentials adequate for its own
sphere, then it is a favor and benefit of incomparable goodness. If it fails
to produce guarantees that it is something which God has spoken to men in
order to teach them, then no reasonable man should do other than refuse it.
Catholic dogma by its definition of revelation appeals but to God. In His
court alone can it be justified.
We add that the message of God to man is a kind of teaching in order to
distinguish this form of speech from every other. Not every speech among men
is, or is meant to be, instructional. Very frequently a man speaks in order
to influence the attitude or the emotions of his fellow men. According to
the content of Catholic dogma itself, this constitutes a message which is
meant to instruct. The result of this speech is not merely a changed
attitude on the part of the person who receives it; it gives, and it is
meant to give, informative knowledge about God. A realistic apologetics will
necessarily examine it in the light of these claims.
CHAPTER III
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF REVELATION
In attempting to treat the matter of apologetics from the realistic or
theological point of view, we have already seen the meaning of the term
revelation as this is applied to the truth which we accept on divine faith
and which we are meant to defend in this science. It now becomes necessary
to see what type of such revelation this doctrine professes to be, that we
may thereby realize how its credibility can be established and explained.
This doctrine is presented to us as intrinsically supernatural, mediate, and
public revelation, and, if it is to be shown as credible at all, it must be
considered under these various characteristics.
1. The
Vatican Council teaches that Catholic dogma is an intrinsically supernatural
Revelation.
First of all, the doctrine which God has spoken to us and which we are
expected to receive with the assent of divine faith contains truths which
are intrinsically supernatural. The words of the Vatican Council in the
Constitution, Dei Filius, express the meaning of "intrinsically or
essentially supernatural truth." "This also the perpetual consent of the
Catholic Church has held and now holds, that there are two orders of
knowledge distinct not only by principle but by object; distinct by
principle because in the one we know by natural 'reason, and in the other by
divine faith; distinct by object because, besides those things to which the
natural reason can attain, there are proposed to us to be believed mysteries
hidden in God which could not be known if they had not been revealed.
Therefore the Apostle who testifies that God is known to the gentiles “by
the things that are made” (Rom. 1:20) still, telling about the grace and the
truth which “came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) states, “But we speak the
wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained
before the world, unto our glory, which none of the princes of this world
knew. . . . But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit. For the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” (1 Cor. 2:7; 8:10; Denz.
1795)
2. That
which is intrinsically supernatural is distinguished from that which is
supernatnraLmerely- in the mode of its production.
The meaning attached to the term supernatural is the most important doctrine
contained in the body of apologetics. As we have already seen, a thing can
be spoken of as supernatural in two distinct ways. First, it can be said to
be supernatural by reason of the way in which it is brought about. Second,
it can be termed such by reason of its very essence. The Vatican Council, as
a matter of fact, speaks of God revealing truths to men by a way which is
distinct from that process through which man is naturally capable of
acquiring his knowledge. It speaks of this revelation as "another and this a
supernatural way.” (Denz. 1785) We may note here that in order to avoid
confusion on this point, certain authors like Dieckmann
and Dorsch,
use the term
"preternatural" to designate what we call supernatural by reason of the way
in which a thing is brought about. The intention of these writers is quite
laudable, but their terminology is not in accord with the traditional
wording of the Church as made manifest in the decrees of the Vatican.
Further‑ more, there is another meaning attached to the word preternatural,
one quite incompatible with the definition of divine revelation.
The thing that is supernatural by reason of the way in which it is brought
about is something which is thus designated because of its efficient cause.
In other words it is an effect which could not be produced by any created
agency. Thus divine revelation, which is a speaking of God to man by way of
teaching him, is obviously something which could not be produced by any
created agency whatsoever. It involves the activity of One who is evidently
the Master of the created universe, One who is not dependent upon the laws
of the world, but upon whom rather these laws themselves depend for their
very existence and operation.
The reality which is supernatural intrinsically or essentially is one, the
very being of which is above the order of created nature. In
contradistinction, the reality which is supernatural merely by reason of its
efficient causality would be something allocated within the realms of
created reality, even though, as an effect, this particular reality could
not be produced by the natural operation of any created power. (Garrigou-Lagrange,
De Revelatione, Vol. I, pp. 211-212)
3. God
in His intimate life is the center of the intrinsically supernatural order.
Now there is one, and only one substantial reality which is essentially
remote from the realm of the natural competence of any creature whatsoever.
This reality is the nature or the being of God Himself, as He is seen by and
in Himself. The highest of creatures which could possibly be brought into
existence could never have within its own natural competence the face to
face vision of the living God. The most perfect of creatures could know God
naturally only in so far as it recognized Him as the First Cause upon whom
the being and the operation of other things depend necessarily and
evidently.
Thus to the order of the intrinsically supernatural pertain all those things
which are specified by God, as He is seen directly in Himself, and not
merely in so far as He is recognized as the necessary and evident First
Cause of created being and activity. The uncreated supernatural Reality is
God Himself, as He is to be seen in and through Himself, that is in so far
as He is known in the divine science which belongs to Him and in the
beatific vision which the saints in heaven enjoy by reason of His mercy.
Next, of course, the beatific vision itself is in the order of the
intrinsically supernatural. It is an act of awareness or understanding, and
as such it is specified by its object. The object of this act is, of course,
the uncreated Supernatural itself.
With the beatific vision we must classify as intrinsically supernatural the
"Light of glory" which renders the intellect of the saint in heaven
connaturally able to elicit this act. In the same class also is habitual or
sanctifying grace, the ultimate intrinsic principle of that life to which
the beatific vision pertains and of which it is the perfect culmination.
Also specified by the same ultimate supernatural object and likewise
intrinsically supernatural are the infused virtues, both theological and
moral, the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and all of those acts of which these
virtues and gifts are the immediate principles.
Obviously the supernatural mysteries also must be allocated in this class.
These are the truths which refer to God in so far as He is known in Himself
and through Himself. They are "hidden in God" in the very literal sense that
they are truths about God which are utterly beyond the natural competence of
any created intellect, actual or possible. Then if they were not revealed,
that is shown by God to man through the process of speech, these truths
could not be known by man.
4. The
Beatific Vision- and divine faith which is ordained to it are in the
intrinsically, supernatural order.
When God shows Himself to the blessed in heaven in the ineffable intimacy
of the beatific vision, He concedes to them a supernatural clarity of
knowledge which goes beyond anything to be found in the natural order. But
this vision is precisely the end toward which we are working, the end toward
which the Christian life in this world is orientated. As a result the
efforts and tendencies of this life, which is essentially a period of
preparation and purification for the happiness of the next, are incompatible
with the clarity of this vision. The only way then in which the truths seen
clearly in the beatific vision, the mysteries of which the Church speaks in
the passage of the Vatican Council, just- cited, can be possessed with
certainty by a man in this world is through the essentially obscure assent
of divine faith. Faith is precisely the certain acceptance of a proposition
based, not upon evidence which shows the objective identity of its subject
and predicate, but upon the authority of the person who has submitted the
statement under consideration. A proposition about God in His intimate life
which is not evident, and which cannot be shown as evident, such as the
mysteries are in respect to the men of this world, can be possessed with
certainty only in the assent of divine and intrinsically supernatural faith.
5. The
intrinsically supernatural order and the process of Revelation.
To put the matter in another way, the Object about which the mysteries
inform us is God, known in and through Himself rather than merely as the
First Cause of the being and the activity of creatures. This Object is not
to be seen in this world. There can be no similar object open to the gaze of
men for the very good reason that there is nothing in all the world of
creatures which is like to God. (St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica,
I, q. 12, art. 2) The only way then in which man can gain an accurate and
certain knowledge of this Object is through a communication addressed to
him by God Himself. God can express the truth about Himself to man through
propositions intelligible to him.
We must realize, of course, that the terms in which these mysteries are
expressed and spoken to man are terms known to him according to the natural
process of his reasoning. In the field of human intellectual activity,
truth is contained and expressed in judgment rather than in simple
apprehension. It is the truth which is the mystery. The words in which this
mystery is conveyed are quite intelligible to man, and well within the
natural competence of his mind. Thus, for instance, the truth that there
are, within the ineffable unity of the divine essence, three persons really
distinct one from the other constitutes a mystery. It is a fact which man
could never begin to know if God Himself had not presented this proposition
to him as a divine teaching. But each of the terms which compose the
proposition are words which enter into the expression of man's natural
knowledge. Speaking involves the expression and the reception of
propositions, and these propositions could not be intelligible were it not
for the fact that the terms which enter into them are understandable by the
persons to whom they are addressed.
6. The
supernatural mysteries and human reason.
In the light of the definition of revelation as a speaking of God to man,
and through the realization of divine mysteries as truths about an Object
which will not be evident to men in this world, we can understand the
following statement of the Vatican Council relative, to the study of divine
mysteries. "And reason, enlightened by faith, when carefully, piously, and
soberly it seeks some God-given understanding of the mysteries, it attains
this most fruitful understanding, both from analogy with those things which
it knows naturally and from the connection of the mysteries among
themselves. Still, however, reason is never fitted to perceive these
mysteries in the same way that it perceives those truths which constitute
its own proper object. For the divine mysteries by their very nature so
exceed the created intellect that even after they have been presented in
revelation and received by faith, they yet remain covered with the veil of
faith itself and enveloped, as it were, in a mist, as long as, in this life
‘we are absent from the Lord, for we walk by faith and not by sight.’
(2 Cor. 5:6-7)” (Denz. 1796)
The doctrine which the apologist presents as credible contains truths which
are mysteries in the strict sense of the term. Not only would man be utterly
unable to know these mysteries if God had not seen fit to reveal them to
him, but even after this revelation has been made, and after the truths have
been accepted with the supernatural assent of divine faith, the Object which
these revealed propositions describe remains obscure. Even after the
revelation has been made and the truths have been accepted with an act of
divine faith, there is no way of demonstrating the objective identity of the
subject and the predicate which enter into the statement of these revealed
mysteries.
Man can obtain an understanding of these mysteries in the two ways which
have been described in the Dei Filius of the Vatican Council. He can make
use of the process of analogy, and thus he can formulate terms which can be
utilized to express and teach the revealed truths themselves. Or be can
compare the mysteries among themselves and with the last end of man, and in
this way he will begin to appreciate further the significance of those
truths which God has given to us in His revelation of the mysteries. Through
the process of analogy the Nicene Fathers learned to evaluate the aptitude
of the word consubstantial to express the fact that the divine Father and
Son subsisted in one and the same ineffably simple divine essence. Through
the process of comparison the theologian learns more perfectly to understand
the truth of the Incarnation, when he realizes that the Person who assumed a
human nature in order to suffer and to die for us is that same Person who
proceeds from all eternity from the Father.
The import of this truth in the science of apologetics is tremendous.
Because the mysteries remain obscure even after they have been revealed and
accepted with the assent of divine faith, here can be no hope of defending
them by the simple process of demonstrating that the subject and the
predicate in the propositions of faith are objectively identical. In other
words, the mysteries cannot be defended or shown to be credible by any
manner of proof which is directed to point out their evident truth. At the
'same time, however, the statements which express these mysteries are
intelligible propositions. Man can come to understand them with ever
increasing profundity. Hence the apologist will be able to seek in the
consistency, sublimity, and holiness of these revealed mysteries some
indication of the validity of their claim to have been spoken by God to
many.
Finally, some evidence pertinent to the proof of credibility will be
forthcoming from an examination of the relation between these revealed
mysteries and those truths which man possesses through the natural exercise
of his own cognitive faculties. This intrinsically supernatural doctrine,
this revelation which is supernatural in its content as well as in the
manner in which it has been received by man, is presented to us as a
teaching in conformity with natural truth. The propositions which express
these mysteries, propositions which are intelligible to men, are put forward
as not being contradictory to the naturally evident doctrines which mankind
possesses. The Vatican Council continues its Constitution, Del Filius, with
the words, "Although faith is truly above reason, there can never be any
true dissension between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the
mysteries and infuses faith has placed the light of reason in the human
soul. But God can never deny Himself nor contradict the truth. The false
appearance of such contradiction arises especially when the dogmas of the
faith are not understood and exposed according to the mind of the Church or
when the teachings of opinions are held for the statements of reason.
‘Therefore we define every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened
faith as entirely false.’ [Fifth Council of the Lateran]” (Denz.738).
These claims of the Vatican Council have been put forward by the Catholic
Church since her very founding by Christ. That doctrine which we accept
with the assent of divine faith has always been asserted as a teaching which
does not and cannot contradict the facts ascertained by man through the
natural use of his reason. f the doctrine which we receive on divine faith
can be shown to contradict the facts which we obtain through our natural
powers of intellect, then this doctrine cannot be credible as divine
revelation. It will not have lived up to the definition which is put
forward in the magisterium of the revealed doctrine itself.
7.
Various meanings conveyed by the word "mystery."
In order that there might be no confusion whatsoever about the meaning of
the term mystery, as this term is predicated of those truths which we accept
as divinely revealed, we should realize clearly the significance of this
word in itself. A thing is spoken of as a mystery in so far as it is unknown
to man.
Now a thing may be
unknown in two different ways. Its very existence may be unknown or, even
though its existence may be known, its essence may remain unknown. Thus the
stones on the bottom of the ocean are mysteries to man, in so far as he has
no present means of learning about their existence. In the same way the
contour of that side of the moon which is turned away from the earth remains
a mystery to the men of this world. Likewise those secrets which are in the
heart of man, and which are withheld from the knowledge of his fellows can
properly be spoken of as mysteries.
Realities which are unknowable in their very essence to man may escape his
understanding for either one of two distinct reasons. The essence under
consideration may be so high in the scale of intelligible reality that the
very perfection of its clarity surpasses the natural competence of man. Thus
those truths which pertain to the life of God as He is in Himself, rather
than as He is known to His creatures by the process of causality are
mysteries precisely because they lie beyond the limits of the natural
competence of the human intelligence. God is too bright in the intellectual
order to be seen or understood naturally by any created intelligence. Thus
its mysterious character is based upon the excess of intelligibility in the
object itself. The object is invisible for much the same reason that the
unaided human eye cannot look into the sun. The object is too bright, too
perfect, to be the proper object of human cognition in the natural order.
On the contrary, however, an object may be mysterious because it lacks that
intrinsic intelligibility which follows upon being itself. The matter
pertinent to the details of the physicomathematical sciences is difficult to
learn, because in treating of the make-up of bodies as such, these sciences
deal with a potential and imperfect object.
Now that which is intelligible is in act rather than in
potency, and that which is in potency can be known only in and through the
act in function of which it is defined. Thus in these disciplines we hear of
the activity of light rays as having something in common with the progress
of a wave and certain other similarities to the movement of a projectile.
The details of such studies will always have this mysterious quality
precisely by reason of the low degree of intelligibility inherent in the
object under consideration.
8. The
spiritual and the supernatural.
Finally, there can be no real knowledge of the meaning of the term
supernatural without a definite knowledge of the way in which it differs in
significance from the term spiritual. A spirit is a substance, the essence
of which is not composed of matter and form as primary and distinct
principles. Thus the human soul, although it is an incomplete substance, is
a spirit, fashioned to act as the substantial form of a corporeal substance.
An angel is a created spirit, and God Himself can be properly termed a
Spirit, always remembering that He is not limited by any of the various
categories under which the realities of the created universe are classified,
and that any term which is applied to Him is used strictly in an analogical
sense. A thing is called spiritual in so far as it is listed as one of the
characteristics of a spirit. The characteristic and basic act of a spirit is
that of understanding or intelligence, and as a result all the activity
involved in the process of intelligence and the volition subsequent to it is
known as spiritual activity. Thus much of the natural activity of man is
itself spiritual in nature. Man's supernatural activity is also spiritual
in nature, since its ultimate object is God, known through revelation.
Throughout the course of Holy Scripture those who live the life of habitual
grace are frequently designated as spiritual, especially in the letters of
St. Paul. "And 1, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as
unto carnal.” (I Cor. 3:1) "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in any fault,
you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness . .”
(Gal. 6:1) As a result the tendency still exists to speak of the life of
grace as the spiritual life. However, this use of the term spiritual should
not cause us to forget that the same term has a perfectly natural
connotation, and that not everything which is truly spiritual is properly
supernatural.
9. Not
every action connected with God can be called supernaturaL
Again not every movement which creatures receive from God is supernatural.
No creature can act and exist except in so far as he is moved and conserved
in being by the power of God. Yet movement, if it is directed toward the
accomplishment of those acts which belong to the province of created nature,
is perfectly natural. Thus there is a natural action of God upon the
universe, quite distinct from the supernatural operation of grace. Likewise
there is a natural knowledge about God distinct from the supernatural realm
of faith.
10.
Catholic dogma as mediate revelation.
Not only is the dogma of the Catholic Church proposed to us as a revelation
which is intrinsically supernatural, namely in the way it is received by man
and in its very essence, but it is also offered to us as a mediate and
public revelation. A mediate revelation, as opposed to an immediate, comes
to the recipient through the agency of his fellow human beings. A public
revelation, as opposed to a private, is addressed to all men, rather than to
one man or to a limited group.
Catholic dogma claims to
have been communicated to mankind through Jesus Christ, and to have been
addressed to all men. Thus it presents itself as mediate and public
revelation.
11. The
modes of immediate revelation.
An immediate revelation is made by God directly to the man to whom it is
addressed, apart from any other human agency.
Thus the message which God gave to Moses was strictly an
immediate or direct revelation. Naturally any mediate revelation is founded
ultimately upon a communication made by God directly to some individual,
since those who present the revealed doctrine to their fellow men could not
have received this message ultimately other than from one to whom God had
spoken immediately.
God moves in two distinct ways in making this immediate revelation. (St.
Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, IIa, IIae, q. 173, art. 2)
Objectively He presents the truth which He wishes to communicate to the mind
of the recipient. Subjectively He enlightens the mind of the one to whom
the revelation is made in such a way as to enable this man to judge
accurately about the significance of the message.
Objectively He has acted and can act in various ways. By His infinite power,
He is enabled to propose truth to the mind of man, by acting upon external
material things, by affecting the external or internal senses, or by
producing or causing species or images in the intelligence itself. In any
event this action is such as to bring about an objective statement of that
truth which he wishes man to know as revealed by Him.
During the course of God's dealing with man by way of revelation, He has
sometimes given the objective element of His teaching to one man and the
subjective element to another. Thus, for example, the actual presentation
of signs, or the expression of revealed truth was given to the king of
Egypt, while the subjective portion, the power to understand and interpret
these signs correctly, was given to the prophet Joseph. (Gen. 41:1-36)
Likewise, Baltasar saw the handwriting upon the wall, but the meaning of
the message was unknown until Daniel the Prophet interpreted it. (Dan. 5:5)
In such cases the revelation in the strict sense of the term is made to the
man who is endowed with the power to understand the signs which have been
seen by another.
12.
Catholic dogma as public revelation.
It is quite obvious that the doctrine which we accept on divine faith claims
to be a public revelation, as this has just been described. Our Lord Himself
pointed out the public character of His message to men when He commissioned
the Apostles to bring it to all men. "And Jesus coming spoke to them,
saying: All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore,
teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the
consummation of the world." (Matt. 28:18-20) Again it is recounted in
the Gospel according to St. Mark that our Lord's final command to the
apostolic college was "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel
to every creature." (Mark 16:15)
The message which the Apostles were ordered to preach, the Gospel that they
were to bring to all men, is the doctrine which had been proposed by our
Lord as divinely revealed. This fact has tremendous repercussions in the
field of apologetics. If the message of Jesus Christ is to be established as
credible at all, it must be in function of evidence which is available to
all men, rather than merely to some limited group. As we have seen, the
doctrine in question sets itself forth as evidently and rationally credible
to all of those to whom it is addressed. It is the province of Christian
apologetics to point out its universally acceptable evidence of
credibility.
CHAPTER IV
THE POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION
I. The
meaning of possibility as predicated of divine revelation in apologetics.
A thing is said to be possible in so far as it is capable of existence, This
capability is absolute in every case in which the notes or characteristics
of the thing are not mutually exclusive. Thus a building of solid gold is
possible because the elements which enter into this notion in no way destroy
one another. On the other hand, the capability or possibility is relative
when the thing described is something which can be brought about by the
agent to which it is attributed. Thus the passing of laws for the United
States is something possible for Congress, but not for any other group Of
men. Both absolutely and relatively it can be demonstrated that divine
revelation, as this is defined and described by the Catholic Church, is
possible.
Naturally the first step on the way to that proof of credibility which is
the essential function of apologetics, must be a demonstration of this
inherent possibility. For obviously if it could be shown that there could be
no such thing as that revelation which Christian doctrine claims to be it
would be worse than idle to pursue further the inquiry into its rational
credibility. Impossibility would be an attribution far more devastating than
mere incredibility.
When we consider the possibility of revelation, as this has been described
in the authentic pronouncements of the Catholic faith, it is clear that we
must divide our study into two distinct sections. In the first place we must
treat of this revelation as something supernatural in the way in which it is
accomplished, as God's speaking to man in order to teach him. In the second
portion of the chapter we must consider the possibility of truths which are
inherently or essentially supernatural. We must study the possibility of
revelation as applied to the supernatural mysteries. We can prove positively
that revelation as such is possible by showing that there is neither
incompatibility nor contradiction involved in the description of it given
in Christian literature.
2. The
basic proof for the possibility of revelation.
Essentially this revelation is a speaking by God to man in order to teach
him. Such a thing is obviously possible since that God whose existence can
be clearly demonstrated according to the natural process of human reason is
an intelligent Being, who can express His knowledge, direct that expression
to those creatures which are dependent upon Himself, and can actually see to
it that the intelligent creature understands both the truth which God has
expressed to him and the fact that this statement has been made by God.
Moreover, it is possible also from the viewpoint of man, to whom the
communication is made, since man is capable of learning and of knowing
about God and in no way loses perfection through receiving this instruction
from his Creator.
3.
Supernatural revelation is evidently possible from the point of view of an
intelligent God who communicates it.
In the first place it is evident that God is intelligent. One of the proofs
advanced for the demonstration of the existence of God is that the existence
of order in the created universe shows that there is some intelligence which
is not ordered toward its own act. For, although order can be produced by
any intelligence, created or uncreated, an intelligence which is distinct
from its own ,act would have to be ordered to that act. Thus the very proof
of the existence of God by way of observable order in the universe shows the
existence of God as an intelligent being.
Again, even the proofs from motion and efficient causality point directly to
the same result. The One who is the First Cause of the created universe must
be One who acts as a cause by way of intelligence rather than by way of
nature.
The thing which acts as a
cause by way of nature, as the seal which naturally produces always the
same image in the wax, is necessarily something which is ordered toward the
accomplishment of this effect. But this condition is quite incompatible
with the nature of the First Cause, that One who causes and who is Himself
utterly beyond any need of being acted upon.
When we point out the evident possibility of revelation as it is described
by the Catholic Church, and as it is predicated of the doctrine whose
credibility we are establishing, we must not fail to point out the naturally
observable evidence that the knowledge of God is infinite in character. In
this way we can show that God could actually communicate to man information
which man himself does not possess, since the most obvious characteristic of
human understanding is its limited and progressive quality. The First
Cause is not merely intelligent; He is Intelligence, a subsisting Act which
apprehends the full measure of knowable reality. This we know by the natural
process of human reason. A reality which lacks something in the intellectual
order could not be that First Cause which we see must exist in order to
account for the existence and the activity of the finite universe.
When we speak of God as intelligent, and not as some sort of blind and
uncomprehending force, we refer to Him as a personal God. The existence of a
personal God, then, is something evident in the light of natural reason. If
there are those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of this personal
God, their refusal is based merely upon their unwillingness to examine the
naturally ascertainable evidence.
4.
Pantheism, which would militate against the possibility of supernatural
revelation, is manifestly untrue.
In showing that God can evidently express some definite truth which He
knows, and then direct that truth toward the mind of some being quite
distinct from Himself, we remember the naturally ascertainable and
tremendously important fact that God is quite distinct from the created
universe as a whole, from any of those creatures which He has brought into
existence. The denial of this naturally evident truth constitutes one of the
erroneous systems which are called pantheistic doctrines.
For the purposes of apologetics it is not at all necessary to inquire into
every form in which the errors of pantheism have been presented to the
world. It is only proper to point out that neither the material universe in
which we live nor the thought of rational creatures could in any way be
identified with the First Cause. In the first place both the material
universe, as a whole and in each of its individual component parts, and
likewise any activity of created beings must necessarily exhibit
characteristits which are utterly incompatible with the nature of that One
who is the Source of all movement, being Himself unmoved. The material
universe is divided, and the First Cause is obviously entirely without
composidon of any kind, since composition involves potency or
imperfections, the very qualities which could not be possessed by a First
Cause. The parts of the universe are, as such, limited, and the First Cause
is obviously infinite. The activity of creatures, either intellectual or
otherwise, is obviously a characteristic or quality quite distinct both from
the essence and from the existence of those beings to whom the activity
belongs. On the other hand, it is naturally evident that the First Cause,
whose existence is shown by the fact that beings and activities which are
obviously dependent upon Him exist, is actually the Ipsurn Esse Subsistens,
"One who is His own existence."
5. God can
communicate with His creatures.
Furthermore we know, in the light of purely natural evidence, that God
can enter into communication with His creatures.
One of the facts brought out in the purely natural science of Metaphysics
is the absolute dependence of the created intelligence upon the mind of
God.
This dependence is twofold, objective and subjective. (St.
Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, Ia, q. 105, a. 3)
(1)
In the objective order we find that all of the created
reality which the finite mind can know directly through the natural
exercise of its powers has been created freely by God. Since it has
been created freely, it has been produced by way of intelligence. In
other words, God brought this particular being into existence, using as
an exemplar an idea, a concept of a way in which
His essence could be participated really though inadequately. Only God
Himself is eternal and absolutely necessary, and as a result the only
possible ultimate exemplar of created reality is the Divine Essence
itself.
(2) Subjectively,
God remains the First Mover, and as such the ultimate source
of every act which is performed in the created universe. The act of
understanding exercised by a creature is a created reality, and as
such it depends upon the movement by God Himself. This the man who
reasons or understands performs this particular act as his own, but
by the very nature of things, observable in the purely natural light of
intelligence, he could not act if he were not being moved and acted upon
by the First Cause Himself.
Thus objectively and in the act [subjectively]
itself any creature's understanding is obviously and absolutely dependent
upon God.
Then there is no question about the possibility of God's entering into
contact with the created intellect. As a matter of fact such contact is
demonstrably evident in every movement of the created mind and for that
matter in the very continuance of the creature's existence. Furthermore
there is nothing to prevent One who is in immediate and necessary contact
with the created mind from -presenting to that mind, not an object,
ultimately derived from an act of the divine science, but a truth conceived
in the divine mind and meant to be known by the created intelligence
precisely as something communicated by God.
This possibility becomes manifest when we take into .consideradon the
divine omnipotence itself. Every creature is entirely subject to the
influence of God's causality. There is no effect in all the realms of being
which God cannot produce if He wills to do so. Thus since there is obviously
no contradiction involved in sending man a message which is to be received
on the divine authority this is an effect which can be brought about by the
infinite power of God. By reason of His omnipotence and by reason of the
absolute dependence of the creature upon Him, God can bring it about that
this intellectual creature receives a message which has been communicated
to him by God, and understands that message in the way in which God wills
that it be understood.
6. Man
can know God naturally.
Again, revelation, as it is described by the Catholic Church and predicated
of that doctrine which we defend as credible in the science of apologetics,
is possible because the one to whom this divine communication is said to be
addressed can know God, and can receive instruction from other intelligent
beings. Both of these truths are naturally demonstrable and as such evident.
Thus the possibility of revelation from this point of view is naturally
manifest.
In general that teaching which denies that man can know anything about God
is termed agnosticism. (Cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione,
Vol. I, pp. 276-318; Walshe, The Principles of Catholic Apologetics, pp.
70-78) Any agnosticism is based upon a demonstrably false notion either of
human knowledge or of the idea of God. It is true that the primary objects
of human knowledge in this world are the essences of corporeal and created
things. It is true at the same time that the One we call God is absolutely
remote from the conditions and the imperfections incident to corporeal and
limited reality. There would very definitely be a contradiction involved if
we were to say that we know this God in the same way in which we are aware
of those things which enter into the proper object of our natural knowledge.
Such a knowledge would be actually impossible. The point of the matter is
however that our natural knowledge about God is arrived at in a very
different way from that in which we are aware of earthly things. We know
bodies through the awareness of the senses. Utilizing the power of the
active intellect, we prescind from the individuating conditions inherent in
the sense knowledge, and we apprehend intellectually the essence or the
nature of the thing observed. Considering this thing in its being and in
its operation, we know that it could never exist and function as it actually
does, were it not dependent upon the influence of One who is'the First
Cause. Thus causality is the natural basis for our idea of God.
7. God
and the proper formal object of the human mind.
Hence our natural knowledge of God is consequent upon the realization of
those things which constitute the proper formal object of our own
understanding. God is not known as one of the beings which enter into the
field of this proper natural object. He is seen and recognized as the Cause
upon whom the things we know immediately are manifestly dependent. And,
while knowing a being merely as a First Cause of others is relatively an
imperfect grade of awareness, nevertheless it is real knowledge, and the
object so understood can never, in any sense of the term, be spoken of as
absolutely unknowable. For, while we do not see this First Cause directly
and immediately in the force of this natural knowledge, it is nonetheless
true that we can tell that certain things are incompatible with His status
as a First Cause, while certain attributes must be predicated of Him
precisely for the same reason.
The word God has a definite and objective significance for the human mind.
There is demonstrably no reason why man should not be able to know the
meaning of a message about God, since He can know by the force of his
natural reason that which is characteristic of the Creator. Man has a
workable and correct idea of God. Even while he himself naturally knows that
this concept is inadequate, he recognizes that it is such that it can be
used in gaining a correct appreciation of that One whom he knows as the
First Cause.
8. Man
is capable of acquiring knowledge through instruction.
At the same time man is so constituted that he can receive instruction. As
a social being, man is dependent upon the society into which he is
incorporated in the attainment of his intellectual perfection. Thus as far
as the knowledge which constitutes an individual man's intellectual
attainment is concerned, man does not by any means gain all of it through
the independent working of his own intelligence. We know very well, as a
matter of fact, that the individual who is unfortunate enough to be deprived
of any instruction whatsoever would live in a state more like that of an
irrational animal than like the condition which befits a human being. This
need of being taught is not any weakness accidental to human nature; it is
the effect of the social nature inherent in man. Man would not be so
constituted that he has to live as a member of society were it not for the
fact that the community of his fellow men can offer him advantages without
which he would not be able fitly to attain the purpose toward which his own
nature is directed.
Now to instruct another is to speak to that person in such a way that
through the arrangement of the statements included in the matter spoken, the
person who is being instructed will be able to possess that knowledge which
the instructor originally possessed and which he wishes to transmit to the
person under instruction.
It is requisite, of course, that the instructor should originally possess
some knowledge which had not as yet been attained by the person ,under
instruction. In the imparting of that knowledge the instructor must make use
of expressions which are known both to himself and to the man he is
teaching. The end of instruction has been attained when that knowledge which
was originally possessed by the instructor and which he wished to
communicate to the person under instruction is actually possessed by that
man.
We must understand that the reception of instruction, from God or from
another man, in no way militates against the vitality and the spontaneity of
human intellectual activity. Real teaching or instruction in no way implies
any pouring in of intellectual .knowl- edge into the passive mind of a
recipient. The act by which the person who has been taught knows the
doctrine in which he has been instructed is just as much his own act as was
the knowledge of the teacher himself. The concepts in which that act is
expressed are the concepts of the pupil. What the instructor has been doing
has been an arrangement of the propositions and expressions requisite for
teaching in such a way that the person under instruction is able himself to
see the meaning of the statements in which the doctrine is manifest. But the
instruction has not been successful, until this student himself knows the
doctrine which is being taught.
Furthermore, man is able to receive instruction from God because of the
naturally evident fact that the knowledge of human beings is itself limited.
The very fact that men can advance in knowledge is immediate evidence that
there is some knowledge which here and now they do not possess. Then it
follows that there could be no contradiction involved in the statement that
man has received instruction from God, whose knowledge is infinite in
character.
Only God Himself is such that He could not possibly receive any revelation.
That One who is His own understanding, whose knowledge is absolutely without
limitation of any kind, could be so situated that no other person could ever
possibly cause Him to receive any information or knowledge. There have been
theories to the effect that man is placed in something of the same position.
According to these theories the intellectual life of man is such that he
should be considered as absolutely autonomous, and thus not in a position to
receive instruction from any outside source. Actually this statement is a
postulate which is in no way consonant with the naturally observable facts
about the scientific life of man. The fact of intellectual progress, a fact
strikingly evident, makes it obvious that the knowledge of roan is
imperfect, and that there would be neither a contradiction nor a derogation
of human dignity involved when man is taught by God. For if one man can be
taught by another, then there is no possible reason why he should not be in
a position to receive instruction from One who is all knowledge, and who is
sovereignly able to transmit this instruction to him.
9. Public
revelation is possible.
Obviously again there is no reason why an instruction coming from God should
not be directed toward all men, rather than merely to one man or to a
limited group of human beings. The same person cannot be the source and the
object of instruction in one and the same act. Thus no man could possibly
send out an instruction which would be destined for all men, absolutely
speaking. At least this instruction would not be destined for himself. But
God, who is eminently and perfectly distinct from His creatures can
certainly issue an instruction which is destined for every created person.
Thus there is no contradiction involved in the notion of public revelation
as such.
10.
Mediate revelation is possible.
Neither could there be any contradiction involved in the notion of mediate
as opposed to immediate revelation. Obviously a communication from my
friend is just as much his message whether he gives it to me directly or
sends it by messenger. There is no reason why, since God can speak to man in
order to teach him, this teaching should not be conveyed to some men through
the instrumentality of others.
11. The possibility of supernatural mysteries.
On the other hand, we cannot positively show the possibility of revelation
of mysteries which are intrinsically supernatural in this way because human
reason alone is not competent to know even of the existence of these
mysteries.
Thus we must concentrate our demonstration on what may be termed the
negative aspect of the case. We cannot, in the light of natural 'reason,
positively show the possibility of the existence of the supernatural order.
However, we can point out that the field of our natural intellectual
competence is evidently limited and that, for this reason, there would
evidently be no contradiction involved in speaking of some truth as that
which the human mind could never know in any way whatsoever independently of
divine revelation and which it can know only in the obscurity of divine
faith as long as man remains within this life.
As we have seen, the proper field of man's natural knowledge about God
embraces that which can be known about God by reason of the fact that He is
evidently the First Cause of the created universe. We cannot demonstrate
positively, in the light of natural reasons alone that there could be a
distinct domain of truth about God, a field of reality which could only be
realized through the vision of God in Himself. However, there is certainly
no observable reason which would militate against this possibility.
We know from a consideration of the natural order itself that the kind of
knowledge which we can derive about a cause from the study of its effects is
objectively inferior to a knowledge derived from a consideration of the
cause by and in itself. For example, the man who would know about the habits
and the culture of Raphael merely from a study of the paintings which he
produced would obviously not know as much about him as would the men who
worked under his direction in painting the stanze of the Vatican. Likewise
in the light of natural reason alone, we can see that God would know more
about Himself through that consideration of Himself which is the act of the
divine intelligence than any creature could realize through the study of
created reality as evidently dependent upon God.
It is certain and evident, in the light of this same natural reason, that
God would have a more profound and perfect appreciation of his own essence
than that which could naturally be gained by any creature. At the same time
it is obviously possible that the knowledge of God in Himself might discover
an entire realm of created reality. As a matter of fact we could never know
of the existence of the supernatural mysteries, which lie within this
naturally hidden realm of truth apart from divine revelation. Furthermore,
apart from this same revelation, we could never discover even the
possibility of these mysteries. But, once they have been revealed, we can
point out that there is nothing in all the realm of naturally attainable
truth about God which could in any way imply that no higher order of truth
existed. What we know about God from the consideration of the things which
He has brought into existence will most certainly never deny that there
could be a definite order of truth concerning Him not attainable in this
way.
12. The
divine glory as the end of Revelation.
We would fail in a great measure to appreciate the possibility of divine
revelation, were we not to consider it in the light of the known goodness of
God and the naturally ascertainable orientation of human nature. That God
whose existence we know as the First Cause of created reality is seen in the
natural light of human reason as infinitely good. Moreover we can realize
through a purely natural process of investigation that He is infinitely wise
and omniscient. The only purpose which could ultimately determine the
productions of this infinitely good God is His own glory. Now glory is
defined as clear knowledge with praise. This glory is a divine good, but in
acting for His own glory, God confers a favor upon His creatures. We must
realize that no benefit whatsoever accrues to God out of the production of
His creatures. His beatitude is infinite in itself. It cannot be increased
or perfected through the activity of all the creatures in the universe. The
good which He intends is something which is to benefit His creatures.
As a matter of fact the good as such is that which all things desire. All
things tend toward that which is perfective of themselves, and shrink from
that which is seen as destructive of their own being and activity. That
which is the ultimate good of any creature is not to be found in itself, by
reason of the fact that the creature is essentially limited and potential.
That good must in the last analysis be God Himself. Now the intellectual
creature alone is capable of obtaining and possessing God. Naturally He
cannot be possessed through any corporeal act. His eminently spiritual
nature makes this sort of possession utterly impossible.
A spiritual or noncorporeal possession of God is obtained by the person who
knows God, and obviously that possession is more perfect in direct
proportion with the perfection of the knowledge itself. As a result any
procedure which tends to increase the fullness of man's knowledge about God
contributes in this way to a more perfect realization of God's glory, is
strikingly beneficial to man, and thus is consonant with the goodness of
God.
13. The
revelation of mysteries is beneficial to man.
Now it is evident, again in the natural light of human reason, that divine
revelation, as this is predicated of Catholic dogma, tends to increase the
fullness of man's knowledge about God. By its very essence, teaching is an
act which tends to develop and perfect the knowledge of the person who is
taught. This person received the propositions set forth by one who
possesses the knowledge which the pupil wishes to acquire and presents them
to the pupil in such a way that, as the result of this activity, the pupil
possesses the knowledge which the teacher wishes him to acquire. Obviously
the value of teaching in any individual case is dependent upon the
competence of the teacher. In the instance of divine revelation the teacher
possesses perfect and infinite knowledge, and is the only One who could
possess an exhaustive understanding of that very reality in the perception
of which man is to find his only final perfection and happiness.
Thus in deigning to teach man in the activity of divine revelation God is
actually doing something which is fully in accord with His own goodness. Man
in receiving the direction of God through the process of revelation acquires
a dignity and intellectual perfection which could not otherwise be obtained.
From this point of view the revelation described in the dogmatic formulae of
the Catholic Church is evidehtly possible.
14.
Catholic teaching on the possibility of Revelation.
It is obvious that a person who denies the possibility and the fitness of
revelation, as this is described within the authentic declarations of the
Catholic Church, contradicts the message which we accept on divine faith.
Thus the Vatican Council, in the canons on divine revelation which are
appended to the Dei Filius, condemns such denials as heretical. The first
three out of the four canons in this section follow.
1. "If anyone should say that the one and true God, our Creator and Lord,
cannot be known with certainty in the natural light of human reason through
those things which are made, let him be anathema."
2. "If anyone should say that it is not possible or that it is not
fitting that man should be taught by divine revelation about God and about
the worship which must be shown Him, let him be anathema."
3. "If anyone should say that men cannot be divinely raised up to a
knowledge and perfection which surpass the natural, but that, of himself he
can and ought to attain the possession of everything true and good by a
continuous progress, let him be anathema." (Denzinger, 1806-1808)
The first of these three canons condemns agnosticism and fideism,
both recognized as incompatible with an exact notion of supernatural
revelation. The second, through its condemnation, affirms the possibility
and the beneficent character of revelation as supernatural in the manner in
which it is acquired by man. The third defines the possibility and the
fitness of the revelation of mysteries as well as the limited nature of
man's intellectual competence.
15.
Catholic condemnation of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Pantheism.
The canons on God the Creator of all things, which immediately precede
those on revelation are of value in so far as they contain condemnations of
teachings which are incompatible with and contradictory to the possibility
of divine revelation. These canons are:
1. "If anyone should deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things
visible and invisible, let him be anathema."
2. "If anyone should not be ashamed to affirm that apart from matter nothing
exists, let him be anathema."
3. "If anyone should say that the substance or essence of God and of all
things is one and the same, let him be anathema."
4. "If anyone should say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual,
or at least the spiritual, have emanated from the divine substance, or that
the divine essence becomes all things by a manifestation or evolution of
itself, or finally that God is the universal or indefinite being which, by
determining itself constitutes the universe of things distinct generically,
specifically, and individually, let him be anathema."
5. "If anyone should not confess that the world and all the things which are
contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been produced by God out
of nothing according to their entire substance, or should say that God has
not created with a will which is free from all necessity, but rather has
created out of necessity with that necessity with which He loves Himself, or
should deny that the world has been established for the glory of God, let
him be anathema." (Denzinger, 1801-1805)
The first canon condemns the fundamental error of atheism.
The second stigmatizes that crass materialism which is totally incompatible
with the divine teaching, and which at the same, time is manifestly false.
The third condemns the general doctrine of pantheism and the fourth some of
the forms which this error had assumed in the writings of pre-Vatican
Council philosophers. The fifth defines the doctrine of creation as a free
act, the effect of which is ordered to the glory of God.
16. The
freedom of God and Revelation.
Naturally it is important that the student of divine revelation should
realize that the creation of the world was a free act on the part of God.
For if the world, and all which is in it had been produced as a result of
necessity, then it would be idle to speak of anything as supernatural in one
way or in another in God's dealings with this world. And again the value of
the motives of credibility with which the science of apologetics is ordered
to deal is dependent absolutely upon the fact that God is always sovereignly
free in dealing with the universe which He has created.
The term freedom, of course, applies formally to acts of the will. An act is
said to be free in so far as it is produced by a determination which comes
from the act of the person who wills, rather than from the object, from the
force of nature, or from the activity of some person who necessitates the
act of another. Freedom of the will is the active indetermination of this
faculty with reference to something which is seen as a means not necessarily
connected with the attainment of a necessary end. Thus the will is not free
with regard to its adequate object. The human will is not free with
reference to the good as such in this world, nor is it free with reference
to the divine good, seen in the perfect clarity of the beatific vision in
the happiness of heaven. However it is free with reference to something
which viewed as a good does not exhaust all the extent of desirability. Thus
the will is free to accept or to reject something which has as its
alternative at least an apparent good.
Naturally, with reference to the divine will, there is no such thing as a
merely apparent good. The will of God which follows according to our way of
thinking, upon the act of the divine intelligence, can tend toward nothing
but that which is really good because the divine mind itself is absolutely
infallible. However, in spite of the fact that we are well aware that there
are not two distinct kinds of acts elicited by God, we can distinguish
actually and properly those things which God wills freely and those things
which He wills out of necessity. There is one, and only one object which is
the adequate good toward which the divine will necessarily tends. That, of
course, is Himself. The love of God for Himself is absolutely necessary. It
is utterly impossible that God should not have loved Himself or that He
should ever cease to tend toward this ineffable perfection which is His own
essence.
There is, of course, a certain kind of hypothetical necessity to be found in
the divine effects, in so far as they are related to the divine causative
power. God owes it to Himself to see to it that the things which He
produces, in so far as they are caused by Him, are good. Thus, in freely
creating the human race, God necessarily made man good. But the point of the
matter is that while the justice and the goodness of God would bring Him to
give man everything which is requisite for the attainment of his natural
perfection, the divine revelation described by the Catholic Church is not
one of those things which belong to the natural equipment of man. It is
perfectly and demonstrably possible for God to reveal truth to man in a
supernatural way. However He does this freely. The necessity which belongs
to divine revelation is not any necessity which determines the act of God
Himself.
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF REVELATION
1. The
meaning of necessity.
That teaching which we hold to be divinely revealed, and which we establish
as credible through the proofs of apologetics, is proposed to us as
something necessary for man. A thing is said to be necessary in so far as it
is incapable of nonexistence. It is necessary, in other words, in so far as
it has to be.
This necessity can be of two distinct kinds. A thing may be termed necessary
by reason of its own essence. Thus man is necessarily a rational animal and
God exists necessarily. On the other hand, however, a thing may be said to
be necessary by reason of external causes, either efficient or final. Such a
necessity is called hypothetical. The necessary thing, in this case, cannot
but exist if some agent operates or if some end is to be obtained.
Now the necessity of divine revelation is that which is defined in function
of final causality. Divine revelation is necessary for the attainment of a
definite end. If that end is to be obtained, there must be that reality
which we know as divine revelation.
Again, a thing may be necessary for the attainment of a final cause in two
different ways. It is physically necessary when that end simply is not to be
obtained at all apart from the thing which is necessary. It is morally
necessary when, absolutely speaking, the end could be obtained apart from
it, but when this end will not be obtained properly and in a fitting manner
independently of this necessary means.
2.
Divine revelation is presented as something necessary for the attainment of
an end.
Divine revelation is thus necessary for the attainment of two distinct kinds
of good which man seeks. It is physically requisite for the attainment of
that supernatural happiness which is, as a matter of fact, the only
ultimate end which is available to man. It is morally necessary in order
that man should possess a natural knowledge of God, which is attainable by
all men, easily, with certitude and free from a damaging admixture of error.
In the present order of divine providence, then, man will not obtain his
only ultimate good independently of this divine revelation. And, although he
is competent to know about God through the very force of his reason, man
will not obtain a proper natural appreciation of God and has not procured it
other than with the aid of the supernatural teaching which God has
communicated to the world.
3. The doctrine of the Vatican Council.
This necessity of revelation has been described by the Vatican Council in
the following passage. It is the one which follows immediately upon the
paragraph which points out the distinction between divine revelation and
that knowledge of God which man obtains through the natural exercise of his
own intellectual powers. Speaking of the function and of the necessity of
this revelation, the council continues.
"It is to be attributed to this divine revelation that those matters about
the things of God which of themselves are not impervious to human reason
can, in the present condition of the human race, be known readily by all,
with firm certitude and with no admixture of error. However, revelation is
not said to be absolutely necessary for this reason, but rather because God,
out of His infinite goodness, has ordered man to a supernatural end, that is
to a sharing of the divine goods which entirely surpass the intelligence of
the human mind. For 'eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither bath it
entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that
love Him.' (I Cor. 2:9) " (Denzinger, 1786).
4. The
beneficial character of divine revelation.
The revealed doctrine which we show as credible in the science of
apologetics is thus an outstanding benefit to mankind. In proposing this
doctrine to the world the Catholic Church is exercising the most valuable
and philanthropic function which is performed among the children of men.
This work is philanthropic in that very definite sense that it is a work
which is carried on or the love of men. There is a love of benevolence,
after all, where forces are actually placed in motion to bring about that
which is objectively good for the persons loved. In proposing the divine
message the Catholic Church is bringing forward a force which can aid man in
attaining the only ultimate and supreme happiness which he will ever obtain
and in gaining a kind of knowledge without which man will not be able to
live successfully in this world, particularly with the social forces which
govern the world today.
5. The
necessity of revelation is a reality.
We would seriously misunderstand the truth about the necessity of divine
revelation were we to see in it a doctrine which must be considered as
offensive to those who are not of the faith. We are, of course, perfectly
aware that a person who does not wish to possess the faith will not be able
to accept as certain the doctrine on the physical necessity of divine
revelation for the attainment of man's eternal and supernatural beatitude.
But whether this particular person cares to admit it or not, the fact is
that divine revelation is thus necessary. We live in an age which prides
itself upon its realism, and we cannot fail to take into serious account the
transcendently important fact that man needs revelation.
6. The
elevation to the supernatural order.
According to the words of the Vatican Council, and according to the
perpetual tradition of the Catholic Church, divine revelation is physically
necessary for men because of man's elevation to the supernatural order. In
order that we may be able to understand the nature and the implications of
this necessity, we must first see what is meant by this sort of elevation.
First of all, as the Council teaches us, man has been assigned a
supernatural end. This end of man is supernatural intrinsically, in the way
in which the divine mysteries themselves are supernatural. It is not merely
supernatural in the way in which a miracle is designated as such. This
supernatural end is none other than God Himself, to be seen and possessed in
the ineffable clarity of a face to face vision for all eternity. As such it
is an end which is beyond the merely natural capacity of man, or for that
matter of any creature, actual or possible.
7. The
natural order of human activity.
It is, of course, absolutely impossible that there should be a thing
without a purpose. In the case of a creature this purpose must be something
distinct from its own essence. In terms of metaphysics the purpose of a
thing is the good, and the good is that which is in act opposed to that
which is merely in potency. Now that which is most actual in a creature is
its own existence and its own operation. By the very nature of things these
are really distinct from the essence of that thing to which they belong.
Formally the purpose of man must consist in his own operation. A thing
exists only in order that it may act. That which is the highest, the most
perfect, the most actual in all of the operations which belong to the human
being is that of understanding. As a result the purpose of man consists
formally in an act of understanding and objectively in that thing which is
seen as the ultimate and perfect object of such an act, God Himself.
The nature of man then demands that his purpose in life should he an
intellectual knowledge of God. But man is so equipped that, by the use of
his own natural faculties, he is enabled to know God as the First Cause of
the created universe. Then the purely natural purpose or end of man would be
this knowledge which we bring to scientific perfection in metaphysics. Since
happiness is to be found in the possession of a good, and is proportionate
to the importance of the good possessed, the ultimate natural happiness of
man would be obtained in the complete accomplishment of that activity of
which the human intellect is naturally capable. St. Thomas Aquinas has
beautifully described this natural perfection. In the Third Book on the
Soul it is said that the soul is in some way all things because it is
competent to know all things. Thus, according to this manner, it is possible
that the perfection of the entire universe should be in one thing. Hence
this is the ultimate perfection to which according to the philosophers the
soul can attain, namely, that in it the entire order of the universe and of
its causes should be described. In this they placed the ultimate end of man.
But according to us this ultimate end of man will be in the vision of God,
because, as Gregory says, "what is it that they should not see who behold
the One who sees all things." (The Disputed Questions On Truth,
q. 2, a. 2.)
This natural perfection of the human soul would include, of course, far more
than the content of metaphysics. It would comprise an extensive and ordered
culture which would be crowned with the metaphysical truth about God as the
first Cause of the created universe. As such it would be the proper end of
man's activity, and it would afford him a happiness proportionate to the
forces of his own nature.
8. The
supernatural end of man.
As a matter of fact, however, God in His infinite goodness has assigned to
man an end utterly beyond that which is proportionate to the unaided forces
of his own nature. This end is the Godhead, to be seen directly or
intuitively in the eternal and ineffable clarity of the beatific vision. As
the immutable decrees of God's providence have decided it, this supernatural
end is the only ultimate purpose which is available to man. If man attains
this end, then his life will always have been a success. But, should he fail
to attain this, then his life will always have been a bitter and utter
failure. There is no secondary end, in the attainment of which man could
derive a sort of consolation prize which would merely grant him an inferior
sort of happiness for all eternity. As far as the life of man is concerned,
it must be perfected in the attainment of the supernatural end, or not at
all. The alternative open to man, as far as his final lot is concerned, is
God or nothing.
Now again, the decrees of the divine providence have arranged that this
ultimate and supernatural end of man is to be obtained by those who have the
use of reason only as something earned or merited. And, in order that a
person should properly earn a reward, it is necessary that he should know
about the thing for which he is working. The supernatural end, which is God,
to be seen in the light of the beatific vision, is by its very nature a
reality which men could never come to know through the exercise of their
merely natural intellectual activity. As a result, if they are to know this
end at all, they must learn of it through some medium other than that which
is natural to them. They must derive their knowledge from some source to
which this clear knowledge of God belongs by right. In other words, they
must learn of it from God Himself. Thus, if God had not mercifully given to
the world in a supernatural manner the doctrine about the final end which
man must attain in order to have eternal happiness, this happiness could not
be had by men. In this way the action of divine revelation, as it is
described by the Catholic Church, is physically or absolutely necessary for
man. And so it is the business of the apologist to insist upon the fact that
the doctrine which he defends is given to men in order that they may have
through it an eternity of happiness which human words are absolutely
inadequate to describe and which the human mind cannot properly conceive in
this world. This happiness is a reality. It is a fact that man could not
possibly attain it without a communication from God in which God informs Him
of truths utterly beyond the competence of man's own nature. It is then a
fact that the divine revelation is to be presented to men as a transcendent
benefit, as a great and precious good which men cannot afford to neglect.
Because of this fact, it is only reasonable to expect that the evidences of
credibility which attach to this doctrine will be clear and unmistakable,
acceptable to mankind as a whole.
9. As
divine revelation, Catholic dogma claims to protect men against serious
evil.
Or, to put the thing in another light, the evil which the divine revelation
is ordered to overcome is an evil which is beyond comparison with the worst
which can befall a man in this world. This doctrine is presented to men as
something which will enable them to escape an eternity of suffering, an
eternity of misery, which otherwise they would endure in the knowledge that
they had failed to achieve their one ultimate end. By the aid of this
teaching they will be able to avoid an endless frustration and misery, the
fruit of absolute failure. Without this revelation they would never have
been able to escape this failure.
10. A
realization that divine revelation is necessary is requisite for the proper
presentation of Catholic dogma.
The only effective and realistic presentation of the divine message is that
which is based upon a realization that men stand in absolute need of it. The
attitude of the proponent of Catholic truth is admirably expressed in a
passage of the ancient "Recognitiones Clementis.” "Let it be in your
power to accept or to reject that which we announce. But we cannot be silent
about that which we know is profitable for you. For if we are silent, it is
our loss and if you do not receive what we tell you, it is your ruin."
The tremendous urgency of the divine message was always in
the mind of St. Paul. He worked unremittingly for the spreading of the
Gospel because he was firmly aware that men must have this benefit if they
are to attain to the only ultimate happiness which is open to them. For this
reason he could command St. Timothy, his disciple, thus, "Preach the
word, be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all
patience and doctrine." (2 Tim. 4:2)
11. The
moral necessity of divine revelation.
There is, however, another way in which divine revelation is actually
necessary for man. In spite of the fact that man is competent to know the
existence of God and at least some of His attributes through the natural
exercise of his own reason, he needs divine revelation in order that there
may be available to all men a clear and easily ascertainable knowledge of
this natural doctrine about God which is free from an admixture of error
that would otherwise vitiate it to a great extent. It is a fact, all too
easily demonstrable from the datum of history, that independently of divine
revelation there has not been a clear, correct, and readily available
natural knowledge of God which was actually possessed by all members of
society.
We must be very careful in describing the nature and the implications of
this necessity. In the first place it must be understood that no revelation
is necessary in order that man may be able to know about the existence of
the one true God. The need of a first cause is far too obvious to permit an
inculpable ignorance of God's existence even among those who have not
received the benefit of supernatural revelation. Furthermore man has
sufficient natural intellectual equipment to enable him to know correctly
the various attributes of God and to recognize God as at once the Source and
the End of the moral order. Thus the revelation which God concedes to the
world, and which is morally necessary for man is actually something
supernatural. It is not demanded by the nature of man himself.
But "that about God which is not itself impervious to human reason," to use
the terminology of the Vatican Council, happens to be the most important
factor in all natural human knowledge. It is the basis of any objective
cultural, moral, and social doctrine which may enter into man's
civilization. All that is best in the operation of human nature in this
world demands a clear and certain realization about the nature of the First
Cause, a realization shared by all the members of society. It is the
business of the apologist first to demonstrate this truth, and then to point
out how the requisite knowledge of God has not been possessed and will not
be independently of Christian revelation.
12. The
cultural implications of supernatural teaching.
First of all any satisfactory cultural order must be based upon a
recognition of the fact that there is one true God, the First Cause of all
beings distinct from Himself, the creator and Lord of all things, who is
endowed with the infinite perfections of being and operation which we know
as the divine attributes. By its very definition, culture is the terminus of
the human mind's development. It is the natural perfection of the human mind
as such. It differs from those perfections with which the mind may be
endowed with reference to certain restricted fields. Thus a man may train
himself to be a successful accountant or a successful politician while at
the same time he does not possess the intellectual perfection which is
characteristically human. In the last analysis this human and natural
intellectual perfection is that very reality which St. Thomas Aquinas has so
well described in his Disputed Questions on Truth. (Q. 2 a. 2)
Obviously a man cannot have described in his own mind the order of the
universe and of its causes unless he knows the existence and the nature of
the First Cause, upon which all things created depend. The created things of
the universe themselves cannot be properly known until they are seen
precisely as effects which are brought into being and maintained in
existence through the divine power. The laws of created reality cannot be
appreciated for what they really are unless they themselves are recognized
as effects of that God who, by His providential power, governs the universe
and brings the things contained in it to the attainment of their proper end.
The man who is not cognizant of the perfections of the living God then must
always live in a state of dire intellectual poverty.
This culture, which is based upon a correct and substantially complete
natural knowledge of God, is not merely a speculative perfection.
Manifesting itself through the temperaments of the various nations and
races, it is responsible for the laws, the literature, and the arts which
in their turn contribute to the natural excellence of human life in this
world. Thus a civilization which is vitiated through fundamental errors
about the natural notion of God is doomed to express itself in ugliness and
to conduct its affairs without regard for the sacredness of human life.
History has shown us very clearly how such civilizations have failed in
their essential function of procuring for man a fullness of natural
happiness in this life.
13.
Benefits of divine revelation in the moral order.
Moral doctrine is absolutely dependent upon a correct and substantially
complete natural idea of God also. For after all the doctrine on moral
describes the activity of a good man. It makes all the difference in the
world if the man who is to achieve goodness is a creature ordered for
eternal beatitude by a provident and infinitely just God, or if he is to
achieve merely the happiness and pleasure which he can gather in this life.
A code of moral which is not based upon the recognition of God's attributes
is one which will inevitably tend toward selfishness and other qualities
which are incompatible with proper social existence.
The ancient civilizations of China, Greece, and Rome managed to evolve a
code of moral which permitted an effective corporate life. However, these
very cultures acted and legislated in such a way as to show no appreciation
of the dignity of human life as such. They stained their records with the
most repulsive forms of slavery and immorality. The modern states like
Russia, Nazi Germany, and bolshevist Spain establishing a field of conduct
absolutely apart from a correct notion of God, produced the most hideous
moral codes in all the history of the human race. As a matter of fact the
dignity of the individual human person, the preservation of family ties and
the conduct of the state in such a way as to bring about the desired
temporal well-being which belongs to human life are all rendered impossible
or at least impeded greatly through a failure to observe the complete
natural doctrine about God.
Apart from those peoples who have been in possession of divine revelation,
there has never been a generally accepted reasonably complete knowledge of
God. Certainly one of the best among the pagan cultures was that of ancient
Rome. Yet, in his De Civitate Del, St. Augustine was able to cite Varro, the
outstanding theorist of Roman religious matters to the effect that his
civilization knew three distinct kinds of "theologies" or doctrines about
matters divine. One of these was the mythical theology, the second was
physical and the third civi1. (De Civitate Dei, Book 6, Ch. 5)
According to the teaching of Varro himself, the first of these belonged to
the theater, the second to the world, the third and last to the city or the
state.
The mythical theology was that exposed by the poets and the playwrights. It
had to do with those fables which were intended to amuse the people and to
excite their baser instincts with the suggestion that the worst crimes which
could be conceived by the mind of n-ian had already been perpetrated by the
gods themselves. The so-called physical theology was nothing but the
doctrine of the various philosophers about God, and was supposed to answer
the questions about the identity of the various divinities, their location
and dassification and the characteristics, their temporal or eternal nature
and their components. Thus Varro disting-uished carefully the opinions of
Heraclitus who believed that the gods were of the nature of fire from those
of Pythagoras who believed that they were "from numbers," and Epicurus who
thought that the divinities were composed of atoms.
The civil theology was that which the citizens and especially the priests
were supposed to know and administer within the state. It consisted in the
performance of those religious rites and in the offering of those sacrifices
which were proper to the place and to the time. As far as doctrinal accuracy
was concerned, this civil theology was inferior to the natural as was the
purely mythical. These two, the doctrine of the theater and the civil
teaching on the duties which were due to the gods comprised the popular
knowledge of the divinity. That which was available to the mass of people in
the old Roman state compared at least favorably with the teachings readily
available to the populace of other states.
The popular ideas respecting the divinity in the Hindu culture are grossly
polytheistic. They differ sharply from those notions which are contained in
a literature far too abstruse and esoteric to influence the thought of most
men. The same lamentable crassness of popular appreciation of God is to be
found in the story of religious life and activity among the ancient peoples
of Mesopotamia and Syria. The same evidence always appears. Apart from the
influence of divine revelation, the general run of mankind has never had the
complete and accurate natural knowledge of God which is necessary for the
perfect enjoyment of cultured social life.
But even among the philosophers who enjoyed a more perfect natural knowledge
of God than that which their fellow citizens possessed, we find a
lamentable lack of accuracy and coherence. The finest doctrine about God in
all the run of pagan philosophical thought is to be found in the writings of
Plato and of Aristotle. On the pages of his SyMposium Plato elaborated a
proof of the existence of God which was so perfect that centuries afterward
St. Thomas Aquinas was able to incorporate it into the fabric of Christian
teaching.
Yet in the same dialogue,
and throughout his writings Plato manifested a concept of moral which made
it quite evident that this idea of God never influenced his understanding of
the conduct of man. Aristotle, both in the Metaphysics (XII Book) and in the
Physics (VIII Book) offered a real and satisfactory demonstration of the
existence of the First Mover. Yet in these same volumes he gives evidence of
a failure to realize the implications of his own proof. Neither of these
great teachers could be said to have proposed a clear and certain complete
teaching about the natural idea of God. Neither gave any evidence of
understanding the truth of the divine providence. Neither understood even
the natural evidence to the effect that God governs the lives and the
activities of men.
Poor as it was, their teaching was such that few men could ever avail
themselves of it. The teaching of Aristotle of God is left, in its greater
portion, for the books of the Metaphysics. These books were to be considered
only by those men who had acquired all of the training in logic and in
natural philosophy which were available in the culture of the day according
to the intention of Aristotle himself. The ordinary man, who had neither the
leisure nor the aptitude for philosophical discipline, could derive little
profit from such teaching.
The force of divine revelation in offering to all men a clear and readily
available natural knowledge of God becomes strikingly apparent if we look
into the actual accomplishments of Christian teaching. The tiniest child who
learns his prayers to God, and who is trained in the teaching of the little
catechism has a clear and accurate knowledge of God which surpasses the
highest accomplishments of Plato and of Aristotle. (Cf. Vincent McNabb,
O.P.; New York, 1927; pp. 107-111) In the mind of that child there is
certainty about the facts of creation, the divine providence and the divine
government. There is no questioning about the material of the gods, as there
was among the most brilliant of the thinkers cited by Varro. The simplest
person who has been the beneficiary of the divine revelation knows full well
that God is a spirit, infinitely perfect. He knows, too, that God is
utterly immutable, that He is infinitely good, and omniscient. He knows that
this same God loves man, and that He is a holy God, who will not have
uncleanness in His sight.
14. The benefits of Catholic dogma for a democracy.
Although divine revelation is morally necessary for all men, it is
strikingly requisite for, and beneficial to, those who are fortunate enough
to live as members of a democratic state. For, as the observers of political
philosophy have pointed Out Very clearly, the ruler in a state must be
endowed with virtue in order that the state may function successfully, and
actually be of service in procuring for its citizens the material well-being
and temporal advantages which will enable those citizens to realize their
human capabilities. In a democratic state the people as a whole control the
destinies of the government. The rulers act in the name and by the authority
of the people themselves. As a necessary consequence, the people in a
democracy must be a virtuous people if their state is to work out its own
destiny.
Thus in any event, or under any form of government, the people must possess
the moral virtues in order that they may live together successfully. There
could be no social action in the proper sense of the term which is not based
upon the right actions of those individuals who compose the society.
However, in the case of other forms of rule, the first direction toward
right activity can come from the ruler, who directs the activities of the
state in a way which is at least theoretically independent of the choice of
the populace. In the democracy the first impulse must be from the people
themselves, for the choice of rulers lies within their hands. Naturally with
the choice of rulers there comes a choice of policy or direction of
government for which the people as a whole are responsible. Thus, within the
framework of a democracy, the people must possess those virtues which are
characteristic of rulers as well as those which are simply requisite for
proper living in a social order.
Our own state is, and with the help of God will continue to be, democratic.
As a result it is the sort of society which stands specially in need of that
ineffable benefit which is the divine revelation. Through the agency of this
revelation, and only in this way, there will be available to the citizenry
at large a correct and complete natural knowledge of God. This knowledge
alone can sustain the culture and the morality, both individual and civic,
which are requisite for the proper functioning of our nation.
In the light of that culture, which will not be generally and successfully
attained apart from the force of the divine teaching, the people of our
nation will be able to discern the true import of the problems which they
must resolve, in their capacity as directors of national policy. Through
this cultural knowledge the true hierarchy of values is evident. The people
can and will be able to see the worth of alternative courses which are
proposed to them, and the effectiveness of the media which are supposed to
be used in the attainment of the purposes of the state. In short that
intellectual perfection which, in a monarchy, must characterize the prince
who rules his country successfully can and will belong to the people of our
own nation through the beneficent activity of divine revelation.
15. Divine revelation and civic honesty.
In the light of recent history, it is quite apparent that public immorality
is definitely destructive of the life and the functioning of a democracy. A
nation that winks at civic dishonesty, which tolerates or encourages
activity destructive of the family and of individual morality, is a nation
which tends away from the blessings and the benefits of democratic
processes. However, it is quite as obvious that there will be no such thing
as corporate justice and corporate morality apart from the justice and the
honor of those men who actually compose the commonwealth. A nation composed
of individuals who are devoid of private ideals of justice will never react
successfully against the raids of larcenous politicians. A state whose
members have individually no regard for veracity will never be able to
escape the fatal pitfall of corporate hypocrisy, Which has vitiated the
activity of so many nations. Finally, only in that state whose members have
a love of purity and honor will there be the same family life without which
the life of any country is inevitably doomed.
Now all of these qualities are aspects of an objective moral which rests
only upon a complete and accurate natural knowledge of God, or upon the
knowledge derived from divine revelation through which this natural
awareness is developed and perfected. They are qualities which must be
implanted in the members of the state through a process of education.
Actually that education, to be effective and successful, must center about
this dominant idea of God. The education which is objectively requisite for
the proper functioning of our own democracy must be a religious education.
It must point out God as One to whom service and reverence are due precisely
because of His supreme excellence. Democracy is not only an excellent form
of government, but it is also by far the most exacting. Precisely because of
its excellence, it is worth all of the labor and all of the accomplishments
which must contribute to its perfect functioning.
16. The teaching of divine revelation is a patriotic function.
Since divine revelation is requisite for the successful functioning of our
own democracy, it is evident that the work of presenting this teaching to
the citizens of this country constitutes a work of patriotism in the
strictest sense of the term. Patriotism is, after all, that virtue by which
a man tends to give to his own country the service and the respect which are
its due. To give service to the country is nothing more or less than to
render to the state that which is good for it, and, of course, that which is
requisite for it, according to the capacity of the individual who is called
upon to do so. Divine revelation is good for our nation. It is a benefit of
incomparable importance. Thus the Christian who possesses the gift of divine
revelation would not be doing good to his country were he to withhold this
benefit from his fellow citizens.
Primarily, then, it is the work of the apologist to manifest the credentials
of this doctrine which is presented to men as a great and ineffable benefit.
If he can bring forward evidence that this doctrine is what it claims to be,
actually a teaching which has been communicated by God to men, then he will
have demonstrated the reliability of his contribution to the life of his own
nation. The apologist dots not ask anyone to take his word to the effect
that his teaching can be of service to his fellow men. It is his function to
bring forward the clear and irrefutable evidence which is at his disposal.
He claims that his doctrine is sovereignly important. It is within his power
to adduce evidence proportionate to the magnitude of his claims.
That evidence must be both striking and extensive. After all, the apologist
presents a doctrine which he claims to have been taught to men by the living
God. He says that this doctrine is addressed to all men, that it comes to
them through the instrumentality of their fellows. It is his contention that
his doctrine contains truths which are absolutely beyond the natural
competence of any created intellect, actual or possible. He can show that
there is nothing contradictory in the claims which he has made, and
furthermore he asserts that this doctrine is necessary for the men who live
upon this earth. He says that through this doctrine, and through this alone,
men can achieve the eternity of perfect happiness for which they are
intended. He claims that by the use of this teaching men can derive that
natural knowledge of God which will direct and guide the successful
operation of their individual and corporate lives. Only the most conclusive
evidence could render the acceptance of such claims rational and prudent.
Yet such evidence can be adduced in the science of apologetics.
CHAPTER VI
THE DISCERNIBILITY OF DIVINE REVELATION
1. The
general conditions of credibility.
In order to show that the testimony of some man is reliable we must point
out three distinct facts. In the first place, we must demonstrate that the
man himself is truthful, that he has no intention of doing other than tell
the truth about the matter under consideration, and secondly that he
actually knows what he is talking about in this given case. Finally, we must
be at pains to show that the testimony in question was really and actually
given by the person who was supposed to have given it.
When we are dealing with the matter of divine revelation, we obviously need
offer only one of these proofs. There is no special need of insisting upon
the fact that God is truthful. We know of the divine veracity and of the
divine omniscience through the proofs of metaphysics. These qualities are
known naturally as divine attributes. We demonstrate the existence of these
attributes from the fact that God is that First Cause whose existence we
know through the consideration of those beings which could neither be or act
apart from His causality. The study of the divine attributes from the purely
natural point of view belongs rather to metaphysics than to apologetics.
On the other hand, it is the central and essential purpose of apologetics to
point out the evident indications that Catholic dogma, offered as a message
from God to man, has actually been revealed by God Himself. Because this
teaching is put forward as mediate rather than immediate revelation, we
cannot rely merely upon the experience of that one who has directly received
the divine communication. We can establish the proper divine authorship of
this message in the light of natural reason, only in that same way in which
we can discern the authorship of any other communication which comes to us
through indirect channels. We must look for something which is analogous to
a divine signature, really attached to the message which comes to us in His
name.
If we can show that the message is thus as it were signed by God, we shall
evidently have sufficient reason for giving a prudent assent of divine faith
to the truths contained in it. The message will be evidently and rationally
credible, since obviously the all-just and veracious God could not knowingly
signify His assent to a claim of divine authorship for a doctrine which He
knew to be merely human in character. The point which we must consider then
is the nature of this divine signature and its application to the doctrine
which we propose as divinely revealed.
A signature, even that of a human being, is established as some mark which
can be made by this person alone. A signature may be counterfeited, but it
cannot be duplicated. In the case of men, theoretically at least, any
counterfeit can be discovered and demonstrated as such. Only this
individual man can competently affix his own signature.
2. The
various signs of revelation.
But there is one sort of visible effect which can be produced by God alone
and which can be recognized as such by those men to whom His message is
addressed. Such an effect will be an act obviously beyond the competence of
any creature, actual or possible. It will be an act performed independently
of the laws of created reality, and as such evidently the production of One
who is not dependent upon those laws but rather upon whom the created laws
themselves depend. It can be shown clearly that such actions are possible,
that they can be discerned as such, and thus seen evidently as divine
works, and finally that they are attached to this teaching which we call
Catholic dogma, and that they thus unerringly designate this dogma as a
divine teaching. These divinely produced effects, visible as means by which
we may judge the authenticity of a doctrine which is proposed as divinely
revealed, are called criteria of revelation or motives of credibility. They
are criteria of revelation in so far as they are the positive signs by which
we may establish with certitude the divine origin of some message which is
proposed to us as God's teaching. They are motives of credibility in so far
as the doctrine which is evidently endowed with these signs is evidently and
rationally credible as divine revelation.
Apart from these positive signs of the divine authorship, there are certain
negative criteria which can be utilized to recognize the falsity of claims
that certain doctrines have been taught by God. Thus a series of
pronouncements which express palpable untruths can evidently not have come
from the God of truth. And teaching which incites men to acts of immorality
can obviously never have come from the God of holiness. But obviously a
doctrine is not evidently credible merely by reason of the fact that it does
not contain inconsistency and immorality. The point of these proofs is only
that a doctrine which is obviously incorrect and morally unclean can have no
serious claim to divine origin, and thus could never be accepted prudently
and rationally with the assent of divine faith.
Furthermore there are what are called internal criteria of revelation which
can give solid, yet secondary, assurance of credibility. These internal
criteria are to be found in the satisfaction of man's aspirations in the
acceptance of the doctrine itself. It is obvious that the God who created
and preserves His creatures is the same One who is the Author of a divinely
revealed doctrine. When He chooses to speak to His people, it is evident
that He could do so in such a way that these people could as it were
experience the fitness and the perfection of His message. That message
would be something perfectly adapted to the needs and to the best
aspirations of those to whom it was addressed. When a doctrine which
actually corresponds to these needs and aspirations is found, and when that
doctrine is proposed as a message from God Himself, there is certainly
objective reason to suppose that the teaching is actually what it claims to
be. A counterfeit revelation could 'hardly manifest the same aptitude for
the exigencies and the tendencies of human nature as one which had really
come from the God who founded and designed that nature and who unfailingly
guides its operation.
3. The
Church appeals to motives of credibility in support of her claims.
The Church herself makes a definite appeal to all of these motives of
credibility. Unhesitatingly she states that her teaching is rationally
acceptable as divine revelation because it is guaranteed by unmistakable
signs of God's testimony to this effect. She realizes, of course, that the
assent of divine faith, as the acceptance of a doctrine which is
intrinsically supernatural, must be made with the aid of an intrinsically
supernatural grace coming from God Himself. This essentially supernatural
aid, which enables man to assent firmly to the truth of a revealed doctrine
which is absolutely beyond the natural competence of any creature, actual
or possible, is what the Church terms the internal help of the Holy Ghost.
According to the teaching of the Vatican Council, the motives of credibility
are quite distinct from these internal helps of the Holy Ghost. It is their
function to render the service of our faith something reasonable and
prudent.
"Nevertheless, in order that the service of our faith may be conformed to
reason, God has willed that there should be joined with the internal aids of
the Holy Ghost external proofs of His own revelation, namely divine works,
and first of all miracles and prophecies, which, since they clearly manifest
the omnipotence and the infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of
divine revelation and adapted to the understanding of all men. Wherefore
both Moses and the prophets, and especially the Lord Christ Himself
exhibited many and most manifest miracles and prophecies, and we read about
the Apostles, 'But they going forth preached everywhere, the Lord working
withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed' (Mark 16:20).
And again it is written, 'We have the more firm prophetical word:
whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark
place.' (2 Pet. 1:19) " (The Vatican Council, The Constitution "Dei
Filius," Ch. 3; Denzinger, 1790).
The Church reasserts this claim in the text of her Oath against the
Modernists. "I. admit and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation,
that is the divine works and first of all miracles and prophecies as most
certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold them
to be perfectly adapted to the understanding of men of all ages, and even
the understanding of the men of this time." (Denzinger, 2145) Thus she
clearly claims that divine effects, or works which evidently could be
performed only by the divine power itself, demonstrate the credibility of
the doctrine which she advances as divinely revealed.
In the same way, she boldly claims the fullness of what we have seen as the
negative criteria to establish the credibility of her teaching. In the same
constitution of the Vatican Council she declares, "Although faith is above
reason, yet there can never be any true conflict between faith and reason:
since the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith has granted
the light of reason to the human soul. But God cannot deny Himself, nor can
the true ever contradict the true. However, the empty appearance of such
contradiction arises especially when either the dogmas of faith have not
been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church or when
the voice of opinion is mistaken for the statement of reason." (Denzinger,
1797) Concluding this same statement the Church utilizes the terms of the
Fifth Council of the Lateran in defining as false every assertion which is
contrary to the truth of enlightened faith.
However, the Church goes still farther in her claims for the credibility of
her own teaching. She asserts that the doctrine which she proposes as
divinely revealed is actually of service to human science and not merely
something entirely out of its field and compatible with it. "Not only can
faith and reason never contradict each other but they actually do one
another a mutual service. For right reason proves the foundations of faith
and illumined with the light of this same faith cultivates the science of
divine things while faith frees and guards reason from errors and endows it
with a multiple knowledge.” (Denzinger, 1799) These are obviously claims
which are easy to verify. It is not too difficult to see whether or not the
doctrine which is proposed by the Catholic Church as divinely revealed is
actually in contradiction to those propositions which we see to be true in
the light of our own natural knowledge. In the case where there is such
contradiction, then, evidently the doctrine which is presented as divine
teaching is not what it claims to be.
These claims have obvious reference to what we have seen as the internal
motives of credibility. A doctrine which is in conformity with the truths
which are seen as such in the natural light of human reason and which
actually is of assistance in the mastery of natural knowledge will
manifestly be a sort of doctrine which is eminently satisfactory to human
beings and in conformity with the highest aspirations and tendencies of
human nature. An individual can experience this satisfaction himself in the
possession of Christian truth, and as such it constitutes an individual
internal motive of credibility. More important from a scientific point of
view is the demonstration that a doctrine proposed as divinely revealed has
been found eminently satisfactory and consoling by men who obviously
expressed in their own lives the highest accomplishments of which human
nature is capable. The fact that ,a doctrine has been a source of joy and
consolation to those who have been sincere seekers after truth is manifest
confirmation of a claim which has been advanced that this doctrine is
divinely revealed to man.
However, the Church advances one more indication of the divine origin of the
doctrine which she proposes. She claims that she herself is manifestly a
divine work, a miraculous phenomenon which could not have been produced and
maintained by the natural power of any creature or creatures whatsoever.
"Moreover the Church by herself, because of her admirable propagation, her
eminent sanctity, and her inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things,
because of her Catholic unity and her unconquered stability, is a certain
great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her
own divine messengership." (Denzinger, 1794) This claim, like the others
advanced for the credibility of Catholic dogma, is reasonable and very easy
to verify. In the event that she is not Manifestly a divine work, she cannot
reasonably propose her own doctrine as divine revelation. On the other hand,
if she does manifest in her own constitution and in her activity elements
which could not possibly be the effects of any merely created power, then
she has established herself as a true indication of the divine origin of
that doctrine which is proposed as divine revelation.
Those signs which are manifestly indications of divine origin in a doctrine
which is proposed as divinely revealed may thus be classified.
A) Negative criteria.
B) Positive criteria.
a) External signs (external with reference to the person to whom the message
in question is addressed).
a* Extrinsic criteria (extrinsic this time with reference to the doctrine
under consideration). Under this heading we find miracles and prophecies.
b* Intrinsic criteria. These are manifest qualities found in the doctrines
itself, in the one who delivered the teaching, or in that social agency by
which this teaching is guarded and 'preserved..
b) Internal signs or criteria, and these may be either:
a* Individual, or b* Universa1.
In the process of establishing, in the light of natural reason, the
credibility of Catholic dogma as divine revelation, it will be necessary to
apply all of these criteria to the doctrine in question. In the event that
this doctrine, and only this doctrine, is manifestly signed by these evident
indications of divine authorship, then we can conclude that an acceptance of
this doctrine with the assent of divine faith is a reasonable and prudent
act. For only a teaching which gives evidence of having been revealed by God
can possibly be accepted as divine revelation according to the exigencies of
human reason itself.
4. The
order among the motives a credibility.
However, before we can proceed to the work of examining Catholic dogma in
the light of these manifest criteria, we must first realize the order which
exists among the motives of credibility themselves. The Catholic Church
herself has qualified miracles and prophecies as motives of credibility
which occupy the most important position among those criteria which can
manifest the divine origin of her own message. Both in the Vatican Council
and in the oath against the modernists she has taken pains to condemn those
who rejected the demonstrative value of these miracles and prophecies in the
work of apologetics. Furthermore she insisted that these signs were fitted
to give certain evidence of the divine origin of the Christian message to
the men of all ages, and even to those of modern times.
There is a real and valid reason for this insistence. The Church takes
cognizance of the fact that a doctrine which is revealed in the sense in
which she speaks of revelation, could not be fully demonstrated as credible
apart from these external motives or criteria. Since the message which we
are asked to accept on the authority of God revealing contains truths which
are set forth as intrinsically supernatural mysteries, the only way in which
this message can offer valid evidence of credibility is by making it
unmistakably clear that God actually has given this message to man as a
special communication.
If the message were merely natural in its import, then it would be perhaps
sufficient to show that this teaching was in accord with the best tendencies
of human nature in order to establish it as rationally acceptable. If
revelation were what the modernists said it was, merely the consciousness
which man acquires of his own relation to God, then obviously it would be
demonstrated as acceptable in the same way any other merely natural truth
is presented for the acceptance of men. But since it is proposed as an
actual message communicated by God to man, there must be some incontestable
evidence that God is really its Author. That incontestable evidence can be
nothing but some sign which is proper to God, an effect which could not
possibly be brought about by any created agency whatsoever.
5. The
miracle is a manifest divine work.
Now an effect which is obviously proper to God is one evidently performed by
the Master of the universe. The Master of the universe is the One upon whom
the laws of created nature depend. He is not in the least restricted by
these laws. The laws of created nature are those observable and unchanging
tendencies which are manifest in the activity of created things. When we say
that a thing acts in accordance with the physical laws, we mean that it
performs that type of activity to which its nature is directed. Basically,
then, the law is the expression of the nature itself. The activity which is
in accordance with this law is necessarily something quite distinct from the
nature of a created thing. For in every created thing the nature is quite
distinct from the operation of which it is the principle or the source.
Only the Master of the universe, the One who has created the universe and
who holds all the things contained in it in their existence, can act in such
a way as to impede the activity which is the immediate consequence of the
created nature. Creatures must act upon other creatures in utilizing the
forces which follow from the nature of these beings. When there is an effect
which is obviously independent of the physical laws which govern the
activity of created things, it is obvious that this is something which God
has done in the world independently of the natural activity of His
creatures.
A creature could very well act upon another by utilizing the forces which
are consequent upon the nature of that other creature. Thus a physician can
heal his patient but in doing this he must employ those very forces of the
human body which tend toward physical well-being. But he could never bring
back to life a man who has died for the simple reason that the forces native
to man's body will carry him from the status of childhood through maturity
to old age. He can arrange to have these forces work for the health of the
person which is his patient. He can certainly never reverse the direction of
the forces themselves.
6. Three
types of miracles.
These divine works in the physical order are miracles in the proper sense of
the term when they are apparent as such.
They may be divided into three classes. First of all there
are certain effects which could not be brought about at all by any created
agency. These are the miracles substantially such. The second class includes
effects which could be brought about by purely natural forces, but which
could never be accomplished in this definite subject. These are the miracles
which are thus named by reason of the subject in which they are brought
about. In the final class are those effects which could have been brought
about in this particular subject by the natural forces themselves, but
evidently could not be produced in the way in which actually it has been
brought about other than by the divine power itself. These are the miracles
which are such by reason of the manner in which they are brought about.
Within the first category we find such manifestations as the multiplication
of the loaves and the fishes and the compenetration of matter incident to
the passage of a body through the walls of a room. These are effects which
lie altogether outside of the competence of any created power.
In the case of the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, we have
evidently an effect which lies outside of the natural capacity of these
things. Only that Being from whom these created realities obtain their
natural effects and their real though secondary causality can bring them to
produce effects to which their nature is evidently not ordered at all. As
something which is itself included in the order of the universe, a created
cause would have to avail itself of the actual and natural tendencies of
such things in order to produce an effect through them. Thus when we know
that this effect has actually taken place, we are certainly aware that it
has been brought about by no natural created power. It is an effect which is
brought about in the visible and created universe by a power which is
outside of and thus independent of the laws of this universe. It is visibly
something which has been produced by that One upon whom the laws and the
activities of the created universe themselves depend.
Within the second category, that of the miracles which are such by reason of
the subject in which the effects are produced, we find such things as the
raising of a man from the dead, or the granting of sight to a man who is
born blind. This class of miracles is just as truly a category of obviously
divine works as the division which includes miracles such by their very
substance. Yet they are miracles because they constitute the production of
an effect of which this particular subject is obviously incapable, but which
could naturally be produced in some other body. Thus when a man is raised
from the dead, the kind of life which he lives is exactly that which is
enjoyed by the other persons who constitute the human race. His body and its
functions are no different from those which he possessed before his own
death. His activities are those which are quite natural to man, and which
can be produced by purely natural forces in a living human body. But what
constitutes this effect as a miracle is the evident fact that such
activities could never be produced naturally in a body which is dead and
which has been corrupted.
Obviously such a miracle is ascertainable in the same manner as any purely
natural phenomenon. The fact of death is something which can be known with
perfect certainty. Men can be as sure that this particular individual is
dead as they are about the death, the burial, and the corruption of the body
of any other. They can know that this man who has been really dead now lives
as well as they can be aware that any other individual is alive. They can
see the deformed eyes of a man who was born without the gift of sight, and
then they can certainly know that this man sees. Furthermore they can be
quite well aware that these effects are beyond the power of any merely
natural agency.
To the third class of miracles belong particularly healings of diseases
which of themselves are curable, but which are certainly not curable merely
at the word or the command of some person or through the instantaneous
application of some substance like common mud. Again such miracles are
evidently divine works, although they are not as easily ascertained as such
as are the miracles of the first two orders. It is possible for nervous
disorders which are generally classed under the somewhat inadequate heading
of hysteria to simulate or counterfeit some of the symptoms of recognized
organic ailments. Such nervous disorders may well cease to have their
effects through the application of mental hygiene. However, such cases are
ascertainable not only by men of the medical profession, but also by those
who come into close contact with the ailments simulated or imitated. Or, to
put the matter positively, an ordinary man of the world can tell a case of
genuine organic ailment, and can see that such a case has been cured
suddenly and without the application of such specific remedies which are
ordinarily utilized for the relief of this condition. And when there is
unmistakably a condition which could not be cured suddenly or without
specific remedies in the natural course of events, and this ailment is cured
instantly at the command of some person or as the result of some petition
made to God, men can easily see in this an effect which is beyond the
natural competence of any creature.
7. The
miracle and the divine causality.
There have been, and unfortunately there still are, men who refuse a priori
to admit the possibility of a miracle. It is absolutely certain that such a
refusal is based either upon a false judgment about the causality of God
Himself, or upon an unwarranted and inaccurate notion of created reality.
There would, of course, be no possibility whatsoever of a miracle if God had
been limited by, and determined to, the actually existing order of the
universe. But in this case the material things in the world would have had
some existence and reality apart from the causative power of God, and this
is evidently not true. The creative action of God was not exercised upon a
previously existing mass of objects. Every fiber and aspect of created
reality, in so far as it is real and good, is the product of the divine
causality. Consequently there is and there could be nothing in all of the
created universe which would limit or confine the power of God.
Furthermore the power of God is in no way limited by any necessity on the
part of His own activity. He created the world with absolute freedom. He
stands in no need of it. He created it freely, knowing well that through it
He was obtaining the one object or end which could ultimately motivate His
effects, but He saw that this end could be obtained other than through this
particular universe which was actually established. If He had caused as One
determined by His very nature to produce this effect, rather than freely and
intelligently, He could not have been the first Cause, since every cause
which is determined to its effect is by that very reason something which is
potential and which is acted upon by something superior to itself.
Making the world freely, He obviously established it in such a way that not
only the substances within it, but also the very operation and tendencies
of those substances were subject absolutely to His power. Since the created
thing only exists in so far as it has been brought into being and there
sustained by the power of God and since it operates and exercises causality
only in so far as it is moved by the divine power, God has it within His
choice to direct that activity either according to the direction of the
created nature itself, or otherwise.
Now it is quite obvious that the usual course of the
activity of created things will be in accordance with the tendencies
expressed in their own natures. Thus a fire is something which is naturally
capable of burning human flesh which comes in contact with it, and it is
natural that it should thus consume the matter with which it actually comes
in contact. If, at some time it is observable that fire does not consume the
combustible material it touches, it is acting in a way which could only be
brought about by God Himself, and for a definite and laudable purpose.
8. The
miracle and order in the universe.
Thus when we assert the certain and obvious truth that miracles are
possible, we in no way deny that there is such a thing as a fixed order in
the material universe. As a matter of fact exactly the opposite is the case.
For there could be no such thing as an ascertainable work of God as such in
the world if there were not an evident and fixed order within the universe
of bodies. Furthermore we know that this order is fixed, not as some merely
artificial disposition of corporeal reality, but as something which flows
from the very natures of things which are in this world. To utilize an
example to which we have already appealed and which has particular
importance in this field of miracles, the dead body of a human being tends
to corrupt by reason of the very chemical and physical forces at work within
it. That tendency is in it by the very fact that it is what it is. When, by
reason of His infinite wisdom, God chooses to bring about the resurrection
of that body, he causes an effect quite distinct from that to which the
thing itself is orientated. The miracle is obvious, and is in the technical
sense a sign, precisely because that tendency and its otherwise inevitable
effect are so easily observed.
All bodies or all things in the material universe except man himself act in
a definite and determined way. Each substance has its own activity which it
will not, and from a purely natural point of view cannot change. Fire will
consume unprotected human flesh which comes in contact with it. The water of
the sea or of a lake will submerge rather than sustain the human being who
attempts to walk upon it. We can know not merely that these reactions occur,
but also we can understand why these effects take place rather than any
others. The nature and the composition of material things are obviously
purposive, and a nature achieves its immediate end precisely in the
performance of that activity.
9. The
miracle and possibility.
Again, when the assertion is made that a miraculous effect is impossible, we
must be careful to note the meaning which is attached to the term
impossible. A thing may be impossible in two different ways. There is such a
thing as absolute impossibility. Thus it is impossible that the sum of two
plus three should be other than five. To make two plus three equal six or
four would not be a miracle. It would be nothing at all. It is something
which is beyond the possibility of existence since its terms or components
are mutually exclusive. A two plus three which would equal six would be
something which did not have a nature of any sort, and as such there could
be no possibility of its existence.
On the other hand, however, a thing may be impossible from a relative point
of view. Thus the thing which would be possible for a strong man would be
relatively impossible for one who is weak. It would be an effect to which
his physical condition is not proportioned. Likewise what would be possible
for a created pure spirit would be relatively impossible for any human
being. Finally what is possible to the unlimited power of God would be
impossible to any of His creatures whatsoever. It is in this way that the
true miracle, of any of the three classes to which allusion has been made,
is impossible to the creature but certainly not to the power of the living
God. A miracle is obviously something beyond the power of any creature as
such, but it is not something fantastic or absolutely impossible.
If a man refuses absolutely to admit the possibility of miracles, we can
only show him that his refusal is devoid of objective foundation. If he
admits the existence of a First Cause, who obviously is possessed of all
perfection and who freely produces and preserves the universe, then he can
have no trouble in seeing that such a being can produce effects which are
obviously beyond the natural competence of any creature. But without that
accurate notion of God which can be acquired naturally by man, he is in
danger of failing to see the possibility of that which is the outstanding
sign of divine revelation.
10. True
and false miracles.
We come now to consider precisely how a man, in a given order of
circumstances, can distinguish between a real miracle and that which is
merely a counterfeit. The doctrine which we defend as credible in our
science of apologetics takes cognizance of the fact that counterfeit
miracles are not only possible but unfortunately real. Our Lord Himself
incorporated a foretelling of such false signs into His preaching. "For
there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great
signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect."
(Math. 24:24) Like any other counterfeits these false miracles are intended
to deceive men, and they can well do so. Consequently we have the right to
ask whether there is, at our disposal, some means of discerning with
unfailing accuracy the false miracle from the true one.
Actually we possess such criteria. The portent or wonder which is set forth
as a counterfeit miracle will inevitably prove, upon examination, to be
other than the work of the true God. Obviously it is possible for a clever
magician to produce effects which the untrained onlooker will not be able to
explain. Again it is possible for a created spirit to perform works which
could not be duplicated by the natural power of any man whatsoever. But any
one of these tricks is put forward as a trick. It is something prepared and
at the same time something which can never attain the manifest perfection of
the real miracle. Any one of these tricks will be based upon a clever or
powerful use of the natural forces themselves. There is not, and there
cannot be in them any indication of independence of the physical laws.
There are, of course, certain types of miracles which can never be
efficiently counterfeited at all. There is not, and there will not be in all
the claims of counterfeit miracles any reasonably credible account of
raising a dead person to life. Where such a counterfeit is attempted, it is
an obviously shoddy substitute. The person who is "raised" was not one who
was known to be dead at all, or if the fact of his death was unquestioned,
there was no valid evidence of any vital activity on his part whatsoever.
Such tricks as the movement of tables or other objects without any apparent
corporeal force being exercised in this task are hardly convincing as
substitutes for miracles. It is clear in the first place that the raising
of a table without any apparent corporeal cause is not something beyond the
natural competence of any created thing.
Even apart from the possibility of trickery, through the use of magnets or
some similar device, there is the possibility of some action on the part of
created spirits. There is certainly nothing beyond the competence of created
nature in the raising of the table in itself. The part which would demand an
explanation is the fact that this table has been raised without the use of
any visible cause. But we know that there are invisible realities which are
actually capable of such causality. The miracles which have been cited, and
those which have been scientifically accepted as such throughout the course
of Christian history have never been anything like these vulgar
manifestations.
But there is still another way in which the true miracle may easily be
discerned from the counterfeit. The true miracle is an act of the living
God, produced visibly in the created universe for some reason which is
consonant with the holiness and the wisdom of God. Thus it is evident from
the very outset that a sign which is intended to induce men to the practice
of immorality or to the rejection of that which is naturally evident could
not in any sense of the term be considered as a miracle. Furthermore, a sign
which is orientated merely toward flattering the vanity of some individual
could certainly never be considered as a work which God Himself freely
performs in the created universe.
11. The
purpose of the miracle.
It is essential to our concept of a miracle that we recognize it as
something which is freely brought about in the visible world by that God who
is infinitely wise, and who is perfectly cognizant with all of the
circumstances which accompany its production. The miracle, by its very
nature, is an unusual thing, it is something which excites wonder. At the
same time it is something which God performs for a definite reason. Every
action which is produced in all the extension of the universe is and must be
something which has a reason sufficient to explain its appearance. The
miracle as such is obviously not intended to make up for some deficiency in
the universal order. It is not necessary because of some congenital
inefficiency of the created causes themselves. It is necessary in order that
it may serve as a sign to teach men some lesson which they would not be able
to grasp through the inspection of the natural workings of created causes.
Now through the inspection of created being and activity men may learn with
perfect certainty that there is a God, who is all powerful and omniscient.
But only through a manifestation of this infinite power or boundless
knowledge could they know that God approves the claim that this or that
individual doctrine actually has been revealed by Him. Only through such
signs can man know the divine approval of this or that individual claim
which is made to them. This value of testimony is the primary purpose which
dominates the production of the true miracle. It is true that the miracle
need not necessarily be performed directly to show the truth of a claim that
a certain doctrine has been divinely revealed. It has happened more than
once in the course of history that miracles have been performed in order to
show the innocence of certain men who have been under suspicion. Furthermore
we know quite well that miracles have been and are being performed in order
to testify to the sanctity of certain persons whose cause of canonization is
being advanced. But always there is some evidence of the divine testimony,
an evidence which is unshakable because the miracle is an indication that
God who knows the claim which is being advanced, and who is certainly under
no compulsion to act, freely produces this effect which no creature could
possibly produce when it is asked of Him as a sign of the validity of the
claim.
Since a miracle necessarily has this power of testimony, and since it is
something freely performed by an omniscient and all-holy God, it is
obviously a motive of credibility. It is the most valuable criterion of
revelation actually at our disposal. We have no means of seeing the object
of supernatural revelation clearly as long as we live in this world. Then it
is obvious that the only means we can have for obtaining evidence of the
acceptability of this doctrine will be the indication that it really has
been taught by God to man. This evidence is not direct, at least for those
persons who receive this message by way of mediate or indirect revelation.
Then the only way in which there can be evidence of the divine origin of
this intrinsically supernatural doctrine will be through clear and
unmistakable indications of God's testimony to that effect. This indication
is best obtained through the medium of miracles.
12. The
miracle and the judgment of credibility.
For if God were to give His signature of approbation to a doctrine which
claims to be divinely revealed but which actually is not, He would be either
ignorant of the claim or actually a partner in a work of deception. The
divine work is something as characteristic of God as the signature of any
human being could possibly be to him. Only God can produce it. But
obviously, even in the light of natural reason alone, it can be seen that
God is all holy, and thus incapable of any prevarication. Likewise it is
evident in the same way that He is omniscient, and so unable to be deceived.
Thus when the infinite power of God is evidently exercised in support of a
claim that some doctrine is divinely revealed, there is every reason to
admit that this claim is justified.
13. The
conditions of prophecy.
The second among these outstanding divine works which can stand as
evidences of credibility is the prophecy.
By a prophecy we mean here a clear and certain foretelling
of some event which could not possibly be known through the light of any
created intelligence. A future event which could not be known naturally by
any created mind is that which depends upon some indeterminate secondary
cause, namely the free will of some intelligent being. A cause is necessary
as such when it is ordered to produce this particular effect rather than
another. Thus a falling body will travel at a rate of speed which
increases, all other things being equal, in proportion with the square of
the distance through which it is falling. Thus if a man knows the distance a
thing will fall, and if he can find the check which will inevitably be made
in the speed of the fall by the air pressure, he can foretell exactly how
long it will take this object to reach the ground. But the will of man, or
that of any other intelligent being, is free with reference to any good
which is not seen as its proper and adequate object. Thus there is no way of
foretelling with certainty, through an examination of the intellectual
being himself, exactly how this being is going to act. Furthermore the
impossibility is even clearer when it is seen with reference to an effect
which will follow out of the free acts of various and distinct rational
beings.
Now the only one to whom a certain and clear knowledge of effects which
depend upon free activity is natural is God Himself. God's knowledge of His
creatures and of their activity is practical. He sees these things for what
they actually are, realities which derive every portion of their being from
His causality. They have no being apart from Him, and hence they cannot be
considered by Him in a merely speculative way. Thus He knows from all
eternity, in one perfect and ineffable act of intelligence, all the events
which are to occur in the course of history. No other being can have this
knowledge as natural to itself because no other being is the First Cause of
the created universe. Thus when there is a certain foretelling of some
future event which depends upon the activity of free secondary causes, this
is evidently an article of knowledge which could only have come from God
Himself.
The man who cites this prediction as an indication of the divine origin of
some doctrine offers what is obviously a proper divine signature. However
this signature is verified only in the actual realization of the prophecy.
If a prediction about some future event which could not possibly be known by
a creature is made in support of a claim that a certain doctrine has been
divinely revealed, and then this prediction is realized, it is a certain
indication that God has approved this claim by delivering to the man who has
made the prediction a knowledge which could only come from Himself.
14. True
and counterfeit prophecy.
There are, and there always will be counterfeits of true prophecy. Such
foretellings are fairly common in the course of history.
At some times they have occurred in such a way as to be
cited for the authentication of no particular claim. In such cases it is
obviously impossible to consider them under the headings of motives of
credibility. At other times there have been foretellings which have been
realized, but which have shown no evidence of any divine origin. We must
remember that in spite of the fact that only God has certain knowledge of
what is going to follow from free activity, there are still certain
tendencies manifest in the conduct of human affairs which can give rise to
definite and sometimes well-founded opinions upon future results. Thus a man
who predicted twenty years ago that in this year of 1942 there would be
airplanes capable of attaining the speed of four hundred miles an hour would
have been able to base his prediction rationally upon the tendencies even
then manifest in the manufacture of these objects. Those persons who long
ago predicted the manufacture and use of instruments of transportation
which would be independent of any animal power had basic and correct reasons
which would authorize this opinion.
However a prophecy like that given by our Lord relative to the seige and the
destruction of Jerusalem could not possibly have been the result of any mere
investigation of naturally observable political or military trends. At the
time that our Lord made His prophecy the relations between the Roman empire
and the Jewish commonwealth were relatively satisfactory. As a matter of
fact the treatment accorded the Jews by the Romans had been at least as
good as that given to any other subject race. Furthermore it was not the
custom of the Romans to destroy utterly a city which was within their own
empire and thereby to cut down the revenue which they could expect to gain
out of that city. When He made that prediction, and made it with such
certainty that His followers within it actually left the doomed capital when
the signs which He foretold began to be manifest, He was evidently offering
to men an article of knowledge which could have come from God alone.
That knowledge then constituted a real and ascertainable divine signature.
To have given it in support of a claim which was unjustified, God would
have had either to lie to His creatures or to have been ignorant of the
matter under consideration. Both of these alternatives are obviously
impossible. As a result the assent of faith which is given to doctrine whose
divine origin has been attested by means of verified prophecy is a
reasonable act. The prophecy is a valid and important motive of credibility.
The oracles with which the ancient world abounded were for the most part
couched in terms so ambiguous that there could be some reason for thinking
that the prediction had been accomplished in any event. Thus there was
nothing certain about them. The true prophecy is, of course, one which is
understood by the persons to whom it is addressed. It must be understood by
them in such a way that, after it has been fulfilled these people will be
able to remember the prophecy itself and to know that this fulfillment
brings evidence that the claim in favor of which the prophecy was cited is
thereby shown to be rational and credible. It will be the business of
apologetics to show that such has been the case with regard to the Christian
message.
15.
Miracles in the moral and social order.
But the physical miracle and the prophecy, which is itself a miracle of the
intellectual order are by no means the only divine works which can and
should be cited as motives of credibility. There are such things as effects
produced evidently and visibly in human society, effects which obviously
never could have been brought about through the power of a merely natural
cause. These are the so-called moral and social miracles. The Church puts
herself forward as a social miracle, as something which could not have been
produced and maintained in the world through merely natural agencies. The
history of the human race, and the experience which we have with men and
societies in the world around us are able to show us very clearly how the
human beings and the societies which they constitute react to the operation
of created agencies. The Church claims that she herself exhibits
characteristics which never could have been brought about other than through
the action of God Himself, carried on independently and outside of the laws
which govern the ordinary and natural procedure of human societies.
"Moreover the Church by herself, by reason of her wonderful propagation, her
eminent holiness and her unexhausted fruitfulness in all good things, by
reason of Catholic unity and unconquered stability, is a certain great and
perpetual motive of credibility and an unshakable testimony of her own
divine messengership."
Under this heading we can consider the naturally inexplicable patience of
the martyrs, the perseverance of the Church through the centuries as a holy
society and all of the other aspects of her life which the traditional
apologists have described. Associated with this are such obviously divine
works as the ineffable holiness and wisdom of Christ who is the vehicle
through whom the doctrine of the Church has been presented to the world, the
admirable consistency of the teaching itself and its outstanding holiness.
All of these are effects which could not have been produced by any merely
created power. They thus constitute motives of credibility external to us
but intrinsic to the teaching which is shown to be credible. They are
motives less striking than the miracles and prophecies, but they demonstrate
the credibility of any doctrine in conjunction with the primary motives
themselves.
16. The
internal motives of credibility.
The internal motives are valuable as adjuncts to the external. By themselves
alone they are not competent to engender that certitude which is requisite
for a real and effective judgment of credibility. But they can offer real
evidence to show that the doctrine which claims to be revealed by God really
has come from Him. The individual internal motives may in the lives of those
concerned offer evidence far more consoling, and for that matter far more
compelling than that afforded by the objective criteria of revelation. They
have their own place and function in the field of apologetics. They are only
abused when an attempt is made to substitute them for the external motives
of credibility. They must not be expected to offer evidence which they were
never intended to give.
A divine work as such can be a motive of credibility. It is, however, a
criterion by which we can judge that this particular body of doctrine is
divinely revealed only when it is cited in support of the claims of this
teaching before the work has actually been performed. Thus a miracle shows
the credibility of that teaching to which it is attached, and no other. It
is attached to a body of doctrine when the man who offers this doctrine
promises to perform a miracle in order to show that it has come from God, or
when he states that what he is going to do will be an unmistakable
indication of his own office as a divine messenger. The appeal can obviously
be made to an individual miracle or to a group of these acts. In any case it
is obvious that the omniscient and all-holy God could not perform works
which would mislead His people. He could not be party to a lie. His
performance of a work which is cited in support of a claim of revelation
makes the doctrine He signs something which can be believed reasonably. The
miracle constitutes a signature of God, and the placing of the miracle is as
much the effect of His power and wisdom as is the performance of the act
itself.
17.
Certitude and the judgment of credibility.
It is obvious that, in a matter as far reaching as an acceptance of a
doctrine which claims to be divinely revealed, there must be a real
certitude in the judgment of credibility. A man would certainly not act with
prudence if he were to accept on the authority of God some doctrine which
offered merely probable evidence of divine authorship.
If there were any fear or danger that the doctrine had not been revealed by
God, then a man would have no sufficient reason to alter the course of his
whole life in accepting it firmly on the divine authority. The Catholic
Church, in proposing this doctrine which she knows to be divinely revealed,
and which she realizes is absolutely necessary for the men to whom it is
addressed, insists that these men should receive certain and clear
indication of its divine origin. She is quite well aware that a prudent act
of faith could not follow upon a mere grouping of probabilities.
However, we can well ask what sort of certitude we may expect in the
judgment of credibility which would precede a prudent and reasonable act of
faith. First of all, of course, there is perfect and metaphysical certitude
about the possibility of miracles, prophecies, and the other divine works
which are cited as criteria of revelation and about their demonstrative
function in the proof of credibility. The certitude is that which we obtain
through the analysis of an object, seeing exactly what is contained in that
object. We have metaphysical certitude about the possibility of "divine
works" and about their effectiveness as motives of credibility. The divine
work is possible and is seen as such because we know that God is the First
Cause of the universe, creating and maintaining the things of this world in
existence with absolute freedom from any restriction by the laws which
govern the activity of creatures. They are valid criteria of revelation
because they are obviously effects which could be produced only by the power
of God Himself. They can be motives of credibility for this particular
doctrine, when they are performed obviously and clearly in support of a
claim that this teaching has come from God.
However, the evidence that these divine works have actually been
accomplished in favor of a particular teaching does not come to all men in
the same way. There is one kind of evidence which the onlookers at the
working of a miracle could have which would not come to someone who heard of
this miracle through the testimony of others. The first kind of evidence is
visual and immediate. It goes with the type of certitude which is spoken of
as physical. The man who could see the actual performance of a miracle could
be as sure of this as he ever could be of the production of any other
effect in the world around him. The second kind of evidence is historical.
It is of the same type as that which is offered to man for the existence and
the nature of things which he has never seen, but about which he is quite as
certain as he is about the realities with which he has come into physical
contact. It belongs to that sort of certitude which is called moral. This
moral certitude, a real and objective firmness of assent to a proposition,
an assent which is faced neither with the fear nor the danger of error, is
the certitude which comes to the men of our time in their grasp of the
judgment of credibility.
We must understand fully the perfection of this certitude. The judgment
which is based upon the testimony of the human race, or the testimony of
reliable witnesses is just as strong as that which proceeds from physical
evidence. The fact of the matter is, of course, that by his very nature man
is meant to accept knowledge from others. He would not be a social being
were it not for the fact that through communication with his fellow men he
receives the information and the knowledge which are requisite to him. Some
of the most important items in all his store of knowledge are facts of which
he could not possibly be aware except through the testimony of other men.
Now there are certain definite criteria by which we are able to judge the
acceptability of testimony which is offered by men in order that we may form
this morally certain judgment. In the first place, we can only accept that
testimony which is in harmony with evidence offered by those who have had a
chance actually to observe the events about which the testimony is given.
We must be sure that the person who offers the testimony actually knows what
he is telling us about, and at the same time certain that he has no
intention of deceiving us. That evidence is not difficult to obtain. We can
easily discern the historical reliability of those sources which tell us
about the motives of credibility offered in favor of Jesus and His Apostles.
At the same time we must forget that we have always with us that manifest
social miracle which is the Catholic Church,
18. The
distinction between the certitude of credibility and that of faith.
However, the certitude of the judgment of credibility is something quite
distinct from the certitude of faith itself. The reason why we assent to a
proposition which is received on divine faith cannot be other than the
authority of God revealing. As such it is the most perfect and powerful
certitude of which man is capable in this life. On the other hand, the
certitude which is attached to the judgment of credibility is based upon the
evidence of these divine works which are the criteria of revelation. Such
certitude is necessarily less than that of divine faith itself.
19. The
freedom of faith.
It must be understood that the assent of divine faith is in no way
necessitated by the acceptance of the judgment of credibility. The Vatican
Council insisted upon this fact. "If anyone should say that the assent of
Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of
human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for the living
faith which operates through charity, let him be anathema."
The judgment of credibility is presented to man as a
conclusion which follows properly from certain premises, themselves
manifestly correct. It is something which can be made in the light of human
reason alone, although as a matter of fact when it is made by a man who is
tending toward the acceptance of divine faith, it is something in which the
man is actually aided by the grace of God. The fifth canon of the Second
Council of Orange makes the Church's teaching on this point quite clear.
"If anyone says that, as the increase, so also the beginning of faith and
the very tendency toward belief (ipsumque credulitatis affectutn), by which
we believe in Him who justifies the man who is averted from God and by which
we attain to the regeneration of holy baptism, is within us not through the
gift of grace, that is through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost correcting
our will from infidelity to faith, but (says) that it is in us naturally, he
is shown to be an adversary of the apostolic dogmas, since the blessed Paul
says, 'We are confident of this very thing, that He, who hath begun a good
work in you, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus.'
and again, Tor unto you it is given for Christ, not only to
believe in Him, but also to suffer for Him.'
and 'by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of
yourselves: for it is the gift of God.'
The same truth is brought out even more clearly in a subsequent canon of the
same council. "If anyone affirms that a person can think as is fitting or
choose any good which pertains to the salvation of eternal life or consent
to the salutary, that is, to the evangelical preaching through the power of
nature and without the illumination and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,
who gives to all the savor (suavitatem) in consenting to and believing the
truth, he is deceived by the heretical spirit, not understanding the voice
of God in the gospel, saying, 'Without Me you can do nothing"
and that of the Apostle, 'Not that we are sufficient to
think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from
God.'
20. The
motive of faith and the judgment of credibility.
But even though the certitude of the judgment of credibility in the man who
tends toward the essentially supernatural assent of divine faith is
something which is brought about with the aid of divine grace, the evidence
on which that certain judgment is based is natural. Thus it is more probable
that the certitude about the fact of divine revelation which we gain through
the examination of the motives of credibility is essentially distinct from
that which we possess in the act of faith itself. According to the doctrine
of St. Thomas Aquinas and of his school, in the act of faith the fact of
divine revelation is at once the thing which we believe and the motive or
reason which specifies the act. It is that in the light of which all the
other truths which have been communicated by God to man are accepted.
However it is at the same time something which we accept as having been
revealed by God. In the same way, in the act of sight, the light is
something which is seen and is at the same time that by which all other
objects are perceived.
There are definite reasons for making this assertion. In the first place the
act of faith itself is something essentially supernatural. It belongs to a
realm of being which is absolutely beyond the natural competence of any
creature, actual or possible, because it consists in the perception of the
divine mysteries themselves. It is, as St. Paul has put it, "the substance
of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." (Heb.
11:1) The intellectual possession of these truths constitutes an act which
is distinctively and intrinsically supernatural.
But after all an act is specified ultimately by its formal motive. And, if
the act of faith were motivated by the fact of divine revelation, as this is
known naturally through the inspection of the motives of credibility, the
same intellectual operation would be at once intrinsically supernatural, in
so far as it consisted in the possession of the divine mysteries, and
formally natural, in so far as it was motivated and specified by a reality
as true in the light of natural reason alone.
Furthermore the expressions of Holy Scripture imply the thesis that
revelation, as it is the motive of divine faith, is something which is seen
in the light of faith itself rather than merely something which is accepted
on naturally attainable evidence. As Garrigou-Lagrange remarks, (De
Revelatione, Vol. I, p. 463) in the Scriptures the motive of faith, or the
reason why we believe is spoken of as the voice of the Father or of the Son,
and as the testimony of the Holy Ghost. It is said that even the pharisees
and the scribes who had seen the miracles performed by our Lord "had never
heard the voice of the Father." (John 5:36) These men had most certainly
seen the evidences of credibility, and had seen them more clearly than most
of those to whom the message of Jesus Christ is addressed. But they had not
seen that which was the motive of faith. They had not perceived that reality
through which alone men can accept the teaching of God on His authority.
They had not become aware of the fact of divine revelation in the only way
in which that fact enters into the act of faith itself.
It is perfectly true that their failure to hear the voice of the Father was
to be ascribed to their own hardness of heart. They did not wish to believe.
But at the same time they were perfectly cognizant of the effectiveness of
our Lord's miracles. "Many therefore of the Jews who were come to Mary and
Martha, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in Him. But some of
them went to the Pharisees, and told them the things that Jesus had done.
The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said:
"What do we, for this man doth many miracles? If we let Him alone so, all
will believe in Him: and the Romans will come, and take away our place and
nation." (John 1I:45-48) The action of these men makes it clear that the act
of divine faith is free, and that it is not forced through the evidences of
credibility. But at the same time it indicates that the knowledge of divine
revelation which enters into the act of faith is something of a different
order from that knowledge of revelation which proceeds from the inspection
of naturally observable criteria.
This question of the ultimate resolution of faith, as it is known in the
technical literature of sacred theology, has more than a merely academic
interest in the field of apologetics. On the solution of this problem
depends the attitude of the Christian toward the content of apologetics, and
in some measure at least, his appreciation of the faith as a gift of God.
If the fact of divine revelation, as known with certainty through the
inspection of the motives of credibility were as such the formal motive of
faith, the apologetics would be properly the approach to the faith itself.
The act of faith would be more properly spoken of as something super-
naturalized, rather than as something distinctively and essentially
supernatural because the very motive or reason which governs it would be
something ascertainable in the natural light of human reason.
Actually, of course, there is nothing to confirm the teaching that the fact
of revelation, seen through the motives of credibility, is the motive of
divine faith in all the observable activity of Christians.
The faith of the unlettered, of those who have at best an imperfect
cognizance of the motives of credibility, is frequently more intense than
the faith of the men who are most perfectly cognizant with the criteria of
revelation. It is true that this perfection of faith can be explained in
some way by the transcendent truth of the freedom which characterizes our
belief in God. But, unless we accept the common and Thomistic teaching, we
shall have the embarrassing difficulty of trying to explain how this faith
of the unlettered could be more perfect as faith. For, if the motive of
faith were the fact of divine revelation or the authority of God revealing,
as this is seen through the natural processes of human reason, then
obviously the faith of that man who does not know how to discern this
naturally obtainable evidence should be less perfect than the belief of the
man who is able to formulate and appreciate the naturally obtainable proofs.
We could see how the unlearned man's charity might be stronger than his
fellow's. But there would be at least grave difficulty in trying to
demonstrate how this faith could be superior to that of the trained
apologist. And the fact of the matter is that the strength of faith is of
itself independent of training in the sciences requisite for the proper
presentation of the motives of credibility.
Accepting this traditional and Thomistic conclusion, we may confidently
expect of the science of apologetics only that which it is qualified to
give, a demonstration of the rational credibility of Catholic dogma. We do
not expect to obtain out of the proofs of apologetics a grasp of the motive
of the faith itself. Obviously the demonstration of credibility is cogent,
even though the truth which we ascertain through this process is not
formally the motive of divine faith. The divine works which are motives of
credibility can show us that the naturally knowable Creator of the universe
has attested the validity of a claim put forward that this message is
divinely revealed. The man who is cognizant of that proof and of its force
can reasonably accept the revelation which is presented to Him as the
teaching of God. He can reasonably assent to the evident credibility of
Catholic dogma as divine revelation. †
f
CHAPTER VII
THE PROCESS OF PROOF
1. All
apologetics should be organized in such a way as most effectively to
demonstrate the credibility of Catholic dogma.
Once we have ascertained what is meant when we say that a doctrine has been
revealed by God, and once we have learned the objective and satisfactory
criteria, in the light of which we can know whether a doctrine has been
revealed or not, it is our work to examine the teaching in question in the
light of these criteria. The doctrine which we, as Catholic apologists, put
forward as revealed is obviously that which we accept on divine faith.
According to the testimony of the Vatican Council expressing the official
and solemn teaching of the Church, "All of those things must be believed
with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written work of
God or in tradition and which are proposed by the Church, either in her
solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal rnagisterium to be believed
as divinely revealed." (The Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 3;
Denzinger, 1792) The truths thus proposed by the Church and accepted by her
children, the truths which we mean to demonstrate as rationally credible in
the process of apologetics, constitute what is known as Catholic dogma.
This Catholic dogma is presented to men as the teaching of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God. In describing the divine revelation entrusted to her as
something quite distinct from a merely natural knowledge about God, the
Church uses the words of St. Paul which assert that this divine teaching
came to man through the prophets and then finally through the Son of God
Himself. "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times
past to the fathers by the prophets: last of all, In these days hath spoken
to us by His Son." (Heb. I :I-2; cf. Denzinger, 1785.)
As a result, the central function of apologetics is to ascertain whether or
not we have any naturally attainable evidence to the effect that this Person
whom we know as Jesus of Nazareth really claimed to have a divine message
and actually demonstrated the credibility of this teaching. It is the
business of apologetics to examine this doctrine in the light of all those
motives of credibility which are manifestly objective and satisfactory
criteria and to which the Catholic Church actually appeals. Furthermore, the
apologist must be able to show that here and now, in the twentieth century
and in the United States of America, it is reasonable to accept with the
assent of divine faith some teaching which claims to be the same divine
revelation which was made through Jesus Christ.
2.
Divisions in traditional apologetics.
For the attainment of this purpose, many of the books of apologetics which
appeared during the early years of this century, and even some of the more
recent ones have divided their matter into two distinct sets of proofs. One
of these is the Christian demonstration, the process of manifesting evidence
to show that the message preached by Jesus Christ actually was rationally
credible as divine revelation. The second portion is the Catholic
demonstration, the proof that only within the Catholic Church is the
teaching of Christ to be found in all its completeness and perfection. The
conclusion of this Catholic demonstration, according to the texts which
distinguish it as a separate portion of apologetics, is that the Catholic
Church is actually essential for man's salvation, and that membership in the
Catholic Church and the acceptance of its creed is thereby a rational and
prudent thing. In such manuals these two proofs, the Christian and the
Catholic demonstration, were added to the general part of apologetics, the
investigation of the meaning of revelation as this term is applied to the
Catholic message, so as to form with it the complete science of apologetics.
3. The
procedure most consistent with the scientific unity manifest in
apologetics.
However, since the masterly methodological study of Gardeil
and the classical treatise De Revelatione of
Garrigou-Lagrange, there has been a manifest tendency to adopt another
mode of procedure. The eminent theologian of the Angelico called attention
to the inefficacy of any demonstration which showed the credibility of a
Christian message merely as something which had been given in the past. The
thing to be proven in the process of apologetics is obviously the
credibility of this doctrine as it is accepted here and now by those who
profess the Catholic faith.
4. The
doctrine which asserts the prerogative of divine revelation to living and
present.
As a matter of fact a man would form an inadequate notion of the workings of
apologetics if he were to think of it as ordered, even in one integral part,
to establish the rational credibility of a body of teaching which had been
brought forward centuries ago but which, as far as the proofs of credibility
themselves are concerned, has no direct bearing on the conditions nd the men
of our own time. For, according to this division of special apologetics into
a Christian and a Catholic demonstration, the latter would merely indicate
that the teaching of Christ is now entrusted to an infallible agency which
Christ Himself founded and which He wished all men to join. It happens that
this conclusion belongs to a treatise on the Church rather than directly to
the process of apologetics itself. Apologetics is meant to lead to a
demonstration of credibility, and the proof that the Catholic Church is the
true Church is by no means identical with the process of showing that the
doctrine which it presents is actually credible as divine revelation.
5. The
procedure in apologetics must be governed by the fact that the Church
herself claims to be a motive of credibility.
However there is still another factor to be taken into consideration in
deciding how to proceed with the proofs of credibility in apologetics. The
fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church resolutely claims that the
motives of credibility as such belong to her, and that furthermore she is
herself a motive of credibility, clear and perpetual. "To the Catholic
Church alone belong all those things, so many and so wonderful, which are
divinely dispdsed to the evident credibility of the Christian faith.
Moreover the Church by herself, through her admirable propagation, her
eminent holiness, and her unexhausted fruitfulness in all good things,
through her catholic unity and her unconquered stability, is a certain great
and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her own
divine mission." (The Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 3; Denzinger,
1794)
Now the only meaning which can be drawn from the claim that the motives of
credibility belong to the Catholic Church alone is that we are not to regard
Christianity, or the message of Jesus Christ as something which is in any
way really distinct from the teaching of this same Catholic Church. In other
words, in demonstrating the rational credibility of that message which
Jesus of Nazareth preached to men, we are actually proving the credibility
of the Catholic doctrine. The Christian message cannot be regarded as a sort
of general good which is somewhat restricted when it is presented by the
Catholic Church exclusively. Christianity and Catholicism are one in such a
way that there could be no valid proof of the credibility of the Christian
message which would not be by that very fact a proof of the acceptability of
Catholic dogma. Thus there is, according to the dogmatic claim of the Church
herself, only one process of demonstrating the credibility of her doctrine.
The thing which we set out to demonstrate as credible in the science of
apologetics is that teaching which here and now we receive on the authority
of God revealing. The assertion that the motives of credibility belong to
the Catholic Church alone is a part of this Catholic dogma. Furthermore, the
very fact that the Church is willing to present herself as a motive of
credibility, and entrust the results of an investigation into the
acceptability of her own doctrine to an examination of her supernatural
character is an indication that logically the demonstration of apologetics
should not be divided arbitrarily into a Christian as opposed to a Catholic
proof. If the Church really is a motive of credibility by reason of the
characteristics manifest in her constitution and in her activity, she is
obviously a kind of divine work which shows the credibility of the Christian
message exactly as it is being proposed by herself. And if the motives of
credibility are to be grouped together, then the demonstration of
credibility which comes from the consideration of these motives will apply
to the teaching of Jesus Christ exactly as it is expounded by and in the
Catholic Church.
On the other hand, if she herself turns out to be an organization which is
obviously explicable in function of merely natural causes, then the validity
of her claim as a whole is destroyed. If such a result could be shown, then
there would be no question of the credibility of Catholic dogma, here and
now proposed to all men. The only thing which could be demonstrated as
credible would be a teaching which was brought to the world over nineteen
hundred years ago. If Catholic dogma as it is expressed here and now is not
shown to be evidently credible, then the faith of the men of our day is not
defended in the science of apologetics.
6. The
implications consequent upon immutability of dogma.
Thus the realism which must govern the processes of apologetics demands or
at least suggests that we should conduct our proof directly toward the
credibility of Catholic dogma. This is, according to the claim of the
Church herself, something which is absolutely unchanging in substance.
There is no mutation in the meaning of those formulae which have once been
submitted by the Catholic Church as articles to be accepted by all men on
the authority of God revealing. "Nor is the doctrine of faith which God has
revealed proposed as a philosophical finding, to be perfected by human
genius. It is rather entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ,
to be cared for faithfully and to be declared infallibly. Hence that
meaning of the sacred dogmas is to be retained which holy mother the Church
has once declared, nor must we ever abandon that meaning under the pretext
and the name of a higher understanding. 'Let the understanding, the
knowledge, the wisdom of individuals as well as of all, of one man as well
as of the entire Church grow and advance much and powerfully by the degrees
of the ages and of the eras: but always within its own class alone, that is
in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same meaning.' " ('Denzinger,
1800. The Council cited the words of Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium
at the end of this passage.) The unchanging character of her teaching would
be manifested as a credible doctrine if the Church herself can be alleged as
a motive of credibility. But, as we have seen, this motive of credibility is
not meant to be separated from those other signs of the divine origin of the
Catholic teaching.
7. The
progressive method.
We have, however, two distinct alternatives in proceeding to show the
rational credibility of that teaching which was preached by Jesus Christ and
which is proposed as such by the Catholic Church. In the first place we can
proceed historically, or by what is known as the progressive method. Thus we
consider the teaching which was brought forward by our Lord in the way in
which it was presented to the people of His time. We know that He claimed
His teaching to be the fulfillment of a revelation which had begun with the
very origins of the human race, and which had developed during the ages
until the period in which He lived and preached. Thus there was, according
to His own teaching, a primitive, a patriarchal, and a Mosaic revelation,
all of which were continued and finally perfected in the message which He
presented to the people of God. Obviously, then it is possible to consider
the indications of credibility as these attach themselves to each of these
parts into which the divine message is divided. We could consider the divine
works which testified to the authenticity of that message which was proposed
as God's own teaching by the patriarchs and the prophets of the old
testament. As a matter of fact several prominent and well-written books of
apologetics proceed in exactly this manner.
8. The
regressive method and its advantages.
Or, on the other hand, we can proceed by what is termed the regressive
method. We can consider the signs of credibility exactly as these are
attached to the message which is proposed by Jesus Christ and presented as
such by the Catholic Church.
This regressive or
concrete method has several obvious advantages. In the first place it is
considerably more effective. The teaching of Jesus Christ came as the
terminus and the perfection of that message which had been in the
possession of men since the time of Adam himself. As a consequence the
criteria of revelation which manifested the credibility of this message are
much more readily available to us than those which were used to show the
divine origin of that teaching which was presented by the patriarchs and the
prophets of the old testament. The natural light of human reason, which
alone can be used in drawing the conclusion of credibility will shine with
much greater clarity on events which are placed within the limits of
definite historical and literary criticism. Furthermore, the divine
attestation to the effect that the teaching presented by Jesus Christ, and
proposed by the Catholic Church is actually credible would not have been
given by an all-wise and all-just God if the claim inherent in this
message, to the effect that it constitutes the completion and the
perfection of a previously existing body of divine teaching, had not been
substantiated.
Through the use of this regressive and direct method, we come to the
understanding of the credibility of Catholic dogma, exactly as it stands and
as it is brought to the men of our own time. Through the use of this method
the purpose of apologetics as a science is properly attained. It is best
adapted to the study of apologetics according to the method which has been
elaborated and demonstrated by Gardeil.
In utilizing this method, naturally it is first incumbent upon us to show
that we have naturally acceptable historical evidence about the life and the
teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Once we have shown the existence of this
evidence, we must utilize it in order to see if this Man actually daimed to
be the Bearer of a divine message. Obviously there would be no possibility
of treating His teaching as something credible and acceptable for divine
revelation, if He Himself never made the claim that His teaching was of
divine origin. The third step must consist in examining this same evidence
to see if actually He set forth a distinct body of doctrine, rather than
merely certain principles of morality. Finally, once-we have seen that He
did teach a body of doctrine, we must examine this teaching in the light of
the wonders which were accomplished to convince men that this teaching
really was from God, and had to be received with the assent of divine faith.
After this second and essential portion of apologetics has been completed,
there will only remain the task of seeing what sort of obligation binds man
to accept a teaching which is shown to be credible as divine revelation.
†
CHAPTER VIII
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ABOUT JESUS
OF NAZARETH
1. The
need for historical evidence in apologetics.
There can be no such thing as a rational demonstration of credibility for
the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth unless we have at our disposal historical
sources which are obviously reliable. Since He lived and died over nineteen
hundred years ago, the only naturally and historically acceptable testimony
about Him and about His activity is ultimately to be sought in genuine and
incorrupt volumes, written during the lifetime of His contemporaries by men
who intended to tell the truth and who actually had at their disposal means
for ascertaining the matters about which they wrote. Actually we do possess
such historically reliable testimony. It is the business of apologetics to
point out the existence of these writings and their evidence of reliability.
The writings pertinent to the life and the teaching of our Lord are both
Christian and non-Christian. Among these latter books are some of pagan, and
others of Jewish origin. The extant pagan sources tell us very little about
the activity of our Lord, although even in themselves they show that He
existed and exercised an incomparably powerful religious influence during
the first century of our era. In spite of their many imperfections, they
constitute valuable sources for the science of apologetics, testifying as
they do to the knowledge about Christ and His work of contemporary pagan
writers.
2. The
pagan sources.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, the Roman historian who flourished around the
end of the first century of our era, wrote in his life of the emperor
Claudius, "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of
Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome."
The event he describes is one which took place in either the
year 51 or 52 of our era. It is interesting to note that this same event is
mentioned by St. Luke. "After these things departing from Athens, he came to
Corinth. And finding a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come
from Italy, with Priscilla his wife (because that Claudius had commanded all
Jews to depart from Rome), he came to them." (Acts 18:1-2) The arrival of
St. Paul in Corinth, after his Athenian preaching, was in the year 52.
The fact that Suetonius referred to Jesus of Nazareth as Chrestus is patent
from another excerpt from his own work. In his life of Nero he lists among
the accomplishments of this emperor his punishment of the Christians.
"Punishment was inflicted upon the Christians, a class of men given to a
novel and pernicious superstition."
Writing at the time he
did, Suetonius (Vita Neronis, No. 16) was fully aware that the Chrestus to
whom he referred was the founder of the hated society of the Christians.
Christians were still under the ban of the empire, and it was known by all
that they had been founded by One who was a Jew and had been condemned by
the Roman authorities at the instigation of His own people. Furthermore, at
the end of the year 197, when the matchless Tertullian wrote his
"Apologeticus," the pagans still mispronounced the name of Christiani as
Chrestiani. "There is no good great enough to overcome the hatred of the
Christians. Now, therefore, if this be the hatred of a name, what is the
fault of a name? What accusation can be raised against words save that the
very sound of a certain name is barbarous or unlucky or accursed or
shameful ? But 'Christian' as far as its interpretation goes, is derived
from 'anointing.' But even when you mispronounce it `Chrestian' (for you
have not even a sure knowledge of the name), it is composed of sweetness and
benignity."
Tacitus, an older contemporary of Suetonius, gives much clearer and more
correct teaching about our Lord, even though his prejudice against the
Christian name was no less apparent. This is his account of the persecution
of the Christians which took place under Nero, the first emperor to
proscribe the followers of our Lord. "Neither human aid, nor imperial
munificence, nor all the modes of placating heaven, could stifle scandal or
dispel the belief that the fire had been started by order. Therefore, to
scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost
refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the
crowd called Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone
the death penalty during the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the
procurator, Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for
a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the
disease, but also in the capital itself, where all things horrible or
disgraceful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the
Confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures,
vast numbers were convicted, not so much on account of arson as for hatred
of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered
with the skins of wild beasts and torn to pieces by dogs; or they were
fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed, were burned to serve as
torches by night. Nero had offered his gardens for the spectacle, and gave
an exhibition in his circus, mixing with the crowd in the attire of a
charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence in spite of a guilt which had
earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due
to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the
state but to the ferocity of a single man.
The correspondence between Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, and his
superior the emperor Trajan while the former was prefect of Bithynia gives
valuable information about the followers of Christ and shows that even a
pagan knew that Christians considered Him as divine. This correspondence was
carried on between the years III and 113. The younger Pliny reported on his
treatment of the Christians. "I have conducted myself in this manner with
regard to those who were brought before me as Christians. I have asked them
if they were Christians. When they confessed I interrogated them a second
and a third time, threatening punishment. I have ordered those who
persevered to be put to death. Nor did I doubt (whatever it was that they
might have admitted), that this stubborn and certainly inflexible obstinacy
ought to be punished.— But they affirmed that this was the extent of their
fault or error: that it was their custom on a stated day to gather together
before dawn to sing in concert a hymn to Christ as to a God; and to bind
themselves by oath, not to any crime but rather not to commit robbery,
thievery, or adultery, not to break faith nor to refuse to return goods
deposited with them when they were called upon to do so. Having done these
things, it was their habit to disperse and then again to gather to take
food, which however is common and harmless. They have however ceased to do
this after my edict in which I forbade secret meetings as you ordered. For
so much greater reason, I believed it necessary to seek what is true by
torture from two servant women who were called deaconesses, but I found
nothing other than an evil and extravagant superstition. And so, having
adjourned the inquiry, I have had recourse to your advice. It seemed to me a
matter worth consulting about, especially because of the number of those
endangered. For many persons of every age, of every order, and of both sexes
are called and will be called into peril. For the contagion of this
superstition has spread, not only through the cities but also through the
villages and the country, yet still it seems possible to check and correct
it.”
The emperor Trajan replied to this letter of Pliny's with another epistle
which is still extant. "You have followed the proper procedure, my dear
Secundus, in dealing with the cases of those who had been brought to you as
Christians. Nothing however can be decided as a universal rule which would
have any definite form. They are not to be sought out. If they are brought
to court and convicted, they are to be punished, but in such a way that he
who denies that he is a Christian, and who makes this most evident by the
deed itself, that is by supplicating our gods, may obtain acquittal through
his recantation, even though he was suspect in the past. Anonymous
accusations must not be used in any process, for this procedure is of the
very worst example, and does not belong to our age.
A few years later, around 125, the emperor Hadrian sent a similar letter to
the proconsul of Asia, Minucius Fundanus. This letter is cited by St. Justin
Martyr at the end of his First Apology.
These pagan sources about the life of Christ tell us very little. They give
evidence of the confusion existing in the comfortable and self-sufficient
fashionable pagan world with reference to those men who had been condemned
by the law of the empire. But there is no confusion whatsoever on certain
fundamental points. The pagans knew very well that Jesus of Nazareth was by
no means a mythical person. They knew very well that He had lived, and that
He had suffered the death of a condemned malefactor in Judea during the
reign of their own prefect, Pontius Pilate. They were very well aware that
the empire was quickly filling up with men who worshiped this Jesus of
Nazareth as God, and who were sincere and firm enough in their belief to
prefer death itself to a denial of Jesus.
3. The
Jewish sources.
We have also certain Jewish teachings about the life of Christ, although
even the Jewish Encyclopedia is honest enough to classify some of these
writings as myths and legends about our Lord, rather than as truly
historical data about His life and teaching.
The stories thus castigated are developments of those
insults the Pharisees directed against Jesus during His own lifetime.
The first Jewish source is the paragraph from the Antiquities of Flavius
Josephus, a writer who was born in A.D. 37 and died in the year 94. This has
obviously no connection with the fabulous stories to which we have just
referred. "At that time there existed Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is
proper to call Him a man at all. For He was a worker of wonderful deeds, the
Master of those men who receive the true with pleasure: and He attracted
many Jews and also many gentiles to Himself. He was the Christ. Those who
had first loved Him did not cease to love Him when Pilate condemned Him to
the punishment of the cross after He had been accused by the leaders of our
men. He appeared to them again on the third day, revivified, the divine
prophets having told these and a thousand other wonderful things about Him.
And the nation of the Christians, named for Him, endures even until this
day."
Although the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the genuineness of
this passage, there are still serious reasons for doubting that it was in
the work as Josephus actually wrote it. The first Christian apologists who
disputed against the Jews never cited this work, and it would seem likely
that they would have cited it had they known of its existence. Eusebius
of Caesarea mentions it in his Ecclesiastical History,
and although he was an eminent scholar, far beyond most of
his contemporaries in critical powers, he has admitted as genuine certain
documents which later writers came to recognize as spurious. Origen,
however, expressly states that Flavius Josephus denied that Christ is the
Messias, a statement obviously contained in the passage under discussion.
The statement of Origen is by far the most serious objection
which can be brought to bear against the authenticity of this passage.
On the other hand all of the early codices of the Antiquities which exist in
the world carry this passage. It would be at least surprising if all of the
manuscripts of this Jewish author had fallen into the hands of the
Christians, who had taken the trouble to insert into the text an approbation
of Christ, attributing this to an author for whom they obviously cared very
little. Furthermore, the paragraph occurs in Latin translations as well as
in manuscript versions of the Greek original. Thus, from a point of view of
documentary evidence, the passage is at least as well attested as any other
portion of the works of Josephus.
As far as merely internal evidence is concerned, there can be no question of
any serious decision against the authenticity of these words. Josephus was a
Jew, but one who wrote for and among the Romans, the bitter enemies of his
own people. The man who favored the cause and the arms of Rome could hardly
have been expected to contradict the written proclamation of the Roman
procurator who had condemned Jesus of Nazareth to the death of the cross.
This procurator had written in the three languages that Jesus of Nazareth
was the King of the Jews, the true Messias. That inscription was visible
above the head of the dying Christ. It is hardly to be wondered that the
pro-Roman Jewish writer should insert into his text a notice which after all
did nothing more or less than sum up the judgment of a Roman governor.
Pilate who first wrote that message did not accept the faith of Jesus
Christ. Then there is no reason for surprise in the fact that Josephus who
set down the same statement should have remained outside of the society of
those who followed the Master.
However, by reason of the objections which are raised against its
authenticity, the passage of Josephus Flavius has very little moment in the
proofs of Catholic apologetics. It is, however, something far more worthy
and credible than the other notices about Jesus contained in Jewish
writings. For there are remarks about Jesus of Nazareth contained in the
Talmud, stories evidently colored by the hatred with which the leaders of
the Jewish people never ceased to follow the most illustrious member of
their nation. These stories were gathered together in a certain "Toledot
Ieschu" (the Generations or the Life of Jesus), which appeared during the
early middle ages. These stories which attribute every sort of infamy and
wickedness to our Lord are rejected now even by Jewish scholars as sources
for real historical knowledge about Jesus of Nazareth. They constitute one
of the most grotesque and abominable exhibits in all of the line of literary
perversity.
However, these same stories are of ancient origin. The writings of the
Talmud were not brought together until long after the death of our Lord, but
the teaching expressed in these writings was something handed down from
rabbi to rabbi over a period of many generations.
Basically the stories about Christ contained in Talmudic
literature are those which the Pharisees, the enemies of Jesus, circulated
in order to interfere with the success of His mission. However, in spite of
their blasphemous and scandalous character, they stand as indications of the
reality and of the importance of Christ and His teaching. It is another
example of that "unfortunate astuteness"
mentioned by St. Augustine, that the very stories which were
spread abroad to defame Jesus, actually show forth the strength and the
importance of His claims. It would be more than miraculous if the sort of
person described in the Jewish legends could win adherents and found a
society which actually covers the world. They picture a Man who is said to
be weak, vacillating, uncertain, vicious, and stupid. Yet they testify that
this Man was strong enough to win away thousands of adherents of the mosaic
law, and to be adored as God by countless throngs of men.
Furthermore these stories ape the actual facts in the life of Christ, as
these are described in authentic and reliable historical documents.
In so doing they show very clearly the basic outlines of His
work. They show Him as One who was born in a village of their own country,
and to a woman of royal blood. Their very charge of illegitimacy constitutes
a recognition of the fact that their original teachers were aware of the
story that He had been conceived apart from the activity of any human
father. They describe a long sojourn in Egypt, and thus testify that the
men who originated the stories were quite cognizant of the flight into
Egypt. They speak of Jesus as a magician who went about performing. wonders,
and thereby they indicate the reality of His miracles. The gross and
fantastic legends of His death mirror and ape, with unspeakable malevolence,
the true recountal of the passion and the crucifixion.
The men who composed the stories about Jesus in the Talmud and in the
Toledot Ieschu
saw Him with all the
clarity of hatred, which, after all, is only a little less vivid than love
itself. They hated Him and His works far too fiercely to be content with the
obviously ridiculous charge that He was only a myth. It remained for the
clouded minds and the flaccid wills of men in later times to attempt the
historically absurd hypothesis that there had never been a man named Jesus
of Nazareth.
4. The
Christian sources and their reliability.
The most important sources
of historical knowledge about Jesus of Nazareth and His teaching are, of
course, the books which were written by His own followers.
Some of these books are actually received by the Church as divinely
inspired, that is, as books which have been written by God Himself through
the agency or the instrumentality of certain human authors. These constitute
the canonical books of the New Testament. Naturally, in the science of
apologetics we are not concerned with these books precisely in so far as
they are inspired by God. To believe that they are so inspired, and this
statement that they have been written by God Himself constitutes one of the
propositions to which we assent on the authority of God revealing, one of
the truths which enter into that body of doctrine which we explain and
demonstrate as rationally credible in the science of apologetics.
Thus it would be wildly illogical to utilize these documents as divinely
revealed in attempting to show that the very belief is reasonable. It so
happens, however, that these books were written by definite and
ascertainable human authors, at times and in places which have been
recorded. Thus it is possible for us to examine these books as we would
examine other writings, for evidence of their historical reliability. There
are certain definite criteria, in the light of which we can ascertain with
perfect certainty that this or that document is trustworthy in an
historical sense. We can certainly apply these criteria to the canonical
writings of the New Testament. If they conform to the standards of
historical reliability, there is absolutely no reason why we should not
accept what is contained in them as historically accurate, in the same way
as we receive the doctrine contained in the Commentaries of Julius Caesar.
However, not all of the teaching about the life and the works of Jesus
Christ which has come to us from Christian sources of one sort or another is
contained in the books of the New Testament. There are certain writings
which are called apocryphal gospels. These are far more numerous than the
canonical books themselves, and certainly they claim to give information
about the conduct and the teaching of Jesus Christ. Furthermore there are
certain sayings attributed to Him, and set down in the compositions of
early ecclesiastical writers. These statements, not contained in the
canonical books of the New Testament, are known as the Agrapha, or as the
Logia or the Antilegomena of Jesus.
5. The
Agrapha.
In the first place, as far as these Agrapha are concerned, we must admit
that they throw no light whatsoever upon the problem of the credibility of
that teaching which is proposed by Jesus Christ. They are interesting
because of the tremendous importance of our Lord and of His message. But
they contain no doctrine nor manifest any evidence of credibility not
already expressed in the existing monuments of sacred scripture and of
apostolic tradition.
6. The
Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha, on the other hand, are documents written as counterfeits to
existing and recognized canonical books. Most of them imitate the four
authentic gospels.
The most important new
testament apocryphal writings which have been mentioned in the course of
history or which are still extant include the gospel according to the
Hebrews, that according to the Egyptians, the gospel of Peter, and that of
Thomas as well as the Protoevangelium of James as spurious gospel accounts.
There were also spurious acts published under the names of Peter, of John,
and of Paul, as well as a tiresome number of false epistles which claimed to
have apostolic origin.
These books were termed apocryphal or hidden because they were considered
first as belonging to certain esoteric sects which claimed to be in
possession of a teaching which Christ had never deigned to reveal to the
common run of men. Some of them, however, are works written in a spirit of
misguided pietism by men who were trying to edify the Christian public. Most
of them, however, had a distinctively heretical orientation.
These documents have absolutely no historical authority. They cast no light
whatsoever upon the life and the teachings of Jesus Christ. As they
appeared, they were rejected by the universal Church, even though some
individual churches were inclined for a short time to regard them as
authentic. Even a cursory examination of these documents will manifest
their extravagant character, and their obvious unreliability.
However, the apocryphal writings of the new testament contribute to the
work of Catholic apologetics only in so far as they show the existence and
the authority of the existing gospels. These apocrypha are obviously
counterfeits, and just as the existence and nature of counterfeit money is
an indication of the existence and the form of an authorized currency, these
false books may be utilized to show the reliability of the accepted gospels.
Men would not have taken the trouble to set forth even such obvious
substitutes as the apocryphal books unless they had been perfectly aware
that the people recognized the real gospels as authentic and reliable
accounts of Christ and His teaching.
7. The
canonical sources.
The only complete and authentic books which can offer historically reliable
information about the life and the activity of Jesus of Nazareth are the
books of the New Testament, recognized as authentic and canonical by the
Church. Naturally the books which give the most direct teaching on these
points are the four Gospels, written by SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
The first of these gospels was written by St. Matthew in Palestine itself,
and probably in the city of Capharnaum, between the years 40 and 45 of our
era. It was originally written in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus
Himself.
However, in apostolic
times it was translated into Greek, the common language of the entire
Mediterranean basin. There were originally many of these translations, but
at a very early date one Greek text took precedence over the rest. This
gospel was written for Christians of Hebrew origin.
The gospel according to St. Mark
was written by this
evangelist at Rome about the year 53. St. Mark had first been the companion
of St. Paul. Afterward he attached himself to the service of St. Peter. His
gospel, written like all the other books of the New Testament with the
exception of St. Matthew's gospel, in Greek was actually his rendition of
the message of St. Peter, as this had been preached to the Romans.
St. Luke wrote his gospel during the captivity of St. Paul,
either at Caesarea or at Rome. This first captivity is
described in the closing chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, the book
which St. Luke wrote as a sequel to his gospel. Thus the gospel was written
during the year 61 or 62. St. Luke was the inseparable companion of St.
Paul, and it was his intention to set down the events of our Lord's life, as
these had been recorded in the other gospels, according to a more complete
chronological plan.
These first three gospels are frequently called the synoptics
(from the Greek sunoptikos, agreeing), because they narrate
practically the same series of facts and of sayings of our Lord. Each one
of these three gospels recounts at least some incidents not mentioned by the
other two, and each has its own peculiar style of narration. Nevertheless
the striking resemblance among these justifies the common name of synoptic.
St. John the Apostle, the beloved disciple of Jesus, wrote the fourth gospel
most probably at Ephesus, about the year I00.
He set down incidents and sayings which had not been
recorded by the other three evangelists, and brought out that portion of the
teaching of our Lord which was most effectively contrary to the doctrine
advanced by the heretics at the end of the first century.
Besides the four gospels, there is one other historical book in the canon of
the New Testament. This is the Acts of the Apostles, written at Rome during
the year 63 by St. Luke himself.
The first nine chapters
deal with the first propagation of the Church among the Jews and the
Samaritans in Palestine. The remaining nineteen chapters deal with the
spreading of the Church and its teaching among the gentiles, especially
through- the efforts of St. Paul.
There are also in the authentic canon of the new testament twenty-one
didactic books, written in the form of letters either to individual
Christians or individual churches, or to the body of believers as a whole.
Fourteen of these letters were written by St. Paul, three by St. John, two
by St. Peter, while St. James the Lesser, and St. Jude produced one each.
The one prophetical book was written by St. John.
The letters of St. Paul asserted the universality of that salvation which
had been procured through the Passion and the death of Jesus and thus fought
the Judaizing tendencies of the early heretics.
The first written were the two epistles of the
Thessalonians, in 51 and 52. From 55 to 57 there appeared the two letters to
the Corinthians, the epistle to the Galatians, and that to the Romans. The
epistle to the Colossians and that addressed to the Ephesians, the little
note to Philemon and the epistle to the Philippians were all written from 61
to 63. During the last four years of his life St. Paul wrote the epistle to
the Hebrews and the three pastoral epistles. These last included one letter
to Titus and two to Timothy.
The Catholic epistle of St. James was written sometime between the years 50
and 6o. The two epistles of St. Peter and that of St. Jude were composed
between the years 60 and 65, while the three letters of St. John the Apostle
were composed around the end of the first century. The first of these
epistles stands as an epilogue to the fourth gospel.
The Apocalypse, the last of the canonical books of the New
Testament, dates from the same period.
Now it is the business of the apologist to utilize these books, and in
particular the four gospels, which deal directly with the life and the
accomplishments of Jesus of Nazareth, in demonstrating the rational
credibility of Catholic dogma. For this dogma is set forth as the teaching
of Jesus of Nazareth, as a doctrine which He showed very convincingly to be
credible through the testimony of those divine works which are obviously
valid criteria of divine revelation. Obviously then we could never hope to
show that Catholic dogma as such is rationally credible, unless we are able,
to advance some definite and naturally acceptable evidence that Jesus Christ
really existed, that He claimed to be a divine messenger, and that He really
advanced, as divinely revealed, a system of truth which is actually that now
presented by the Catholic Church. Once we have ascertained these facts, we
can logically inquire into the evidences of credibility which have appeared
to authenticate the claims set forth in favor of the Christian message.
Obviously then the apologist must consider the reliability of the books of
the New Testament, and in particular that of the four gospels, as historical
documents. In the event that they are such as to offer historical evidence
equal to that given by other authentic and recognized works, we can know
through them what our Lord did, and what He said and claimed to be. But,
should they prove to be other than scientifically acceptable, then we shall
have no means of knowing with anything like historical exactness, the very
truth which we must understand in order to prove the credibility of
Catholic dogma.
8. The
canonical books are used in apologetics merely as reliable historical
documents and not in their capacity as inspired writings.
As Catholics, of course, we know that these books are divinely inspired.
They are books which have been written by God in the same
sense that any book has been written by the man who is its author. What is
contained in them is precisely the message which God intended to communicate
to the human race. However, not all of that message which constitutes
public revelation is actually contained in these inspired works. Moreover,
these works had human authors, who were the writers of these books just as
fully and perfectly as any other men have ever been the authors of works
which have been ascribed to them. The human authors of these inspired works
have been the instruments used by God in the production of books of which He
is the Author. With a power beyond that of any creature, actual or possible,
God has utilized the entire power and spontaneity of a human being in order
to have that human being cooperate toward the accomplishment of an end
which obviously surpasses the capabilities of merely created nature, a book
which is the expression of the teaching of the living God.
However, it would be worse than idle to attempt to utilize these books as
inspired in accomplishing the task of apologetics. The inspiration of Holy
Scripture is one of these truths which we accept as divinely revealed,
consequently it belongs to that body of teaching which, as a whole, we show
to be rationally credible as divine revelation through the process of
apologetics. Thus we cannot and do not know the inspiration of the canonical
books in a merely natural way. If it cannot be known in the light of natural
reason, then it can obviously never enter into a demonstration which is
meant to be cogent precisely in this same light. And the demonstration of
credibility is meant to be something which can be grasped and seen by any
person who is willing to recognize naturally observable truth.
It is quite evident, from a critical point of view, that the four gospels
and the other canonical books of the New Testament can be used in the
demonstration of apologetics as documents naturally acceptable from the
historical point of view. We speak of a document as historically reliable
when it gives us definite and accurate information concerning the deeds and
the sayings of ancient times. We can distinguish such a document when we
ascertain that it has been written by those who were competent to describe
the scenes and the discourses about which they wrote and when it is evident
that the writers intended to tell the truth rather than merely to attempt to
arouse emotions. When such a book has manifestly come down to our own times
substantially as it was written by its author, we know that this book now
before us is historically reliable as an historical source. Such is
demonstrably the case with the four gospels.
9. The
genuineness of the four gospels.
In order to prove this point, we must first point out the evidence that
these books were actually written by the authors to whom they are ascribed.
The evidence which can be adduced in support of this conclusion is either
extrinsic or intrinsic. The extrinsic evidence is formed from the testimony
or reliable early writers, to the effect that these four books were actually
written by SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The intrinsic evidence
consists in the manifest indication in the text itself that it was produced
during the first century. by men who were cognizant of conditions in
Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem and were anxious to tell the
truth about the life and the sayings of Jesus.
Obviously the extrinsic evidence is of prime importance. The four gospels
were not written secretly, to be distributed among the initiates of some
esoteric sect. They were the public books of the Christians, and as such
they have been recognized in the earliest Christian writings as authentic
and truthful documents, actually produced by the men to whom they are
commonly ascribed. We have written and recognizably reliable testimony about
the human authorship of the four gospels from apostolic times themselves.
10. The
testimony of Papias.
The first of the writers who testify to the human authors of the gospels is
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia during the first half of the second
century. He left as a literary legacy five books The Interpretations of the
Lord's Sayings, which have long since been lost. In fragments of these which
have been preserved in the five books Against the Heresies, by St. Irenaeus,
bishop of Lyons in France (202), and in the Ecclesiastical History, of
Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine (circa 340), he testified about the
writing of two of the four gospels. "Mark, having become the interpreter of
Peter, wrote whatever he remembered accurately, but still not in that order
in which the things had been said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard
the Lord, nor had he followed Him, but afterward, as it has been said, he
was the companion of Peter, who did not teach the sermons and the precepts
of the Lord, in that order which the Lord Himself had followed in teaching
them, but followed that arrangement in preaching which he judged opportune
and best fitted to aid the minds of his hearers. Hence Mark has not erred in
any thing when he wrote things as he remembered them. For he had this one
intention seriously in his mind and in his thought, not to leave out any of
those things which he had heard nor to interpose anything false."
Papias has this to say about the writing of the gospel
according to St. Matthew, in a passage which follows immediately after that
which refers to St. Mark in the text of Eusebius. "Matthew wrote a gospel in
the Hebrew tongue about the sayings and the deeds of Christ, which every man
interpreted according as he was able."
This Papias was known both to St. Irenaeus and to Eusebius as the hearer of
John and the companion of Polycarp. The John he had heard would seem to have
been a disciple of the Lord, distinct from St. John the Apostle and
Evangelist, since Papias expressly declared that he had neither heard nor
seen the holy Apostles themselves. However, it had been his pleasure and his
custom to travel about and to seek out the elders who had actually been in
company of the Apostles.
From these men he asked
about the sayings or the explanations of the Apostles themselves, and of the
most illustrious among the disciples who lived in the churches of Asia.
Hence his testimony has unique value. Tenacious of tradition, as was every
orthodox Christian teacher, he testified that the first two gospels had been
written by Matthew and Mark. Furthermore, on the authority of his friend and
master, John the presbyter, he cites the circumstances attendant upon the
writing of the second gospel and the plan of composition which governed its
production.
11.
Pantaenus.
The tradition of the Church in Alexandria, with which Eusebius was very well
acquainted, was explicit about the missionary career of its first notable
catechist, Pantaenus. This president of the famous Didiscalion, predecessor
of Clement and Origen, flourished as a teacher in that city from around the
year 180 until after 190. Before settling in Alexandria he had performed
missionary service in foreign lands, and had gone as far as India where "he
found his own arrival anticipated by some who there were acquainted with the
gospel of Matthew, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, had preached,
and to whom he had left the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, which was also
preserved until this time.
Like Papias, from whose
tradition incidentally he is quite independent,. Pantaenus had visited many
of the churches of Christendom. He labored "to increase and to build up the
word of God" which he knew very well was the doctrine which was believed on
the authority of God by the Church scattered throughout the world. When he
testified about the first gospel as the work of St. Matthew, and as a
document which had been written in Hebrew, he was simply taking cognizance
of an unquestionable and universal conviction that this gospel was genuine.
12. The
Muratorian fragment.
The Muratorian fragment, a manuscript statement of the canon of sacred
scripture which was most probably written during the second half of the
second century attributes the "fourth gospel" to the disciple John.
Since the first three, according to the ordering which was
universal in the Church, were most certainly those of Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, this manuscript stands as a clear indication from an officially
recognized source, of the genuineness of all the four gospels.
13. St.
Justin Martyr.
St. Justin Martyr (circa 165) cites all of the four gospels in the three
authentic works of his which have come down to our own time. In his First
Apology, (Ch. 66) when he comes to describe the Eucharistic sacrifice, he
states, "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called
gospels, have thus delivered to us what was enjoined upon them." In the
Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon, he cites a statement taken from St. Matthew
as being "written in the gospel,” (Ch. 100) and again in the same work, (Ch.
103.) he speaks of "the memoirs which I say were composed by the apostles
and by those who followed them." Although he does not ascribe any passage
to an individual evangelist, he uses many of the passages which are
obviously taken out of the texts of the four gospels, particularly those of
SS. Matthew and Luke. It is clear then that the memoirs or gospels to which
he refers are actually the four gospels which we know today.
14.
Tatian.
However, the most valuable indication of St. Justin Martyr's teaching on the
genuineness of the four canonical gospels is to be found in the procedure
of his disciple, the unfortunate Tatian. This brilliant but violent scholar
was converted to Christianity and became a disciple of St. Justin at Rome.
Some time after his great teacher's death, he left the Church and, according
to Eusebius
and to St. Irenaeus,
founded the heresy of the Encratites. Tatian, about the
time of his separation from the Church, composed a certain Diatesseron,
written originally in Syriac. It was a sort of harmony of the four gospels,
or rather one account which utilized the statements of all the evangelists
in bringing out the life and the teachings of our Lord. Eusebius speaks of
it
as "the gospel of the
four or a gospel formed of the four, which is in the possession of some even
now." As a matter of fact the Diatesseron remained the received gospel text
among the Syrians, both Catholic and dissident, until the fourth century.
The exegetical works on the gospels by St. Ephraem, who died about the year
373, as well as his discourses on the mysteries of our Lord, are all based
on the text of this work of Tatian.
And the four writings out
of which Tatian had drawn the material for his works were the gospels of SS.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
15. St.
Irenaens.
Another outstanding witness to the genuineness of the four gospels is St.
Irenaeus. Like Papias, he was a disciple of St. Polycarp. He had visited the
various churches situated within the Roman empire both as a missionary and
as a delegate of his predecessor in the see of Lyons, St. Pothinus. Like St.
Justin, he composed books against the heretics who attempted to change the
belief of the Christians in the second century. However, while the
controversial works of Justin have been lost to history, those of Irenaeus,
the famous Adversus Haereses, have remained. The dominating motive of his
life, expressed in his writings, was an enthusiasm for the purity of the
Christian faith. It was insufferable to him that anyone, on any pretext
whatsoever, should presume to alter one word or statement in that doctrine
which the Church received as the divine teaching from the hands of the
apostles themselves. He valued his friendship with St. Polycarp as one of
the truly consoling memories of his life. By reason of his travel, and his
extraordinary erudition, he was in a position to know, with unique accuracy,
what was taught as Christian truth, and attested by the words of the
Apostles, throughout the Christian world. His words about the human
authorship of the four gospels deserve to be cited at some length.
“From none others have we learned the plan of our salvation than from those
through whom there came down to us the gospel, which they at one time
manifested in public and then later, by the will of God, gave to us in the
scriptures, to be the pillar and the ground of our faith. For it is wicked
to say that they taught before they had perfect knowledge, as some are
arrogant enough to claim, while they boast that they have improved upon the
Apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, they (the Apostles), were
filled with power from above and possessed perfect knowledge. They went to
the ends of the earth, preaching the gospel of God's benefits to us and
announcing the peace of heaven to men who possess God's gospel equally and
individually. Matthew also composed a written gospel among the Hebrews, in
their own tongue, while at Rome Peter and Paul preached and laid the
foundations of the Church. After they had gone away, Mark the disciple and
the interpreter of Peter also gave to us in writing that which had been
preached by Peter. Also Luke, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the
gospel he had preached. Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who had
also leaned upon His breast, himself published a gospel during his sojourn
at Ephesus in Asia.”
16.
Origen.
The tradition of the Alexandrian Didiscalion reached its epitome in the
writings of the peerless Origen (circa 254). His account of the writing of
the four gospels is found in his commentary on the gospel according to St.
Matthew. It is cited in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. "I have
learned from tradition about the four gospels, which alone are undisputed in
the whole Church of God throughout the world. The first is written
according to Matthew, the same who was once a publican, but latter an
apostle of Jesus Christ, who, having written it for Jewish converts, set it
down in the Hebrew. The second is according to Mark, who composed it as
Peter explained it to him. Peter acknowledges him as his son in his general
epistle, saying, 'the elect Church in Babylon salutes you, as also Mark, my
son,' And the third is according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul,
which was written for the converts from the Gentiles: and last of all the
gospel according to John."
17.
Tertullian.
Finally Tertullian (*240) the most forceful of the Latin Apologists declared
expressly that John and Matthew, from among the Apostles themselves have
manifested the faith to us while Mark and Luke from among the apostolic men
have repeated their teaching.
His testimony,
manifesting the traditions of the Latin church of Africa completes the
evidence offered by the Christian writers to the effect that the four
gospels were actually composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
18. The
value of patristic testimony about the authorship and historical nature of
the gospels.
The value of this testimony becomes apparent when we begin to consider the
mentality of those men among whom this teaching existed. So impressed were
these early Christians with the value of their teaching that they were
absolutely unwilling that there should be even the slightest modification
introduced into their doctrine. If anyone had attempted to retail the four
gospels which we know as canonical as the works of these four men, Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John while they had actually been written by other men, the
Church which prides itself on its unwavering and absolute fidelity to the
apostolic teaching would never have accepted them. We know very well that
during apostolic times apocryphal gospels were in circulation, documents
falsely ascribed to some of the most important personalities within the
infant Church. Such was the intelligent critical appraisal of the
contemporary Christians that these documents were universally rejected as
spurious. The same fate would have undoubtedly befallen the four canonical
gospels, were it not for the fact that these Christians of the apostolic age
had ample evidence that they really had been produced by the human authors
to whom they are assigned.
These Christians of the apostolic age were men who took seriously that
command which came to them from St. Jude. "But you, my dearly beloved, be
mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the Apostles of our
Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:27) St. Paul had warned them to "stand fast and
hold the traditions which you have learned, wheiher by word or by our
epistle." (2 Thess. 2:14) The unwavering tradition of the Christians was
that these four gospels, and these alone, were genuine apostolic documents.
Naturally this tradition and constant testimony of the Christians is
enhanced in the consent of those men who opposed the true teaching of Jesus
Christ. The men who were enemies of the Christian Church and its teaching,
the heretics, pagans, and Jews never denied the authorship of these
documents. Their task of denying the Christian position would, of course,
have been rendered much easier, if they could have asserted that the books
which the Catholics utilized in expressing their knowledge of Jesus and His
teaching were not genuine. The fact that the authorship of these books was
never questioned, even by the most painstaking adversary like Celsus,
against whom Origen wrote so brilliantly, is ample indication that even the
most serious opponents of the Catholic position could find no possible
ground for denying that the four gospels had actually been written by SS.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
We must not forget that contemporaries of Jesus and of the Apostles were
living throughout the world during the early years of the second century.
Many of these men had known the Lord and His chosen witnesses. It would have
been impossible for all of these men throughout the world to have been
deceived into accepting as authentic apostolic documents, writings which
were merely forgeries.
19. The
question of veracity.
The next point which we must consider in determining the actual historical
reliability of the gospels, and of the New Testament writings in general, is
the question of their veracity. Granting that the four gospels were actually
written by the authors to whom they have been traditionally ascribed, we
must further inquire if these books were actually written as historical
narratives, or merely as religious romances, intended only to set down
legends which had gathered around the name of Jesus of Nazareth. At the
present time even the enemies of the faith are impelled to admit the
substantially historical character of the three synoptic gospels. However,
it can easily be shown that not only these, but also the fourth gospel, are
real historical documents, which contain a record of the actual teaching and
the accomplishments of our Lord.
We possess both internal and external evidence to this effect. As far as the
internal evidence is concerned, the four gospels evidently set forth the
brief public career of a Man who lived and taught in Palestine over nineteen
hundred years ago. Written as they were during the first century, and in the
lifetime of many people who remembered the conditions and the events in
Jerusalem prior to the wars of Vespasian and Titus, these documents
describe places and conditions in a matter of fact and entirely historical
way. There is neither inconsistency nor incoherence in the presentation of
facts. There is no straining for effect, no attempt to increase the
prestige of the writers by ascribing any outstanding goodness to themselves.
On the contrary, the faults and the imperfections within the apostolic
college are noted, and even the betrayal of the Master by one of the twelve
is set down. A comparison of the texts of the four gospels with those of the
apocryphal imitations can best bring out the sober and scientifically
accurate character of the former.
As far as the fourth gospel itself is concerned, it bears within itself
evident marks of historical accuracy no less obvious than those manifested
by the three synoptics. The events in the gospel according to St. John are
even better localized than those described in the other documents. The fact
that the style of the discourses of our Lord, as recounted by St. John,
differs somewhat. from the style set forth in the synoptics is obviously
accounted for by the fact that John was the privileged disciple, the Apostle
privileged above all the others to hear the intimate statements of Jesus of
Nazareth. As a matter of fact the so-called antilogies of the four gospels
constitute one of the best guarantees of their historical veracity. They do
not contradict the statements found in reliable contemporary historians,
and, moreover, the statements of the various evangelists are not opposed one
to the other. However, the evangelists frequently, as in the recountal of
the resurrection, describe the same event in the capacity of obviously
independent witnesses, as falsifiers would certainly never have done.
However, the most important evidence for the veracity of the four gospels is
to be found in the acceptance of these books as reliable documents both by
the Christians of early times and by their adversaries. The evangelists
described events which had taken place, not in some unknown corner of the
world, but in the province of Judea, regularly administered by the forces of
the Roman empire. A tremendous number of people had witnessed these events.
The followers of Christ, who knew of these happenings, and who were
scattered throughout the entire Roman world toward the end of the first
century, received these books as expressions of the truth about Jesus, and
unanimously rejected other writings which pretended to offer the same
information. Moreover even enemies of Christ, like Celsus and the heretics,
attempted to base their reasonings on facts which had been recorded in the
writings of the four evangelists. Thus the historicity of the four gospels
is at least as well attested as that of any other documents which have ever
been presented to mankind.
20. The
authenticity of available texts.
Finally the apologist has absolutely convincing evidence that these
documents which accurately described the life and the teaching of Jesus
have been preserved for mankind in a substantially incorrupt condition. The
text of the gospels and of the other inspired books which convey information
about our Lord is manifestly that which was originally set down by the
human authors of these documents, according to incontestable evidence.
There exist in the world today upward of 2700 Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament. There are moreover aboill 1600 lesson books in which the greater
portion of the gospel text is contained in the form of readings arranged for
the various seasons of the year. There are three important series of
translations of the gospels made in ancient times into languages other than
Greek, all of them testifying to the wording of the manuscripts utilized by
the churchmen who made these translations.
With this overwhelming mass of evidence, we can be perfectly certain that
the text reproduced in the critical editions of today is practically
identical down to the least detail, with that order of words set down by the
apostolic authors themselves. The variants in the wording of the important
manuscripts reduce themselves almost entirely to questions of arrangements
of words. There is no substantial change manifest in the versions.
21. The
historical value of New Testament literature.
In the light of this evidence we can be sure that here and now we possess a
series of documents which will inform us correctly about the life and the
accomplishments of Jesus of Nazareth. We can examine the content of these
documents and from this examination we shall be able to see if this Man
really claimed to be a divine messenger, the bearer of a doctrine which was
communicated by God to men and which men are expected to receive on the
divine authority itself. We can ascertain his presentation of a definite
doctrine and not merely an exhortation to spiritual improvement among the
men of Judea and of Galilee. Finally we can find, through the reading of
these sources, the motives of credibility or signs of revelation which
confirmed the claim of Jesus that His teaching was actually of divine
origin, and as such destined to be accepted by all men.
22. Some
opponents.
Those men who have rejected, and who still reject the historical authority
of the gospels may be grouped, for the sake of convenience, under the
headings of certain schools or hypotheses in scriptural criticism. The
proponents of these hypotheses are by no means in complete agreement among
themselves, but there are definite claims, which, though utterly false,
should be known by the student of Catholic apologetics.
First of all the German professor, Hermann Reitnarus, who died in 1768,
claimed that the four gospels were written by the Christian leaders of the
first century with the simple object of deceiving their followers. It was
his contention that our Lord had attempted to foment a political revolution.
After the failure of this move, according to Reimarus, the Apostles simply
presented their crucified leader as a savior of humanity. This claim had .
absolutely no scientific standing, and it has only served to give Reimarus
the unfortunate distinction of being the first among western Europeans to
have alleged the deliberate untruthfulness of the gospel narratives.
Another professor, Gottlieb Paulus, who died in 1851, is known as the father
of the "naturalistic" interpretation of the gospel narratives. According to
his teachings, the authors of the four gospels simply gave an erroneous
interpretation to the reporting of purely natural facts. In the light of the
"superstition" common in apostolic times, a story like that of the feeding
of the four thousand was developed from a recountal of a prosaic event in
which Jesus of Nazareth, by the example of his own generosity, induced a
tremendous number of His followers to share their repasts with those who
were in need to an account of a miracle., The "naturalism" of Paulus was the
dominating influence in the famous "Life of Christ" by Renan. It has long
since been abandoned by the great mass of critics who are aware that the
accomplishments of One whom even His enemies regarded as a wonder- worker
could never have been as banal as those proposed by the naturalists.
David Strauss (d. 1874) attempted to explain the gospel accounts of our
Lord's activities and teachings as the results of mythological predication.
According to his teaching, the early Christians, living as they did in a
world which abounded in pagan myths, simply took some of the stories which
had been circulated about the heathen gods and attributed them to their
hero. He was logical enough to see that such a proceeding would take a
considerable time, and consequently he denied that the gospels were written
until late in the second century. His teaching constituted a gross and
obvious misinterpretation of facts, easily ascertainable to students of
literary history.
Another nineteenth-century rationalistic professor, Christian Baur,
distinguished himself by sponsoring the claim that the four gospels were in
reality a sort of irenic literature, intended to terminate, by compromise,
a strife which had grown up in the ranks of the Christians between the
followers of Peter and those of Paul. The fact that there was no evidence
whatsoever to support this assertion did not in any way lessen its
popularity among the nineteenth-century anti-Christian critics.
Still more bizarre was the doctrine of Bruno Bauer (d. 1882). This man
carried the principles of destructive and unscientific criticism to their
logical term, and denied the actual existence of Jesus. This weird teaching
was never, of course, taken seriously in enlightened circles. It has,
however, had a certain vogue among the followers of various sorts of free
thought.
Finally, there is the liberal or evolutionary hypothesis, which is generally
attributed to Albrecht Ritschl (d. 1889). He and his followers, chief among
whom we must number Adolph Harnack, consider that the evangelists actually
set down the doctrine which appealed to the mentality of the men of their
own time, without, of course, intending to deceive their readers. According
to their doctrine the men of apostolic ages were prone to explain every
occurrence in terms of the miraculous, and thus the Apostles themselves
seriously related miraculous effects which had never been brought about by
our Lord. It is the contention of these men that our Lord had preached and
had Himself expected the physical destruction of the world as an event
which was to take place within a very shört time from the period in which He
began to teach. He and His disciples were supposed to have expected that He
was to rule in glory over the survivors of this universal catastrophe. This
eschatological concept of the gospel narrative is shown to be false by the
very fact that the earliest Christians rejected this same doctrine as
manifestly an error, and contradictory to the teaching which had been given
by our Lord.
All of these hypotheses fail in that they fail to take into account the
manifest and clear assertions of the very documents which they attempt to
explain. These gospels were not written in obscurity. The teaching conveyed
in them had been proposed by a living and active society for some years
before these documents were put in writing. The very men who had known Jesus
of Nazareth most intimately were the ones who received these gospels as
statements of the truth about Him. They were in a position to know. We, who
wish to have authentic and historically reliable documents out of which we
can learn of the claims and the accomplishments of Jesus can most certainly
find such documents in the four gospels. They are authenticated, from a
purely natural and scientific point of view, more perfectly than other
historical narratives which have come down to us from ancient times.
CHAPTER IX
THE CLAIMS OF JESUS
1. The
fact of Christian revelation.
According to the testimony of those reliable and authentic historical
documents which we know as the four gospels, Jesus of Nazareth openly
professed that He was the bearer of a message from God to men. He asserted
that the doctrine He preached was actually what we call divine revelation,
public rather than private, mediate rather than immediate as far as the
body of mankind is concerned. He described His teaching as a doctrine which
is supernatural, not merely by reason of the way in which it comes to man,
but also by reason of its content.
It is of course absolutely requisite to establish and demonstrate this fact
in a course of scientific apologetics. In this science we are concerned with
proving the rational credibility, not of some vague and unknown system of
religious teaching, but of this definite doctrine which was propounded by
Jesus of Nazareth and which is proposed as such in the Magisterium of the
Catholic Church. If there were no naturally ascertainable evidence that
Jesus of Nazareth had actually claimed that this teaching was divinely
revealed, then obviously this teaching could never be acceptable from a
rational point of view as Christian revelation. However we have at our
disposal abundant reliable historical evidence to show that Jesus Christ
taught a definite religious doctrine, which He proposed to man as a
communication from God.
The historical evidence of the four gospels makes it quite clear that Jesus
of Nazareth claimed that His doctrine was actually a teaching from God.
Furthermore He continually spoke of Himself as a messenger from God, as the
Messias, and as the true and natural Son of God. Thus in every way possible
He pointed to His teaching as a body of truth which men were bound to accept
as divine revelation.
2. The
Word of God.
The doctrine which He set forth is the teaching of God rather than of man.
"My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me." (John 7:16) It is
the actual speech of God, in so far as the words in which it is conveyed are
the words of God. "He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore
you hear them not, because you are not of God." (John 8:47)
The teaching of Jesus was something which He designated as "the gospel of
the kingdom." (Matt. 24:14, also 4:23 and 9:35) In explaining the
parable of the sower to His disciples, He designated this "word of the
kingdom" under the image of the seed which fell upon various types of soil.
(Matt. 13:19) He stated openly that this doctrine is "the word of God."
(Luke 8:11) The people who thronged about Jesus came in order to hear the
"word of God." (Luke 5:1) At several other times during the course of
His public ministry it is recorded that He designated His teaching in
exactly this fashion.
3. The
doctrine all men must accept.
Furthermore, Jesus of Nazareth asserted that His teaching was a divine
revelation which all men are bound to accept under penalty of losing their
eternal salvation. "I am come a light into the world: that whosoever
believeth in Me, may not remain in darkness. And if any man hear My words,
and keep them not: I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world,
but to save the world. He that despiseth Me, and receiveth not' My words:
hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge
him in the last day. For I have not spoken of Myself, but the Father who
sent Me, He gave Me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak.
And I know that His commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore
that I speak, even as the Father said unto Me, so do I speak." (John
12:46-50) He insisted upon the mediate, public, and necessary character of
the revelation which He had brought to mankind in the commission which He
gave to the Apostles immediately before His Ascension. "And He said to
them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not,
shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16) "And Jesus spoke to them,
saying: All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth; Going therefore,
teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the
consummation of the world?" (Matt. 28:18-20)
4. The
Messenger from God.
Very frequently during the course of His public life, Jesus of Nazareth
asserted that He had been sent by God. Thus He characterized Himself as a
divine messenger, the bearer of a communication which God had addressed to
mankind. In speaking thus he was obviously claiming that the doctrine He
presented was something to be accepted with the assent of divine faith.
He described the limits of His own immediate preaching field at the very
time that He affirmed His function as a delegate sent by God, in answering
the Canaanite woman whose faith He praised and whose petition He granted.
"I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.”
(Matt. 15:24) In sending His Apostles upon their first teaching venture He
explained that they were His legates just as He was the bearer of a message
from God. The teaching which they were commissioned to bring to the people
was the very doctrine which He had set forth as having been divinely
revealed. "He that receiveth you, receiveth Me: and he that receiveth Me,
reeeiveth Him that sent Me." (Matt. 10:40; Luke 9:48; John 13:20) In the
parable of the evil husbandmen Jesus referred to Himself as the Son whom the
heavenly King sent to the rebellious subjects in order to offer them a last
opportunity to repent. The chief priests and the pharisees were very well
aware that in speaking in this way Jesus had reference to them and to their
rejection of His teaching. (Matt. 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12)
Actually, according to the words of Jesus, the rejection of His teaching
involved the rejection of God Himself, because He was sent by God. He told
His disciples, "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth
you, despiseth Me. And he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me."
(Luke 10:16)
Although references to the divine legateship of Jesus of Nazareth abound in
the three synoptic gospels, they are far more numerous and striking in the
historical account of His life set forth in the Gospel according to St.
John. In the beautiful colloquy with the pharisee Nicodemus, which took
place during the early portion of His public life, Jesus stated clearly that
He had been sent by God as the bearer of a message which was to be accepted
on divine faith. "For God sent not His Son into the world, to judge the
world, but that the world may be saved by Him. He that bdieveth in Him is
not judged: but he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he
believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:
17-18) The evangelist appends his understanding of the statement to the
account of the same discourse. "For He whom God hath sent, speaketh the
words of God." (John 3:34)
5. The
teaching of the Father.
The One who has sent Jesus, according to His own assertion, is so perfect
and amiable that in doing His will a man will find delight and strength
above that which he could obtain through earthly nourishment. "My meat is
to do the will of Him that sent Me." He informed the pharisees who
opposed Him that they were setting themselves up against the living God,
whose message He carried to men. "He who honoreth not the Son, honoreth
not the Father who hath sent Him. Amen, amen, I say unto you, that he who
heareth My word, and believeth Him that sent Me, hath life everlasting, and
cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life." (John 5
:23-24)
The fact that He has been sent by God the Father renders His judgment just,
according to the explicit statement of Jesus. "I cannot of Myself do any
thing. As I hear, so I judge: and My judgment is just; because I seek not
My own will, but the will of Him that sent me." (John 5:30) Likewise,
according to the claims which Jesus made explicitly, the Father made
manifest the fact that He was the bearer of the divine teaching. "For the
works which the Father hath given Me to perfect: the works themselves, which
I do, give testimony of Me, that the Father hath sent Me: and the Father
Himself who bath sent Me, bath given testimony of Me: neither have you heard
His voice at any time nor seen His shape; and you have not His word abiding
in you: for whom He hath sent, Him you believe not." (John 5:36-38) In
this same reproachful discourse to His enemies, Jesus of Nazareth made it
clear that His doctrinal mission was such that He spoke in the name of God.
"I am come to you in the name of the Father, and you receive Me not: if
another shall come in his own name, him you will receive." (John 5:43)
6. The
word of everlasting life.
Acceptance of the teaching which is set forth by Jesus is said to be the
work of God, precisely because He is declared to have been sent by God as
the bearer of a divine message. "Jesus answered, and said to them: This is
the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He hath sent." (John 6:29) The
insistence upon His character as a divine legate runs throughout the famous
sixth chapter in the gospel according to St. John. Jesus insisted that those
who believed Him, and accepted on divine faith the message which He proposed
as divinely revealed were to be given eternal life, and a glorious
resurrection on the last day. "I came down from heaven, not to. do My own
will, but the will of Him that sent Me. Now this is the will of the Father
who sent Me: that of all that He hath given Me, I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up again on the last day. And this is the will of the Father
that sent Me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in Him, may
have life everlasting, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John
6:38-39) Furthermore Jesus asserted that no man could accept his teaching
with the assent of divine faith except by the power of God whose message
Jesus brought to the world. "No man can come to Me, except the Father, who
hath sent Me, draw him." (John 6:44) Again, in the same discourse, He
connected the doctrine of the Eucharist, which He then set forth, with the
fact that He had been sent by God. "As the living Father hath sent Me, and I
live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me”
(John 6:58)
7. A
message acceptable as divine revelation.
Jesus was careful explicitly to assert that the acceptability of the
teaching which He offered to men was based upon the evidence that He really
had been sent by God. To the leaders of the Jews He stated, "My doctrine is
not Mine, but His that sent Me. If any man will do the will. of Him: he
shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of
Myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory; but He that
seeketh the glory of Him that sent Him, He is true, and there is no
injustice in Him." (John 7:16-18) Jesus repeated this assertion, crying out
in the Temple of Jerusalem, "You both know Me, and you know whence I am: and
I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, whom you know not. I
know Him: because I am from Him, and He hath sent Me." (John 7:28-29) It was
the contention of Christ that He could and would return to the God who had
entrusted Him with this doctrinal mission. "Jesus therefore said to them:
yet a little while I am with you: and then I go to Him that sent Me." (John
7:33)
The testimony which Jesus alleged in favor of His own teaching was such as
to show that He had been sent by God. "If I do judge, My judgment is true:
because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me. And in your law
it is written, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that give
testimony of Myself: and the Father that sent Me, giveth testimony of Me."
(John 8:16-18) The One who had sent Jesus with the message which He
preached, and for which He demanded the assent of faith was One competent to
send that message. "He that sent Me is true." (John 8:26) Furthermore, the
One who sent Jesus, according to His explicit claim, is ever with Him. "And
He that sent Me is with Me, and He hath not left Me alone.” (John 8:29) The
divine mission which He claimed for Himself was such as to demand an
affection for Him on the part of every man who loved God. "Jesus therefore
said to them: If God were your Father: you would indeed love Me: for from
God I proceeded, and came: for I came not of Myself, but He sent Me." (John
8:42)
8. God
commands the preaching of this doctrine.
The work which He had been commissioned to perform was incumbent upon Him.
"I must work the works of Him that sent Me, whilst it is day: the night
cometh when no man can work." (John 9:4) The mission which He had been sent
to perform was a holy work, a task which He had been sanctified to
accomplish, for Jesus was One "whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into
the world." (John 10:36) The fact that He was consubstantial with the Father
in no way detracted from the reality of His mission. "But Jesus cried and
said: He that believeth in Me, doth not believe in Me, but in Him that sent
Me. And he that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me." (John 12:44-45)
Furthermore, Jesus declared that His mission was such that the content of
His teaching had been determined by God Himself. "For I have not spoken of
Myself, but the Father who sent Me, He gave Me commandment what I should
say, and what I should speak:" (John 12:49) "And the word which you have
heard is not mine: but the Father's who sent Me." (John 14:24)
He explained to His followers that they would be persecuted by those men who
did not know who had given Him His doctrinal mission in the world. "But all
these things they will do to you for My name's sake: because they know not
Him that sent Me." (John 15:21) The God at whose right hand He is to sit for
all eternity, and to whom He returned after His earthly life is actually the
One who has sent Him for this work. "And now I go to Him that sent Me: and
none of you asketh Me, Whither goest Thou?" (John 16:5) Finally He likened
the commission which He gave to the Apostles to preach the doctrine He had
given them in His name to that mission with which He had been entrusted by
the Father. "As the Father bath sent Me, I also send you." (John 20:21)
9. The
fact of revelation and the prayer of Jesus.
Jesus of Nazareth not only asserted that He had been sent by God in the
course of the instructions and warnings He gave to men, but He integrated
this claim into the sublime prayers which He offered to God. In the petition
which He addressed to His Father immediately before He called Lazarus from
the dead He made it strikingly clear that this miracle, like the other
signs which He had given, was meant precisely to indicate the fact of His
divine commission. "Jesus, lifting up His eyes said: Father, I give Thee
thanks that Thou hast heard Me: And I know that Thou hearest Me always, but
because of the people who stand about have I said it: that they may believe
that Thou hast sent Me." (John 11:41-42)
In the sublime sacerdotal prayer, which is recounted in the seventeenth
chapter of the gospel according to St. John, Jesus clearly indicates in His
petition the fact and the nature of the mission He had received. The eternal
life, which He came to merit for men, includes the contemplation of Himself
as One sent by God. "Now this is eternal life: That they may know Thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent." (John 7:3) The work of
Jesus in this world has resulted in a firm belief or conviction that He had
been sent by God. "The words which Thou sayest Me, I have given to them: and
they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from
Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me." (John 17:8) This same
truth is reasserted at the conclusion of this prayer. "Just Father, the
world hath not known Thee: but I have known Thee: and these have known that
Thou hast sent Me." (John 17:25) Thus, according to the explicit statement
of Jesus, the truths which the disciples received from Him were actually
verities which had been confided to Him by God. In accepting this teaching,
the disciples had recognized the fact that He was a messenger from God.
Before God He protested that the mission of His Apostles was patterned after
the mission which He had received from on high. "As Thou hast sent Me into
the world, I also have sent them into the world." (John 17:18) The society
which He had founded was to exist as a manifest social miracle, attesting
the fact of His own divine messengership. "That they all may be one, as
Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that
the world may believe that Thou has sent Me." (John 17:21) "I in them, and
Thou in Me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know
that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast also loved Me."
(John 17:23)
It is evident then, in the light of these statements, attributed to Jesus of
Nazareth in reliable historical documents, that He claimed His doctrine to
be divinely revealed. There is, then, nothing which would militate against
the credibility of Catholic doctrine by reason of the great Teacher of that
doctrine having failed to assert its character as a message of divine
origin.
10. The
messianic claim and the office of deliverer.
The claims of Jesus in favor of His teaching stand out still more clearly
when we examine His contention that He was the Messias expected by the
children of Israel.
The sacred books of the
Hebrews, which they accepted as the word of God, were filled with
information about a deliverer whom God was going to send into the world, and
through whose activities the children of Israel and, as a matter of fact,
all men were to be benefited immensely. The Jewish People and their leaders
were waiting for this deliverer at the very time that Jesus was carrying out
His work in the world.
In explaining the doctrinal claims of Jesus, it is necessary to point out
the characteristics which the books of the Old Testament attributed to this
Messias, and then to demonstrate clearly that Jesus claimed for Himself not
only this office, but all of the prerogatives associated with it. In making
this explanation, we must take special cognizance of the various
interpretations of the messianic dace and dignity which were current among
the Jews during the time when Jesus was preaching.
The Messias was to be a deliverer, one whose duty it would be to undo the
evil wrought upon the human race through the malice of Satan who had brought
about the fall of Adam and the consequent baneful effects felt by the
descendants of Adam. This deliverer was to be a descendant of Eve, and thus
truly a "son of man." God said to the serpent in whom the enemy of the human
race is represented, "I shall place enmities between thee and the woman,
between thy seed and her seed. It will lie in wait for thy head, and thou
wilt lie in wait for its heel." (Gen. 3:15)
11. The
Messias was to bring a message from God.
Furthermore, this Messias was to be a prophet in the strict and technical
sense of the term. He was to speak the words which God gave to him. In other
words, he was commissioned to deliver to men a message which was actually
from God, a communication which God had spoken to man, and which man
received in a way at once distinct from and superior to the natural way in
which he derives his knowledge about the things of God. In the last book of
the Pentateuch, Moses, the great prophet of the old law, is represented as
saying to the people. "The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of
thy nation and of thy brethren, like unto me: him thou shalt hear. As thou
desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the assembly was gathered
together, and saidst: Let me not hear any more the voice of the Lord my God,
neither let me see any more this exceeding great fire, lest I die. And the
Lord said to me: They have spoken all things well. I will raise them up a
prophet out of the midst of their brethren like to thee: and I will put My
words in his mouth, and he shall speak all that I command him. And he that
will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the
revenger.” (Deut. 18:15-19)
According to the sacred text of the Hebrews, the people had asked God for a
revelation which was mediate rather than immediate. They had feared the
direct reception of the message which God willed to give them, and which
they desired to possess. So, in answer to their petition, God had first sent
His teaching through Moses. Then He had promised them- to send another
prophet who would be empowered to speak to them as Moses had done before.
12. The
Messias as king.
Again, the Messias, or as the Greek form has it, the Christ or the Anointed
One, was promised as a king having universal domination. "The sceptre shall
not pass from Juda, nor the rod from between his feet, until he comes to
whom the sceptre belongs, his is the domination of the nations." (Gen.
49:10) "He shall rule from sea to sea: and from the river unto the ends of
the earth. Before him the Ethiopians shall fall down: and his enemies shall
lick the ground. The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents;
the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts. And all the kings
of earth shall adore him: all nations shall serve him?" (Ps. 71:8-10)
Thus the doctrinal authority of the Messias, for with this we are
principally concerned in this section of the science of apologetics, was
meant to be absolutely universal. All the peoples of the earth, regardless
of their power or position, were expected to receive the teaching which God
offered to mankind through the preaching of this deliverer. In claiming the
dignity and the prerogatives of the Messias, Jesus of Nazareth asserted
that He was the bearer of a revelation which was public rather than private.
Furthermore, it was necessary, since God Himself had threatened to punish
the individual who refused to accept this teaching.
13. The
sacerdotal office of the Messias.
Finally, the Messias was promised as a priest. In this way he was meant to
stand as an intermediary between God and man. He was to offer the sacrifice
acceptable to God, and thus perform the act in which the favor of God would
be gained for those who were united with him. "The Lord hath sworn, and He
will not repent: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of
Melchisedech." (Ps. 109:4) He was to be the servant of God in a special way,
a friend of God and in every sense a just man. "Behold My servant shall
understand, he shall be exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding high.”
(Isa. 52:13) In spite of the fact that, as the servant and the chosen friend
of God, the Messias was to be exalted above all other men, He was to suffer
and die the most excruciating death. The fifty-third chapter in the book of
Isaias describes the death which the Messias is to undergo. This death was
to constitute the sacrifice which should continue, a clean oblation offered
throughout the world for the glory of God until the end of time. "For from
the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great among the
gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My
name a clean offering: for My name is great among the gentiles, saith the
Lord of Hosts." (Mal. 1:11)
It is perfectly clear, from an examination of these reliable historical
documents which we know as the four gospels, that Jesus of Nazareth claimed
the dignity and the prerogatives of the Messias. Furthermore He applied to
Himself this messianic dignity exactly as it had been described in the
divinely inspired books of the Old Testament, and not as it had been
distorted in the minds of a great many of his contemporaries. However, the
fact that such a misconception of the messianic office existed and was
fostered by the most powerful teachers among the Jewish people at the time
when Jesus of Nazareth preached had a great deal to do with the manner in
which He notified the people of His messianic character. In order to meet
the religious needs of the moment He had to be careful not only to insist
that He was actually the deliverer promised by God from ages past, but He
had to be on His guard to see that His hearers realized that His office was
not the one which had been described in the sermons of the rabbinical
masters or in the writings of the eschatological school.
14. The
rabbinical concept of the Messias.
Those rabbis who constituted the school of the pharisees and whose doctrine
was to become the official teaching of Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem
and the subsequent disappearance of the Saducee party had constructed and
proposed a definite messianic concept.
Colored and motivated by an intense nationalism, this
concept utilized some of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the
promised deliverer, but took these promises altogether apart from their
context. The stern traditionalism of the Jewish masters kept this teaching
extant until the time came when it was incorporated into the Talmud, to
become thenceforth the official and orthodox doctrine of Judaism.
The messianism of the pharisaical rabbis centered about the Mosaic law
itself. The deliverance of Juda was to be accomplished in the mathematically
accountable fidelity of the Jewish nation to that law. It would be brought
about through a condition of things in which the balance sheet of the
activities of this nation would show a definite preponderance in favor of
those works which were prescribed by the law. Only after this state of
things had been established was the Messias Himself to arrive. Then His
function was to establish that reign in which the promises of God to His
people were to be fulfilled.
As these promises of the Creator were understood by the rabbis, they
included the dominance of Juda over all the other kingdoms and peoples of
this world. Palestine itself was to become a land of incredible fertility
and pleasure. The other peoples of the earth were to be allowed access to it
merely for the purpose of paying tribute and in order to glorify the
perfection and felicity of its inhabitants.
15. Jesus
rejected the rabbinical concept of the Messias.
Such a racial, political, and material concept of the messianic office was
evidently in direct opposition to the implications of that teaching which
Jesus of Nazareth presented to the world. Actually the reliable historical
teaching which we find in the four gospels assures us that He rejected that
rabbinical concept several times during the course of His preaching. After
His teaching had been rejected by the leaders of the people who had been
given full opportunity to learn about it, He assured His enemies that their
traditions which included this rabbinical concept of the Messias were
contrary to the divine doctrine itself. "But He answering, said to them
(the scribes and the Pharisees): Why do you also transgress the commandment
of God for your tradition ?" (Matt. 15:31; see also Mark 7:8) He informed
the Jewish populace which had rejected His teaching, that although they were
children of Abraham according to the flesh, they were not the offspring
which was to possess the messianic kingdom. (John 8:31-59) He told the
people explicitly that the kingdom of God, which was the messianic realm,
was to be peopled by those who were not members of the Jewish race, while
the Jews themselves, heirs to the kingdom by reason of their physical
descent, were to be cast out as unworthy of it. "There shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth: when you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all
the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And there
shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south, and shall
sit down in the kingdom of God. And behold they are last that shall be
first, and they are first that shall be last." (Luke 13:28-30; see arm Matt.
8:11)
The pointed parable of the murderous husbandmen was understood by the
leaders of the people as a statement of their own rejection. (Matt. 21:45
Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19) Finally He commissioned His Apostles to carry His
message to all nations, (Matt. 28:19; Luke 24:46) or to every creature.
(Mark 16:15)
The nonpolitical and nonmaterial character of His mission is evident from
His conduct as well as from His words. When, after the first miracle of the
loaves and the fishes, the people wished to take Him by force and make Him
king, "He fled again into the mountain, Himself alone." (John 6:15) When the
Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, asked Him openly if He were the king of
the Jews, knowing full well that this title belonged to the person whom the
Jewish people expected as messias and deliverer, Jesus replied, "My kingdom
is not of this world; If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would
certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My
kingdom is not from hence. Pilate therefore said to Him: Art Thou a king
then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and
for this I came into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth:
every one that is of the truth, heareth My voice." (John 18:36-37)
The activity of Jesus, as well as His explicit teaching indicates very
clearly that He did not accept the common pharisaical interpretation of the
messianic office. It was his unmistakable assertion that He had not come as
the ruler of a people destined to enjoy some vain triumph over its political
and military rivals. He even refused to act as a secular judge, alleging
that His mission did not include this office. (Luke 12:13-14) He claimed to
be a king, but a king in the realm of truth. His messianic claims were in
line with the assertions He had made about the divine origin of the doctrine
which He offered to the children of men. They were likewise in line with the
portrait of the Messias, as this had been drawn in the authentic Old
Testament sources, rather than in the tradition which He found opposed to
the real law of God.
16. The
eschatological concept of the messianic dignity.
An apocalyptic or eschatological interpretation of the messianic concept,
likewise foreign to the teaching of the Old Testament and to the doctrine of
Jesus of Nazareth is to be found in certain of the apocryphal books which
appeared about the time Jesus of Nazareth lived in this world.
According to this teaching the duties of the Messias were to
be carried out after the end of physical universe in which we live and have
our being. The splendor of the messianic kingdom, and the humiliation of the
enemies of God, who were also, of course, the foemen of the Jewish nation
was to be reserved to a time after a catastrophe, regarded as imminent,
which was to terminate the course of nature and to result in the death of
all men. Where the pharisees had hoped for the renovation of the Davidical
kingdom in this corrupted world of ours, the producers of these
eschatological works preferred to think of this triumph as taking place in a
world far more fitted to receive the glory of the dominant Jewish state.
Naturally this concept was not as widespread among the people as that which
had been introduced and fostered by the intellectual leaders. Jesus of
Nazareth, however, clearly indicated that it did not enter into His teaching
on those frequent occasions when He referred to His kingdom as something
which was to exist in this world.
17. Jesus
and the eschatological notion.
It must be understood very clearly that Jesus did not deny that a certain
portion of the messianic activity. was to take place only at the end of the
world. Several times during the course of His instructions He affirmed that
He would come again to mankind at the end of the world, this time to act in
the capacity of a just Judge. When the disciples asked Him "What shall be
the sign of Thy corning, and of the consummation of the world?" (Matt. 24:3)
He informed them: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see
the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty."
(Matt. 24:30; see also Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27) Again, when the high
priest adjured Jesus to inform the Sanhedrin if He was actually the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed God, He replied: "I am, and you shall see the Son of
man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the
clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62; see also Luke 22:69 and Matt. 26:54)
Jesus evidently claimed to exercise the messianic functions, and thus to be
the Messias at the moment He was being questioned by the tribunal of the
Jewish nation. At the same time He made it clear to His enemies that the
messianic work included another element, a task which was not to be
accomplished until a future time. What Jesus rejected out of the
eschatological and apocalyptic notion of the messianic dignity was the claim
that the office of the deliverer was not to begin until after the end of
this world. Naturally He did not countenance the childish concept of
material prosperity which both these writers and the Pharisees incorporated
into their notion of the messianic kingdom.
The messianic realm which Jesus of Nazareth set out to found and to instruct
was one to which a contumacious sinner might be cited. (Matt. 18:17)
Furthermore, it was an organization which was destined to include within its
membership both just and unjust, precisely during the period which was to
intervene between His preaching and the end of the world. The angels of
heaven were to assist at the judgment at the last day. It was to be their
function to cast the evil out of the kingdom which had existed during the
years of human history as the cockle is separated from the wheat at the time
of harvest, (Matt. 13:30) or as the fishes that are unfit to eat are
separated from the rest of the catch by the fishermen who have come to the
shore. (Matt. 13:47 and the following)
In this world, the kingdom was to endure persecution and suffering, rather
than enjoy the idle material benefits which are described both in the
rabbinical and the eschatological writings, (John 15:18-24) It was to be an
organization which would have corporate cause for sorrow. (John 16:20) But
in the last analysis, the evils which the kingdom of the Messias were to
endure in this world were to be made bearable here and to be turned
eventually into the ineffable joy of heaven. (John 17.2) The benefit which
was to be conferred upon the citizens of the kingdom was something far
greater than any of the rabbis had been able to imagine. It was the vision
and the possession of the living God. (John 17.3)
18. Jesus
took cognizance of the prevailing erroneous doctrines in asserting His true
messianic dignity.
However, the prevailing false interpretations of the messianic dignity made
it necessary for Jesus of Nazareth to proceed with caution in instructing
the multitudes about His office. During the earlier portion of His public
life, He had occasion several times to forbid the publication of His
messianic mission. Naturally, He refused to allow this fact of His messianic
character to be brought to the attention of men through the agencies of the
demons, who were able to recognize Him. (Mark 3:12; Luke 4:41) It was
certainly anything but proper that the enemies of God should have been
allowed to publicize the divine message itself, and thus bring it into
discredit. Furthermore, upon occasion He charged the very beneficiaries of
His miracles not to tell the people about them. He acted thus with a leper
whom He cleansed miraculously during the course of His Galilean ministry.
(Matt. 8:4; Mark I:43; Luke 5:14) He asked the crowd before whom He had
cured the deaf-mute not to tell about this marvelous operation, and the
evangelist records that they failed to heed His injunction. (Mark 7:36 )
Again, He forbade the blind men to whom He gave sight to inform their
fellows about what had taken place, and this time also they disobeyed His
command. (Matt. 9:30)
With the current interpretations about the nature of the messianic office,
and in view of the opinions about Himself which were current, not only at
the court of Herod, but also among the individuals with whom the Apostles
themselves came in contact, it is small wonder that Jesus did not wish to
offer proofs of the reality of His divine messengership until He had been
accorded the opportunity of informing men exactly what His function was.
Herod Antipas was of the opinion that Jesus was merely John the Baptist,
risen from the grave to reproach him for his sins. (Matt. 14:2; Mark 6:14;
Luke 9:7) (The third gospel merely says that Herod had heard this opinion
advanced about Jesus. SS. Matthew and Mark, however, point out that he
adopted this opinion himself and communicated it to his servants.) Others,
some of them in the court of Herod had ventured the conjecture that Jesus
was Elias, or one of the other prophets who had risen from the dead.
Finally, there were others who thought that He was a prophet like one of the
ancient bearers of the divine message.
When Jesus asked His disciples, on that day near Caesarea
Philippi, about what men thought of Him, they were able to report only these
same conjectures. (Matt. 16:13-14; Mark 8:27-28; Luke 9:18-19) When such
misunderstanding existed, it was only prudent that Jesus should reserve to
Himself the work of explaining the nature of that office of which the
miracles were regarded as divine testimonies of approbation. As a result He
explicitly forbade the Apostles who had just heard the confession of Peter,
but who had yet to understand the full importance of the messianic dignity,
to announce to the people that He was the Christ. (Matt. 6:20; Mark 8:30;
Luke 9:31)
19. The
messianic claim and consciousness of Jesus at the beginning of His public
life.
However, from the very outset of His public life, Jesus of Nazareth made it
perfectly evident to all those who came in contact with His teaching that He
was the Messias who had been promised and foretold in the Old Testament.
John the Baptist announced himself as the precursor of the deliverer who was
to come, (Matt. 3:11-12; Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16-17; John 1:30-33) and then
clearly indicated Jesus as the One from whom the world was to expect its
salvation. (John 1:19-35) When Jesus was coming out of the water after
having been baptized by John, phenomena occurred leading the people to
believe that Jesus was actually the Messias. Jesus allowed that impression
to exist. (Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:I0-11; Luke 3:22) John the Baptist
afterward made explicit mention of these events when he indicated Jesus as
the "Lamb of God," or the Messias who was to be sacrificed in accordance
with the prophecies which had been made and recorded in the Old Testament.
(John 1:34)
Jesus of Nazareth claimed the messianic dignity for Himself in many ways.
Sometimes He cited messianic prophecies, and pointed out that these had been
fulfilled in Him. At other times He applied to Himself one or other of the
titles by which the Messias had been designated in the Old Testament, and by
which He was named among the Jewish people. Clearly, then, before His own
disciples, before His own people, and before those foreigners who came into
contact with Him, Jesus of Nazareth affirmed that He was a divine messenger
in so far as He was the Messias awaited by the Jewish people as the bearer
of a communication from God to man.
20. The
citation of Messianic prophecies.
At the occasion of His first public preaching in Nazareth, where He had
lived with Mary and with Joseph since their return from the flight into
Egypt, Jesus cited an indubitably messianic prophecy recorded in the Old
Testament, and then asserted that this prophecy had been written about
Himself. "And He came to Nazareth where He was brought up: and He went into
the synagogue, according to His custom, on the sabbath day; and He rose up
to read. And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered unto Him. And as
He unfolded the book, He found the placa where it was written: The Spirit of
the Lord is upon Me: wherefore He hath anointed Me, to preach the gospel to
the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the contrite of heart, to preach
deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them
that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of
reward. And when He had folded the book, He restored it to the minister, and
sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He
began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.”
(Luke 4:16-21) This passage was taken from the sixty-first chapter of the
prophecy of Isaias. It is of undoubtedly messianic import. In asserting that
He was the One pointed to by Isaias, Jesus of Nazareth clearly indicated
that the message which He brought to men was actually a divine revelation.
Not only did Jesus point out a definite and individual messianic prophecy,
as He did in Nazareth, but He also claimed that the messianic prophecies as
a whole applied to Him. "Search the scriptures, for you think in them to
have life everlasting: and the same are they that give testimony of Me."
(John 5:39) The messianic passages in the Pentateuch applied to Jesus,
according to His own assertion. "Think not that I will accuse you to the
Father; there is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust. For if you
did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe Me also for he wrote of Me."
(John 5:45-46) The only personage who is described in the Pentateuch, as
well as in the other books of the O1d Testament, as coming to the rescue and
for the instruction of the people is the Messias. Hence, in asserting that
Moses, and the other authors of the sacred books had written of Him, Jesus
of Nazareth dearly asserted that His message was divine revelation, and was
to be accepted as such by men. It was in this same fashion that Jesus
replied to the disciples of John the Baptist, who were sent to ask Him
directly "Art Thou He, that art to come, or look we for another? And Jesus
making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and
seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear,
the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them: And blessed
is he that shall not be scandalized in Me." (Matt. 11:4-6)
21. The
Apostles understood from the outset that Jesus claimed to be the Messias and
recognized Him as such.
The Apostles themselves considered Jesus as the Messias, and they summoned
their fellows to follow Him by informing them of His messianic dignity. St.
Andrew informed Simon Peter, his brother, "We have found the Messias: which
is being interpreted, the Christ." (John 1:41) St. Philip summoned his
friend, Nathanael to follow Jesus by telling him, "We have found Him of whom
Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus the Son of Joseph of
Nazareth." (John 1:45) When Nathanael was loath to believe that the
deliverer of the world could come from the town of Nazareth, which seems to
have had a poor reputation among the people of Galilee, Jesus supported the
assertion of Philip by telling Nathanael a closely guarded secret of his own
life. And when, influenced by this obviously supernatural power, Nathanael
openly professed the belief that Jesus was "the Son of God . . . the king of
Israel,” (John 1:49) he was not corrected but informed that he would
experience far greater demonstrations of the divine messengership of Jesus.
22. Jesus
claimed and was accorded the title of Messias or Christ.
The actual term Messias occurs only twice in the scriptures, both times in
the gospel according to St. John. On both occasions the evangelist is at
pains to inform his readers that the term is the term of which the Greek
form Christ is the equivalent. The second time it was used, it is to be
found in a setting in which Jesus asserted directly to the woman of Samaria
that He was the Messias. "The woman saith to Him: I know that the Messias
cometh (who is called Christ); therefore when he is come, he will tell us
all things. Jesus saith to her: I am He, who am speaking with thee." (John
4:25-26) It is interesting to note that even at this time, to a woman who
was not one of the children of Israel, Jesus took occasion to claim His
messianic dignity precisely with reference to its doctrinal function.
The word Christ is found fifty-three times in the four gospels. St. John the
Baptist stoutly denied that he was to be designated in this way. On the
other hand, the four evangelists continually apply the term to Jesus.
Sometimes the word Christ is employed by itself as a proper name of Jesus.
(E.g., Matt. 1:18) Again, very frequently, they designate the Saviour as
Jesus Christ, conjoining the messianic tide with His given name. (E.g.,
Matt. I:1; Mark I:1) Jesus Himself promised a reward to the one who would
give the disciples even a cup of water "in My name, because you belong to
Christ?" (Mark 9:41. Cf. Matt. 10:42) When He forbade His followers to
assume the title of rabbi, He gave as a reason "for one is your Master,
Christ." (Matt. 23:10) Explicitly He affirmed that He was the Christ in the
sacerdotal prayer which He offered to the Father the night before He was
crucified. "Now this is eternal life: That they may know Thee, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3) After He had asked
His Apostles about the conjectures which men had been making in His regard,
He interrogated them about their belief, and received the glorious
confession of faith from Peter. "Jesus saith to them: But who do you say
that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ the Son of the
living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My
Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." (Matt.16:15-18)
Clearly and solemnly then He affirmed that He was the Christ. He maintained
that the recognition of this fact had been due to the influence of God
Himself; in other words, that it was a truth which unaided human nature
would be unable to grasp. He rewarded the profession of Peter precisely by
constituting Him the visible head of the organization which He was in the
process of founding. It is interesting to note in this respect that, while
Jesus claimed that the recognition of His messianic status was something
which had necessarily to depend upon the free grace of God, He made no such
statement about the recognition of the fact that He claimed this dignity.
All men might know, as the unbelievers who were His contemporaries knew very
well, that He had taught that He was the Messias. However the certain assent
to that claim, and the acceptance of the teaching which He gave with the
assent of divine faith was actually something which could not be brought
about other than with the aid of divine grace.
Solemnly again, at His trial before the Sanhedrin, Jesus claimed for Himself
the title and the prerogatives of the Christ. "And the high priest said to
Him: I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us if Thou be the
Christ the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it." (Matt.
26:63-64; Mark 15:61-62; Luke 22:70) The very soldiers who tortured and
insulted Him while He was being detained in the palace of the high priest
knew of this claim, and used it to mock Him. "Prophesy unto us, O Christ,
who is he that struck Thee?" (Matt. 26:68)
23. Jesus
claimed the messianic royalty.
Another messianic title which Jesus of Nazareth claimed and which His
contemporaries applied to Him was that of king. As a matter of fact the
Christ or the Messias is really the anointed king, the descendant of David,
whom God had promised to His people. This was the title under which the Magi
thought of Jesus, and asked Herod about Him. "Where is He that is born king
of the Jews?" (Matt. 2:2) The populace wished to make Jesus king after they
had witnessed the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes. (John 6:15)
The throngs hailed Jesus as king when He entered triumphantly into Jerusalem
on the first Palm Sunday. (Luke 19:38; John 12:12-13) It was a title by
which Jesus was greeted at the outset of His public life by Nathanael. (John
1:49) The Jews brought Him before Pilate precisely as One who claimed to be
Christ the King. "And they began. to accuse Him saying: We have found this
man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and
saying that He is Christ the king." (Luke 23:2) To the interrogation of
Pilate, Jesus answered, "Thou sayest that I am a king." (John 18:37) The
cross on which He died was surmounted by an inscription, set there by the
command of Pilate himself, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." (John
19:19; Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38) Finally, when the Jews realized
the import of this inscription, written as it was in Hebrew, Latin, and
Greek, they sought to have Pilate change the wording to read merely that He
said that He was the King of the Jews. This Pilate refused to do. (John
19:21-22) Thus that One whom the angel had promised would be given the
throne of David His father (Luke 1:33) died proclaimed by the Roman judge as
the royal ruler of the house of Israel.
24. The
title Son of Man.
The messianic title which Jesus of Nazareth used most frequently to
designate Himself was that of the Son of Man. This title was used almost
exclusively by Jesus Himself. The few times that the four gospels record it
as having been spoken by others are precisely on occasions when these others
merely quote the terms of the Master. For instance, St. John records that
the crowd who heard Jesus in Judea during the last period of His public life
asked Him about the meaning of the term. "The multitude answered Him: We
have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth forever: and how sayest Thou:
The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man?" (John 12:34)
Otherwise, in the course of the 79 times this term appears in the four
gospels, it is used by Jesus clearly to denominate Himself, as He is endowed
with the characteristics of that deliverer who had been promised to the
people of God.
The expression had occurred many times in the Old Testament. Very frequently
it is employed simply to designate a human being. At other times,
particularly in the prophecies of Ezechiel and Daniel, it was used to
denominate the person to whom God's revelation is addressed, or man,
precisely in so far as he is the beneficiary of the divine teaching. However
it was used in an unquestionably messianic sense in the book of Daniel. "I
beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo one like the son of man
came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and
they presented him before him. And he gave him power, and glory, and a
kingdom: and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is
an everlasting power, that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom, that
shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:13-14) The four gospels record clearly that
Jesus of Nazareth utilized the term "Son of Man" in the same messianic sense
in which Daniel the prophet had employed it, since explicitly He applied to
Himself, as the Son of Man, various characteristics which had qualified this
figure in the message of Daniel.
As the Son of Man, Jesus asserted that He would have that power and glory
which Daniel had described. "And Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you, that
you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit
on the seat of His majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 29:28) He promised to come in the clouds of
heaven, in exactly the same manner as Daniel had stated that the Son of Man
or the Messias would come. "And then they shall see the Son of man coming in
a cloud with great power and majesty.” (Luke 21:27; Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:26)
Furthermore, according to the express declaration of Jesus, the empire of
the Son of Man, which was His own kingdom, would in no way be limited by
bounds of territory or earthly dominion. "And He shall send His angels with
a trumpet, and a great voice: and they shall gather together His elect from
the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds
of them." (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27)
The power of the Son of Man is not restricted in any way to merely material
concerns. He is able to exercise, in His own right, the divine prerogative
of forgiving sins. "But that you may know that the Son of Man hath power on
earth to forgive sins, then said He to the man sick of the palsy: Arise,
take up thy bed, and go into thy house." (Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24)
His domination is divine in the strictest sense of the word, since He
vindicated for Himself as the Son of Man absolute power over the very day
which had been set aside by God for His service. "For the Son of Man is
Lord, even of the Sabbath." (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5)
Jesus asserted that His mission, as the Son of Man, was doctrinal in
character. "For he that shall be ashamed of Me, and of My words in this
adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed of
him, when He shall come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."
(Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26. See also Matt. 56:27) Conversely, the man who adheres
to the teaching of the Son of Man, and confesses Him before his fellow men,
will be acknowledged by the same Son of Man when He comes in power with the
angels of heaven to judge the peoples of the world. "And I say to you:
Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him shall the Son of Man also
confess before the angels of God: but He that shall deny Me before men,
shall be denied before the angels of God." (Luke 12:8-9; Matt. 10:32-33)
It is extremely clear in the teaching of Jesus that the Son of Man, as such,
was sent into this world for the first time to aid men in their attainment
of eternal happiness, and for their sake to suffer and to die at the hands
of His enemies. He announced this for the first time clearly to the Apostles
immediately after they had heard the glorious confession of Peter, and after
Jesus had forbidden them to tell the world that He was really the Messias.
"The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the ancients and
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day rise again?"
(Luke 9:22; Mark 8:31. See also Matt. 16:21) As a matter of fact it was
precisely because the Apostles had not as yet been instructed about this
essential portion of the messianic function that He refused to allow them
immediately to proceed with their task of informing the people that He was
the Christ.
Shortly afterward He announced again to the disciples that the Son of Man
was to be abandoned and put to death, and even then the evangelists tell us
that they were unable to understand and to bear this aspect of the messianic
work.
"And all were astonished
at the mighty power of God: but while all wondered at all the things He did,
He said to His disciples: Lay you up in your hearts these words: for it
shall come to pass that the Son of Man shall be delivered into the hands of
men. But they understood not this word, and it was hid from them so that
they perceived it not: and they were afraid to ask Him concerning this
word." (Luke 9:44-45 Mark 9:31-32; Matt. 17:22-23) During the instructions
which He gave to the throngs on the first Palm Sunday, again He announced
this task which lay before Him. (John 13:20-33)
However, neither the fact of the redemptive death of Jesus, announced and
later described by Him as a function of the Son of Man, (Luke 24:27) nor the
future glorious appearance of this same Son of Man in any way detracted from
the fact that He claimed, as the Son of Man, to have a divine message which
men were expected to accept on divine faith. In the discourse which is
recorded in the sixth chapter of the gospel according to St. John, Jesus had
spoken of Himself as the Son of Man. (John 6:27) But it is exactly as such
that men are to believe in Him, that they are to accept Him as the messenger
sent by God. "And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh
to Me, shall not hunger: and he that believeth in Me, shall never thirst.”
(John 6:33) Again He told the Pharisees, after showing them the terrible
prophecy that they were to die in their sins, "When you shall have lifted up
the Son of man, then shall you know that I am He, and that I do nothing of
Myself, but as the Father bath taught Me, these things I speak." (John 8:28)
There could be no clearer indication of the fact that Jesus claimed,
precisely in His capacity as the Son of Man, to be the bearer of a divine
message.
25. Jesus
claimed the messianic prophetical function.
Another title of messianic import by which Jesus of Nazareth was designated
during the course of His earthly life was that of prophet. Obviously not
every prophet who had labored among the children of Israel could lay claim
to the dignity of the Messias. But, from that portion of the revealed
message which is expressed in the book of Deuteronomy, the Jews had been
led to think of the deliverer who was to come in terms of prophetic
activity. "The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation
and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear. . . I will raise them
up a prophet out of the midst of their brethren, like unto thee: and I will
put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak all that I command him?"
(Deut. 18:15, 18)
The historical books of the New Testament show very clearly that the
contemporaries of Jesus chose to speak of the Messias as the prophet "per
excellentiam," the messenger of God gifted above all others who had been
favored with that office. The delegation from the elders in Jerusalem,
inquiring from John the Baptist about his right to teach and to baptize,
received from him the information that he was neither the Christ nor the
prophet. (John 1:21,25) The Samaritan woman recognized the prophetic dignity
of Jesus Himself. "The woman saith to Him: Sir, I perceive that Thou art a
prophet." (John 4:19)
St. Matthew recounts how the (multitude in Jerusalem itself considered
Jesus to be a prophet. "And seeking to lay hands on Him, they feared the
multitudes: because they held Him as a prophet." (Matt. 21:46) The response
of the multitudes who had witnessed the feeding of the five thousand men
with the five barley loaves and the two fishes was expressed in an act of
faith in the prophetic mission of Jesus. "Now those men, when they had seen
what a miracle Jesus had done, said: This is of a truth the prophet that is
to come into the world." (John 6:14) Some of the people who were privileged
to hear His teaching offered that selfsame observation. "Of that multitude
therefore, when they had heard these words of His, some said: This is the
prophet indeed." (John 7:40) This same title was given to Jesus by the man
to whom He had given sight. "They say therefore to the blind man again: What
sayest thou of Him who hath opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a prophet."
(John 9:17)
When the people of Naim had witnessed the raising up of the widow's son,
they attributed the dignity and the office of prophet to Jesus who had
performed this miracle. "And there came a fear on them all: and they
glorified God, saying: A great prophet is risen up among us: and God hath
visited His people." (Luke 7:16) Finally, when the risen Christ appeared to
the discouraged pair of disciples on the road to Emmaus, they spoke of their
Master as a prophet. They spoke "concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a
prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people." (Luke
24:19)
In spite of the fact that certain of His contemporaries chose to think of
Him as the reincarnation of one of the ancient Hebrew prophets, (Cf. Luke
9:59) Jesus of Nazareth applied the prophetic title to Himself on several
occasions. He told His fellow townsmen of Nazareth, "A prophet is not
without honor, save in his own country and in his own house." (Matt. 53:57,
Cf. Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24; John 4:44) He used this same designation when He
taught of the reward which would be due to those who accepted and aided
Himself and His emissaries. "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a
prophet, shall receive the reward of a prophet." (Matt. 10:41) Finally He
spoke of His own redemptive mission when He told the Pharisees who had come
to Him, "It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." (Luke 13:33)
26. He who
was to come.
Another specifically messianic title which Jesus claimed for Himself, and
through which He asserted that the doctrine He preached was in reality a
message from God to be accepted by all with the assent of divine faith, was
that of "the one who was to come." The only dominating personality who was
awaited by the righteous among the people of Israel was the promised
Messias. Consequently when John the Baptist sent his disciples on their last
mission to Jesus, they were empowered and expected to ask him officially if
He was this Messias. Their question was, "Art Thou He that art to come, or
look we for another?" (Luke 7:19; cf. Matt. 11:3) The response of Jesus was
the most solemn and certain assurance that this title actually belonged to
Himself.
27. The
Son of David.
Another messianic title by which Jesus of Nazareth was hailed among His
people was that of the Son of David. Two of the blind men to whom Jesus gave
their sight appealed to Him under this title. "And as Jesus passed from
thence, there followed Him two blind men, crying out and saying: Have mercy
on us, 0 Son of David." (Matt. 9:27; 20 :30-31 ; Mark 10:47-48; Luke
18:38-39) The throngs who greeted Jesus on the first Palm Sunday
acknowledged Him as the descendant of the great king of Israel and
consequently as the promised possessor of the messianic kingdom. "And the
multitudes that went before and that followed cried saying: Hosanna to the
Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in
the highest. And when He was come into Jerusalem, the whole city was moved,
saying: Who is this? And the people said: This is Jesus the prophet from
Nazareth of Galilee." (Matt. 11:9-11) When the chief priests and the scribes
protested against this demonstration to Jesus, He informed them in no
uncertain terms that this was pleasing to Him. Thus He accepted the
designation of Son of David in the most public and open manner possible.
(Cf. Mark I I:10)
The contemporary misunderstandings among the Jews relative to the nature and
the function of the messianic kingdom were sufficient to force a
clarification of the title, Son of David. The response of the multitudes in
Jerusalem and the spontaneous petitions of those persons who called upon
Jesus for aid show us very clearly that this designation was a popular term
for the Messias.
As a result Jesus had to see to it that men did not consider that He claimed
the messianic dignity merely in the way in which this dignity was described
in the rabbinical teaching of that time. Although He approved the use of
this tide by others, the gospels do not record that He ever directly applied
it to Himself. Furthermore, on one occasion, described in all of the three
synoptic gospels, He taught explicitly that His messianic dignity as the Son
of David was far superior to that which had been ascribed to the deliverer
in the teaching of the Jewish masters. "And the pharisees being gathered
together, Jesus asked them, saying: What think you of Christ? Whose son is
He? They say to Him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth David in
spirit call Him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: sit on my right
hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool? If David then call Him Lord,
how is He his son?" (Matt. 22:41-45. Cf. also Mark .12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)
It is obvious from the account of Jesus' reaction to the title Son of David,
described throughout the synoptics, that He did not in any way attempt to
deny that He was physically the descendant of the great Israelitic king, and
consequently the heir to the promised kingdom. All that He set out to do,
and that He actually accomplished, was to advance a demonstration that the
Messias, the bearer of the divine message was not to be merely the possessor
of art earthly kingdom, of the type over which David had ruled.
28. The
claim of divinity and that of revelation.
Most important of all, from the point of view of the doctrinal claims
advanced by Jesus of Nazareth, was the fact that the historical records
which we know as the four gospels clearly indicate that He asserted Himself
to be a divine person in the strictest sense of the term. Since, according
to His own claims, He was not only the bearer of a divine message, but
actually God Himself, it follows clearly that He taught that His doctrine
was something which men were expected to receive on divine faith. Thus,
from this point of view at least, Catholic dogma is rationally credible as
divine revelation, since it claims to be the message which was brought to
men as the teaching of God by Jesus of Nazareth. It is abundantly and
immediately clear, from the reliable historical documents which we have
available to us, that Jesus of Nazareth really asserted that He was the
bearer of such a divine teaching.
29. Jesus
asserted that His doctrine was intrinsically supernatural.
However, this chapter would be lamentably incomplete were we not to consider
what Jesus said about the intrinsically supernatural character of His
teaching. We know very well that this divine revelation with which Jesus was
concerned might have been supernatural merely from the point of view of the
way in which it was given to men, while it remained at the same time
intrinsically natural in quality. If this had been the case, then there
would have been no need for the act of divine faith, precisely as the
Catholic Church claims it for her own dogmatic teaching. For an
intrinsically natural teaching could be accepted on natural evidence, even
though it had come to man by avenues other than those naturally available to
him for the attainment of his knowledge about God. If, for example, the
teaching of Jesus had been such as to contain merely truths like that of the
existence of God, or of the natural norms of morality, men could treat this
teaching in the same way as they deal with the teaching of any great
philosopher or scientist. They could have adduced the evidence which was
brought before them, and then from the examination of this evidence,
realized that the statements contained in the teaching were necessarily
true.
However, according to the words of Jesus, such was not the case. He asserted
that the doctrine which He presented to the world was something which could
not possibly be gained through any merely human process of reasoning. In the
interview which He granted to Nicodemus, He stated, "Amen, amen I say to
thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you
receive not our testimony. If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you
believe not: how will you believe if I shall speak to you heavenly things?"
(John 3:11-12) The heavenly things to which Jesus referred were obviously
matters about which men could not learn apart from the revelation which He
brought to them. The evangelist appended this explanation to the words of
St. John the Baptist. "He that cometh from above, is above all. He that is
of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh. He that
cometh from heaven, is above all. And what He hath seen and heard, that He
testifieth: and no man receiveth His testimony." (John 3:31-32) The doctrine
of Christ is thus described explicitly as a teaching which results from the
vision of the living God, something obviously beyond the natural competence
of any creature, actual or possible.
Jesus Himself declared that faith in Him, that is to say acceptance of His
teaching with the certain assent of divine belief, was something which
could be possessed only by those to whom God Himself had given the grace to
make this act. It is consequently an act over and above the capacity of the
creature as such. "No man can come to Me, except the Father, who bath sent
Me, draw him . . ." (John 6:44) After the defection of the false disciples,
consequent upon the sermon of Jesus about the Eucharistic sacrifice, Peter
expressed the conviction of the other Apostles and the teaching of the
Master Himself when he made his illustrious response. "Then Jesus said to
the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to
whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6:68-69) The
evident connotation of this statement by the prince of the Apostles is that
they realized that the truths taught by Jesus Christ were such that they
could be obtained from no other source. They were thus obviously statements
which were intrinsically supernatural in their meaning.
After Peter had spoken for the other Apostles and expressed the belief that
Jesus was actually the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus pointed out
the intrinsically supernatural character of this truth. "And Jesus
answering, said to him: Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and
blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven." (Matt.
16:17) In other words, the truth which Peter had enunciated was beyond the
range of those verities which might be perceived through the natural
operation of the human faculties.
30. The
beneficent revelation.
In His discourse in the temple on the feast of the tabernacles, Jesus of
Nazareth made it quite clear that His doctrine came from a source which was
not seen by those who chose to oppose Him. "Jesus therefore cried out in the
temple, teaching and saying: You both know Me, and you know whence I am: and
I am not come of Myself; but He that sent Me is true, whom you know not. I
know Him: because I am from Him, and He hath sent Me." (John 7:28-29) The
doctrine which He offered then was something which depended upon the
knowledge of the living God, a sort of knowledge not available to creatures
as such. Likewise the Master made it abundantly evident that the acquisition
of this knowledge did not in any way depend upon the natural brilliance nor
on the intellectual training of the individual man. It was communicated by
God in the way of divine and supernatural revelation, and only those who
had been favored with the gift of God's grace would possess it. "At the same
hour He rejoiced in the Holy Ghost, and said: I confess to Thee, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hidden these things from the
wise and prudent and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea Father: for so
it hath seemed good in Thy sight.” (Luke 10:21; Matt. 11:25) Furthermore,
this supernatural revelation was such as to be inaccessible to the merit
even of the good men who had lived in former times. "And turning to His
disciples, He said: Blessed are the eyes that see the things which you see.
For I say to you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see the
things that you see, and have not seen them: and to hear the things that you
hear, and have not heard them.” (Luke 10:23-24; Matt. 13:16-17)
It is evident, then, from the records of Jesus' own life, that He made
exactly the same claim for His teaching that the Catholic Church to this day
sets forth in favor of that doctrine which she presents to the world as
having been preached by Him. If it can be shown that Jesus actually taught a
doctrine which is that now offered by the Catholic Church in the form of her
own dogma, and if this doctrine is actually signed with unmistakable marks
of authenticity, manifesting it as a doctrine which God Himself visibly
approves as His revelation, then the teaching of Jesus as the dogma of the
Catholic Church will have been established as rationably credible in its
claim for the assent of divine faith.
CHAPTER X
THE DOCTRINAL CONTENT IN THE MESSAGE OF JESUS
PART I : The New Dispensation and the Old Law
1. The
reason for this study.
The crucial problem for the modern apologist concerns the content of that
teaching which Jesus of Nazareth preached to His disciples and to His fellow
countrymen. If His doctrines had been only general and vague in character,
if He had occupied Himself merely with attempting to form a religious
attitude in the minds of those who were privileged to hear Him, then, of
course, there could be no possible question of any rational credibility on
the part of the definite teaching which the Catholic Church offers in His
name. If, on the other haul, He proposed a definite system of truth, and
claimed for this dogmatic teaching the characteristic of divine revelation,
and furthermore if it can be shown that this is the very doctrine which is
now brought before the world as Catholic dogma, then, from this point of
view at least, there is nothing to stand in the way of a declaration of
credibility being issued in favor of this Catholic dogma.
2. The modern liberal view.
This examination of the message of Christ, as it is made known to us in the
historically reliable documents, is of utmost importance to the present-day
apologist precisely because it is on this point that the most serious
attacks of modern opponents have centered. It is a commonplace contention,
among liberal writers about the Christian message, that Jesus of Nazareth
never intended to set forth a definite and particular system of religious
teaching. In recent times Nathaniel Micklem, principal of Mansfield College,
Oxford, has suggested "this contention that the work of Christ is action
rather than doctrine, and that the doctrine is but the commentary on the
action" as the most effective means for answering the objections of those
who suppose that St. Paul the Apostle changed the message of Christ and
actually founded the Christianity which we know today. He states that this
contention "is increasingly recognized by modern scholarship, but it can
never be demonstrated beyond cavil that such is the only possible
interpretation of the facts.' According to this eminent writer, however, the
denial of this contention would involve an admission either that "the Jesus
of history" is misrepresented in the books of the New Testament or that He
Himself was in error.
Professor McCown who, in spite of the preponderant evidence offered by
modern critical research, still refuses to admit the historicity of St.
John's Gospel and who professes to see in the synoptics a meager tradition
about a Jesus who actually lived in Palestine nineteen hundred years ago
spread through expressions of apostolic faith in an already idealized
mystical Christ and biased apostolic propaganda in favor of the gospel,
asserts that "because they are not intellectualistic or philosophical, the
basic qualities in Jesus which have always appealed to men can be fitted
into the Orient and the Occident, into ancient and modern civilization with
equal case and difficulty."' It is his contention that the Jesus of history
will never be fully known, and indeed that it is well for the world that He
will not be so known. In any event he is perfectly convinced that there is
no evidence to show that the system preached as Christianity was ever set
forth by Jesus of Nazareth.
Naturally the. greater number of non-Catholic scholars are sufficiently
abreast of the times not to take seriously the brash dicta and attitudes of
a long since outmoded nineteenth-century radical criticism. But even
relatively conservative writers like Morrison, while conceding that Jesus
taught a definite doctrine and established a definite religious
organization, refuse to admit certain elements in that teaching.' Dodd, less
conservative, tells us that "Jesus stood isolated among the movements of His
time. He took no side in the conflict of ideals. Nor did He form a party of
His own. It is true that He collected a band of followers who might
The Primitive Church, by Nathaniel Micklem, included in the symposium The
Christian Faith, Essays in Explanation and Defense, edited by W. R. Matthews
(New York and London, 1936), p. 179.
'The Search for the Real Jesus, A Century of Historical Study, by Chester
Charlton McCown (New York, 2940), p. 301.
* What Is Christianity?, by Charles Clayton Morrison (Chicago and New York,
1940). See Lecture X, pp. 250-275.
be variously regarded as the disciples of a rabbi or the accomplices of a
conspirator. But when He commissioned them to carry His message through the
towns and villages of Palestine, He gave them, as far as our records tell,
no programme and no body of teaching to propagate."' The teaching of Moore
is just as perfectly indicative of this attitude toward the content of
Christ's doctrine. "Jesus was not in his own thought nor in the
apprehension of those who heard him, friend or foe, the founder of a new
religion. However different the emphasis of his teaching from that of the
school and the synagogue, he had no doctrine about God's nature and
character, or about what he requires of men, or on his relation to his
people and his purpose for them, or concerning the hereafter of the
individual and the world, that would have been unfamiliar to a
well-instructed Jew of his time." The distinguished Harvard Professor thus
expresses his positive conviction about the nature of that teaching which
was offered by Jesus. "Here, then, is the emphasis of Jesus' teaching piety,
morality, and charity."5
3. The duty of the modern apologist.
In the face of this frankly expressed attitude, it is obviously the business
of the Catholic apologist to undertake the not too difficult work of showing
that, in the teaching of Jesus which is recorded in reliable historical
documents, there is abundant evidence that He founded a new religion, that
He did set forth dogmatic teaching which was not only not familiar to the
well-instructed Jews of His own time, but which was so difficult in itself
as to occasion the withdrawal from His company of ' the majority of those
who had formerly professed to be His disciples. It was this definite,
positive, and personal teaching which He set forth as divinely revealed and
as a body of doctrine which, as essentially supernatural in character, men
could not possess except in so far as they were strengthened by the free
gift of divine grace. Furthermore it can be shown that this doctrine is and
has always been proposed by the Catholic Church as the divine revelation
which came to men through the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth.
4. New Testament books and Catholic dogma.
Naturally, one paramount fact must be kept in mind in the course of this
portion
History and the Gospel, by C. H. Dodd (New York, 1938), p. 123.
History of Religions, by George Foot Moore, Vol. 2 (New York, r941, original
edition, 1919), P. 114.
of apologetics. Holy Scripture is by no means the only source of divine
revelation, acknowledged and utilized by the Catholic Church. According to
her own dogmatic definition, she finds those truths which she proposes as
divinely revealed and to be believed with the assent of divine faith by all
men in scripture and in the divine apostolic tradition. There are truths
which belong to the deposit of divine public revelation, truths which were
proposed by Jesus Christ as divinely revealed, which are not clearly
contained on the pages of the inspired books. Obviously then, when we
utilize the books of the New Testament, and in particular the four canonical
gospels, as naturally verifiable historical sources, we cannot hope to see
in them a complete picture of that Catholic dogma, the rational credibility
of which we are meant to demonstrate in the science of apologetics. But,
conversely, we can expect to recognize, in the authentic dogmatic teaching
of the Catholic Church, every doctrine which the historical sources at our
disposal show that Jesus of Nazareth actually set forth as divinely
revealed during the course of His earthly life.
It is perfectly true that unwritten divine apostolic tradition is, along
with sacred scripture, a genuine source of revelation. Likewise it is
certain that, according to the teaching which has always been current in the
Church, the actual process of public revelation did not close with the death
or even with the ascension of Jesus, but only with the death of the last
Apostle. Thus evidently such truths as the content of the New Testament
canon could not have been allocated, and must not be sought, in the content
of that teaching of Jesus Christ which is set forth on the pages of the four
gospels. However, we can expect to find, in the message of Jesus, as it is
set forth on the pages of these historical sources, a clear outline of the
complete dogmatic teaching, the rational credibility of which we wish to
demonstrate. And, in the stage in which the science of apologetics finds
itself today, the process of this discipline would in no way be complete and
convincing if we were to neglect this inquiry.
5. The
modern objections and apologetical science.
The matter contained in this chapter was, as we have seen, incorporated into
the science of apologetics by reason of the direction from which the
present-day opposition to Catholic dogma proceeds. Nevertheless, we must
not allow ourselves to think that it is foreign to the proper content of
this science of apologetics. This discipline has been in the process of
development during the course of all those centuries in which the Catholic
mind has been concerned with the defense of revealed truth against the
strictures of its opponents. Actually the sections which go to make up the
content of this science, in its present-day stage of development, have been
incorporated into it originally by reason of some definite objections
raised against the credibility of the divine teaching. The modern contention
that Christ did not set forth a definite and proper religious message has
only served to call attention to the proofs which establish the
contradictory truth. By inserting this portion of the apologetical
demonstration into the science, the modern apologist not only responds to
the contentions advanced against Christianity in his own day. Actually he
contributes to the full perfection of that demonstration of credibility of
which the science of apologetics is essentially capable.
6. Jesus
and the Mosaic dispensation.
In proving that Jesus of Nazareth offered as divinely revealed a definite
system of religious truth which had not been proposed by any teacher before
Him, we must not allow ourselves to lose sight of the fact that not every
truth which entered into the religious teaching of Christ was first brought
to the attention of men through His preaching. According to the teaching of
Jesus Himself, the doctrine which He brought to the world had been
introduced to mankind in the revelation given by God through the agency of
Moses and the prophets of the Old Testament. In His Sermon on the Mount, the
Master made this point very clear. "Do not think that I am come to
destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill.
For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:17-18; Luke
16:57) It was His contention that the prophecies had been fulfilled since
Moses, the chief human author of the Old Testament, and the one to whom the
old law had been directly communicated by God, had written concerning Him.
"For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe Me also: for he
wrote of Me." (John 5:46) At the very outset of His public life, He so
instructed His first disciples that they proposed Him to their fellows as
the fulfillment of the prophecies contained in the Old Testament.
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith to him: We have found Him of whom Moses
in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus the Son of Joseph of
Nazareth." (John 1:45)
7. The
speculative truths.
The body of speculative doctrinal truths which were contained in the
revelation of the Old Testament were included as a whole in the religious
teaching which He proposed to men as divinely revealed. "Then Jesus spoke
to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: The scribes and the
Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever
they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye
not: for they say and do not." (Matt. 23:1-3) The scribes and the
Pharisees, among whom the most deadly of the enemies of Jesus were to be
found, had their teaching approved by Him precisely in so far as that
teaching was the expression of that doctrine which God had given to Israel
through Moses, and with Moses the school of the prophets which had been the
vehicle through which the additional revealed truths contained in the Old
Testament dispensation had come to mankind. What God had given to man in
the way of truth during those years remained true, and remained matter which
men were meant to accept with the assent of divine faith even when these
verities came to them in the instruction of unworthy teachers of the type
of the scribes and the Pharisees.
8. The Mosaic Ritual.
The ceremonial or ritual observances contained in the revelation of the Old
Testament were, of course, abolished through the institution of that new
sacrifice, the "clean offering" of which the prophet Malachias had written.
"For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, My name is great
among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is
offered to My name a clean offering: for My name is great among the
gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts."" This great act of the New Testament was
explicitly instituted by Jesus Himself. "And whilst they were at supper,
Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and
said: Take ye, and eat: This is my body. And taking the chalice He gave
thanks: and
'1 Mal.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 165
gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is My blood of the New
Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.""
Obviously the institution of the great sacrificial act for which the
ceremonies of the Old Testament were merely a preparation involved the
abolition of these preparatory rituals. The prophecy of Malachias explicitly
connects the institution of the new with the cessation of the old, since
these words are prefixed to the announcement of the "clean oblation." "I
have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts: and I will not receive a
gift of your hands?'8 The hand from which God had received the offerings of
the people under the Old Testament dispensation were those of the Aaronitic
priesthood. Clearly then God states in this portion of His message that,
with the advent of the new sacrifice, the work of the ancient priesthood
will have come to an end. In the institution of the new sacrifice by Jesus,
there was the fulfillment of that ancient rite which had been essentially
preparatory in character.
3'Matt, 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20. See also I Cur. 11:23-26.
'Mal. 1:10.
9. The
moral doctrine of the Old Testament.
Still another procedure was followed in the fulfillment of that portion of
the law which had to do with morals. Those acts which of their very nature
were sinful, and destructive of the life of grace which Jesus Christ had
come to give to men were forbidden both in the Old and in the New
Testaments. To the young man who asked Him how everlasting life was to be
obtained, Jesus replied, "Thou knowest the commandments: Thou shalt not
kill: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not
bear false witness: Honor thy father and mother." (Luke 18:20) Likewise,
the love of God above all things else, which was commanded in the Old
Testament, (Deut. 6:5) remained the central and focal point of all the moral
teaching inculcated by Jesus of Nazareth. "And behold a certain lawyer
stood up, tempting Him, and saying: Master, what must I do to possess
eternal life? But He said to Him: What is written in the law? How readest
thou? He answering, said: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole
heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy
mind: and thy neighbor as thyself. And He said to him: Thou hast answered
right: this do, and thou shalt live." ('Luke 10:24-28. See also Matt.
22:37; Mark 13:30) However, even in the case of these primary rules of the
natural law, the teaching advanced by Jesus of Nazareth contained elements
distinctly more perfect than the portion of revealed truth which had been
brought to men through His predecessors.
While the basic command' to love God above all things was naturally included
in the Mosaic dispensation, the application of this rule in the love to be
accorded to one's neighbor was somewhat restricted. In the Old Law,
frankly, the obligation of loving one's neighbor did not go beyond
prescribing an affection for those who were members of the Israelitic
community. "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but reprove him
openly, lest thou incur sin through him. Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of
the injury of thy citizens. Thou shalt love thy friend as thyself. I am the
Lord." (Lev. 19:17-18)
When the lawyer who is spoken of in the gospel according to St. Luke as
having tempted Jesus and having consequently been interrogated by Him about
the content of the law wished to gain an advantage over the Master, it is
recorded that He pushed the question by asking about the meaning attached to
the term "neighbor" in the response which he himself had just given. Jesus
answered him with the magnificent story of the Good Samaritan. (Luke
10:29-37) As everyone knows, there existed between the Jews and the
Samaritans of that day an enmity which, as a matter of fact, the passing
years have never lessened. It was the contention of Jesus, and an integral
part of the doctrine which He proposed to the world as divinely revealed,
that the object of that love of man which is the expression of the love
accorded to the Creator Himself could even be a member of the despised and
hated race of the Samaritans. This was very definitely an aspect of Jesus'
teaching which was "unfamiliar to the well-instructed Jew of His time.”
(Cf. Moore, History of Religions.) Not only was this teaching above the
content of the Jewish religion as it existed at the time of Jesus, but even
in modern times the Jewish encyclopedia article relative to this matter
professes to see in this story recounted in Luke an obvious mistake in
recording the words. of Jesus. It is the contention of this author that
Jesus had spoken, not of the Good Samaritan, but of some "Good Israelite"
since no Jew of the time of Christ could possibly have spoken well of this
race so hated by his confreres. In this way obviously the teaching of Jesus
presented a real advance over the hitherto received revealed truth and a
real fulfillment of the moral code set forth in the Mosaic revelation.
This same perfectional development is manifest in His treatment of the
negative precepts contained in the Mosaic moral law. "You have heard that it
was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill: and whosoever shall kill,
shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you: that whosoever is
angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca: shall be in danger of the council. And
whosoever shall say, Thou fool: shall be in danger of hell fire. If
therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy
brother bath anything against thee: Leave there thy offering before the
altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou
shalt offer thy gift." (Matt. 5:21-24) This universality and strict
consistency in the love of benevolence which is to be accorded to our
fellows will obviously be found to go far beyond the requirements imposed in
the moral portion of the Mosaic code. In this respect the teaching of Jesus
of Nazareth was quite clearly a religious teaching advanced by Him
independently of the doctrine current among .the people of His time. It
represents a definite set of truths for which He could reasonably claim the
dignity of a definite and individual divine revelation.
10. The permissions granted in the old dispensation.
There is still another aspect under which the moral doctrine put forth by
Jesus of Nazareth can be recognized as His own teaching, and not merely the
restatement of truths which were universally accepted as divinely revealed.
Certain permissions had been accorded by God to the people of Israel in the
revealed message of the Old Testament. For instance, it had been permitted
to the Jews to put away their wives and then to marry another woman, and
likewise it was permissible for the dismissed woman to be ' taken by another
man. "If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favor in his eyes
for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in
her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed and
marrieth another husband, and he also hateth her, and hath given her a bill
of divorce, and hath sent her out of his house, or is dead: The former
husband cannot take her again to wife, because she is defiled, and is become
abominable before the Lord: lest thou cause thy land to sin, which the Lord
thy God shall give thee to possess."" It is clear in this instance that the
rejected wife cannot be taken again by a former husband, but there is
nothing to prevent her marrying another man with whom she has not been
married before.
Jesus of Nazareth clearly withdrew this permission which had been given to
the children of Israel, and which had been integrated into the Mosaic
nadral code itself. "And it hath been said: Whosoever shall put away his
wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever
shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to
commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth
adultery. "22 We read in the historical accounts of the life of the Master
which are accessible to us that the leaders of the Jewish nation did not
fail to push their inquiries into a teaching with which they at least, as
well-instructed Jews of the time of Jesus, were not at all familiar. "There
came to Him the Pharisees tempting Him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man
to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering said to them: Have ye
not read, that He who made man from the beginning, made them male and
female? and He said: For this cause, shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh; Therefore
now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God bath joined
together, let no man put asunder. They say to Him: Why then did Moses
command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them:
Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put
away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you,
that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and
shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that
is put away, committeth adultery.""
Deut. 24:1-4.
12 Matt. 5 :3 1-3 2. See also Luke 16: 18.
" Matt. 193-9. Sce also Mark 10:2-12.
11. The
authority of Jesus.
It is interesting to note that here, as in many other places where He dealt
with the moral prescriptions of the Mosaic law to which He brought
fulfillment and perfection, Jesus of Nazareth utilized the formula, "But I
say to you." This expression occurs sixty-five times in the course of the
four gospels as a clear indication of the fact that the teaching which is
offered is that of Jesus alone, a portion of that message which they are to
receive on the authority of God revealing if they are to have the faith in
Him which He prescribed. The expression is found, in this sense, thirty-one
times in St. Matthew, twice in St. Mark, twenty-nine times in St. Luke, and
thrice in St. John.
12. The
counsels and the new covenant.
The moral prescriptions of the Mosaic covenant were fulfilled in the
teaching of Jesus of Nazareth in still another manner. The portion of the
Old Testament which had dealt with morals had contented itself with
commanding those acts which were actually requisite for proper human
activity and forbidding those operations which were of themselves sinful and
offensive to God. Jesus, however, included in His message recommendations or
counsels which men were not by any means obliged to follow in order to
attain eternal life, but in the following of which they would be enabled to
serve God more perfectly and efficiently. The evangelical counsel of perfect
chastity is illustrative of this class of recommendations. Jesus gave this
advice to the Apostles who professed themselves surprised at the new
teaching which Jesus had given on the indissolubility of marriage. "His
disciples say unto Him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not
expedient to marry. Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they
to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their
mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are
eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that
can take, let him take it." (Matt. 19:10-12)
In fulfilling the Mosaic law, Jesus of Nazareth professed also to teach
those truths which had been communicated by God to man in the way of public
revelation before the time of Moses himself. The God whom Jesus preached was
"the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (Matt.
22:31; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37) Furthermore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the
patriarchs, are described as pertaining to that kingdom into which the
followers of Jesus were to be incorporated. "And I say to you that many
shall come from the east and the west and shall sit down with Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28) The
revelation which had been made by God to Adam, the first man, and to the
patriarchs who had preceded Abraham was likewise fulfilled and perfected in
the same way by Jesus, in so far as this doctrine was incorporated into the
body of Mosaic revelation itself.
13. Jesus and the Pharisaic tradition.
Although Jesus professed to fulfill the law which had been given to the
Israelites through Moses, He rejected entirely the body of human tradition
which the Pharisaic party had built up as a sort of fence around this law.
Not only did He refuse to incorporate these traditions into His teaching,
but He asserted that these traditions actually ran counter to the precepts
which God Himself had given to the people. "You have made void the
commandment of God for your tradition."" St. Mark in his gospel shows the
nature of these traditions, and the attitude which Jesus adopted in their
regard. "And there assembled together unto Him the Pharisees and some of the
scribes, coming from Jerusalem. And when they had seen some of His disciples
eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For
the Pharisees, and all the Jews eat not without often washing their hands,
holding the tradition of the ancients: And when they come from the market,
unless they be washed, they eat not: and many other things there are that
have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots,
and of brazen vessels and of beds. And the Pharisees and the Scribes asked
Him: Why do not Thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the
ancients,but they eat bread with common hands? But He answering said to
them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This
people honoreth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me: And in
vain do they worship Me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For leaving
the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots
and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. And He said to
them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your
own tradition. For Moses said: Honor thy father and thy mother.
". "Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:8-9.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 171
And: He that shall curse father or mother, dying let him die. But you say:
If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban (which is gift)
whatsoever is from me will profit thee: And further you suffer him not to do
anything for his father or mother, making void the word of God by your own
tradition, which you have given forth: and many other such like things you
do.""
14. God the Creator.
Having seen the relation of that teaching which was set forth as divinely
revealed to men by Jesus of Nazareth, it becomes our work as apologists to
examine the dogmatic content of that message. Jesus taught about the nature
of God, although there was no great need to insist upon certain portions of
this doctrine, since it had been properly and sufficiently presented in the
Mosaic revelation and accepted by the monotheistic Jewish nation. The
essential unity of God is brought out in perfect clarity, not only in the
background of His entire teaching, but explicitly in the instruction which
He gave to the most enlightened among His fellow countrymen. "And there
came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing
that He ha-d answered them well, asked Him which was the first commandment
of all. And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is: Hear 0
Israel, the Lord thy God is one God: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and
with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is
like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other
commandment greater than these. And the scribe said to Him: Well, Master,
Thou hast said in truth, and there is no other besides Him. And that He
should be loved with the whole heart, and with the whole understanding, and
with the whole soul, and with the whole strength: and to love one's neighbor
as one's self, is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices. And
Jesus, seeing that he had answered wisely, said to him: Thou art not far
from the kingdom of God.""
Jesus taught the truth that God had created the world. "For in those days
shall be such tribulations as were not from the beginning of the creation,
which God created, until now" (Mark 13-19). The disciples were told to be
"Perfect also as your heavenly Father is perfect."" In the same way they are
meant to be "merei‑
°Mark 7a-13; Matt. 15:1-9. °Matt. 5:48.
Mark x 2 :213-34.
172 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
ful as your Father also is merciful.' Jesus insisted upon the spirituality
of God, upon the fact that any bodily imperfection would be incompatible
with the nature of the Creator. "God is a Spirit: and they that adore Him
must adore Him in spirit and in truth.' Likewise God knows all things, even
those human actions which are utterly beyond the ken of other men's
understanding. "Thy Father, who seeth in secret will repay thee."" He knows
what we stand in need of before we ask it from Him in prayer." In the
religious teaching of Jesus we find the explicit declaration that God is
omnipotent. "He said to them: the things that are impossible with men, are
possible with God.""
God not only knows the needs of men, but provides for them. "Behold the
birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into
barns: and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value
than they?"" His knowledge of creatures extends to the ultimate details,
far too exact ever to be measured by the standards of created knowledge.
This knowledge goes with a power which is in no way limited to the
exigencies of this earthly life. "And fear ye not them that kill the body,
and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him that can destroy both
soul and body into hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing: and not
one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs
of your head are all numbered.' The divine government of the world will
finally result in a judgment which belongs to God. "For the Son of man shall
come in the glory of His father with His angels: and then will He render to
every man according to his works.""
The justice of God is apparent, in the teaching of Jesus, not only through
the conduct of God with regard to angels and men, but also through the
explicit designation of God as just. "Just Father, the world bath not known
Thee, but I have known Thee, and these have known, that Thou hast sent Me.""
15. Created spirits, angels and demons.
In the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth there is the recognition of the
existence of created spirits, some of whom are friendly with God, while
others are ranged as His enemies, and as the foemen of the human race. In
the passage above, and in a good many others in the gospels,
•
"Luke 6:36. "Matt. 6:8. "Matt. 10:28-30.
n John 4:34. "Luke 18:27. " Matt. 16:27.
"Matt. 6:4, 6, 18. "Matt. 6:26, 3o, 32. II9 John 37:25.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 173
Jesus spoke of the function of the angels in the general judgment." In His
teaching was also the declaration that certain angels at least were assigned
to the care of His beloved little ones. "See that you despise not one of
these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see
the face of My Father, who is in heaven."" Their spirituality is such that
the condition of men after the resurrection can be likened to them in so far
as these men will be freed from all of those exigencies which, in this world
necessarily accompany the conduct of bodily life. "For in the resurrection
they shall neither marry nor be married: but shall be as the angels of God
in heaven.'42 They are in great numbers, powerful beyond the competence of
men, and entirely at the disposition of Jesus Himself. "Thinkest thou that I
cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions
of angels?""
The evil spirits or devils, on the other hand, express their hatred of God
by attempting to tear men away from His friendship, and in particular by
laboring to take the word of God, preached by Jesus, out of the hearts of
men. In explaining to the Apostles the parable of the wheat and the cockle,
Jesus told them, "The enemy that sowed them (the children of the wicked
one), is the devil."" Among these evil spirits there is a certain hierarchy,
so that one of them has a position of command with reference to the rest.
Furthermore, these devils are capable of taking possession of a man. The man
so possessed by the devils could be freed by the power of Jesus, or by those
who had received their commission from Him. At the same time His teaching
makes it clear that the Jews themselves, through their prayers and ritual
observances, had the power to cast out devils. "But the Pharisees hearing
it, said: This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of
devils. And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them. Every kingdom
divided against itself, shall be made desolate: and every city or house
divided against itself, shall not stand. And if satan cast out satan, he is
divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand? And if I by
Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom
•"Matt. 1339, 41, 99; 25;31; Mark 13:27; Luke 9:26.
41 Matt. 26:to.
42 Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25.
"Matt. 2653. "Matt. 13:39.
174 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if
I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon
you.""
The evil spirits have a definite influence among the men of this world, so
that the Jews who resisted the teaching of Jesus could actually be spoken of
as men whose father was the devil. "You are of your father, the devil: and
the desires of your father you will do: he was a murderer from the
beginning, and he stood not in the truth: because truth is not in him: when
he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father
thereof."" As a matter of fact the influence of the devil is so strong that
he is spoken of in the teaching of Christ as "the prince of this world.""
The "prince of this world" is already judged, and he has no part whatsoever
in Christ. "For the prince of this world cometh, and in Me he hath not any
thing.' This last statement of Jesus was an indication that the persons who
had conspired to put Him to death were approaching. Thus He taught that this
action, in so far as it was performed by the leaders of the Jews, and by
Judas who betrayed Him to them was an activity inspired by the leader of the
forces of darkness. Finally it was the contention of Jesus that the devil
had a special hatred for His disciples, and that he had attempted to gain
control of Peter, the leader of the apostolic college. "And the Lord said:
Simon, Simon, behold satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as
wheat: But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being
once converted, confirm thy brethren?"' The efforts of the devil and of
those who chose to cooperate in his work will finally be confounded
however, for on the last day the Judge will consign the wicked to the
everlasting fire "which was prepared for the devil and his angels?'
'Matt. 12:24-28; Mark 3:23.-26; Luke 1117-20. "John 8:44. John
14:30.
it JONI 16:11. "Luke 22:31-32. "matt. 25:41.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 175
16. The
eschatology of Jesus.
The judgment.
The teaching on the last things which Jesus set forth as a part of that
message which He characterized as divine revelation represented a
considerable development over the previously revealed and accepted doctrines
on this subject. In the first place He announced that the act of judgment
was to be His special prerogative, conceded to Him by God the Father.
"For neither doth the Father judge any man: but bath given all judgment to
the Son." (John 5:22) Those who have followed Jesus as His disciples
are to be associated with Him in the work of the judgment. "And Jesus
said to them: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, you
also shall sit on twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
(Matt. 19:28) The judgment which Christ is to administer has its beginnings
in this life, in so far as those who refuse to accept His teaching are
already under the ban. "He that believeth in Him (the Son of God) is not
judged: but he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he
believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18)
The man who refuses to accept the divine teaching is likened to "the prince
of this world" who himself is already judged. (John 16:11)
The judgment of Jesus is just.
"As I hear, so I judge: and My judgment is just: because I seek not My
own will, but the will of Him that sent Me." (John 5:30) Likewise that
judgment is correct. "And if I do judge, My judgment is true: because I
am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me." (John 8:16) Jesus will
come for this judgment in the glory of His heavenly Father, and surrounded
by the angels who will assist Him. "For the Son of man shall come in the
glory of His Father with the angels: and then will He render to every man,
according to his works." (Matt. 16:27) Thus the judgment of Christ will
be absolutely universal.
Great signs will precede this judgment,
which is to take place at the end of the world. (Matt. 24:21-31; Mark
13:19-27; Luke 21:23-27) However the time of this last judgment was,
according to the explicit teaching of Jesus, a secret locked in the
intellect of God Himself, in such a way that not even the Son Himself, in
His capacity as true man, was aware of it. "But that day or hour no man
knoweth, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father."
(Mark 13:31; Matt. 24:36)
The final and definitive judgment
which awaits the evil, according to the teaching of Jesus, is consignment
to an everlasting fire, in company with the demons who have motivated or
assisted in their detestable deeds. "Then shall He say to them also who
shall be on His left hand: Depart from Me you cursed into everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matt. 25:41) Thus the
great penalty, in which the essential unhappiness consequent upon
unrepented sin will consist will be banishment from the face of the living
God. The unjust, after this judgment, will be permanently banished from the
presence of Jesus.
17. The
eternal reward.
Naturally, one of the most important elements in the doctrinal message
delivered by Jesus, and proposed by Him as divinely revealed, is the nature
of the reward which awaits those who are faithful to Him. This reward
consists in the final and definitive incorporation into that kingdom which
was begun in this world and which, in the next, is to be the possession of
the just alone. "Then shall the king say to them that shall be on His
right hand: Come ye blessed of My Father, possess you the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world." (Matt. 25:34) To give this
eternal life to men was the reason for the mission of Jesus Himself. "As
Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He may give eternal life to
all, whom Thou hast given Him." (John 13:2) This is the reward, the
great good which men sought from Jesus of Nazareth, and which He designated
as the guerdon which would be granted to those who obeyed the law of God.
The questions which were put to Jesus very frequently were couched in terms
of this eternal life. "Good Master, what good shall I do that I may have
life everlasting?" (Matt. 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25; 18:18) In the
words of Jesus Himself the reward of the just is called eternal life.
"And every one that hath left house, or brethren or sisters or father or
mother or wife or children or lands for My name's sake, shall receive a
hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.“ (Matt. 19:19; Mark
10:30; Luke 18:30) Jesus defined the everlasting life which was the reward
offered to His followers and in this way the purpose of His mission among
men. "Now this is eternal life: That they may know Thee, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent." (John 17:3) This vision of
the living God brings with it an ineffable union of the blessed with the
divinity. "That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me, and I in
Thee, that they also may be one with Us: that the world may believe that
Thou hast sent Me." (John 17:21) The norm by which the union of these
blessed with God is measured is thus the unity of the divine nature, in
which both the Father and the Son subsist. At the same time the glory of
the blessed brings with it an understanding and a vision of the glory of
Jesus Himself. "Father, I will that where I am, they also whom Thou hast
given Me may be with Me: that they may see My glory which Thou hast given
Me, because Thou hast loved Me before the creation of the world." (John
17:24)
18. The
moral foundation.
In the moral order there was also a definite and individual doctrine set
forth as divinely revealed in the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth. In the
first place the ultimate standard of ethical perfection demanded of the
followers of Jesus was not any one of the creatures, even the highest among
them, but the perfection of the living God Himself. "Be you therefore
perfect as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48. See also
Luke 6:36) The perfection and the beatitude which Christians are meant to
possess can be held only by work. There is no such thing as an idle or
useless perfection seen in the preaching of Jesus. "Not every one that
saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that
cloth the will of My Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 7;21. See also Luke 6:46)
The Christian is expected to model his conduct upon that of Jesus Himself.
"Take up My yoke upon you and learn of Me, because I am meek and humble
of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls." (Matt. 11:29) Those
who follow the commands of Christ are to be constituted as His brothers and
sisters. "For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is My brother and My
sister and mother." (Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21)
19. The doctrine on faith.
The teaching of Jesus contained definite instructions of faith, not given
in previously existing religious systems. In the first place Jesus demanded
faith in Himself and in His teaching as distinct entities, under penalty of
the loss of eternal life. "He that believeth in the Son, hath life
everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth in Him."" Actually and specifically He demanded
acceptance, on divine faith, of the doctrine which He preached, to the
effect that He was the true and natural Son of God, and not merely able to
speak of God as His Father in the way in
John 3:36.
178 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
which mere creatures could do, "Therefore I said to you, that you shall die
in your sins: for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your
sin.""
Jesus was specific also in declaring that the object of that faith which He
demanded of His followers was actually a message which had been communicated
by the living God. "I will not now call your servants: for the servant
knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all
things whatsoever I have heard of My Father, I have made known to you.""
This faith was intrinsically supernatural, in the sense that a man could not
accept this teaching on the authority of God revealing without a special and
supernatural help given by God. "And He said: Therefore did I say to you,
that no man can come to Me, unless it be given Him by My Father."" The
effect of this faith is to be the possession of the truth, which alone can
make men free. "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed in Him: If you
continue in My word, you shall be My disciples indeed: And you shall know
the truth and the truth shall make you free."" It will likewise result in
the performance of miraculous works, of the order which Jesus Himself
accomplished in demonstrating the credibility of His teaching. "Amen, amen,
I say to you, he that believeth in Me, the works that I do, he also shall
do, and greater than these shall he do, because I go to the Father.""
According to the explicit teaching of Jesus, faith in Him will result in a
glorious resurrection. "Jesus said to her (Martha of Bethany): I am the
resurrection and the life: he that believeth Me although he be dead, shall
live: And every one that liveth and believeth in Me, shall not die
forever."" Finally the effect of this faith is eternal life itself. "Amen,
amen, I say to you, that he who heareth My word, and believeth Him that sent
Me, hath life everlasting, and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from
death to life.""
20. The teaching on hope.
In the direction of the virtue of hope, Jesus taught first of all that the
object in which alone men would find their everlasting happiness was the
vision and possession of the living God. "Now this is eternal life: That
they may know
'John 824.
"John '5:15. See also the first section of Chapter 9. "John 6:66. See the
last section of Chapter 9 above.
"John 8:31-32. "John 11:25-26,
"John 14:12. "John 5:24.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 179
Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."" Confidence
in God was taught in the religious system of Jesus both directly and in the
incomparable clarity of the parables. "And seek not you what you shall eat,
or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high: For all these things
do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need
of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His justice,
and all these things shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock, for it
hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom."" The parable of the
prodigal son," points out again the ineffable mercy of God, in which the
hope of the follower of Christ is meant to be rooted.
21. Charity in the message of Jesus.
With reference to charity, which consists in a love of benevolence for God,
and for our neighbor in so far as he is connected with God, the teaching of
Christ is abundantly clear. In the first place, Jesus frequently during the
course of His public life enunciated the double commandment of charity.
"Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart
and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and
the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and
the prophets."" Thus He taught, with perfect clarity, that the act of
charity is the bond which gathers together the acts of the other virtues and
renders the operation of man fully pleasing to God. All the other ordinances
which man has received in divine revelation depend for their perfection and
efficacy upon the precept of love.
The love which the followers of Christ are expected to have for God is truly
a love of friendship, a mutual love of benevolence. Furthermore it is
essentially a dynamic thing, a love which does 'not exist except in so far
as it is actually in operation. The operation of charity involves obedience
to all of the other commandments which God has given to the human race. "As
the Father bath loved Me, I also have loved you. Abide in My love. If you
keep My commandments, you shall abide in My love, as I have
"John 173.
"Luke 1329-32; Matt. 63O-33.
la Luke 1511-32.
"Matt. 22:37-40; Mark I2:30-31; Luke 10:25-28.
18o WE STAND WITH CHRIST
kept My Father's commandments, and do abide in His love" Thus, according to
the explicit teaching of Jesus, the charity by which the Christian loves his
God is meant to be modeled upon the love in which the Son of God Himself
tends toward His divine Father.
Furthermore, according to Jesus, the love of charity brings with it an
inhabitation of the Blessed Trinity in the soul, in a manner obviously
distinct from that in which God is in all things necessarily. "He that hath
My commandments, and keepeth them: he it is that loveth Me. And he that
loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father: and I will love him, and will
manifest Myself to him."" "Jesus answered and said to him (St. Jude the
Apostle): If any one love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love
him, and we will come to him, and will make Our abode with him. He that
loveth Me not, keepeth not My words."" Furthermore Jesus Himself prayed to
the Father that His followers might possess this love of charity, in which
they were to find their perfection and union with God. "And I have made
known Thy name to them, and will make it known: that the love, wherewith
Thou hast loved Me, may be in them, and I in them.""
The operation of this charity with reference to our neighbors is meant to be
intensely practical. The teaching of Jesus gives a standard in the light of
which the beneficial character of our activity in our neighbor's regard can
easily be evaluated. "All things therefore whatsoever you would that men
should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the
prophets."" This love is to be shown, not merely to those who are our
friends and brethren, but also to those who stand as our enemies. This was
set forth as a distinctively Christian teaching, not clearly presented in
the Old Testament at all, and certainly contradicted in that false tradition
which the teaching of Jesus set out to overthrow. "You have heard that it
hath been said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I say
to you: Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you: and pray for them
that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your
Father who is in heaven, who maketh His sun to rise upon the good and bad:
and raineth upon the just and unjust. For if you love them that love you,
what reward shall you have Do not even the publi-
"John 84:23-24.
"John 15:9-1o. " Matt. 732; Luke 6:31.
" John 14:21. 'Matt. i:1; Luke 6:31.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 18z
cans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? Do not
also the heathens this ?"89
Also in the teaching of Jesus there are definite implications attached to
this charity. The sin of scandal is to be avoided at all costs. "Woe to the
world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but
nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.' There is also a
definite command of almsgiving, the obligation to supply those who are in
need with that portion of the individual's resources which is not necessary
for him. "But yet that which rernaineth, give alms: and behold all things
are clean to you."" However this charity to the poor is something which
Jesus recommended as well as ordered. For, if it is, according to His
•teaching, absolutely requisite to give alms from the superabundance of a
person's possessions, it is counseled to exercise this form of charity even
to the extent of giving what belongs to the upkeep of one's state in life
for the relief of the indigent. "Sell what you possess and give alms.""
However the giving of alms, as well as the other activities which enter into
the life of Christ's followers must, according to the teaching of Jesus
Himself, be carried on in such a way as to avoid the hypocrisy which He so
despised. "Take heed that you do not your justice before men, to be seen by
them: otherwise you shall not have a reward of your Father who is in heaven.
Therefore, when thou dost an alms-deed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as
the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, that they may be
honored by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But when
thou dost alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doth."" The
service of God through charity, according to the teaching of Jesus, is
inseparable from sincerity. His enemies, the scribes and the Pharisees, who
finally encompassed His Oath are condemned, not only for their infidelity
and rapacity, but precisely in so far as they offend God through their
hypocrisy."
22. Prayer according to the Christian message.
Again there was a definite instruction on prayer contained in that message
which Jesus proposed to men as divinely revealed. In the first place He
taught His disciples how they should pray. "And it came to pass:
'Matt. 5:43-47; Luke 6:27-35- "Luke 12:43.
"Matt. 18:7; Luke 17:x. "Matt. 6:1-3.
"Luke tx:41. "Matt. 6 and 23.
182 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
that as He was in a certain place praying, when He ceased, one of His
disciples said to Him: Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his
disciples. And He said to them: When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be Thy
name. Thy kingdom come. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our
sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not
into temptation.' Thus He made it an integral part of His message that the
prayer which His followers were expected to pour forth to God should consist
in certain definite petitions for the things which God desired them to
possess. This idea was expressed by St. John Damascene in the definition of
prayer as "the petition of fitting things from God,"" a definition which was
destined to become classical in the literature of Catholic theology.
The text of the Lord's Prayer illustrates very well the things for which the
follower of Christ is expected to petition God. First of all there is the
petition for the glory of God, to be brought about in the sanctifying of the
divine name. Then there is the accomplishment of God's glory in the soul of
the person who makes the petition that the kingdom of Cod should arrive and
be fulfilled in himself. Again there is the expression of the intention
that the law of God should be obeyed, primarily, of course, by the person
who is making the prayer.
Under the heading of the daily or the supersubstantial bread, the person
praying asks God for all of those temporal and spiritual goods which might
be requisite for, or contributory to, the gaining of his eternal salvation.
He requests the forgiveness of the sins which he has committed in the past,
showing the requisite disposition for receiving this forgiveness in
asserting that he has already granted pardon to those who have offended
against him. He begs that, in being delivered from temptation, he may be
freed from the danger of offending God now or in the future. In seeking the
freedom from evil, the person who prays according to the directions given
by Jesus petitions for the removal of those temporal evils which might be
hindrances in his work of pleasing God and attaining his salvation.
Jesus followed His directions for prayer with definite assurances that such
petitions, addressed to that God who is actually the Father of those who are
adopted in Jesus, will be infallibly ef‑
(*Luke II:I-4; Mat. 6:7-13.
"De Fide Orthodoxa, Book 3, Ch. 24. Cf. Fenton, The Theology of Prayer,
pp. 1-15.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 183
ficacious. This lesson is brought out in striking clarity in the parable of
the importunate friend, which, in the gospel according to St. Luke, follows
immediately upon the recital of the Lord's Prayer. However it is brought out
in such a way as to show that this petition must be persevering if its
object is infallibly to be attained. "And He said to them: Which of you
shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight, and shall say to him:
Friend, lend me three loaves, because a friend of mine is come off his
journey to me, and I have not what to set before him: And he from within
should answer and say: Trouble me not, the door is now shut, and my children
are with me in bed, I cannot rise and give thee. Yet if he shall continue
knocking, I say to you: although he will not rise and give him because he is
his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise, and give him as
many as he needeth.""
He assured His disciples that the response given to the prayer which is
offered according to the directions which He gave would be both infallible
and good. God will, according to the explicit teaching of Jesus, answer the
prayer of His followers in the same way that a loving father fulfills the
desires of his children. "And I say to you: Ask, and it shall be given you:
seek and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one
that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that
knocketh, it shall be opened. And which of you, if he ask his father bread,
will he give him a stone? of a fish: will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Or if he shall ask an egg: will he reach him a scorpion? If you then being
evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your
Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask Him?""
Jesus insisted however that the prayer which men should offer according to
His directions must be an exercise directed to God, and not some sort of
hypocritical activity meant to impress men. "And when ye shall pray, you
shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the
synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I
say to you, they have received their reward. But thou, when thou shalt pray,
enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in
secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee."" More‑
" Luke II :5-8. "Man. 6:5-6.
"Luke z :9-13; Matt. 7:7-11.
184 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
over the prayer which we offer to God is not necessary in order to inform
God of our needs. It is for the benefit of the man who prays, in order that
he may direct and order his intentions in the sight of God. "And when you
are praying, speak not much, as the heathens; for they think that in their
much-speaking they may be heard. Be not you therefore like to them; for your
Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask Him.'
The prayers of the followers of Jesus are to be addressed to the Father in
His name. Furthermore the disciples are to petition Jesus Himself, and the
results of the prayer will constitute the work of Jesus. "And whatsoever you
shall ask the Father in My name, that will I do: that the Father may be
glorified in the Son. And if you ask Me anything in My name, that I will
do."2 Prayer in the name of Jesus was undoubtedly a process which had not
existed before, either in the Jewish religious practices or in the
activities among the pagans. In propounding it Jesus was very definitely
setting forth a religious teaching with which the well- educated Jews of His
own time were not at all cognizant. "And in that day you shall not ask Me
anything. Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask the Father anything in My
name, He will give it you. Hitherto you have not asked any thing in My name:
Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be full."' Finally, he asserted
that the efficacy of this prayer was due to the faith manifested to God in
the petition itself. "In that day you shall ask in My name: and I say not to
you, that I will ask the Father for you: For the Father Himself loveth you,
because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came out from God."
Prayer in common, the petition of the Church itself has special efficacy
according to the doctrine of Jesus.'
23. The beatitudes.
As a distinctive note of the religious teaching which He preached, Jesus
described the blessedness or the happiness of those who lived according to
His'doctrine. The conditions in which this happiness was to be -found were
quite different from those which were considered as occasions of happiness
in other and less spiritual religious teachings. "Blessed are the poor in
spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek: for they
shall possess the land. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be
comforted. Blessed are they that hunger
John 16:23-24. 'Matt. 18:19.
'Matt. 6:7-8.
'John 14:13-14.
THE NEW DISPENSATION AND THE OLD LAW 185
and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. Blessed are the
merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart: for
they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called
the children of God. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice
sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."' Finally there is an application
of these beatitudes to the conditions in which the disciples must expect to
live in this world. "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and
persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for My sake:
Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven; for so they
persecuted the prophets that were before you:"
'Ma't. 6:3-10; Luke 6:20-22. a Matt. 5:11-12; Luke 6:22-23.
CHAPTER XI
THE DOCTRINAL CONTENT IN THE MESSAGE OF JESUS
PART II : The Trinity and the Incarnation
1. The
Incarnation and the Trinity in the teaching of Jesus.
The central contention in all of that teaching for which Jesus of Nazareth
demanded the assent of divine faith was His assertion that He was actually a
divine person, distinct from the Father and yet perfectly equal to Him in
all things, while still a third divine Person, designated as the Holy Ghost,
proceeded both from the Father and from the Son and thus was perfectly
distinct from both of them, while He was coequal to Them in the perfection
of His divinity. This teaching was to form the distinctive doctrine of that
kingdom of which He, Jesus of Nazareth, was the founder and the head.
Nothing could be clearer, from an examination of those reliable historical
documents in which the teachings of Jesus are recorded, than the fact that
He claimed to be the Son of the living God, in a sense at once distinct from
and infinitely superior to the manner in which other men could possess
divine sonship. While He was taught this, He obviously was and asserted
Himself to be a man, possessing the full perfection of human nature. He
claimed for Himself a double series of attributes. As man he could advance
in wisdom and age and grace with God and men. (Luke 2:52) He could be
wearied. (John 4:6) Finally, He could suffer and die. But as God He was
eternal, the master of the angels and of the created universe, immortal and
forever glorious. The words of Jesus, recorded in the four canonical gospels
and mirrored in the abiding tradition current among His disciples after His
death, show very clearly that He claimed this divine dignity.
2. The
divinity of Jesus and the science of apologetics.
In dealing with the divinity of Jesus in the science of apologetics, we
must realize exactly what we seek to know about it for the purposes of this
study. In the first place, it is not within the competence of apologetics to
demonstrate that Jesus was really God. The truth of the Incarnation remains
one of the great central Christian mysteries. It is one of those facts
which men could never know independently or divine revelation, and which
must remain obscure even to those who accept it with the certain assent of
divine faith, "as long as, in this mortal life 'we are absent from the Lord:
for we walk by faith and not by sight.' " (The Vatican Council, The
Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 4; Denzinger, 1796)
Since it is such a truth, it certainly does not lie within the province of
apologetics nor for that matter of any science attainable by man in this
life to show dearly, merely from naturally ascertainable evidence, that
Christ is God. There is a strict theological demonstration of the divinity
of Jesus, but it is of the same sort as all of those other demonstrations
which belong to the body of the science of sacred theology. This science is
competent to show, from the documents of the deposit of faith itself, that
the thesis, Jesus Christ is God, expresses a truth actually contained in
this same deposit of faith. It can show, likewise, that the denial of this
statement would imply a rejection of the other truths which enter into the
content of that revelation which we accept on the authority of God Himself.
Or, to put the matter in another way, the science of sacred theology, in its
special dogmatic treatise on the Incarnation, can derive the conclusion,
Jesus Christ is God, by a proper syllogistic process, utilizing as a
principle of scientific knowledge one or more statements contained in the
complexus of Catholic dogma. Such a proof, however, does not fall within the
province of apologetics. Rather, the dogma of the divinity of Jesus is one
of those truths, the rational credibility of which is meant to be
demonstrated in the process of apologetics.
3. Two
functions of this teaching in apologetics.
In the demonstration of credibility, which is the central and essential
function of the science of apologetics, the treatment of the divinity of
Jesus can be taken up from two distinct angles. In the first place, we can
show that Jesus of Nazareth declared Himself to be a divine Person in order
to lend weight to our demonstration that Jesus of Nazareth obviously
declared that the message He brought to men was actually revealed by God,
and as such to be received by all with the assent of divine faith. In order
that this demonstration may be effective, it must be such as to appeal to
any man who is able to interpret and judge the dicta of history.
In the same way, it belongs to the science of apologetics, as it is at
present constituted, to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth taught that He
was God in order precisely to show that there was a definite and individual
religious teaching proposed by Him as divinely revealed. This statement
obviously was one which brought with it tremendous implications, both in the
doctrinal and in the purely practical order. Obviously the conduct of the
followers of Christ, directed by Him, would have been quite different if He
had not openly and clearly asserted that He was the natural and proper Son
of God. Moreover, all the teaching on the life of God and on the dependence
of creatures upon Him acquires a new meaning in the light of this assertion.
Thus there would be no proper demonstration of the fact that Jesus really
taught a definite religious system which could be shown as credible without
a proof that He declared Himself actually divine.
Again this demonstration is meant to be attainable in the light of purely
natural evidence. Prescinding from the obvious fact (ascertainable in the
light of sacred theology) that grace is really requisite for a successful
approach to divine faith, the proof that Jesus declared Himself to be the
true and natural Son of God would not be in any way effective, were it not
attainable in the natural process of human reason. Consequently in this
chapter, as in those which have gone before, we shall utilize the dicta of
sacred scriptures, and in particular the citations from the four canonical
gospels, not in so far as these are inspired utterances, but only in so far
as they are statements contained in documents of demonstrable historical
reliability.
4. The
claim of divinity and the gospel sources.
In dealing with the historical evidence toward Jesus' assertion of His own
divinity, we must remember that there is a great deal of difference between
the attitude modern critics take with reference to the statement of this
fact in the synoptics and the declarations in the gospel according to St.
John and in the Epistles of St. Paul. No one could deny, from even a cursory
reading of the fourth gospel, that according to its teaching Jesus of
Nazareth obviously proposed Himself as God, the monotheistic Lord of the
Jews. As a matter of fact, the author states explicitly that his purpose in
writing this narrative had been to show the divinity of Jesus. "But these
are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God:
and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31) The only
resource of those who refuse to concede the New Testament teaching about
Christ as God has been to reject in toto the historical value of the
fourth gospel. Some evidence of the scientific worth of such procedure,
carried on in the face of overwhelming testimony from critical sources in
our own time, may be gained from the fact that one, at least, of those who
flatly reject the historicity of St. John takes seriously one of the
Talmudic stories about Jesus, utilizing a source which has been rejected as
historical even by the Jews themselves.
On the other hand, certain writers have attempted to show that the synoptic
gospels contain no clear indication that Jesus ever predicated the divine
dignity of Himself. Usually this result is obtained by the amazingly simple
process of rejecting as later interpolations any and all passages which
militate against their own views. Such procedure may have seemed serious in
the mid-nineteenth century, when the imagination of "higher critics" was
allowed to run wild, unhampered by such prosaic realities as versions and
codices. But it is of little moment in the background of comparatively
mature scientific mentality of our own times. The situation in which the
"Catholic connections" of a scholar would militate against recognition of
his work belongs to an age which is fortunately past.
However, because of the
claims which have been made in this direction, it is of importance for the
apologist to show that the synoptic gospels themselves carry dear
indications that Jesus actually claimed to be divine.
5. The
gospel of the infancy.
In the first place, the synoptic gospels show that others denominated Jesus
as the "Son of God." The gospel of the infancy shows that He was hailed as
such by the angel of the Annunciation. "He shall be great, and shall be
called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the
throne of David His father: and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for
ever. . . And the angel answering said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And
therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son
of God." St. Elizabeth greeted her cousin, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as
"the mother of my Lord." (Luke 1:32,35) The angel who brought the news
of the birth of Jesus to the shepherds outside of Bethlehem announced Him as
the "Lord," a title which was reserved among the Jewish people for the
divinity. "For this day is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord,
in the city of David.” (Luke 2:11)
6. The
Temptation of the Son of God.
In the temptation of Jesus, as recounted in the gospels of SS. Matthew and
Luke, the devil twice addressed the Master "if Thou be the Son of God."
(Matt. 4:3, 6; Luke 4:3, 9) A man possessed by the devil cried out in the
synagogue at Capharnaurn, "Let us alone, what have we to do with Thee,
Jesus of Nazaret? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee, who Thou art,
the Holy One of God." (Luke 4:34; Mark I:24) Many of the devils which He
cast out of the men whom they had possessed went out hailing Him explicitly
as "The Son of God." (Mark 3:2; Luke 4:41) Naturally, Jesus did not
wish to be announced to the world by such testimony, either then in
Capharnaum or later when He was greeted as the "Son of the Most High God"
by the devils whom He cast out in the country of the Gerasens. (Luke 8:28;
Mark 5:6; cf. Matt. 8:29 ) Finally, at the moment of His death on the cross,
the centurion which was in charge of the execution was moved to express his
conviction that Jesus was actually the Son of God. "Now the centurion and
they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the
things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of
God." (Matt. 28:54; Mark 15:39)
7. The
fatherhood of God and Jewish teaching.
All of this testimony was quite independent of the instruction offered by
Jesus Himself. Consequently it is not of immediate value as an indication of
the content of His message regarding Himself, although it is interesting as
showing how He was presented in these various ways to the people with whom
He came into contact. Because it did not follow upon the teaching of Jesus
Himself, there is nothing to indicate here that the title "Son of God"
was used explicitly to designate the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
The fatherhood of God had been recognized in the Old Testament, and insisted
upon quite strongly than before in the literature of the Jewish rabbis.
The line from the one
hundred and second Psalm sums up perfectly the nature of this fatherhood.
"As a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion
on them that fear Him." (Ps. 102:13) As Lebreton points out, the
fatherhood of God was restricted in that portion of divine public revelation
which was granted under the Old Testament to the people of Israel as a unit,
or most to those individuals who were just and faithful within it. There was
nothing of the tenderness of the message contained in the parable of the
prodigal son, (Luke 15:11-32) in which the mercy of God is shown as applied
to sinners, nor was there a distinct revelation of the natural sonship of
the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Consequently, at the most, we can
see in the indications of the divine Sonship of Jesus, made by those men who
had not come under the influence of His teaching, an exalted notion of the
messianic dignity. However, it is well to note that the term "Son of God"
was not applied to the Messias, at least in the popular terminology. On the
occasion when Jesus was greeted enthusiastically on His entrance into
Jerusalem that first Palm Sunday, He was hailed by the populace as the Son
of David, but not as the Son of God. (Matt. 21:9 :9 ; Mark 11:9-10; Luke
14:38)
8. The
attitude of the Apostles.
More important then are the words of the Apostles and the other disciples of
Jesus, recorded in the synoptic gospels. Before his definitive vocation as
an Apostle, St. Peter had responded to the miraculous draft of fishes by
speaking to Jesus as "Lord." "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O
Lord?” (Luke 5:8) However, after hearing His teaching, and after having
witnessed the miracle of His walking upon the water of the Sea of Galilee,
the disciples who were in the boat together "came and adored Him saying:
Indeed Thou art the Son of God." (Matt. 14:33) Quite similar is the
reaction of the twelve to the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves
and the fishes, the subsequent Eucharistic discourse, and the desertion of
the unfaithful disciples which has been set down in the gospel according to
St. John. "After this many of His disciples went back: and walked no more
with Him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon
Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go: Thou hast the words of
eternal life; and we have believed and have known that Thou are the Christ
the Son of God." (John 6:67-70) It is interesting to note here that the
received Greek text carries the words "the Holy One of God" rather than the
formula given in the Vulgate.
In this instance the
Greek reading would seem to be preferred, although the sense does not differ
from that of the formula found in the Vulgate.
9. The
confession of Peter.
Much more solemn than any of the other pronouncements was that given by St.
Peter in the name of the other disciples in the region of Caesarea Philippi.
It is recorded that, after Jesus had asked the Apostles concerning the
current ideas relative to His identity, their responses brought Him to
inquire of them, "But who do you say that I am. Simon Peter answered and
said: Thou are Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matt. 16:15-16) The
whole tone of the narrative, showing the joy of Jesus occasioned by this
confession of Peter, His insistence that this truth could only have been
given to Him by God, and the promises which He made to the prince of the
apostles, and through him to the Church which He was engaged in founding;
all of these constitute a definite indication that the dignity which Peter
had predicated of Him was something far greater than the mere messianic
office.
The previous texts which have been cited, and the narrative portion of the
first chapter in the gospel according to St. John show us very clearly that
the Apostles had, from the very beginning, been accustomed to consider their
Master as the Messias, and as the king of Israel. The entire context of the
narration which describes this event, not only in St. Matthew, but also in
the other two synoptics (Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21) indicates very clearly
that a new phase in the teaching process of Jesus had set in by reason of
this confession. This truth, specially revealed by God, "Blessed art
thou, Simon BarJona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee,
but My Father who is in heaven," (Matt. 16:17) was the statement that
Jesus was distinctly the natural Son of the living God, a divine Person,
whose relations with the Father were infinitely superior to those which
could be enjoyed by any creature, even the most perfect.
The parallel passages in the other two synoptic gospels do not give the
confession of St. Peter at the same length as does the verse of St. Matthew.
(Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20) However, no serious critic at the present time calls
the authenticity of the text in Matthew into question. It is perfectly
consonant with the consequences which are described, both in this gospel and
in the two others, in such a way that it is much easier to see and explain
the completeness of Matthew in this instance than it can be to understand
the brevity of the other two. In all three of these gospels the scene in
Caesarea is attached to the prophecy concerning the sufferings and death of
Jesus, which had not hitherto been clearly stated. (Matt. 16:22-23; Mark
8:31-33; Luke 9:9-22) Likewise, in all of the three synoptics it is
connected with a special insistence upon the necessity of following Jesus,
(Matt. 16:24-27; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-26) and the recital of the
Transfiguration, (Matt. 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36) hence it is
obvious that the confession of St. Peter was, in the minds of all three
synoptic writers, an event of tremendous magnitude in the preaching of the
Christian message. Certainly it could not have been so, were it merely a
recognition of the messianic office of Jesus. The context of the entire
gospel story shows that it must have been a profession of faith in His
divinity.
10. The
voice of the Father.
The synoptic evangelists record that at the very outset of the public life
of Jesus God Himself explicitly recognized in Jesus His well-beloved and
only Son. At His baptism by John the Baptist there came "a voice from
heaven saying: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." (Matt.
3:17; Mark 1:12; Luke 3:22) The same message was repeated in the presence of
the three most privileged Apostles on the occasion of the Transfiguration,
an event which all the three synoptic writers connect with the confession of
St. Peter. "And lo a voice out of the cloud saying: This is My beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him." (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7;
Luke 9:35) In each case the Greek word which is translated as "well beloved"
carries with it the obvious connotation that Jesus is the Son of God in a
way which is utterly unique and infinitely remote from the manner in which
any creature whatsoever could be termed a child of God.
11. Jesus
prepared His hearers for the doctrine of His divinity.
Naturally, from the point of view of apologetics, by far the most important
testimony to Jesus' claim that He was divine is to be found in the words of
the Master as these are recorded in the gospels. As a matter of fact the
three Synoptics insist upon this fact almost as clearly as does the gospel
of St. John itself. The teaching of the divinity of Jesus forms a central
theme, apart from which the texts themselves would be utterly pointless. The
insistence of Jesus upon the fact that He was God is shown in the attitude
which He manifested toward His heavenly Father and in the comparisons which
He drew between Himself and creatures. It is shown in His assumption of the
prerogatives and the attributes of the divinity and in His explicit
declaration that He was the only-begotten Son of God.
It is a matter of record that Jesus insisted upon the fact of His divinity
much more clearly and in a more public manner during the latter portion of
His public life than He had at the beginning. To explain this some modern
writers have invented the myth of a "growing divine consciousness in Jesus."
Actually the same reasons which motivated a gradual revelation of the
messianic dignity were such as to influence a still more deliberate
manifestation of the divinity of Jesus. The absolute monotheism of the Jews,
coupled with official distrust of a Man who declared Himself as the Messias
while rejecting the appurtenances which the Jewish tradition had ascribed
to the messenger of God would obviously prevent an effective announcement of
the divinity of Jesus to those who were unprepared to receive that
announcement. The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no basis in
the text of the four gospels for the assertion that Jesus only gradually
came to believe that He was the Son of God. Any attempt, therefore, to read
such a meaning into these documents must run counter to all of the demands
of critical science.
12. The
glorification of the Father.
The Synoptic gospels recount five occasions on which Jesus explicitly
declared Himself to be the only-begotten Son of God. In the first place,
there is the striking passage which describes the glorification which Jesus
rendered to the Father after the seventy-two disciples had returned to Him,
joyous over the successful accomplishments of the mission which He had
entrusted to them. "At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to
Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things
from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea,
Father: for so hath it seemed good in Thy sight. All things are delivered to
Me by My Father. And no one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any
one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to
reveal to Him." (Matt. 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22 ) It is easy to see that
in this statement, recorded as having been made to the intimate circle of
the disciples, we have as clear an indication of the divinity of Jesus as in
any passage which is to be found in the fourth gospel. In this passage the
Son is described as fully equal to the Father, and moreover as the bearer of
that revelation in the light of which man can find the only knowledge of the
Father which is available to him in this world.
13. The
Parable of the Evil Husbandmen.
The second explicit declaration of the divine Sonship of Jesus is to be
found in the parable of the vineyard and the husbandmen. Jesus intended this
story as a striking rebuke to His enemies, and it is recounted that they
were not slow to see its meaning. After Jesus had told of the many servants
sent by the Lord of the vineyard to the husbandmen for the purpose of
receiving from these husbandmen the fruits of His own property, He said.
"Therefore having yet one Son, most dear to Him: He also sent Him unto them
last of all, saying: They will reverence My Son. But the husbandmen said one
to another: This is the Heir: come, let us kill Him: and the inheritance
shall be ours." (Mark 12:6-7; Matt. 21:37-38) The chief priests and the
Pharisees knew at once that this story applied to them. They knew, too, that
in making this declaration, Jesus was stating explicitly that His position
with reference to God was quite distinct from that of the prophets and the
just men of long ago, the "servants" whom the Lord of the vineyard had sent
to mankind. As the only-begotten and dearly beloved Son of God He was
obviously claiming divine honors and dignity. It was for this reason that
they sought to lay hands upon Him, and would have done so but for the
multitude who re'verenced the Master as a prophet. (Matt. 21;46; Mark 12:12)
14. The
End of the World.
The third explicit declaration of Jesus to the effect that He was the Son of
God which is recorded on the pages of the Synoptics is to be found in His
teaching on the time of the end of the world. "But of that day or hour no
man knoweth, neither, the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father.”
(Mark 13:32) At first sight it might appear that this text speaks of a
certain inequality between the Son and the Father, and implies an
inferiority of the former with respect to the latter. The Arian heretics
used this text in their futile attempt to demonstrate that the Son of God
was merely a creature. The point of the matter is, however, that in this
text, as in the others which have been cited, Jesus names Himself as the Son
precisely with reference to the heavenly Father. The obvious implication, in
the light of the previous declarations of Jesus, was that this department of
knowledge belonged in a special way to the Father since it did not
constitute a portion of that message which the Son was authorized to bring
to men. A comparison with the first set of texts which have been alleged in
this section (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22) should make this very clear.
Furthermore, as Lebreton notes, we must not allow the controversial
background of such texts to blind us to the paramount fact that they express
the relation of the Son of God to His eternal Father.
15. Before
Caiphas.
The fourth, and by far the most striking statement of the divinity of Jesus
to be recorded in the Synoptics is to be found in the solemn response of
Jesus to His accusers before the court of the high priest in Jerusalem the
night before He died. The gospel according to St. Luke tells us that there
were two explicit questions put to Jesus, the first of which obviously had
reference to His messianic office, and the second to His divinity. His
condemnation followed upon His response to the second question. "And as
soon as it was day, the ancients of the people, and the chief priests and
scribes came together, and they brought Him into their council, saying: If
Thou be the Christ, tell us. And He said to them: If I shall tell you, you
will not believe Me: And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer Me,
nor let Me go. But hereafter the Son of man shall be sitting on the right
hand of the power of God. Then said they all: Art Thou the Son of God? Who
say, that I am.” (Luke 22:66-70. C. also Matt. 28:63-66; Mark 14:61-62)
We learn from the first and second gospels that Jesus was condemned on the
charge of blasphemy. This charge could not have been incurred if He had
merely ascribed to Himself the dignity and the office of the Messias. As a
matter of fact there were others both before and after His time who assumed
this title, and who were certainly not punished for blasphemy by the
Sanhedrin. The count against Him was that He had made Himself God, and for
that reason the unbelieving enemies of Jesus willed that He should die, and
found the cause for His condemnation. The first gospel tells us that the
question was put to Jesus in the form of an adjuration, by the leader of
the Jewish community, the high priest himself. "And the high priest said
to Him: I adjure Thee by the living God, that Thou tell us if Thou be the
Christ, the Son of God?" (Matt. 26:63) No question could have been more
solemn nor more explicit. The response of Jesus was clear. In the face of
the most horrible death which the perverted ingenuity of man has been able
to devise, He affirmed solemnly and under oath that He was the Son of that
God who was worshiped in Israel.
16. The
commission of the Apostles.
The final assertion by Jesus of His own divine sonship is to be found in the
formula for that baptism in which the believers in His teaching are to find
regeneration. "Going therefore teach ye all nations: baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt.
28:19) On this occasion it was obvious, as it was on the others we have
mentioned, that the Son to whom Jesus referred was none other than Himself.
In inserting His name into the baptismal formula, Jesus was teaching His
followers that His role in the work of regeneration was equal to that of
the Father and the Holy Ghost. The work of rebirth in the spiritual order
was, according o the continued teaching of Jesus, something which could be
brought about only through the divine power. In this baptismal formula He
teaches that the Son, as a distinct Person, has the same divinity as the
Father Himself.
17. Jesus
claimed the attributes of God.
The same truth, that of the divine sonship and the divinity of Jesus, is
strongly implied in many another passage of the synoptic gospels. In the
first place, Jesus indicated in the question which He put to the Jews
concerning the descent of the Messias from David the king that actually He
enjoyed a dignity far greater than any which could be derived by the fact of
descent from the great ruler of Israel. (Matt. 22:42-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke
20:41-44) The fact that David called Him Lord was an indication that He was
the Son of One far greater than even David.
Furthermore, Jesus attributed to Himself obvious attributes proper to God
alone, properties which a mere man could never claim for himself without
incurring the guilt of blasphemy. First of all, He claimed for Himself
superiority to everything which the Jews of His time regarded as sacred and
most excellent. Solomon was thought to be almost the embodiment of human
wisdom, the recipient from God of a knowledge which surpassed that conceded
to any other creature. Yet openly Jesus asserted that He was "greater
than Solomon." (Matt. 12:42) Jonas the prophet was, as such, admittedly
the bearer of the divine message, a man who was privileged and called by God
to bring His teaching to the children of men. Jesus clearly claimed that He
was "greater than Jonas." (Matt. 12:41) He reminded the Jews that
David himself had regarded his descendant who was to be the Messias as his
own superior, something which most certainly would not have been true if he
had owed his position to his generation from the head of the dynasty. It was
the contention of Jesus that John the Baptist was a prophet, and even more
than a prophet, by far the greatest in that long series of heralds sent by
God to announce the coming of the Messias. And yet Jesus declared that even
the least in His own kingdom was superior to John. (Luke 7:24-28; Matt.
11:7-14)
The dignity of Jesus, which He attributed to Himself as a part of that
message which He proposed to man as divinely revealed is far greater than
that of the very angels of God. He speaks of the angels as His own, His
ministers or servants whose function it will be to assist Him in the work of
the judgment. (Matt. 16:27. Cf. Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; Matt. 13:39) As the
Lord of the angels, obviously Jesus attributed to Himself a position and a
dignity far superior to that which could be enjoyed by any mortal. For in
the Old Testament the angels had been termed the servants of God Himself.
They were of God, and as a result the individual who constituted Himself as
their Lord and Master was actually and plainly claiming a divine dignity.
(Cf. Gen. 26:7, 9; Exod. 23:33; 32:34 seq.)
Openly Jesus proclaimed that He was greater than the temple of God in
Jerusalem, by far the holiest of those elements which entered into the
worship of God among the Jews. Moreover He announced Himself as the Lord of
the Sabbath, and thus the Master of that law by which the Sabbath itself had
been instituted, the law of God Himself. "But I tell you that there is
here a greater than the temple. . . . For the Son of man is Lord, even of
the Sabbath.” (Matt. 12:6,8)
18. The
love due to God is demanded by Jesus.
In the synoptic writings as well as in the fourth gospel, Jesus of Nazareth
is represented as demanding from man a love, obedience, and loyalty far
surpassing those manifested to even the most cherished and worthy among
human superiors. He demands that loyalty to Him should supersede even that
love which is lavished upon a man's parents. It is obvious that only the
love of the living God could be objectively more intense than that which is
meant to be shown to the members of one's own family. Furthermore, He
demands, as the manifestation of the love which men have for Him, a life of
abnegation of self and real suffering. The words of Christ are hard, and are
meant to be so, since there never has been a man in the history of the world
who has demanded of his friends that which Jesus expects of those who love
Him, and who are to receive from Him the gift of eternal life. "If any
man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My
disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after Me can not
be My disciple." (Luke 14:24-27; Matt. 10:37-38. Cf. John 12:25; Matt,
16:24-27; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 9:23-26) Jesus insisted time and time again on
the absolute primacy of that love which His followers are to give Him, and
He made the strength of that love the condition of the reward which He was
to give to the disciples. "And Peter began to say unto Him: Behold we
have left all things, and have followed Thee. Jesus answering said Amen I
say to you, there is no man who hath left house, or brethren or sisters, or
father or mother, or children or lands for My sake and for the gospel, who
shall not receive a hundred times as much, now in this time: houses and
brethren and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions,
and in the world to come, life everlasting." (Mark 10:28-30; Luke
18:28-30; Matt. 19:27-29)
In the line with this demand for supreme love, of the sort which could be
given only to God, Jesus coupled a statement that He was actually the center
and the object of the religious life. Profession of faith in Him is declared
essential for the attainment of eternal life, while a denial of Him and of
His teaching will result inevitably in spiritual ruin. "Every one
therefore that shall confess Mc before men, I will also confess Him before
My Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny Me before men, I will
also deny him before My Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 10:32-33; Luke
12:8-9. Cf. also Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:36) According to the
explicit teaching of Jesus, the man who follows Him will save his soul, and
thus accomplish the one essential task for which he is placed in this world.
"Then Jesus said to His disciples: If any man will come after Me, let him
deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For he that will save
his life, shall lose it; and he that shall lose his life for My sake, shall
find it. For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and
suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his
soul?" (Matt. 16:24-26; Mark 8:34-36; Luke 9:23-25) It is interesting
to note that, in the parallel passage in the second gospel, the reward is
promised to the man who will lose his life for the sake of the gospel. Now
the gospel, in the terminology of Jesus, was precisely that message which He
proposed to men as divinely revealed. Consequently the words of Jesus, as
reported by the evangelists, tell us that He placed Himself on the same
level with that communication which He professed to give to mankind. The
doctrine was something in defense of which a man might properly give up his
life, because the doctrine was divine. The reward of eternal life is
promised, in the teaching of Jesus, not only to the man who follows the law
of God in general, but precisely to the one who is willing to leave all
things rather than to forsake Him.
19. The
function of Jesus at the last judgment.
The synoptic writers tell, as clearly as does St. John himself, the function
of Jesus at the last judgment. It is clear then that He attributed to
Himself a work which was clearly divine in all of its implications, the
actual judgment of all men on the last day. According to the actual teaching
of Jesus, as set down on the pages of St. Matthew, "Then shall appear the
sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all of the tribes of the
earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of
heaven with much power and majesty." (Matt. 24:30; Mark 13:27; Luke
21:27. Cf. Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26) Jesus spoke of the men of this
world as responsible to Him, and to be judged by Him in His own right. This
contention would have been absolutely unthinkable unless He had claimed for
Himself divine honors and dignity.
20. Jesus
and the divine law.
Furthermore, it is obvious that Jesus claimed to act as the supreme Lawgiver
of the universe. On His own responsibility and by His own power He claimed
to change and perfect the ordinances which were admittedly divine in their
origin, in spite of the fact that some of the precepts which He rejected
were those merely human in their nature, prescriptions which had been
introduced by the tradition of the elders among the Jewish people. In
altering the divine positive precepts, He put Himself on exactly the same
level as the God of the Old Testament. "You have heard that it was said
to you of old. . . . But I say to you." (Cf. Ch. IX) Clearly in these
instances Jesus claimed for Himself the divine dignity.
21. Jesus
and the forgiveness of sin.
Another power which He claimed for Himself was that of remitting offenses
which had been committed against God Himself. When His enemies stated that
the forgiving of sin was distinctly a divine prerogative, He made no effort
to deny this assertion, but performed a miracle in order to demonstrate to
them, and to all men, that He possessed this 'power. "And when Jesus had
seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are
forgiven thee. And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and
thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? He blasphemeth. Who
can forgive sins but God only? Which. Jesus presently knowing in His spirit,
that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these
things in your hearts? Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy
sins are forgiven thee: or to say: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk? But
that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins
(He saith to the sick of the palsy), I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed,
and go into thy house. And immediately he arose: and taking up his bed, went
his way in the sight of all, so that all wondered, and glorified God,
saying: We never saw the like." (Mark 2:5-12; Luke 5:20-26; Matt. 9:2-8)
Again in the house of Simon the Pharisee, Jesus forgave the sins of the
repentant woman who came to Him to pour ointment upon Him and to manifest
the sorrow she felt for the sins she had committed in the past. "And He said
to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee. And they that sat at meat with Him began
to say within themselves: Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And He said
to the woman: Thy faith hath made thee safe: go in peace." (Luke 7:48-50 )
Jesus also claimed, on His own authority and by His own right, to
communicate the power of forgiving sins to others, who were His followers.
On His own authority He promised this power, both to Peter as an individual,
and later to the members of the apostolic college. "And I will give to
thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt
bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 16:19)
"Amen I say to you whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also
in heaven and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in
heaven." (Matt. 18:18) "He said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you
shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:22-23)
22. Jesus
performed miracles by His own power.
Jesus also evidently claimed divine power, the power which is proper to
God, when He acted to perform miracles in His own name and by His own
authority. It is to be noted that elsewhere in the sacred books, where there
is evidence of the performance of a miracle, this work is done explicitly by
the power and with the authority of God Himself. The wonders which Moses
performed before the king of Egypt were done in accordance with the specific
directions which be had received from God. "And the Lord said to Moses
and Aaron: When Pbarao shall say to you: Show signs: thou shalt say to
Aaron: Take thy rod and cast it down before Pharao, and it shall be turned
into a serpent. So Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharao, and did as the Lord
had commanded. And Aaron took the rod before Pharao and his servants, and it
was changed into a serpent." (Gen. 7:9-10. The narrative as a whole is
contained in this book, Chs. V1I-XII)
Throughout the Old and the New Testaments, those who are represented as
working miracles for the sake of the true doctrine are always shown as
acting under the direct instructions of God or at least as calling upon God
for the fulfillment of their design. Actually the miracles performed by the
Apostles and their successors were performed in the name, and by the power
of Jesus Himself, as was the healing of the lame man in the Beautiful Gate
of the temple in Jerusalem. "But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none:
but what I have, I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
arise and walk.” (Acts 3:6)
Only in the case of Jesus Himself do we find a different mode of procedure.
As He had altered the divine law in His own name and by His own authority,
He considered Himself able to control the physical laws of the created
universe without having reference to anyone else. He taught the Apostles
that one species of diabolical possession was to be overcome only through
the employment of prayer and fasting, but it is not recorded that He Himself
made any special preparation of the expulsion of this devil. (Matt.
17:18-21; Mark 9:25-29; Luke 9:41-43) The only time He is represented as
having spoken to the Father before the performance of a miracle, He stated
explicitly that this was done, not because any prayer was needed, but for
the sake of the people who stood about. "Jesus, lifting up His eyes,
said: Father, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast heard Me; and I knew that
Thou hearest Me always, but because of the people who stand about have I
said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." (John 11:41-42)
Customarily, as the text of the gospels shows very clearly, Jesus
performed miracles by a simple word of command. The fact that He went about
His work in this way constituted a manifest indication that He considered
Himself endowed with the divine power as His own. Unlike others who had
worked miracles, Christ did so by his own power.
23. The
mission of the Holy Ghost.
Again the fourth gospel shows that Jesus of Nazareth taught His divine
dignity by the fact that He is recorded as promising to send the Holy Ghost,
Himself obviously a divine Person according to the teaching of Jesus.
"But when the Paraclete cometh whom I will send you from the Father, the
Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of
Me." (John 25:26)
24. Jesus
was adored as God.
Finally Jesus of Nazareth accepted from men the adoration which is licitly
given only to God Himself.
More than that, He
actually answered the entreaties of those who approached Him in this way.
"And behold a leper came and adored Him, saying: Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou
canst make me clean. And Jesus stretching forth His hand, touched him
saying: I will. Be thou made clean. And forthwith the leprosy was cleansed."
(Matt. 8:2-3; Mark 5:40-42; Luke 5:12-13) He accepted the adoration of Mary
Magdalen, with the holy women associated with her, (Matt. 28:9) and of the
entire group of the disciples, including those who hitherto had not believed
the fact of His resurrection. (Matt. 28:17. In this case the critically
accepted Greek text is clearer than the Vulgate)
25. The
divinity of Christ and the fourth gospel.
However it is to the fourth gospel that we must go for the most extensive
report of the teaching of Jesus to the effect that He was God. The theme of
this gospel was summed up by St. John in the very first verse. "In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
(John 1:1) The fourth gospel recounts that John the Baptist testified of
Jesus that "of His fulness we all have received,” (John 1:16)
insisting that the spiritual life which men are privileged to live is
something which they derive from that One who is its principle and cause,
the One who possesses by right that sort of activity which others have only
by the favor of the Most High. St. John the Evangelist, who was a disciple
of John the Baptist before he was privileged to follow Jesus, reports that
the great precursor himself had announced that Jesus is the Son of God.
"And I saw: and I gave testimony, that this is the Son of God." (John
1:34) It was thus that Nathanael greeted Jesus when he was called to the
presence of the Master by his friend Philip. "Nathanael answered Him,
and said: Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of Israel.”
(John 1:49)
Jesus spoke of the temple of God in Jerusalem as being in a special way the
house of His Father, a house over which He had charge. "And to them that
sold doves, He said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of My
Father a house of traffic." (John 2:16. See also Matt. 21:2-13;
Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46) To Nicodemus, a disciple who never
abandoned Him, although he feared to walk openly with Jesus at the outset of
His preaching, the Master said, "Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak
what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our
testimony.” (John 3:2) The content of the preaching which Jesus gave to
His fellow countrymen was obviously a doctrine about God Himself. In the
interview with Nicoclemus He asserted that this truth was something which He
possessed by reason of evidence. It was something manifest to Him. It was
clear enough to all of the Jews, with their insistence upon the spirituality
of the one God, that this God could be seen by no mere man, with the natural
operation of his faculties at least. Consequently the claim by Jesus that He
had seen God was in itself, in view of the background in which the statement
was made, a clear indication that He was a divine Person.
In the same interview Jesus insisted upon His pre-existence, a condition
which is quite incompatible with the natural status of a creature. According
to His teaching, He had descended from heaven. "And no man bath ascended
into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in
heaven." (John 3:13) The most striking feature of this instruction was
Jesus' assertion that He was the only-begotten Son of God, a divine Person
who had come into the world for the purpose of saving it, and in whom men
would have to have faith if they would achieve the goal of eternal
happiness. "For God so loved the world, as to give His only-begotten Son:
that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have life
everlasting.“ (John 3:16) When Jesus spoke of Himself as the
only-begotten Son, He brought out the infinite distance which separated His
relation to the heavenly Father from that of other men who might still speak
of God as their Father. His son- ship was unique, according to His own
teaching. It is noteworthy that, during the course of His public life, He
spoke of the living God as His own Father, and as the Father of those who
were His disciples. Yet He never spoke of our Father, except on that
occasion when He taught the Apostles the use of the Lord's Prayer. Then, of
course, the words were not meant to be used by Him, but only by those who
were to petition the Father in His name, and in that petition win the reward
which God intended to give them. As far as His own terminology was
concerned, God was "My Father and your Father. In this way He carried
throughout His preaching and instruction the truth which He enunciated so
clearly during this interview He granted to Nicodemus.
26. The
Jews persecuted Jesus because they understood Him to claim divine dignity.
St. John records that the Jews first persecuted Jesus because of His
violation of those edicts which they had inserted into the fabric of the
divine law itself, and because of His authoritative altering of those
portions of the moral code of the Old Testament which were to be perfected
in the new dispensation. But very soon their hatred of the Master was to be
motivated by an even stronger reason. "But Jesus answered them: My Father
worketh until now, and I work. Hereupon therefore the Jews sought the more
to kill Him, because He did not only break the Sabbath, but also said God
was His Father, making Himself equal to God. Then Jesus answered and said to
them: Amen, amen I say unto you: the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but
what He seeth the Father doing: for what things socver He doth, these the
Son also doth in like manner. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him
all things which Himself doth: and greater works than these will He show
Him, that you may wonder. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth
life: so the Son also giveth life to whom He will. For neither doth the
Father judge any man: but hath given all judgment to the Son. That all men
may honor the Son, as they honor the Father: he who honoreth not the Son,
honoreth not the Father who bath sent Him." (John 5:17-23)
No indication could possibly be clearer. In the face of those who sought His
life because He made these statements, Jesus of Nazareth openly declared
Himself to be the Son of God, the equal of the Father, One who was able to
perform all of those works which the Father Himself could accomplish.
Furthermore, according to His express teaching, it is the intention and the
will of God that the Son should be honored by men in the same way as the
Father Himself. Far from implying any inferiority of the Son with reference
to the Father, the passage clearly indicates that the Second Person of the
Blessed Trinity proceeds from the First. The enemies of Jesus hated Him too
much to be confused about the direction of His teaching, They knew, as well
as did His disciples, that He had openly proclaimed Himself as divine.
In the discourse which followed upon the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus
stated the fact that He was the Source of the supernatural life by which men
might live in blessedness with God forever. "Labor not for the meat which
perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son
of man will give you. For Him hath the Father sealed.” (John 6:27) The
cause of eternal life was precisely the gift of the Son, and certainly the
Son could not present as a gift that which was not His by right. He had
stated before however, in a previous discourse to the Jews, that the very
life of the Father was His, as something which He had received from the
Father and which He enjoyed as did the Father Himself. "For as the Father
hath life in Himself: so He hath given to the Son also to have life in
Himself." (John 5:26)
It was the contention of Jesus that a knowledge of Himself was actually a
knowledge of God the Father, and therefore that He was of the selfsame
essence with the Father. "They said therefore to Him: Where is Thy
Father? Jesus answered: Neither Me do you know, nor My Father: if you did
know Me, perhaps you would know My Father also." (John 8:18) He told of
His own relation to the Father. "From God I proceeded and came: for I
came not of Myself, but He sent Me." (John 8:42) This procession from
God is eternal rather than temporal. "Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I
say to you, before Abraham was made, I am." (John 8:58)
To the Jews who questioned Him while He walked in the portico of Solomon,
Jesus indicated very clearly that He was consubstantial with the Father.
"I and the Father are One." (John 10:30) When they took steps to stone
Him to death for blasphemy, Jesus upbraided them for their objection to a
term, "son of God" which was quite in conformity with the usage of the Old
Testament. However He made it clear that others were not entitled to be
designated by that term in the same way as was Himself. Furthermore, He
appealed to the miracles which He performed for the justification of His
claims. "The Jews then took up stones to stone Him. Jesus answered them:
Many good works I have showed you from My Father. For which of those works
do you stone Me? The Jews answered Him: For a good work we stone Thee not,
but for blasphemy, and because that Thou being a man, makest Thyself God.
Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said, you are gods? If
He called them gods to whom the word of God was spoken, and the scripture
cannot be broken: Do you say of Him whom the Father bath sanctified and sent
into the world: Thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God? If I
do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do: though you will
not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the
Father is in Me, and I in the Father." (John 10:32-38. Jesus referred to
Ps. 81:6)
27. Jesus
consubstantial with the Father.
The episode of the fatal sickness of Lazarus, which was to terminate in his
being raised from the dead by Jesus, was described by the Master as "not
unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified
by it." (John1I:4) Clearly then He indicated Himself as the recipient of
that glory which belongs to God alone, and thereby acknowledged Himself as
a divine Person. He asserted that to see Him was actually to see the eternal
Father Himself. (John 12:45. Cf. John 14:9)
He acknowledged the propriety of the title "Lord" with which the Apostles
customarily greeted Him, and therefore claimed for Himself a title which was
conceded to the Father Himself among the Hebrew people. "You call Me
Master and Lord: and you say well, for so I am." (John 13:13) Solemnly
He informed His followers that He actually was the life and the truth, and
not merely the bearer of the good tidings to men. "I am the way and the
truth and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by Me." (John 14:6)
The fact of con- substantiality with the Father is repeated to the
disciples, ever more emphatically. "If you had known Me, you would
without doubt have known My Father also: and from henceforth you shall know
Him, and you have seen Him. Philip saith to Him: Lord, show us the Father,
and it is enough for us. Jesus saith to him: So long a time I have been with
you: and you have not known Me? Philip, he that seeth Me, seeth the Father
also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in
the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not
of Myself. But the Father who abideth in Me, He doth the works." (John
14:7-10)
Jesus insisted that both He and the Father exercised, in the same way, the
functions of the inhabitation of the Blessed Trinity in the souls of the
just. "If any one love Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love
him, and We will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” (John
14:23) According to His doctrine, hatred of Him involved hatred of the
heavenly Father Himself. "He that hateth Me: hateth My Father also."
(John 15:23) He stated that He had truly proceeded from the Father. "I
came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again I leave the
world, and I go to the Father.” (John 16:28) Finally the object of His
sacerdotal prayer to the Father was a unity among His disciples which should
be modeled upon and caused by the unity of the divine Persons themselves. In
that unity they are to see the glory of God, which is the glory which Jesus
Himself possessed before the creation of the universe. "And now glorify
Thou Me, 0 Father, with Thyself, with the glory which I had, before the
world was, with Thee." (John 17:5) "That they all may be one, as
Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that
the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." (John 17:21)
Thus there can be no question, after an examination of the reliable
historical sources which are at our disposal, that Jesus of Nazareth
preached a definite religious doctrine, which was not a part of the teaching
current among the people among whom He lived and preached.
He taught that He was
God, a divine Person really distinct from the Father, although
consubstantial with Him. It was His teaching that the Father actually
existed in Him, and He in the Father. He asserted that He proceeded from the
Father, and that He possessed the title of Son of God from all eternity, in
a way in which this title could never be possessed by one who was a creature
of God.
28. The
divinity of the Holy Ghost in the teaching of Jesus.
The teaching of Jesus on His own divinity is completed by what He taught
about the reality and the divinity of the Third Person of the Blessed
Trinity, and Holy Ghost. According to the teaching of Jesus, the Holy Ghost
is a Person at once distinct from the Father and Son and coequal with both
of them in their divinity. He is named, with the Father and with the Son in
the baptismal formula, composed by Jesus Himself as an indication and as a
cause of the spiritual regeneration in men. "Going therefore teach ye all
nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28:19) Baptism involved the forgiveness of sin,
and, as we have seen, Jesus acted upon the knowledge of His contemporaries
that this was essentially a function of the living God. It involved
spiritual regeneration, the giving of a life which was utterly superior to
that which is natural to the children of men. As a result the Persons in the
name of Whom it is given must be those who have the right and the power to
bestow it. They are the Persons who possess this life in themselves, and in
the formula composed by Jesus Himself, the Holy Ghost is named as One of
these Persons. The formula would be absolutely devoid of meaning if the
Holy Ghost were not actually a divine Person, distinct both from the Father
and from the Son.
The divinity of the Holy Ghost is brought out with singular clarity in a
formula which is to be found, with very slight variations, in all three of
the synoptic gospels. "Amen I say to you, that all sins shall be forgiven
unto the sons of men, and the blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme:
But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have
forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin." (Mark 3:28-29;
Matt. 12:31-32; Luke 12:10) A blasphemy is certainly a sin against God. It
would be blasphemous to say that a sin against a creature could receive
forgiveness while one committed against God could not. The open meaning of
this statement by Jesus is that the Holy Ghost is certainly a divine Person,
and that a sin against Him, of the sort which He had found in those who
claimed, against all evidence, that He was possessed of an unclean spirit,
was a sort of offense involving a hardness of heart ordinarily not amenable
to penance.
29. The
personality of the Holy Ghost.
In the teaching of Jesus the Holy Ghost is certainly presented as a Person,
and not merely as the personification of power or wisdom. Definite works,
which could not be accomplished other than through the causality of a
person, are attributed to Him. He is described as bringing about, in a
supernatural way, the conception of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mother.
"And the angel answering said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore
also the Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God."
(Luke 1:35) The conception of Jesus is described in the same way in the
first gospel. "Now the generation of Christ was in this wise: When His
mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child, of the Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just
man, and not being willing publicly to expose her: was minded to put her
away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of
the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her, is
of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 1:18-20)
The Holy Ghost is represented as abiding in the soul of Simeon, the just man
who prophesied about the infant Jesus when Mary and Joseph brought Him to
the temple for the first time. "And behold there was a man in Jerusalem
named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation
of Israel, and the Holy Ghost was in him. And he had received an answer from
the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Christ
of the Lord." (Luke 2:25-26) In this passage the Holy Ghost is
described as answering what could only have been a prayer to the God of
Israel. Furthermore, in the same context the meeting of Simeon with Jesus
and Mary and Joseph, and, by implication at least, the prophesy which he
gave on this occasion, is ascribed to the work of the Holy Ghost, the Third
Person of the Blessed Trinity.
All four of the gospels describe the Holy Ghost as indicating, in a visible
manner, the presence and the dignity of Jesus on the occasion of His baptism
by John the Baptist. "Now it came to pass when all the people were
baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying, heaven was opened: And
the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him: and a voice
came from heaven: Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.”
(Luke 3:21-22. Cf. also Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11)
The fourth gospel carries the testimony of John the Baptist about the same
event. "And John gave testimony saying: I saw the Spirit coming down as a
dove from heaven, and He remained upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He, who
sent me to baptize with water, said to me: He upon whom thou shall see the
Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with the
Holy Ghost. And I saw, and I gave testimony that this is the Son of God.”
(John :32-34)
The implication of this text is clarity itself. The Holy Ghost is obviously
represented as a Person, One qualified to indicate with full authority the
presence of another divine Person. Furthermore, He is described as
performing acts which are not attributed to the Father and the Son. The
voice which pointed out Jesus as the Son could certainly not have been that
of the Holy Ghost, but that of the Father. The One indicated by the voice,
and by the descent of the dove was certainly none other than the Son. (It
goes without saying that in this account there is no trace of
anthropomorphism. The voice of the Father did not belong to Him in the way
that the voice of a man is described to the person who possesses it. God is
a Spirit, and the bodily organs which produce the sound of a voice have no
part in Him. But, because He is the First Cause of the universe, it lies
absolutely within His competence to assume corporeal forms in order to teach
men a lesson which will be brought home to them more effectively through the
use of these signs.) The three synoptics also depict John the Baptist
stating that Jesus was to baptize "in the Holy Ghost and fire."
(Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16)
30. The
Holy Ghost and the message of Jesus.
Jesus attributed the sayings of the Holy Scriptures to the Holy Ghost. Now,
as these were considered as the word of God, it follows that the Person who
is said to be responsible for them as the inspirer of the human author must
be considered to be divine. Thus when Jesus stated that the Holy Ghost was
the source of the statement contained on the pages of the psalms, He was
equivalently declaring Him to be a divine Person. "For David himself
saith by the Holy Ghost: The Lord said to my Lord, sit on My right hand,
until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool." (Mark 12:26. The citation is
from Ps. 109:1)
According to the express promises of Jesus, the Holy Ghost was to exercise
the indubitably personal function of telling the Apostles what they were to
answer to the questions of those who were to persecute them out of a hatred
for the Master. "For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what
you must say." (Luke 12:12; Mark 13:11. In Matt. 10:20 He is called the
Spirit of your Father) It was also to be the function of the Holy Ghost so
to act upon the disciples that, after the death and the ascension of Jesus,
they would recall and understand the message which He had taught them.
"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost? Whom the Father will send in My name, He
will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I
shall have said to you." (John 14:26)
According to Jesus, the Holy Ghost, proceeds from the Father, and is sent by
the Son. "But when the Paradete cometh whom I will send you from the
Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give
testimony of Me." (John 15:26) Actually the Holy Ghost "has received"
from the Son. "But when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will teach
you all truth: For He shall not speak of Himself: but what things so ever He
shall hear, He shall speak: and the things that are to come, He shall show
you. He shall glorify Me: because He shall receive of Mine, and shall show
it to you." (John16:13-14)
Clearly, then, in the central mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation,
Jesus of Nazareth taught a definite doctrine of a religious nature. It is
obvious enough that this teaching, as it stood, had not been put forward by
any other teacher. It is His own, and it is a doctrine for which He might
well appeal to motives of credibility in order to show that this definite
teaching was actually what He claimed it to be, a message supernaturally
communicated by God to man.
CHAPTER XII
THE DOCTRINAL CONTENT IN THE MESSAGE OF JESUS
PART III: The Redemption and the Church
1.
Background of the chapter.
It is the business of the apologist, in dealing with this section of his
science, to demonstrate from the reliable historical records at his
disposal, that Jesus of Nazareth actually preached a religious doctrine
which was not the same as that which was accepted among the Jewish people of
His own time. He does this in order that he may be able to show with clarity
and certitude that Jesus could actually appeal to motives of credibility in
order to prove the authenticity of a definite doctrine as divine
revelation, and then in order to manifest the full efficacy of the motives
which can be alleged in favor of the preaching of Jesus.
In the pursuance of this end we have already seen briefly and for the most
part from the evidence of the four canonical gospels considered as
historical documents rather than as divinely inspired books, the relation of
the doctrine of Jesus to the section of divine public revelation which had
already been made manifest in the preaching of the prophets and the
patriarchs who were His heralds. We have then recounted some of the texts
which illustrate what Jesus taught about the central mysteries of
Christianity, the Trinity and the Incarnation. It remains for us to consider
two sections of His teaching which are intimately connected with these two
mysteries, namely, the statements which He made about the redemption and the
Church.
2.
Importance of teaching on Redemption and the Church in modern apologetics.
In the teaching of Jesus, the work of the redemption is given as the reason
for the Incarnation itself. Moreover the Church which He organized, and of
which He is the perpetual Head is a society essentially devoted to the
carrying out of the work of the redemption. Insistence upon the reality of
the Church is an absolute requisite for the effective use of scientific
apologetics. It so happened, that Jesus promised that His Church would
itself be a motive of credibility, a work which is evidently such as to be
beyond the power of any creature, actual or possible to institute or even to
continue. In the science of apologetics we use the Catholic Church itself as
a criterion of revelation. Thus it is essential to show that Jesus can be
shown to have intended to found such an organization and then actually to
have brought it into being.
Furthermore the objectors against the doctrine of Jesus most prominent and
powerful in our own time stress their denial of any foundation of an
organized Church by Jesus.
When we look into the
background of the many assertions to the effect that Jesus did not offer any
religious teaching which was not then accepted and known by every
well-educated Jew in His own time, we find that opponents of Catholicism are
far more concerned with that portion of the doctrine of the Master which
deals with the kingdom or the Church, than they are with the sections which
treat of strictly speculative verities. If they could succeed in proving
that Jesus never organized a definite religious society which was meant to
exist until the end of time, or at least in creating the assumption that no
scientifically acceptable demonstration could be made in contradiction to
their teachings, then they would have achieved their purpose. They would
have put an obstacle in the way of a successful demonstration of credibility
as applied to Catholic dogma.
3. The
salvific mission of Jesus.
At the very outset of His public life, in the interview which He granted to
Nicodemus, Jesus spoke of the redemption of man as the purpose of the
Incarnation itself, and indicated the manner in which this redemption was to
be brought about. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert; so
must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him, may not
perish, but may have life everlasting. For God so loved the world, as to
give His only-begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish,
but may have life everlasting. For God sent not His Son into the world to
judge the world, but that the world may be saved by Him." (John 3:14-17)
When He first preached at Nazareth, Jesus utilized a dramatic and effective
tactic to assure His fellow townsmen that He was actually the Saviour and
Redeemer, as well as the Prophet, charged with the mission of bringing the
divine message to the children of men. "And He came to Nazareth where He
was brought up: and He went into the synagogue according to His custom on
the Sabbath day, and He rose up to read, And the book of Isaias the prophet
was delivered unto Him. And as He unfolded the book, He found the place
where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me: wherefore He hath
anointed Me, to preach the gospel to the poor He bath sent Me, to heal the
contrite of heart, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the
blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable
year of the Lord, and the day of reward. And when He had folded the book, He
restored it to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all in the
synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them: This day is
fulfilled this scripture in your ears.” (Luke 4:16-21) The Messias
described by Isaias was one destined to accomplish a mission which was
salvific as well as doctrinal. He was expected to heal and liberate men, as
well as to preach to them the doctrine of God. Thus, in claiming the
fulfillment of this prophecy, Jesus explicitly asserted that He was a
Saviour.
4. The
work of Jesus for sinners.
According to His own teaching,.the mission of Jesus was not for those who
were actually just in the sight of God, but rather to those who were averted
from their Creator by sin. Furthermore, it was to result in the conversion
of these sinners, and their regaining of the life of grace which had been
lost to them. "I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance.”
(Luke 5:32; Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17) He rebuked the headstrong reaction of the
Apostles against the Samaritans who had refused to receive them, with the
statement, "The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save.”
(Luke 9:55) Again He insisted that the beneficiaries of His salvific work
were those who were actually lost. "For the Son of man is come to save
that which was lost. . . . Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is
in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt.
18:11,14)
5. The
redemptive death of Jesus in His teaching.
The process of saving the world involves the death of Jesus the Redeemer.
"Even as the Son of man did not come to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give His life a redemption for many" (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45).
He expressed this same doctrine in the analogy of the Good Shepherd. "I
am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd giveth His life for His sheep."
(John 10:11) Jesus announced the manner in which His sacrifice was to be
made. "Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be
betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn Him to
death. And shall deliver Him to the gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and
crucified, and the third day He shall rise again." (Matt. 20:18-19;
Matt. 18:22-23; Luke 18:31-33; 9'43-45; Mark 10:33-34; 9:10-32; 8:31; John
12:23-24) However the sacrifice of His life is to be entirely voluntary on
the part of Jesus, who possesses superhuman control over His bodily life.
"Therefore doth the Father love Me: because I lay down My life, that I
may take it up again. No man taketh it away from Me: but I lay it down of
Myself, and I have power to take it up again. This commandment have I
received from My Father." (John 10:17-18)
This doctrine was so strange to those who had been imbued all during their
lives with the rabbinical doctrines then in vogue, that the disciples
themselves were not able to understand how One who had proclaimed Himself
the Messias and the Son of God could thus suffer ignominiously and die.
"And they understood none of these things, and this word was hid from them,
and they understood not the things that were said." (Luke 18:34) The
rejection and the death of the Messias had been clearly foretold in that
section of the prophecy of Isaias which deals with the servant of God. (Isa.
53 in toto) However this concept did not fit into the politico-national
concept of the messianic dignity which had been elaborated by the rabbis,
independently of revealed truth. Since His own followers did not understand
this teaching because of its strangeness, it is quite obvious that this
portion of the teaching of Jesus could not be termed merely a restatement of
truths already accepted by all of the well-educated Jews of His own time.
Finally, at the last supper, in the very institution of the Blessed
Eucharist, Jesus pointed out that His blood was to be the price for the
redemption of man. "And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and
blessed, and broke, and gave to His disciples, and said Take ye, and eat,
this is My body. And taking the chalice He gave thanks: and gave to them
saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is My blood of the New Testament
which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." (Matt.
26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25)
6. Jesus
and the messianic kingdom.
According to the teaching of Jesus, as this is contained in His own words in
the canonical gospels, the fruits of His sacrificial death on Calvary were
to be communicated to men through the agency of a definite religious society
of which He was to be the Founder and the Head. The concept of this
religious society is intimately bound up with the notion of that messianic
dignity which Jesus obviously claimed for Himself. It was a commonplace in
Old Testament teaching that the Messias, upon His arrival, was to bring
about a renovation and perfection in the lives of individual men, and in
the conduct of society as a whole. As a result the notion of the kingdom
had become correlative with that of the Messias, since a person could not
possibly act as the promised deliverer unless in some way or other he acted
of that society or nation which belonged intimately to God.
Jesus then was not faced with the task of telling His fellow countrymen that
there would have to be a kingdom. The whole force of His instructions on
this matter could be, and had to be, concentrated on the work of explaining
to them what sort of society this kingdom was meant to be. The opposition
which He encountered was based upon His contention that His kingdom was to
be a spiritual society rather than a temporal state; a society which
enjoined a perfect and stringent moral code and the acceptance of a
definite and difficult set of dogmas, while at the same time it was to
include within its membership even those who were not of the nation of
Israel, according to the flesh at least.
7. The
true Israel.
According to the testimonies of the four gospels, the first announcement of
this kingdom or church was that it would constitute the true Israel. The
angel Gabriel announced to Mary that her Son was to possess the throne of
David and rule over the house of Jacob, thus commanding the messianic
kingdom. "He shall be great; and shall be called the Son of the Most
High, and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David His Father,
and He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever and of His kingdom there
shall be no end.” (Luke 1:32-33) The assertion that the reign of Jesus
was to be absolutely perpetual was another indication that this was meant to
be the rule promised by God to the descendant of David who was to be the
Saviour of the human race. The control of this society is promised by God,
not to a dynasty, but to an individual. This one reign is to close the epic
of the divine commerce with men.
The same consciousness of the kingdom as the continuation of the Israelitic
state is evident in the words and the actions of those magi who came to
acknowledge the royalty of the infant Jesus. "When Jesus therefore was
born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of King Herod, there came wise men
from the east to Jerusalem, saying: Where is He that is born King of the
Jews? For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to adore Him."
(Matt. 8:1-2) Nathanael, called to follow Jesus by his friend Philip, also
acknowledged that the rule of Jesus was to be over the true Israel.
"Nathanael answered Him and said: Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art
the King of Israel." (John 1:49)
8. Carnal
descent from Abraham is not the necessary condition for entrance into the
kingdom.
However Jesus Himself made it very plain that entrance into His kingdom was
not merely by the fact of birth. In order to achieve membership in this
society men had to be reborn in the regeneration of baptism. "Jesus
answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
According to the teaching of Jesus, it was in and through this kingdom that
men were meant to achieve that everlasting life which God wills them to
possess, and which they attain through belief in the Son of Man who is to be
crucified for their sake. (Cf. John 3:14-18)
9. The
preaching of the kingdom.
The evangelists give as the occupation of Jesus, during the years of His
public life, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom. "And after that
John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the
kingdom of God, and saying: The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God
is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:14-15; Matt.
4:7, 23; Matt. 9:35; Luke 8:1) To the laggard disciple whom He favored with
His vocation, He pointed out the announcement of the kingdom as the task to
which he was called. "But He said to another: Follow Me. And he said:
Lord, suffer me first to go, and to bury my father. And Jesus said to him:
Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."
(Luke 9:59-60) The commission given to the twelve Apostles for their mission
throughout the country of the Jews was to preach the gospel of the kingdom,
and to perform miracles which were meant to show the credibility of their
message. "These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not
into the way of the gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans enter
ye not: But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And going
preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the
dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely
give." (Matt. 10:5-8; Luke 9:1-2) It was the will of God that the
doctrines of the kingdom should first be preached to the Jews alone. Only
after they had refused the benefit which God offered to them, was the
benefit to come to the gentiles.
Moreover, when Jesus sent the seventy-two disciples on their mission, their
business was announcing the proximity of this same kingdom. "And after
these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two; and He sent them two
and two before His face into every city and place whither He Himself was to
come." (Luke 10:1) The essential charge which Jesus gave to these men
was, "Heal the sick that are therein, and say to them: The kingdom of God
is come nigh unto you." (Luke 10:9) Actually Jesus gave the preaching of
the kingdom as the reason for His work during the public life. "To other
cities also must I preach the kingdom of God: for therefore am I sent."
(Luke 4:4)
10.
Membership and perfection in the kingdom.
Jesus asserted that His kingdom was to belong to those who practiced the
acts of moral perfection which He taught them. Moreover the beatitudes show,
in their completeness, the qualities of those who will be citizens in the
kingdom, and the rewards which will accompany this membership. "Blessed
are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed arc the
meek, for they shall possess the land. Blessed are they that mourn: for they
shall be comforted. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice:
for they shall have their fill. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall
obtain mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice sake: for theirs is
the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:3-10; Luke 6:20-22) The basic moral law
of the Old Testament, as well as its doctrinal content held within the
perfection of this kingdom. But, according to Jesus, the person whose
justice was not definitely superior to that of the contemporary leaders of
the Jewish nation would have no part in it. "He therefore that shall
break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach man, shall be
called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, that
unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and the Pharisees,
you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5:19-20)
Obedience to the law of God is a condition requisite for admittance to this
kingdom. "Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of My Father who is in
heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven?” (Matt. 7:21)
The obvious implication of these statements is that membership in the
kingdom of heaven is not lost by an offense against God. For the person who
acts against the divine precepts, and teaches improperly, is said to be the
least within the kingdom. He retains his membership, even though he fails to
profit by it. However the justice of the scribes and the Pharisees was
purely external, and it certainly did not include the perfection of faith
which is requisite for entrance into the realm of Jesus. Furthermore it is
the will of the Father, often cited by Jesus, that men should believe in
His name. Thus the man who elicits an act of faith in order to enter into
the kingdom, to that extent at least obeys the mandate of the Father. The
person who acknowledges the sovereignty of Jesus merely in a mechanical way
has not performed the act which is necessary for incorporation into this
kingdom.
Membership in this organization which is the kingdom of heaven is an
incomparable good, since it places a man in a better position before God
than even that occupied by the great St. John the Baptist. "Amen I say to
you, there bath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than
John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is
greater than he." (Matt. 11:11) This good is to be looked upon as a
prize, to secure which men must do violence to the forces of evil which
oppose them. "And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the
kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away."
(Matt. II:12)
Obviously, according to the teaching of Jesus, the citizens of this church
or kingdom He preached were actually His followers. He asserted that these
individuals, by the fact of their adherence to Him, acquired a definite
dignity springing from relationship to Him. "And stretching forth His
hand towards His disciples, He said: Behold My mother and My brethren. For
whosoever shall do the will of My Father, that is in heaven: he is My mother
and sister and brother." (Matt. 12:49-50; Mark 3:34-35; Luke 8:21)
11. The nature of a parable.
A great deal of the instruction which Jesus gave to the populace about the
kingdom of heaven was set forth in the form of parables. The parable was an
instrument of teaching commonly employed and known in ancient times.
Socrates used them so frequently in his instructions that Aristotle, in his
Rhetoric, designated this figure as "Socratic." Plato has recorded many of
them in his .dialogues, and one of them, taken from the Phaedrus will serve
to show how the great Athenian utilized the parable. "And I wish that you
would let me ask you a question: Would a husbandman who is a man of sense,
take the seeds, which he values and which he wishes to be fruitful, and in
sober earnest plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of
Adonis, that he may rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in
beauty (at least he does that, if at all, only as the -show of a festival);
but those about which he is in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and
practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in eight months they arrive at
perfection ?"
Aristotle lists parables among the instruments available in rhetoric for
utilizing the common belief of men to explain the nature of the
characteristics of the object the teacher is attempting to manifest. "It
remains for us now to expound those forms of procedure which are common to
all types of oratory, since we have finished speaking about the specialized
kinds. There are two types of these common forms, the example and the
enthymeme, since the maxim is a kind of enthymeme. And first we shall speak
about example, for example is like induction, and induction is a beginning.
"There are two sorts of examples. For the speaker uses one kind of example
when he refers to things which have actually taken place, and another when
he makes up a story himself. Of this latter type of example, one form is the
parable and another a fable, like those of Aesop or of the Libyans,"
According to the examples which Aristotle gives, the
fable differs from the parable in that it is a complete story out of which a
definite lesson can be derived, while the parable brings out, in a situation
which is clear to. the hearer, a point directly parallel to that which the
speaker wishes to manifest in the object of which he is treating.
12. The reason for Jesus' use of parables in preaching the doctrine of the
kingdom.
This point has its importance in apologetics when we consider the teaching
of Jesus relative to His church. For the parable, as a distinct and useful
instrument of teaching and persuasion, was frequently employed in the
descriptions of that church which Jesus gave to the people. Jesus utilized
them for the sake of effectiveness, because the temper and the dispositions
of the people were not such as to allow a more direct exposition of the
nature of the messianic kingdom. To the disciples, who were more closely
united to Him, and who were thus better prepared to bear the tremendous
force of His teaching, Jesus stated clearly the meanings which He had placed
in the illustrations the multitudes had heard. If the populace itself did
not understand these lessons, it was not due to the obscurity of the means
which Jesus employed. It was rather the fault of their predispositions for a
worldly and political realm of the type which their rabbis had led them to
expect.
Jesus brought out the reason for His teaching the multitudes by means of
parables very clearly when He was interrogated on this point by the
Apostles. "And His disciples came and said to Him: Why speakest Thou to them
in parables? Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that
hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he bath. Therefore do
I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they
hear not, neither do they understand: And the prophecy of Isaias is
fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not
understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart
of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of
hearing, and their eyes have been shut: lest at any time they should see
with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
and be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, because
they see, and your ears, because they hear. For amen I say to you, many
prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have
not seen them: and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard
them.'
The meaning of the text is quite clear.
Jesus taught the people by means of parables precisely because these people
were too hardened and obtuse to profit by the direct type of teaching which
He gave to the Apostles. In no way is there any
intimation that the parable was an instrument which was not intended by
Jesus to be effective, and out of which the people could not derive that
knowledge which He declared to be so necessary for them.
Vosté, a modern authority upon the interpretation of the parables in the
gospel text, lists twenty-two distinct examples as referring to dogmatic
teaching about the church or the kingdom of God." Eight of these have to do
with the nature of the kingdom, and tell of its origin in the preaching of
Jesus and of His Apostles, its worth, its growth and composition. Seven
treat of the membership in this kingdom, establishing the reprobation of
the Jews and the calling of the gentiles. Seven more deal with the final
status of this kingdom in the eternal glory which is to accompany the
second advent of Jesus Himself.
"Matt. 13:10-17. Cf. Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9—bo.
Parabolae Selectae Domini Nostri !eta Chriai, Interprete P.. P. jacobo—M.
Voste, O.P. (Rome, 1933), 2 vols.
13. The
parable of the sower.
The first of these parables which refer to the nature of the kingdom is that
of the sower. "And He spoke to them many things in parables, saying:
Behold the sower went forth to sow. And whilst he soweth some fell by the
wayside, and the birds of the air came and ate them up. And other some fell
upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up
immediately, because they had no deepness of earth. And when the sun was up,
they were scorched: and because they had no root, they withered away. And
others fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. And others
fell upon good ground: and they brought forth fruit, some a hundredfold,
some sixtyfold, and some thirtyfold." (Matt. 13:3-81. Cf. Mark 4:3-9;
Luke 8:5-8) We are privileged to know the interpretation or explanation of
this parable which Jesus gave to the disciples themselves. It is recorded in
all three of the synoptic gospels.
"Hear you therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word
of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there corneth the wicked one, and
cateheth away that which was sown in his heart: this is he that received the
seed by the wayside. And he that received the seed upon stony ground: this
is he that heareth the word, and immediately receiveth it with joy. Yet hath
he not root in himself, but is only for a time; and when there ariseth
tribulation and persecution because of the word, he is presently
scandalized. And he that received the seed among thorns, is he that heareth
the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches
choketh up the word, and he becometh fruitless. But he that received the
seed upon good ground, this is he that heareth the word, and understandeth,
and beareth fruit, and yieldeth the one a hundredfold, and another sixty,
and another thirty."
(Matt. 13:18-23. Cf. Mark 4:13-20; Luke 8:11-15) The obvious implication of
this parable, as explained by Jesus, is that the individual's entrance into
and profit from the kingdom of God must depend in some way upon his own
personal dispositions. The kingdom of heaven is meant to be composed of
those who accept the word of God, and who do not allow earthly
considerations and spiritual enemies to obstruct the workings of divine
grace.
14. The
growth of the kingdom.
Yet, according to the instructions of Jesus, the kingdom is meant to be an
organization which develops swiftly, unnoticed by mankind as a whole.
"And He said: So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into
the earth, And should sleep and rise, night and day, and the seed should
spring, and grow up whilst he knoweth not. For the earth of itself bringeth
forth fruit, first the blade, then the ear, afterward the full corn in the
ear, And when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the
sickle, because the harvest is come." (Mark 4:26-29)
This same greatness of the kingdom, as an institution which is meant to grow
from inconspicuous beginnings, is brought out in the parable of the mustard
seed. "The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a
man took and sowed in his field. Which is the least indeed of all seeds: but
when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so
that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.”
(Matt. 13:31-32; Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:20-21)
15. The
worth of the kingdom.
Furthermore the kingdom was such as to transform the lives of all those who
were to be privileged with citizenship within it. "The kingdom of heaven
is like to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal,
until the whole was leavened." (Matt. I3:33; Luke 13:20-28)
In the teaching of Jesus, the kingdom was announced as a precious good, for
which men should be willing to sacrifice all that is otherwise dearest to
them. He brought out this aspect of the Church in the parables of the hidden
treasure and of the pearl. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure
hidden in a field: which a man having found, hid it, and for joy thereof
goeth, and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field." (Matt.
13:44) "Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a merchant seeking good
pearls. Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went his way, and
sold all that he had, and bought it." (Matt. 13:45-46)
16.
Membership in the kingdom.
However Jesus warned that this kingdom, during the first period of its
existence, was to have as members those who were evil as well as those who
were good. As He explained it, the first period of the existence of the
kingdom was to be brought to an end with the end of the world as men know
it now. After this event, the kingdom is to exist in an eternally perfect
felicity, including only those within its membership who shine as friends
of the living God. Jesus set this truth forth in the parables of the cockle,
and of the net cast into the sea. "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a
man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy
came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the
blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the
cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him:
Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle?
And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him:
Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? And he said: No, lest perhaps
gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.
Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the 'harvest I
will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into
bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn." (Matt. 13:24-30)
This was one of those parables, which Jesus explained to the disciples in
words which have been recorded on the pages of the canonical gospels.
"Then having sent away the multitudes, He came into the house: and His
disciples came to Him, saying: Expound to us the parable of the cockle of
the field. Who made answer and said to them: He that soweth the good seed is
the Son of man. And the field is the world. And the good seed are the
children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the evil one.
And the enemy that sowed them is the devil. But the harvest is the end of
the world. And the reapers are the angels. Even as the cockle therefore is
gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world.
The Son of man shall send His angels, and they shall gather out of His
kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity: And shall cast them into
the furnace of fire: There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then
shall the just shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." (Matt.
13:36-43)
The same lesson is brought out in the parable of the net cast into the sea.
"Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and
gathering together all kind of fishes. Which, when it was filled; they drew
out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels but the
bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels
shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just, And shall
cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth." (Matt. 13:47-50)
In dealing with the membership in the kingdom of heaven which He preached as
assiduously, Jesus insisted that not all of those who were members of the
Jewish nation should be counted as citizens with His realm. "But
whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be like? It is like to children
in the market place: who, crying to their companions, say: We have piped to
you, and you have not danced: we have lamented, and you have not mourned.
For John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they say: He hath a devil.
The Son of man came, eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man who is
a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom
is justified by her children." (Matt. 11:16-19; Luke 7:31-35) The
kingdom was presented to people who were indisposed to receive this
ineffable benefit. They manifested themselves as equally prejudiced against
any manner of presentation.
Those who enter into the kingdom of heaven through the acceptance of the
divine teaching are able to find there remission of the sins which they have
committed against God. Furthermore, the condition of a sinner who repents
and enters into this kingdom is far better than that of the respectable man
who refuses to heed the testimony of Jesus, according to His own teaching.
"A certain man had two, sons, and coming to the first he said: Son, go
work today in my vineyard. And he answering said: I will not. But
afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went. And coming to the other he
said in like manner. And he answering said: I go, sir, and he went not;
Which of the two did the father's will? They say to Him: The first. Jesus
saith to them: Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall
go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of
justice, and you did not believe him; but the publicans and the harlots
believed him: but you seeing it, did not even afterwards repent, that you
might believe him." (Matt. 21:28-32)
17. Those
who reject the kingdom.
Jesus insisted that those who rejected His teaching and sought to encompass
His defeat would not receive the privilege of membership in the kingdom of
God. He brought this out with matchless clarity in the parable of the
faithless husbandmen, addressed to the leaders among His enemies. "A
certain man planted a vineyard and made a hedge about it, and dug a place
for the wine vat and built a tower and let it to husbandmen, and went into a
far country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant to
receive of the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. Who having laid
hands on him, beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent to them
another servant; and him they wounded in the head, and used him
reproachfully. And again he sent another, and him they killed: and many
others, of whom some they beat and others they killed. Therefore having yet
one son, most dear to him; he also sent him unto them last of all, saying:
They will reverence my son. But the husbandrnen said one to another: This is
the heir; come, let us kill him; and the inheritance shall be ours. And
laying hold on him, they killed him; and cast him out of the vineyard. What
therefore will the Lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy those
husbandmen; and will give the vineyard to others. And have you not read this
scripture, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head
of the corner: By the Lord this has been done, and it is wonderful in our
eyes. And they sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people; for
they knew that He spoke this parable to thetn." (Mark 12:1-12; Matt.
21:33-46; Luke 20:9-19)
Jesus made it abundantly clear that men possessed the tragic power to reject
the preaching of the kingdom, and that those who refused to accept it would
not participate in its benefits. "When one of them that sat at table with
Him had heard these things, he said to Him: Blessed is he that shall eat
bread in the kingdom of God. But He said to him: A certain man made a great
supper, and invited many. And he sent his servant at the hour of supper to
say to them that were invited, that they should come, for now all things are
ready. And they began all at once to make excuse. The first said to him: I
have bought a farm, and I must needs go out and see it: I pray thee, hold me
excused. And another said: I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to try
them: I pray thee, hold me excused. And another said: I have married a wife,
and therefore I cannot come. And the servant returning told these things to
his lord. Then the master of the house being angry, said to his servant: Go
out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the
poor and the feeble and the blind and the lame. And the servant said: Lord,
it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room. And the lord said
to the servant: Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come
in, that my house may be filled. But I say unto you, that none of those men
that were invited, shall taste of my supper.” (Luke 14:15-24)
The previous parables had made it evident that, according to the doctrine of
Jesus, the gentiles were to be admitted to the kingdom of God because the
Jews, to whom the invitation had first been proffered, had rejected it.
However He insisted also that not all of those who actually entered into the
kingdom and enjoyed its benefits were to be found worthy of sharing in its
eternal glory. Those who manifested themselves ungrateful to God were to be
ejected on the last day. Thus membership in the kingdom was not, by itself,
a guarantee of eternal salvation, although, of course, it was requisite for
the eternal life which Jesus came to give. This fact was brought out in the
parable of the wedding feast.
"And Jesus answering spoke again in parables to them, saying: The kingdom of
heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. And he sent
his servants to call them that were invited to the marriage, and they would
not come. Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited:
Behold, I have prepared my dinner, my beeves and fatlings are killed, and
all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. But they neglected, and went
their ways, one to his farm, and another to his merchandise. And the rest
laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously put them
to death. But when the king had heard of it, he was angry; and sending his
armies, he destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he saith to
his servants: The marriage indeed is ready, but they that were invited,
were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as you shall
find, call to the marriage. And his servants going forth into the ways,
gathered together all that they found, both bad and good; and the marriage
was filled with guests. And the king went in to see the guests, and he saw
there a man who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith to him: Friend,
how cameth thou hither not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent.
Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him
into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
For many are called, but few are chosen.”
(Matt. 22:1-14)
18. The
reward of the kingdom.
Brilliantly Jesus pointed out, in the parable of the laborers in the
vineyard, that the essential reward of those who were to work within the
kingdom was one. In spite of the fact that there are to be degrees of power
and of excellence within that kingdom (for Jesus spoke of the "least" within
it, and He gave to some of its members powers not enjoyed by others), He
was at pains to show that the efforts expended for God within the kingdom
would find an ample and supernaturally effective reward in eternal life.
Thus other goods, which were of the temporal order, could not be claimed as
the wage due in justice for meritorious activity.
"The kingdom of heaven is like to a householder who went out early in the
morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. And having agreed with the
laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out
about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place, idle. And
he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what
shall be just. And they went their way. And again he went out about the
sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner. But about the eleventh
hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand
you here all the day idle? They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He
saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard. And when evening was come, the
lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the laborers and pay them
their hire, beginning from the last even to the first. When therefore they
were come that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a
penny. But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive
more, and they also received every man a penny. And receiving it they
murmured against the master of the house, saying: These last have worked but
one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of
the day and the heats. But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do
thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine,
and go thy way: I will give also to this last even as to thee. Or, is it not
lawful for me to do what I will? Is thy eye evil because I am good? So shall
the last be first, and the first, last; for many are called, but few
chosen."
(Matt. 20:1-16) In this parable Jesus makes it clear that the benefit of the
kingdom is a matter of mercy as well as of justice. God is under no
obligation to restrict His gifts to those who, like the Jews, had been in
His service for a longer time than others.
19. Many
would refuse the kingdom and its reward.
Jesus taught that the kingdom thus presented and constituted would be sought
and won by a comparatively few men. At least the number is small in
comparison with the number of those who should enjoy the benefits of the
Church. Furthermore it was announced explicitly that strangers should be
with the patriarchs in the glory of the kingdom, while those who were
actually descendants of Abraham would find themselves rejected. Surely this
was not a doctrine familiar to the well-educated Jew of the time of Jesus.
"And a certain man said to Him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But He
said to them: Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you,
shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. But when the master of the house
shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without,
and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering shall say
to you: I know not whence you are. Then you shall begin to say: We have
eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. And he
shall say to you: I know not whence you are: depart from me all ye workers
of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall
see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God,
and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east and the
west and the north and the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
And behold they are last that shall be first, and they are first that shall
be last.” (Luke 13:23-30)
20. The
consummation of the kingdom.
Other parables of Jesus cast light upon the consummation of this kingdom.
Jesus foretold that this world would end, and that its ending would be
preceded by definite signs. Once the world had come to an end, there would
take place a final separation of the evil from the good, and only these
latter would enjoy the benefits of the kingdom of God. However, men were to
look for the signs which Jesus had indicated, and stand in absolute
readiness for the judgment.
What Jesus taught about the termination of this world is bound up closely in
the text of the Synoptics with His prophecy on the destruction of Jerusalem.
As a matter of fact the teaching contained in the twenty-fourth chapter of
St. Matthew is given as the response to one question which demanded two
distinct replies. "And when He was sitting on Mount Olivet, the disciples
came to Him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be? And what
shall be the sign of Thy coming, and of the consummation of the world?"
(Matt. 24:3) Jesus had been speaking about the forthcoming destruction of
the temple of Jerusalem, and thus "these things" mentioned in the text have
reference to the events which He foretold would accompany the final ruin of
that great edifice. However He replied to both elements which had entered
into the question of the disciples, and the gospel text brings the
statements which entered into both portions of the answer into close
contact. For this reason it is imperative that we should examine into the
context of the parables, and the other teachings which have reference to
either of these two matters in order that we may realize which one of them
is being considered.
Jesus used the parable of the budding fig tree to show the coming of the
kingdom as heralded by the signs that He foretold. "And He spoke to them
a similitude: See the fig tree, and all the trees: When they now shoot forth
their fruit, you know that summer is nigh. So you also when you shall see
these things come to pass, know that the kingdom of God is at hand. Amen I
say to you, this generation shall not pass away, till all things be
fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass
away." (Luke 21:29-33; Matt. 24:32-35; Mark 13:28-31) This parable
obviously refers to what may be described as the opening event in the long
series which is to precede the second coming of the kingdom on the day of
judgment. Jesus declared that the great temple itself was to be ruined in
the lifetime of those who actually listened to Him. Furthermore, the
response of the Christian community at the time of the Jewish wars offers
sufficient evidence that this parable of Jesus was thus understood by His
followers. (Cf. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Book 3,
Ch. 5)
21. The
requisite watchfulness.
The final coming of the kingdom is to be unexpected, even though all of
these signs have preceded it. It is something for which the followers of
Jesus are meant to be prepared. "But of that day and hour no man knoweth,
neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed,
watch and pray. For ye know not when the time is. Even as a man going into a
far country left his house, and gave authority to his servants over every
work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore (for you know
not when the lord of the house cometh: at even, or at midnight, or at the
cock crowing, or in the morning). Lest coming on a sudden, he find you
sleeping. And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch." (Mark 13:32-37;
Luke 12:35-38) Furthermore, Jesus showed this same truth in the parable of
the thief in the night. "Watch ye therefore, because you know not what
hour your Lord will come. But this know ye, that if the good man of the
house knew at what hour the thief would come, he would certainly watch, and
would not suffer his house to be broken open. Wherefore be you also ready,
because at what hour you know not, the Son of man will come.” (Matt.
24:42-44; Luke 12:39)
The reward of the vigilant servant of the Lord, and the punishment which
will be meted out to the negligent is depicted in another parable. "Who,
thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord bath appointed
over his family, to give them meat in season? Blessed is that servant, whom,
when his lord shall come, he shall find so doing. Amen I say to you, he
shall place him over all his goods. But if that evil servant shall say in
his heart: My lord is long a coming: And shall begin to strike his fellow
servants, and shall eat and drink with drunkards: The lord of that servant
shall come in a day that he hopeth not, and at an hour that he knoweth not:
And shall separate him, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites; there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 24:44-51; Luke 12:42-48)
Jesus made it perfectly plain that some of these improvident individuals who
are to be reproved on the last day will be citizens of the kingdom here on
earth. "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who
taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. And five
of them were foolish, and five wise. But the five foolish, having taken
their lamps, did not take oil with them: But the wise took oil in their
vessels with the lamps. And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and
slept. And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh,
go ye forth and meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their
lamps. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps
are gone out. The wise answered saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for
us and for you, go you rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. Now
whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready went
in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut. But at last came also
the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us. But He answering said:
Amen I say to you, I know you not. Watch ye therefore, because you know not
the day nor the hour." (Matt. 25:3-13)
These parables made it clear that the kingdom would receive men according to
the condition in which they were to be found at the time of the judgment
itself. Naturally the lessons contained in these parables applied equally
well to the particular and to the general judgment. By still other figures,
Jesus stressed the necessity of utilizing the temporal and spiritual assets
of the individual, if that individual is to receive the reward of the
kingdom at the second coming. "For even as a man going into a far
country, called his servants, and delivered to them his goods. And to one he
gave five talents, and to another two, and another one, to every one
according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey. And he
that had received the five talents went his way, and traded with the same,
and gained other five. And in like manner he that had received two, gained
other two. But he that had received the one, going his way, digged into the
earth, and hid his lord's money. But after a long time, the lord of those
servants came, and reckoned with them. And he that had received the five
talents coming, brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver
to me five talents. Behold I have gained other five over and above. His lord
said to him: Well done good and faithful servant, because thou hast been
faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou
into the joy of thy lord. And he also that had received the two talents came
and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me: behold I have gained
other two. His lord said to him: Well done good and faithful servant:
because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over
many things, enter thou into the joy of thy lord. But he that had received
the one talent came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man, thou
reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed.
And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou
hast that which is thine. And his lord answering said to him: Wicked and
slothful servant, thou knowest that I reap where 1 sow not, and gather where
I have not strewed. Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to
the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. Take
ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it him that bath ten
talents. For to every one that bath shall be given, and he shall abound: but
from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken
away. And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness.
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 25:14-30; Luke
19:12-27)
22. Rulers
in the kingdom.
While it was to exist in this world, prior to the second coming of Jesus,
this church or kingdom was to be ruled by responsible officials. The Master
confided the supreme stewardship of this organization to Peter, the prince
of the Apostles. "And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood bath not revealed it to thee, but My
Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee, that thou are Peter, and upon
this rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And
whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
(Matt. 16:17-19) Furthermore, the command which was promised to Peter as a
reward for the profession of faith which he made that dar "in the quarters
of Caesarea Philippi," was actually conferred upon him by Jesus after the
resurrection. "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon
Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou Me more than these He saith. to Him:
Yea Lord, Thou knoweth that I love Thee. He saith to him: Feed My Iambs. He
saith to him again: Simon son of John, loveth thou Me? He saith to Him: Yea
Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him: Feed My Iambs. He said
to him the third time: Simon son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved
because He had said to him the third time, Lovest thou Me? And he said to
Him: Lord, Thou knowest all things: Thou knowest that I love Thee. He said
to him: Feed My sheep." (John 21:15-17)
The use of the imperative mood by Jesus shows that these words constituted
an actual commission. From that day forward Peter, and, of course, the men
who were to succeed him in this office, were to be placed in charge over all
of those who followed the teachings of Jesus. The sheep remain those of
Jesus, rather than those of Peter. But Peter is to watch over them, and to
command them as the vicar of the Master Himself. The same thought is present
in the promise made in Caesarea Philippi. The kingdom of heaven remains, of
course, the kingdom of God. But the keys are delivered to Peter as to a
steward, from whom an accounting can and will be demanded.
According to the express teaching of Jesus, this primacy of Peter was to
extend to the realm of doctrine as well as to that of jurisdiction in the
legal sense. "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold satan hath desired
to have you that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee that
thy faith fail not: and that thou, being once converted, confirm thy
brethren." (Luke 22:31-32) Thus, according to the outright claims of
Jesus, the community of the followers of Jesus, or the kingdom of heaven,
was the object of a special malevolence on the part of the chief enemy of
God. The attacks of Satan were to be frustrated by the faith of Peter, which
was not to fail in itself, and which was to be the source out of which the
belief of the others could be confirmed. This was a clear indication of the
doctrinal infallibility which was to be the prerogative of Peter and of his
successors, and at the same time of the authority through which the prince
of the apostolic college could oversee and direct the teaching of the
universal church. However the terms of the text show us that this doctrinal
authority is given, not for the sake of Peter as an individual person, but
rather for the sake of the kingdom as a whole. That which Satan seeks to
encompass is the ruin of the Church, and in particular of the apostolic
college. This tentative is to be brought to failure by the doctrinal power
of an individual, conferred upon him by reason of His prayer.
However the society over which Peter was placed in charge was not meant by
Jesus to be a purely monarchical institution. The power of Peter was
absolute and ultimate, but a definite jurisdiction and power were both
promised and granted to the other members of the apostolic college. "Amen
I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in
heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in
heaven.” (Matt. 18:18) The power thus promised was conferred upon the
Apostles, and thus, by reason of the perpetuity of the Church and her
mission, upon their successors by Jesus after His resurrection. "He said
therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent Me, I also
send you. When He had said this, He breathed on them: and He said to them:
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven
them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained?” (John
20:21-23. This is the very point controverted by as conservative a writer as
Ernest F. Scott, The Nature of the Early Church; New York, 1941, p. 6)
23. The
visible Church.
Naturally a society which has a visible authority, and which possesses a
group of men competent to forgive sins would be a visible society in the
strictest sense of the term. However, Jesus made it clear that this kingdom
or church was an organization before which an offender could be cited, and a
society which had authority to reject a man from its membership. "But if
thy brother shall offend against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and
him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy -brother. And if he
will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two
or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell
the Church; and if he will not hear the Church: let him be to thee as the
heathen and the publican?" (Matt. 18:15-17)
This Church is meant, according to the doctrine of Jesus, to endure until
the end of the world. No other organization is to displace it, as it had
taken the position once occupied by the nation of the Jews. "And Jesus
coming spoke to them saying: All power is given to Me in heaven and in
earth. Going therefore teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all
days, even to the consummation of the world?" (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark
16:15-18; Luke 24:44-49)
Because its King and Shepherd exercised a function quite distinct from that
of earthly potentates, the Church was to be a spiritual rather than a
temporal organization. Furthermore, it was to perform a definite
sacrificial act, the commemoration of the passion of Jesus in the Eucharist,
as a characteristic and central rite. "Do this in commemoration of Me."
(Luke 22:19) Finally this society was, according to the announcement of
Jesus Himself, to be opposed by the world and by the spirit of evil which
was to animate the world. "But beware of men. For they will deliver you
up in councils and they will scourge you in their synagogues. And you shall
be brought before governors and before kings for My sake, for a testimony to
them and to the gentiles." (Matt. 10:17-18; Mark 13:9. Cf. also John
15:18-24)
Nothing, then, could be clearer, from a consideration of the teaching of
Jesus Himself, than that He taught a definite doctrine for which He could
claim the dignity of divine revelation. However, in order to complete this
portion of apologetics, it is imperative that we should consult other
reliable historical documents in our possession, and investigate whether or
not the first disciple of Jesus actually understood Him to preach such a
doctrine, and to make such claims. Once we have established that such was
their understanding, we have only to investigate the Christian appeal to
the motives of credibility and to see how this doctrine, and this alone, has
been authenticated by these evidences of divine origin. †
CHAPTER XIII
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES
1. Reasons for studying the apostolic teaching. In this section of the proof
of credibility, which is the essential task of scientific apologetics, we
are interested in the doctrine of the Apostles and of the earliest
Christians in so far as it has a bearing on the claims and the doctrine of
Jesus. We have already seen that there is ample and perfectly certain
historical evidence to the effect that Jesus of Nazareth actually claimed to
be the Messias, and as such the bearer of a divine message to man. It is
plain, furthermore, that He proposed a definite religious teaching, a
doctrine not at all common to the other religious systems existing in His
own time, and consequently something for which He could appeal to the
authenticating evidence of motives of credibility. For, if Jesus merely
restated doctrines which had been accepted prior to His preachings, by all
of those men who were interested in the worship of the living God, there
would be no sense in attempting to show that any system of religious
teaching was credible as divine revelation precisely in so far as it
pertained to Jesus of Nazareth. This, however, is precisely the contention
or the claim advanced by that Catholic dogma, the rational credibility of
which in terms of divine revelation we seek to demonstrate in the science of
apologetics. The proofs which have been advanced have tended to show that,
from this angle at least, nothing prevents an appeal being made to motives
of credibility in favor of a distinctly Christian revelation.
Thus demonstration will not be complete until we have been able to ascertain
what the immediate disciples of Jesus thought of His claims and of His
teaching. Naturally these men were in a better position than anyone else to
know what Jesus said, and what He did. If it can be shown that these men
realized that Jesus had asserted that He was the Messias, and that He had
preached, as divinely revealed a doctrine with reference to the old law, to
the moral order, and the various mysteries of the kingdom, then
240
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES 241
we shall have obtained the best possible historical evidence that Jesus
really proposed this teaching, and that He could appeal to motives of
credibility in favor of the claims advanced for His own teaching.
Within the complex framework of modern apologetics, there is still another
reason for considering the historical evidence about the teaching of the
Apostles relative to the claims of Jesus. It so happens that one of the
great motives of credibility, which, as we shall see, was appealed to by
Jesus Himself, and by His disciples from the time of the earliest apologists
down to the Vatican Council itself, is the Church which Jesus founded. It
can be shown that this Church constitutes an effect which is manifestly
beyond the natural competence of any creature, actual or possible, to
produce or to maintain. In order to utilize this social miracle in favor of
the teachings of Jesus, we must first be certain, from an historical point
of view, that the teachings advanced by this Church as divine revelation are
actually those which were proposed as such by Jesus of Nazareth.
2. Doctrinal unity in the primitive Church. The first factor which we must
consider in the arrangement of this proof is the evident and indubitable
doctrinal unity of the early Christian community. One of the most pathetic
fallacies current in the twentieth century was that which pictured the
primitive followers of Jesus as gentle souls, unconcerned about matters of
dogma, going about doing good in a vague sort of way and manifesting a
doctrinal tolerance similar to that professed by modern liberals. As a
matter of fact these first Christians were intensely, even violently,
interested in preserving the purity of that teaching which they claimed to
have received from Jesus through the apostolic college. The penalty for
diverging from the unity of this doctrine was always separation from the
community of the Christians. That penalty was inflicted upon an individual
man, or upon a group of men. The number made no difference. The fact of the
matter was that no person could remain as a member of the Christian body if
he professed a belief other than that which was the common teaching within
the Church.
3. The Catholic epistles. Evidences of this fierce devotion to doctrinal
unity and purity abound in the books of the New Testament, and, of course,
in the writings of the early Fathers. In the Apocalypse the Angel of the
Church in Pergarnus is bitterly re‑
242 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
proved because he had retained in his communion men who held one set of
false teachings. "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the
Nicolaites."' The angel, or actually the bishop of the place is not reproved
as a heretic, but he stands condemned for not doing what the Christians
regarded as his obvious duty and casting the heretics out of the Church.
St. John made it abundantly dear in his epistles that he and the Christian
community whose attitude he expressed considered deviation from the actual
teaching of Jesus an offense which separated a man from communion with God.
"Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not
God: he that continucth in the cbactrine, the same hath both the Father and
the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him
not into the house, nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto
him: God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works."'
St. John again, like the rest of the apostolic college, made it abundantly
clear that he considered the acceptance of Christ's messianic dignity and
mission, and the implied statement of His divine messengership as the
fundamental teaching of Jesus. "Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus
is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that confesseth
the Son, bath the Father also. As for you, let that which you have heard
from the beginning, abide in you: If that abide in you which you have heard
from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. And
this is the promise which He hath promised us, life everlasting."' St. Jude
points out this conviction about the teaching of Jesus with matchless
clarity and vigor. "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you
concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you:
and to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the
saints. FOr certain men are secretly entered in (who were written of long
ago unto this judgment) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God unto
riotousness and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord, Jesus
Christ."' St. James refers to the belief of Christian people as "the faith
of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory,' thus expressing his conviction that
Jesus was the Mcssias.
'Apoc. 2:15. 'I John 2:2X-25. James 21.
'II John 1:9—TI. 4 jlIde 1:3-4.
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES 243
St. Peter, the prince of the apostolic college, makes frequent reference to
the doctrine of Jesus in the two canonical epistles he has left us. In the
first place he refers to Jesus as the Christ, thereby showing that he and
the universal society over which he had been placed in charge considered our
Lord as a divine messenger and as the bearer of a communication which men
are obliged to accept with the assent of divine faith. He speaks of the
resurrection of Jesus as the foundation of those high hopes entertained by
those who are privileged to be His followers, and considered that the
acceptance of Jesus' teaching would bring a man to the achievement of that
glory which He promised and which is to be manifest at His second coming.
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to
His great mercy hath regenerated us unto a lively hope by the resurrection
of Jesus Christ from the dead. Unto an inheritance incorruptible and
undefiled and that cannot fade, reserved in heaven for you, who by the power
of God
, are kept by faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Wherein you shall greatly rejoice, if now you must be for a little time made
sorrowful in divers temptations: That the trial of your faith (much more
precious than gold which is tried by fire) may be found unto praise and
glory and honor at the appearance of Jesus Christ: whom, having not seen,
you love; in Whom also now, though you see Him not, you believe: and
believing shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and glorified; receiving the
end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls."8
Manifestly then the Vicar of Christ taught the first members of the Church
to accept the entire content of that message which Jesus had preached. The
end of that belief is the eternity of perfect happiness which the Master
Himself had announced. Like his fellow Apostles he asserted that Jesus was
God and that He had redeemed mankind through His sacrificial death on
Calvary. In every instance the doctrine which the gospels record as having
been proposed by Jesus is the same teaching set forth by the Apostles and
firmly received by their followers.
4. The witnesses of Christ. Nowhere is the content of apostolic teaching
demonstrated more effectively than is the historical narrative of the Acts
of the Apostles. From the very outset the eleven regarded themselves
primarily as "witnesses." They were the men
1 Pet. :3-9.
244 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
who had been privileged to associate with Jesus. They were qualified to
testify as to His teaching and with respect to those signs which He had
invoked to show its inherent credibility. In the address to the followers of
Christ on the occasion of the choice of Matthias to fill the place of the
traitor, Judas Iscariot, Peter, the prince of the apostolic college, made
that point clear. "Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the
time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning with the
baptism of John until the day wherein He was taken up from us, one of these
must be made a witness with us of His resurrection."' On the day of
Pentecost, Peter announced clearly to the assembled Jews, many of whom had
been directly responsible for the murder of Jesus, "Therefore let all the
house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made Him both Lord and
Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified."' When some from the crowd
who had heard this first Christian missionary sermon asked Peter for
directions, he indicated the procedure and promised the results which Jesus
had already pointed out. "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."'
Explaining the miraculous cure of the lame man in the Beautiful Gate of the
Temple, the Prince of the Apostles clearly stated to the Jewish people that
Jesus was God. "The God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified His Son Jesus, whom you indeed
delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged He should
be released. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a
murderer to be granted unto you. But the Author of life you killed, whom God
hath raised up from the dead, of which we are witnesses."1° Furthermore, at
this time, as on every other occasion when the Apostles had the opportunity
to preach before the Jewish people, St. Peter insisted that the prophecies
concerning the deeds and the sayings of the Messias had been clearly
fulfilled in Jesus, whose second coming would finally accomplish the
predictions which God had given to the chosen race. "But those things which
God before bath showed by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ
should suffer, He bath so fulfilled. Repent therefore and be converted, that
your sins may be blotted out. That, when the
Acts 22X-22. 6 Acts 2:38.
Acts 2:36. " Acts 3:13-15.
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES 245
times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and He shall
send Him who bath been preached unto you,. Jesus Christ, whom heaven indeed
must receive until the times of the restitution of all things, which God
hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets from the beginning of the
world. For Moses said: A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you
of your brethren, like unto me: Him you shall hear according to all things
whatsoever He shall speak to you.""
Thus throughout the preaching of these witnesses, as it is recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles, the same current of thought is manifest. They taught
exactly what the four gospels record as the doctrine of Jesus Himself. They
insist upon His messianic dignity and upon His divinity. They show His
teaching on the Blessed Trinity, His assertion that He is the true Son of
God, eternally generated from the Father, and His insistence that the Holy
Ghost is a third divine Person, proceeding from the Father and from Himself.
The Apostles taught, as did their Master, that men were called to do
penance, to believe the doctrine which He had set forth, and to receive that
baptism which He had instituted as a means of entrance into the kingdom of
heaven. They claimed that the men who obeyed the mandates of Christ would be
associated with God in this world to enjoy Him forever in heaven. They
insisted upon the unity of faith and of charity in that organized society
which they ruled by His authority.
There was once a fashion, set by the critic Baur, of considering the
teaching of St. Paul as something quite distinct from that of Peter and the
other members of the original apostolic college. It was a bizarre point of
view, destined to be ruined by any sort of critical examination into the
narrative of the Acts or the epistles of St. Paul himself. In the first
place, it is manifest from the Acts that Peter, the visible head of the
universal church, and James, the head of the society in Jerusalem itself,
freely and manifestly received Paul and associated him in their own
ministry. In the letter of "the Apostles and ancients, brethren, to the
brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia,"" the
rulers of the church explicity rejected objections which had been raised
against the doctrine of St. Paul and of his friend and associate, St.
Barnabas. "Forasmuch as we have heard that some going
"Act, 3:8-22, citing Dent. '815. 11 Acts 15:23-29.
246 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
out from us have troubled you with words: subverting your souls, to whom we
gave no commandment: It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to
choose out men, and to send them unto you with our well-beloved Barnabas and
Paul, men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ."
The men who gave this testimonial of fidelity to Paul were the very
witnesses who insisted upon absolute fidelity to the original message of
Jesus. In giving this commendation they clearly acknowledged that the
doctrine of St. Paul was the very teaching which they had been commissioned
to present to the world.
A further testimony to the identity of the Pauline message with the
teachings of the other Apostles and thus with that of Jesus Himself is to be
found in the order of the synoptic gospels. Eusebius makes it abundantly
clear that the gospel according to St. Mark is nothing more or less than a
written expression of the actual teaching of St. Peter." At the same time it
is manifest that St. Luke, the author of the third gospel, was the friend
and the companion of St. Paul" who approved of this writing as an
expression of his own teaching." Now this third gospel agrees so perfectly
with those written by SS. Matthew and Mark that the three together are
called synoptics. The scripture scholars have long devoted themselves to an
explanation of the striking resemblance of these three documents which for
the most part describe the same sermons and accomplishments of Jesus. Quite
obviously, from this point of view, the message of Paul was exactly that
propounded by his fellow laborers in the apostolate and thus identical with
the actual doctrine of the Master.
5. The testimony of St. Paul. St. Paul presented the teaching of Jesus in a
different manner from that employed by the four evangelists. These latter
expressed their doctrine in the actual words of Jesus, and thus framed their
message in the background of the Master's life and death. St. Paul, on the
other hand, wrote to definite Christian communities, instructing them on
those doctrinal points on which they were in danger of being led astray and
cautioning them against the concrete betrayals of Christian morality
"Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Ch. 55, citing Clement of
Alexandria; Book 3, Ch. 39, citing Papias; Book 5, Ch. 8; Book 6, Ch. 25,
citing Origen.
"Eusebius, o.c., Book 3, Ch. 4; Book 3, Ch. 24; Book I, Ch, 8; Book 6, Ch.
25, "The gospel commended by Paul."
"Cf. II Cor. 8:x8.
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES 247
to which they were tempted. Nevertheless the teaching is exactly the same in
content. We can gain a sufficient appreciation of this identity by examining
what St. Paul had to say with reference to the central portions of that
message which Jesus of Nazareth had set forth.
In the first place St. Paul insisted upon the doctrine of the Blessed
Trinity, which Jesus had clearly enunciated and which had formed the central
mystery in the Master's teaching. He taught that there is only one true God,
the Source of all those supernatural consolations which come to the
followers -of Christ. "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the
gentiles? Yes, of the gentiles also. For it is one God that justifieth
circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith."6 However the
Apostle of the Gentiles preached that there are three divine persons, really
distinct one from the other and equal in their consubstantiality. He makes
this point abundantly clear in the blessing which he suffixes to the second
letter to the Corinthians. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the
charity of God, and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all.
Amen."" Obviously this is a blessing in the strictest sense of the term, a
prayer or petition that the favor of God should be given to those whom the
Apostle loved. Yet there are three distinct persons recognized as qualified
to send the divine dispensations of which the Corinthians stood in manifest
need.
We can recognize the same teaching in his first letter to the church at
Corinth. "Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit: and
there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord: and there are
diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.' St.
Paul attributes to each one of these three consubstantial divine persons a
distinct contribution to the economy of human salvation. "For whosoever are
led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not
received the spirit of bondage again in fear, but you have received the
spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the Spirit
Himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if
sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ."9
"Rom. 3:29-3o. Cf. I Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; I Tim. 2:5.
"II Cor. 13:13. "I Cor. 12:4-6.
"Rom. 8:14-16. Cf. also Gal. 4:4-8; Tit. 3:4-6; 11 COr. I:21-22; Rom.
15:15-16.
248 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
St. Paul insists upon the reality of the Incarnation and the Redemption,
indeed this latter fact is the master idea that pervades all of his
epistles. No more concise statement of his central concern can be found
than this announcement to the Galatians: "But when the fulness of the time
was come, God sent His Son made of a woman, made under the law, That He
might redeem them who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption
of sons.' According to the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Church which Jesus
Christ had founded was meant to be obedient to the commands of that
Founder. Furthermore, the perfection of that Church is measured in so far as
its members are meant to be conformed to and united with the Son of God. St.
Paul wrote to the Christians of Ephesus that God "gave some _Apostles, and
some Prophets, and other some Evangelists, and other some pastors and
doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for
the edifying of the body of Christ: Until we all meet into the unity of
faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the
measure of the age of the fulness of Christ."" According to his teaching,
as according to the doctrine of Jesus Himself, the Church is definitely
subject to our Lord. St. Paul insisted upon this point. "Let women be
subject to their husbands as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of
the wife, as Christ is the Head of the Church. He is the saviour of his
body. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives
be to their husbands in all things."22
The Apostle of the Gentiles held that the Church was a definite and
hierarchical society, in which the divinely constituted leaders were
expected to use their authority for the good of the people over whom they
were placed. "We are God's coadjutors: you are God's husbandry, you are
God's building."' "If also I should boast somewhat more of our power, which
the Lord hath given us unto edification and not for your destruction; I
should not be ashamed."" This power, claimed by St. Paul as the minister or
ambassador of Christ, the actual authority which Jesus Himself had conceded
to His Apostles' was executive and judicial. "What will you? Shall I come to
you with a rod, or in charity, and in the spirit of meek-
2a Gal 4:4-5-
.„
—Eph. 411-13. "Eph. 522-24. al I COT. 3:9. Cf. II Car. 52o. "II Car.
1o:8.
"Matt. xo:4o.
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES 249
ness?"" "I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already
judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done.""
Just as the Saviour had announced a Church which was to be visibly one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic, St. Paul preached that the Christian society
in which he was privileged to labor should be marked by the same
characteristics. In the first place, St. Paul made it clear that the society
with which he was concerned was actually undivided. "We being many are one
body."" "You are all one in Christ Jesus."" "One body and one spirit: as you
are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
One God and Father of all.""
The Church was, according to his doctrine, essentially a holy organization.
"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be
holy and unspotted in His sight in charity.' Furthermore, the Church and the
gospel which it presented was meant for the entire human race, and thus the
society itself was catholic. "The gospel is come unto you, as also it is in
the whole world."" Finally this organization as described by St. Paul is
clearly apostolic. "You are fellow-citizens with the saints, built upon the
foundations of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the
chief Corner Stone.""
St. Paul characterized the Church as infallible, thereby repeating the
instructions given by Jesus. He spoke of it as "The house of God, which is
the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.""
Furthermore, he asserted that this society was made up of men who were
elevated by the dignity of brotherhood with Jesus. "Whom He foreknew. He
also predestined to be made conformable to the image of His Son: That He
might be the First Born amongst many brethren.'
There is no need to continue those texts which witness the absolute
identity in the content of St. Paul's message with that doctrine which had
been announced by Jesus of Nazareth, and which was presented in His name by
the original apostolic college. The Acts of the Apostles record that St.
Paul "went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches: commanding
them to keep the precepts
21 1 C0f. 4:21. $.1 Eph. 1:4; 525-27; Tit. 2:14.
27 Cor. 5:3. Col. :6.
3'1 Cor. 10:17. " Eph. 2:79-20.
al Gal. 3:28.
"I Tim.
Eph. 4:4-6. Rom. 8:29. Cf. also Prat, La Theologie de St. Paul.
250 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
of the Apostles and the Ancients."" These precepts, as we have already seen,
were given together with an explicit commendation of SS. Paul and Barnahas
by the Apostles to the churches which these laborers for Christ had founded.
The men who were vitally concerned, the remnants of the Twelve and the later
Apostles could see the absolute identity of their own teaching. All the
devices of misinformed moderns will never be sufficient to explain that
salient fact away.
6. The living tradition. The successful conduct of scientific apologetics
demands recognition of another obvious reality. The doctrine preached by
Jesus of Nazareth and proposed in His name by the original Apostles and by
St. Paul iš the very teaching which the Catholic Church holds and teaches
today as her own dogma. Steadfastly and practically this Church has
acclaimed the truths contained in sacred scripture and in divine tradition
as verities revealed by God to be accepted by all men with the assent of
divine faith." Furthermore, it has been her intention "to conserve in the
Church by removing errors the purity of that Gospel which, having been
promised before through the prophets and in Holy Scripture, our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated in His own instruction and then
ordered to be preached to every creature by His Apostles as the source of
every salutary truth and of moral discipline."" The Vatican Council meant
"to profess and to declare the salutary doctrine of Christ.""
The Catholic Church is manifestly apostolic, in such a way that its identity
as that organization over which the twelve Apostles were placed constitutes
one of the visible characteristics by which it may be recognized as the
kingdom or society founded by Jesus of Nazareth. Its teaching is
demonstrably that of the twelve, and that of their crucified Master. It
accepts with the assent of divine faith all of those statements and only
those statements which it received from the Apostles as the message from God
to man. Furthermore, the Church holds these doctrines in the same sense and
with exactly the same meaning which they possessed when the Apostles and
Jesus Himself enunciated them.
Realizing this fact, we close the second portion of scientific
" Acts 15:41.
" The Vatican Council. The Constitution, Dei Filius, Ch. 3 (Denzinger,
1792). The Council of Trent, Session IV (Denzinger, 1783).
"Denzinger, 1781.
THE APOSTOLIC WITNESSES 251
apologetics. As we have already seen, it is the business of this portion of
sacred theology to demonstrate, or to manifest, the credibility of Catholic
dogma as divine revelation. The first section of apologetics must then be
devoted to an explanation of what this attribute of divine revelation,
claimed for the body of Catholic dogma, actually means. Only after this
question has been solved can we consider profitably the demands of that
discernibility or credibility actually pertinent to this teaching. The
second section investigates the background of Catholic dogma, and ascertains
that it is, from the historical point of view at least, exactly what it
claims to be, a definite system of instruction which Jesus of Nazareth
proposed to men as a message of universal import communicated by God to the
world through Him. Since this preliminary work has been done, we can
proceed to the study of those demonstrations offered in support of the
claims attached to this living and historical teaching.
CHAPTER XIV
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS
1. The two functions of the intrinsic motives. The exigencies of scientific
procedure compel us to consider first of all that motive of credibility
which consists in the intellectual and moral characteristics of that Man
who announced Himself to the world as the Son of God. Furthermore, the
peculiar temper of modern religious controversy makes exactly the same
demand. For there would be absolutely no need to take seriously the claims.
set forth by an individual who was mentally unbalanced or morally dishonest,
and thus we must seek naturally attainable evidence of sanity and
uprightness in Jesus. Actually the opponents of Christianity whose vocal
acerbity far surpasses their sense of historical criticism have uttered
challenges which make the investigation absolutely imperative for an
effective presentation of Christian credibility. However the result of
serious study on this matter shows very clearly that Jesus of Nazareth was
not only demonstrably sane and righteous, but that His moral and
intellectual goodness were of such an order that they could never be
explained merely by the unaided forces of human nature. In other words, the
holiness and the wisdom of Jesus are visibly miracles of the intellectual
and moral order, manifestly attached to the teaching He presented to the
world. As such they are positive indications that this doctrine is
rationally credible as divine revelation.
The mere sanity and moral goodness visible in Jesus, as He is known through
the reliable historical documents telling of His words and works, constitute
a negative motive of credibility. It would be rash in the extreme to accept
as a divine message some body of teaching which had been set forth by an
individual suffering from delusions or hallucinations. It would be folly
rather than virtue to take seriously claims to divine messengership advanced
by a person who lived in violation of the moral law. When we show, as we are
able easily to do, that Jesus of Nazareth was manifestly
252
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 253
sane and righteous, we have demonstrated that there is nothing to stand in
the way of a serious and scientific consideration of those signs which He
claimed as indicative of the divine origin of that message which He
presented to the world.
Naturally we must look to the life, as well as to the doctrine of Jesus for
evidence of this moral and intellectual integrity. In this case the actions
and the doctrines must be considered together. The moral and mental
wholeness of the man, as manifested in His deeds and in His teaching,
constitutes the negative motive of credibility with which we are first
concerned. However, the miraculous holiness and wisdom of Jesus, as
manifest in His conduct and in His teaching, constitutes one definite
positive criterion of revelation while the manifestly supernatural attitude
of the message itself can be considered as a distinct sign, indicating the
divine approbation for the claim that this teaching was a message sent by
God.
2. Denials of righteousness and wisdom in Jesus. We must not allow ourselves
to imagine that challenges against the sanity of Jesus have ceased in the
literary and critical world in which we live. They were set forth by a few
grubby pretentious sciolists of the past century with an eruditional
apparatus which made up in technical terminology what it lacked in
scientific solidity. To a certain extent, however, the men who made such
charges against Jesus of Nazareth were consistent. Logically a man who
rejects the message which Jesus set forth as divinely revealed must have
some semblance of reason for his action. He can take the ordinary course,
and assert that the documents which purport to tell about the Master's words
and actions are not historically reliable and that we have no adequate
evidence to show that Jesus actually claimed the prerogatives of divine
revelation for the message He preached. Or he can close his eyes to the
obvious meaning contained in these documents, and by dint of "critical"
editing, arrange a gospel text in which there is no special mention of a
distinctively divine communication, and then conclude that the claim of
divine revelation was a mere adventitious accretion to Christian doctrine.
But if a man is realistic enough to acknowledge the manifest fact that the
words of Jesus recorded in the canonical gospels are genuine, then he has
the alternative of accepting this message at the valuation which Jesus
Himself placed upon it or declaring that He was either mistaken or a
deliberate deceiver.
3. Attacks in the name of psychiatry. Because the matter
in‑
1
-
254 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
volved is so tremendously important, deception in this line would imply a
radical madness or outstanding villainy on the part of a person thus
mistaken. An occasional trespasser on the field of New Testament criticism
has hazarded the conjecture that Jesus Himself was mentally unwell. The
melancholy distinction of having been the first in comparatively modern
times to have set forth this conclusion seriously belongs to a Danish
candidate for the ministry, one Emil Ramussen.1 A German, Dr. Georg Lomer2
who wrote under the pseudonym of de Loosten, and the prominent French
psychiatrist, Dr. Binet-Sangle,a also attempted to convince their
contemporaries that Jesus of Nazareth had been insane. Far more important
for Americans is the fact that one of our own writers, Professor McCown,4
alleges that many students think that only a paranoiac could make the
statement "I and the Father are One," which the gospel according to St. John
puts into the mouth of Jesus.
Modern literature abounds in passages wherein writers manifest their naïve
pleasure in playing with technical terms properly employed in the
vocabulary of psychiatry itself. The books to which we have referred are
expressions of this same amusing trend. Ramussen attempted to show that not
only Jesus Himself, but also the prophets of the Old Testament as a group
were victims of epilepsy. The inanity of his reasoning is shown by any
examination of the portrait of Jesus as it is presented on the pages of the
four canonical gospels. The error is too far removed from truth to demand or
profitably to receive any detailed explanation. Suffice it to say that none
of the accounts about the life of Jesus could possibly give rise to the
rational conjecture that the writers were describing an epileptic. Lomer's
book pictured Jesus as a degenerate, and the work as a whole moves in an
atmosphere of depraved billingsgate rather than of scientific inquiry.
Binet-Sangle tried to make it appear that those closest to Jesus considered
Him mentally
§
An excellent account of these attacks, and a detailed refutation may be
found in Felder, Christ and the Critics, Vol. 2, pp. 18-72. Ram ussen's book
is translated as Jesus—A Comparative Psycho.Patholoyeal Study translated and
published by Arthur Rothenburg (Leipzig, r9o5).
Jesus Christur corn Standpunkte des Psychiaters (19o5).
La Folic de Jesus, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1910).
§
The Search /or the Real Jesus, p. 163. A man of Vag erudition Dr. McCown
ruins his work by his manifest anxiety to establish a point rather than to
examine evidence.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 255
unwell, and that the actions and words of the Master manifested definite and
recognizable paranoiac tendencies.
4. The reaction of Christ's friends. The passage which all of these men
fastened upon is contained in the second gospel. "And when His friends had
heard of it, they went out to lay hold on Him. For they said: He is become
mad."' In itself, of course, this verse might seem to lend telling weight to
the contentions of Rarnussen, Lomer, Binet-Sangle, and their ilk. If this
were the only fact that we knew about Jesus of Nazareth, or even if it stood
as absolutely an isolated narration, there might be some grounds for
supposing that they should be taken seriously. Unfortunately for their
system, however, the passage is not alone. It happens to record the
reactions of one particular group to a phenomenon which certainly appeared
distressing to those who had the comfort and the merely material well-being
of Jesus at heart. The Pharisees, the dominant political and religious
faction of Judea and in Galilee, had recently allied themselves with the
followers of Herod, otherwise their despised and bitter enemies, for the
express purpose of destroying Him.' Merely human prudence demanded that a
man thus marked should keep himself in absolute retirement. However in
defiance of all their and menaces, He had openly gone
about His work of preaching, had actually selected the twelve men destined
to be His witnesses and His official companions, and had now gathered a very
considerable crowd around Him to hear those very doctrines which had enraged
his enemies.' This group included the scribes themselves, and these
officials of the Jewish Gestapo manifested a reaction to the same situation
quite different from that shown by the timid friends of the Master. "And the
scribes who were come down from Jerusalem, said: He hath Beelzebub, and by
the prince of devils He casteth out devils."' Jesus reproved, in logical and
concise form, their impudent conceit.'
5. The attitude of Christ's enemies. There is no need to go beyond the
examination into the reactions of those frustrated foes of Jesus for an
appreciation of that system elaborated by our gentlemen of psychopathic
predilection. There is nothing more evident in all the course of gospel
history than the fact that the Jewish leaders as a group, in spite of
certain very honorable exceptions, pursued
'Mark 3 :a1. Mark 3:7--2o. °Mark 323-30.
Mark 3:16. Mark 3:22.
256 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
the person and the doctrine of Jesus with unrelenting and fanatical hatred.
They were very efficient individuals, and they did not rest until they had
finally encompassed their design of inflicting upon Him the most humiliating
and frightful death that the savage ingenuity of the ancient world could
devise. Their ferocity extended to His message and to His followers who
continued to broadcast that teaching even after their Master had been
murdered. They exploited every resource at their disposition to discredit
His person and His teaching. They charged that He was possessed by a devil,"
that He was a Samaritan," and thus a member of a race hated and despised by
the inhabitants of Galilee and of Judea. They told Pilate that He had
attempted to turn the people away from the civil obedience which they owed
to the Roman emperor." Yet in no case did they even attempt seriously to
insinuate that He was not of sound mind. Once it is recounted that they used
this term in reviling Jesus, after the discourse that followed upon His
reception of the man to whom He had given sight. "A dissension rose again
among the Jews for these words, and many of them said: He bath a devil, and
is mad: why hear you Him? Others said: These are not the words of one that
hath a devil: can a devil open the eyes of the blind ?" The contempt with
which the defenders of Jesus treated this charge, and the constant direction
of the attacks made by His enemies show that the word was simply used as
invective. In their serious practical councils, the Jews never spoke of
Jesus in this manner.
The ignorant masses might possibly have been misled into thinking that
Jesus acted with diabolic, rather than with divine power if the Master
Himself had not confuted this charge with masterly and triumphant logic. The
crowd in Jerusalem might have imagined for a moment that He was a
foreigner, but Jesus disdained to reply to an accusation which would melt
away when any Galilean in the group recognized Him as a fellow countryman.
Pilate as a Roman civil official had no touch with Jewish religious affairs,
and he might well have been misled had Jesus not informed him about the
spiritual nature of that Kingdom which He commanded. But no man who saw and
heard Jesus could possibly be deluded into
"Cf. Man. 9:34; 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 1115; John 7:20; 8:52. 'John 8:48.
"Luke 23:2; John 19:12.
"John ro:19-22.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 257
thinking that He was a madman, and the Pharisees were far too efficient and
deadly in their hatred to set forth a charge which would be so manifestly
ludicrous. It is safe to say that their knowledge of Jesus' intellectual
health was somewhat superior to that of Rarnussen and his allies.
Simply as an indication of the futility which characterizes such charges
against Jesus of Nazareth, it is well for us to note that paranoia is a
definite type of psychic malady and paranoiacs are a well-defined class of
maladjusted and recognizably unfit individuals. Paranoia itself is generally
defined as a chronic systematized delusional state, of gradual development,
arising from internal causes and without the occurrence of hallucinations."
Those who suffer delusions of persecution suffer from this malady, which is
considered an aspect of psychic degeneration. The delusions of the true
paranoiac case render any effective adjustment to society absolutely
impossible.
6. The social acceptability of Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth appears to us, on
the pages of those reliable historical documents which give information
about Him, as a man of definite social charm, perfectly adjusted to the
society in which He lived. He chose a group of twelve companions and
assistants. He held their affection as a group until the end of their lives
and of His own earthly career. One of them betrayed Him to His enemies, but
was so overcome by remorse that he hurled back the fruits of his treason to
the authors of it and then went out and destroyed himself. The remaining
eleven were willing to abandon their possessions and their homes, and to
devote the rest of their lives to His service, even when that work meant to
them the frenzied opposition of their own religious and racial leaders. He
was kind and gracious to others not of this intimate circle, and the pages
of the canonical gospels do not record even one instance where He refused to
help those who were suffering or in real need. Not only men, but women also
were attracted to Him, and met with a response which motivated them to
become His followers.
He was sought after as a guest by ambitious and lion-hunting hosts. He was
courteous to all, and on one occasion at least keenly alive to the niceties
of politeness in a way that must have been disconcerting to a gentleman who
had invited Him to table but
"Cf. A Text Book of Psychiatry for Students and Practitioners, by Henderson
and Gillespie, 4 ed., New York, p. 235.
258 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
who had been intolerably careless about His reception." When He called
Matthew to the work of the apostolate, the former publican could think of
no better way to celebrate his good fortune than by inviting Jesus and His
disciples, with a group of his erstwhile associates in the business of tax
gathering to a 'banquet. The enemies of the Master did not approve of this
highly social conduct. However the three synoptic gospels record that Jesus
accepted the invitation. St. Luke called the affair a "great feast" and the
party was an unquestioned success." Only the most extravagant pedant could
find in such conduct evidence, of all things, of paranoia.
7. Jesus and His mother. In His relations with His mother, Jesus displayed
all the characteristics of a normal dutiful Son. In spite of the fact that,
even at the age of twelve, He was definitely conscious of His dignity and of
His mission, St. Luke tells us that He was an obedient and submissive Son to
Mary and to St. Joseph.'1 Jesus was invited to the wedding feast of Cana,
along with Mary and the disciples. When His mother asked Him, in the
insinuating way that mothers have always had, to perform a miracle in order
to relieve the embarrassment of their hosts, His response was that which the
normal and affectionate young man would naturally make. He did two things.
He pointed out the manifest untimeliness of her petition and then He
fulfilled it. The story is one of the most beautiful and typically normal
accounts of natural affection ever set down in history.
"There was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
And Jesus also was invited, and His disciples, to the marriage. And the wine
failing, the mother of Jesus saith to Him: They have no wine. And Jesus
saith to her: Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet
come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever He shall say to you, do
ye. Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner
of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus
saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the
brim. And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now, and carry to the chief steward
of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the
water made
'Luke :36-50.
14 Luke 5:27-32; Mark 2:13-17; Matt. 99-13. "Luke 2:55.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 259
wine, and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the
water; the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, and saith to him: Every man
at first setteth forth good wine: and when men have well drank, then that
which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning
of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested His glory, and His
disciples believed in Him.""
There have been opponents of Christianity who have professed to see in the
words of Jesus to His mother an unnatural harshness which indicated an
abnormal mental state on His part. Unfortunately there have even been
Catholic publicists who have taken some sort of scandal out of what they
regard as the asperity of the text, and have gone to every length, even to
that of gross mistranslation, to read into this response some saccharine
sentiment. It is very difficult to reason with men of this type, precisely
because they seek the perfection, not of a normal young man with a dutiful
affection for his mother, but of some idealized marionette. They forget that
the gospel pages record the life and the sayings of a male human being. They
lose sight of the fact that the doctrine of the Incarnation, one of the
central mysteries of Christian teaching, assures us that the Second Person
of the Blessed Trinity assumed a human nature, not in an abstract and
idealized condition, but of a man with all the tendencies which have
characterized normal male activity since the inception of the human race.
The words of St. John do not depict a plaster saint, but a perfectly
adjusted and affectionate young man who pleased His mother far more than He
would have had He acted according to the fantastic and unreal lights of
quibblers.
In this historical episode, Mary acted as a typical mother, conscious of
and grateful for the real and normal affection of her Son. "They have no
wine." The words themselves might express a mere observation, but Jesus who
loved her so well was quite aware that they meant far more than that to Him.
No woman worthy of her salt would demean herself to explain accurately and
logically exactly what she desired. Mary was definitely cognizant of the
fact that Jesus understood what she meant.
"Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come." This is
the normal response of an obedient and affectionate
u John
260 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
son. Any man who has at least the cherished memory of a beautiful and
gracious mother knows very well what that answer signifies and implies.
Jesus told her plainly that in itself the situation was not one in which He
would have interfered. He spoke in exactly the same way that normal and
affectionate sons have spoken to their mothers from time immemorial. And
thereby He gave joy to Mary's heart in a way that these dry-as-dust critics
could never comprehend. For He made her understand that this favor was done
for her sake. If she had not spoken, there would have been no miracle that
day in Cana of Galilee. This response in itself, and not in some softened
translation, was a message of affection to her.
As He was dying in agony on the cross of Calvary, Jesus thought of His
mother. He confided the charge of caring for her to St. John, the beloved
disciple. He commanded her to think of John as a son, and thus to find her
place and her adjustment in the world." Certainly there was nothing
subnormal in this relation.
His very enemies recognized His popularity. Indeed, apart from that
expression of perfect adjustment to society, they would never have bothered
to persecute Him at all. "The Pharisees therefore said among themselves: Do
you see that we prevail nothing? Behold, the whole world is gone after
Him."" The world does not go after paranoiacs.
8. The Jewish legends. The Jewish legends which have crystallized in the
Talmud depict Jesus of Nazareth as a deceiver, utilizing stage tricks of
magic to delude His people. The same legends were known and used by Ce'sus,
the erudite and forceful opponent of Christianity so decisively beaten by
the peerless Origen. As a matter of fact the enemies of Christ made that
charge against Him after He was dead, in petitioning the Roman governor for
a guard around His tomb. "And the next day, which followed the day of
preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees came together to Pilate,
saying: Sir, we have remembered that that Seducer said, while He was yet
alive: After three days I will rise again."" Actually, of course, there was
little else that men in their position could say. They chose freely and
culpably to reject the teaching and the claims which Jesus had set forth.
Since they did not have the corn-
11 John 1926-27. )3 John 12:19.
Matt. 27:62-63.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 261
fortable alternative, familiar to critics of the past hundred years, of
asserting that the discourses attributed to Him were not historical, they
were constrained to insist that He was either a seducer or a paranoiac. His
memory was far too fresh among them and among their fellow Jews who had
frequently seen Jesus triumph over them in debate to allow practical men
like themselves the luxury of claiming that He had been mentally
unbalanced. Obviously then the only course open to them was to assert that
He had deliberately set out to deceive and mislead His fellows.
Now there is only one standard by which the aptness of their designation may
properly be computed. That standard is, of course, objective truth itself.
If in reality Jesus of Nazareth was not what He claimed to be, and if the
message He preached was not actually a message which the living God had
communicated to man in a supernatural way, then He would have been far more
guilty than even the frenzied rage of His enemies attempted to make Him
appear. And, if He was inculpably mistaken on this point, His teaching would
have been the most catastrophic delusion in all the history of the human
race. However, since His message was truly divine revelation, and precisely
because He was what He professed Himself to be, the charges of his enemies,
both ancient and modern, are false and baseless.
9. The way of temperance. An occasional hater of Jesus and His teaching
takes advantage of one statement He made in order to assert that He lacked
something of ascetical perfection. In rebuking the men of His own time for
their manifest unwillingness to receive His teaching in a body, He declared
that they quibbled against every form in which the divine message had come
to them. "But whereunto shall I esteem this generation to be like? It is
like to children sitting in the market place, who, crying to their
companions, say: We have piped to you, and you have not danced: we have
lamented, and you have not mourned. For John came neither eating nor
drinking, and they say: He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and
drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a 'glutton and a wine drinker,
a friend of publicans and sinners. And wisdom is justified by her
children.""
It is obvious both from the text and the context of this apostolic narrative
that Jesus did not mean to imply that He had been
?..1 tt. ri:/6-19.
262 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
guilty in any way of intemperance with regard to eating and drinking. It is
clear enough that the charge was leveled against Him. Indeed the banquets He
attended, on the occasion of Matthew's call to the apostolate, in the house
of Simon the Pharisee and in the home of Simon the leper among others show
us very clearly that He was not at all averse to attending affairs where men
enjoyed each others company and the taking of nourishment. However the
very formation of the passage in question makes it abundandy clear that the
reproaches cast in His direction for this reason were as manifestly false
and baseless as was the accusation of diabolical possession aimed at John
the Baptist.
As a matter of fact the texts of the gospels show that it was precisely
amidst the convivial and pleasant surroundings of the banquet table that
Jesus found the opportunity to inculcate some of the most beautiful and
profound portions in all the content of His teaching. Moreover His conduct
in associating with His friends fulfills all the requirements of the virtue
of friendship described by Aristotle himself and recognized as the
characteristic of a morally good man." The virtue of temperance in itself in
no way demands complete abstinence from alcoholic drink. Such complete
abstinence is laudable and sometimes even necessary where a good work which
a man is bound to perform would be impeded or prevented through the use of
what is in itself a definite and useful good to humanity. As a matter of
fact the work which Jesus of Nazareth set out to accomplish was one which
would have been hampered rather than aided by a refusal on his part to mix
on ordinary terms in his own contemporary society. He presented Himself as
the Chief Prophet of public revelation, charged with the duty of bringing
God's message as effectively as possible to the people who stood in need of
it. The first recipients of that communication according to His teaching
were to be the children of Israel themselves." He refused to neglect any
agency by which He could instruct these people at all properly.
10. The direction of holiness. There was nothing in the character or in the
operations of Jesus to prevent His being taken seriously in claiming to be
the Bearer of a divine communication to men. But, from the moral point of
view, the life of Jesus constitutes not merely a negative, but distinctly a
positive mtitive of credi‑
23Cf. Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics, Books 8 and 9. ''Matt. 15:24;
Matt. to:5-6.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 263
bitty in favor of that doctrine which He advanced or revealed by God. For,
as He is described in the reliable historical documents which are available
to us, it becomes evident that He possessed a singular holiness, a nearness
to God which is manifestly beyond the natural competence of man as such, and
which therefore was in Him by reason of a divine operation distinct from and
superior to those forces which operate on the level of created nature. Thus
God testified to the authenticity of the claims advanced in favor of the
teaching which Jesus Himself proposed to men. Consequently the teaching of
Jesus is credible as divine revelation in so far as it is freely and
manifestly signed by God in this way.
Specifically the holiness which Jesus obviously possessed, and which men
were and still are able to observe in Him, consists in a firm adherence to
God together with a constant aversion from moral evil. As such it is far
more than mere passing moral rectitude. Any individual act of a human being
is reckoned as morally good in so far as it is concerned with a righteous
object, ordered to a good end and not vitiated by evil circumstances. A man
is said to be morally good when the course of his activity is directed
toward God, or when, in other words, he does good things for the sake of
God. Holiness implies perfection and firmness. A man, or for that matter a
thing, is said to be holy in the measure that he is devoted to God and
absolutely removed from moral evil. This is the characteristic manifest in
Jesus of Nazareth to a miraculous degree.
IL Holiness and the love of God. In treating of this sign of divine
revelation, clearly manifest in the conduct and in the very life of Jesus,
we must not, even for a moment, abandon the point of view of strictest
realism. The fact of the matter is that God exists, and that He is the Pure
Act, the infinitely perfect, immutable, omniscient, eternal, and sovereignly
free Creator of the universe. Again it is reality that man owes God a
tribute of service and love. If that tribute is not paid, then, despite the
other qualifications with which an individual may be endowed, he is a
distinct failure in the moral order. Conversely the love of God, a real
affection of benevolence, constitutes the basic motive in a life which is
morally acceptable. Jesus of Nazareth manifested a sincere love and service
of God in every department and aspect of His activity. That love influenced
Him toward the loftiest heights of moral perfection in His dealings with men
and in the government of His own life.
264 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
In this activity, guided and crowned by a supreme affection for God, lies
the evident sanctity of Jesus of Nazareth.
Now holiness is primarily an internal affair. The love for God is an act of
the human will, an act which in itself cannot be observed or described
through the sensible activities of other men. But a sincere and real
affection for God will inevitably reveal itself in the manifest activity of
the person who possesses it, and thus the men of His time and those of our
own day have an infallible indication of this sanctity, even while the love
which motivates it remains in itself invisible.
It is important that we understand, once and for all, how and why a sincere
affection for God, and the sanctity which results from such love, can be
naturally visible to the eyes of men. The key to the explanation lies in the
nature of that love and service which men really owe to the living God. A
real love of benevolence involves the intention to do that which is good
for the object of that affection. When we love a creature in this way, we
sincerely propose to do whatever is within our power in order to bring him
the happiness and perfection he is capable of receiving. When, on the other
hand, we possess a real and sincere love of benevolence for God, we know at
once that there is nothing which we can do to add in any way whatsoever to
His infinite perfection and felicity.
However we can understand, even from a purely natural point of view, that
this Pure Act, who is the Creator and the End of the created universe, has
actually brought all things distinct from Himself into being for the sake of
His own eternal and ineffable glory. Using the natural powers of our minds
alone, we are quite competent to realize that this glory of God is the only
motive which would be adequate and proper for the creation of a finite
universe on the part of the infinitely perfect Creator. Now the glory of God
consists in our appreciative knowledge of His goodness, a knowledge
manifestly demanding and resulting in praise for the divine perfection. As a
result a true and sincere love of benevolence for God involves an effective
desire to realize the divine glory by furthering and expressing a realistic
appreciation of His existence, His nature, and His attributes.
It is essential for us to realize that, although no additional good accrues
to the Creator out of any activity of an individual creature, .or for that
matter out of the corporate operation of the universe as a whole, there is a
definite benefit received by the intellectual
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 265
creature who gives glory to God. In willing His own glory, God intends by
that very fact that His intellectual creatures should know Him well enough
to recognize His goodness and perfection. It happens that knowledge itself
is a kind of possession. As a matter of fact it is the only way in which a
spiritual being can be possessed. Consequently in willing that He Himself
should be glorified, God intends that His intellectual creatures should
possess Him, and that in this possession they should enjoy the only
ultimately satisfactory blessedness man is capable of acquiring. For
happiness consists in the firm possession of an ultimate good, and no being
less than God Himself is competent to satisfy all the longings of the human
heart.
12. Holiness a positive sign of divine revelation. It is easy to see the
manifestation of a true love of benevolence for God. The man who has this
affection expresses it in recognizing and praising the Creator in his own
life, and then in directing his activity in such a way that by means of it
others will come to glorify their Creator and thus enjoy the one finally
adequate object of human felicity. It is true that there can be, and there
most certainly are other means available for testing the reality of a love
of God which is meant to be used by other men as a guide in their own
activity. Actually the Catholic Church demands and receives adequate
authentication of the sanctity attached to those persons whom she canonizes
as saints through legally attested miracles. Likewise the sanctity of Jesus
Himself, visible as such, is confirmed and as it were witnessed by the other
motives of credibility which attach themselves to the doctrine which He
proposed to men as divinely revealed.
It would be unscientific, and totally at variance with the manifest
tradition of Christian apologetics to consider the various motives of
credibility which substantiate the claims of Jesus as so many disconnected
and unrelated entities. Really the sanctity of Christ, the miracles and
prophecies, the social miracle that is the Church, and the wondrously
satisfactory character of the Christian message in itself all stand as
various organized parts in the one visibly divine seal, testifying to the
credibility of the Christian message as divine revelation. All of these may
be considered in themselves. Each motive of credibility has its own force,
and the miracles and prophecies especially are competent to give us an
objectively certain appreciation of Christian credibility. However the full
power and
266 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
perfection of the divine attestation is visible only when we see the
combined evidence of all these signs.
13. Jesus and affection for God. We may, however, consider the sanctity of
Jesus Christ by and in itself. It is strikingly evident that the Jesus of
Nazareth described in the four canonical gospels was a man of the highest
degree of holiness, a holiness which is manifestly supernatural in origin
when we consider it in its own light, but is still more extraordinary if we
compare it with the moral qualities of other men who have founded historical
religious doctrines or who have been intimately identified with other
religious cults. Mohammed," and long before him men like Epictetus" and
Marcus Aurelius" have expressed beautiful sentiments of affection for God.
Yet a man could never say fairly that the love of God was the sole or even
the outstanding interest of these men. The prophet of Islam most definitely
arranged his life in such a way as to gain a tremendous amount of material
wealth and sensual pleasure for himself. The two great Stoic philosophers
made even the love of God a means for the aggrandizement of their own pride.
As a twelve-year-old boy in the temple at Jerusalem, Jesus of Nazareth had
uttered a statement which was to be the keynote of His entire life. "I must
be about My Father's business."" Again He could state, without fear of
contradiction, at the height of His public career and in the face of His
most bitter enemies, "I seek not My own will, but the will of Him that sent
Me."" Finally, as He was preparing for the passion, in the prayer to His
Father which concludes the last address to the Apostles, He could declare
with confidence, "I have glorified Thee on the earth.""
14. The manifest beneficence of Jesus. His entire public life was spent in
an unremitting effort to teach a doctrine about God, a system of truth that
was meant to bring men to an eternal and ineffable possession of their
Creator. He had manifested for God the strong and perfect affection of a
Son. He had been obedient to His Father, following every prescription of the
natural law and every precept of that mosaic code which governed the
activity of the children of Israel. This conformity with the divine
injunction on His part was a matter so well known among His fellow Jews
* Cf. the Koran.
* Cf. particularly "The Discourses of Epictetus " by Arrian.
37 Cf. the Meditations. John 5 :30.
*Luke 2:49. " John 1714-
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 267
that He was able to offer successfully the most striking challenge a man has
ever been able to set before his accusers. "Which of you shall convince Me
of sin?'
In His contacts with the people of His own time this miraculous holiness
stands out still more clearly. Almost alone among the men of this world,
Jesus manifestly aided and perfected every human being who was willing to
receive His influence. He cared for the material wants of the people,
frequently bringing to their assistance the miraculous powers with which He
was equipped. The miracles of Jesus of Nazareth were not like the tricks
jugglers perform in a theater, merely intended to amuse or to astound the
populace. In every one of them a definite benefit, one which under the
circumstances at least would not have been accorded by the use of purely
natural means, was conceded to some individual or group of individuals. His
commands and counsels were always manifestly such as to make the Persons who
followed them really better men and women than they would have been
otherwise.
On the other hand, no harm or evil came to the children of men through the
preaching or the activity of Jesus. He did not seek to advance His doctrine
by means of violence. No man suffered hurt, no family was left indigent
because He had sought acceptance of His teaching. A sincere love of
benevolence for God carries with it the intention of doing good for those
who are called upon to glorify God for all eternity. No words can express
the beneficent attitude of Jesus toward His fellow men better than those in
which He expressed His own sentiments in this regard. "Come to Me, all you
that labor and are burdened, and I will refresh you."" He regarded His
fellow men as having been confided to His care by the heavenly Father, and
He considered that His function demanded that they be led to God in and
through Him. "I have manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou hast given Me
out of the world: Thine they were, and to Me Thou gayest them: and they have
kept Thy word.""
Finally His love for God, manifest and expressed in His affection - for His
fellow men, was strong and perfect enough to influence Him freely to undergo
the most horrible torment and death that the sins of men might be forgiven
and that God might be eternally
John 8:46.
Matt. 11 :28.
Nan 17:6.
268 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
glorified by the individuals thus redeemed. He saw the passion and death He
was about to undergo as something willed by the Father, and consequently as
an affliction which He would accept in order to accomplish the divine
mandate. "My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me;
nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt.'"4 Furthermore, He was
cognizant of the fact that His death and the shedding of His blood would be
ineffably beneficial to those whom He loved in God the Father. "This is My
blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of
sins."5 Thus in the case of Jesus, the love of God which is the root and the
foundation of all true holiness was demonstrated and made manifest for all
men in the most difficult and heroic act a man can be called upon to
perform.
15. Freedom from sin. The real and sincere affection of Jesus for the living
God is likewise manifest in His utter and constant removal from all sin. In
spite of the fact that He was readily accessible to men and women whom the
Jewish populace recognized as sinners, there was no trace of an offense
against the living God in His activity. As a matter of fact both the
followers and the enemies of Jesus were compelled to admit that there was no
shadow of fault in Him. St. Peter in his first epistle took definite
cognizance of this fact. He was able to commend the example of Jesus to His
followers without qualification or apology. According to the Prince of the
Apostles, Jesus of Nazareth lived perfectly in accordance with the doctrine
which He propounded. Thus a Christian would be a perfect man, and would
achieve that sanctity requisite in an adopted son of God precisely in so far
as He imitated the life of Jesus. "For unto this are you called: because
Christ also suffered for us leaving you an example that you should follow
His steps: Who did not sin, neither was guile found in His mouth."" St. Paul
insisted upon exactly the same fact. "Him that knew no sin, for us He hath
made sin: that we might be made the justice of God in Him."" "For we have
not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one
tempted in all things such as we are, without sin."" The beloved disciple,
St. John the Apostle and evangelist, who had known the Master even more
intimately than had his associates, was able to assure the Christians that
Jesus
"Matt. 26:39. Cf. Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42. "Man. 26:28. Cf. Mark 14:24; Luke
22:20. aell Pet. 221-22, r IT Cor. 5:2T,
Heb. 4:15.
• THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 269
had been utterly without moral fault. "And you know that He appeared to take
away our sins: and in Him there is no sin."9
16. Discernibility of Christ's holiness. Now there are two facts of salient
importance which must be taken into consideration when we deal with the
manifestly superhuman holiness of Jesus. In the first place His life was not
lived in rural obscurity, nor was He privileged with the privacy and
adulation which naturally fall to the lot of the rich and powerful. Again
His was a moral goodness which has served as an effective guide and exemplar
to those men who have lived most successfully according to the moral code
from that day to our own. Only when we recall these two truths can we gain
anything like an accurate and fitting recognition of this motive of
credibility.
The background against which Jesus of Nazareth moved and preached was
anything but sympathetic and gullible. Shortly after the outset of His
public career, He gained for Himself the bitter hostility of three very
influential groups of men. The Herodians, retainers and courtiers in the
houses founded by Herod the Great took up arms against Him. Once they joined
with the disciples of the Pharisees in a design to discredit Jesus before
the people." Again, with these same Pharisees, they entered into a definite
conspiracy to destroy Him. "And the Pharisees going out immediately made a
consultation with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him.""
Herod II, the leader of the family in the time of Jesus, murdered John the
Baptist and threatened to kill Jesus Himself. The response of Jesus, when He
was brought news of Herod's menace, shows the contempt in which the Master
held this plotter. "That same day there came some of the Pharisees, saying
to Him: Depart and get thee hence, for Herod hath a mind to kill Thee. And
He said to them: Go, and tell that fox: Behold I cast out devils, and do
cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I am consummated."" Secondly He
acquired the undying hatred of the chief priests, members, most of them at
least, of the sadducee school. These men were most interested in retaining
the good will of the Romans„for it was by their favor that they continued
in their influential and highly lucrative offices. The members of this
group were of necessity in the background during most
"I John 33. "Matt. 22:26. c' Mark 3-.6. "Luke 12:31-32.
270 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
of the active campaigning against Jesus. Yet it was one of their number,
Joseph Caiphas, who made the definite motion for the death of Jesus in the
conciliabulum summoned to decide His fate. "The chief priests therefore and
the Pharisees gathered a council, and said: What do we, for this man doth
many miracles? If we let Him alone so, all will believe in Him: and the
Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. But one of them named
Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing,
neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die
for the people, and that the whole nation perish not."" It was this same
Caiphus who called for the verdict of death against Jesus, and then handed
Him over to the Romans."
Yet, even more persistent and venomous than these in their hostility to the
Master were the Pharisees. These nationalists and zealots for the Jewish
tradition which was afterward to crystallize in the Talmud, written by their
successors, were engaged in every activity which was set up against Jesus
and His teaching. From this group were drawn most of the scribes, the
clerical officials of the Jewish commonwealth. As a class these scribes are
frequently marked as distinct enemies of Jesus, along with the other members
of the pharisaic organization to which they belonged.
Two individual members of this sect of Pharisees are recorded as having been
on friendly enough terms with Jesus to have invited Him to their houses."
However in each instance the man displayed a lack of courtesy at the dinner
he gave, and Jesus did not fail to chide them for it. However, when they are
mentioned as a group, invariably they appear as bitter and unrelenting
enemies, determined at any cost to ruin the influence of Jesus upon the
people and to encompass His death. St. Matthew has set down the most
terrible denunciation Jesus ever uttered against a class of men." It was
directed expressly against the scribes and the Pharisees.
Now their hostility against Jesus stands as the most perfect guarantee of
His miraculous holiness. These individuals were as thorough and despicable
in their methods as the OGPU or the Gestapo of our own days. We have
already seen that they sent emissaries to Galilee to investigate the
teaching and the conduct of • Jesus. We know of the labored and exact
bureaucratic process by which they endeavored to influence a man whom He had
cured
John I :47-50. Luke 8:36; 11:37.
"Matt. 26:65; Mark x4:63. °Matt. 23:13-36.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 271
of blindness to testify that He was a sinner." They watched Him to see
whether or not He would heal the ailing on the sabbath day, and they found
that He preferred to answer the call of holiness rather than to follow their
ridiculous hypocrisy (Luke 6:7). They were not only spies themselves, but
they attempted to influence the entire populace to trail and observe Jesus."
Now if there had been even the least remarkable lapse from perfect holiness,
it would never have escaped the attention of this lynx-eyed and contemptible
group. The final accusations which they brought to bear against Jesus were
manifestly false, and were in effect nothing but twisted versions of a
prophecy which He had made before the people. "And the chief priests and all
the council sought for evidence against Jesus, that they might put Him to
death, and found none. For many bore false witness against Him: and their
evidence did not agree. And some rising up, bore false witness against Him,
saying: We heard Him say: I will destroy this temple made with hands, and
within three days I will build another not made with hands. And their
evidence did not agree."" At the end of the three years of intensive spying
this was the best that the enemies of Jesus could adduce against Him. The
silly futility of their charges is the most eloquent witness that the moral
conduct of Jesus must have been, not merely above reproach but miraculous in
its purity and prudence.
17. The creative sanctity of Jesus' life. However the final and convincing
evidence that the holiness of Jesus was actually a moral miracle must be
sought in the creative nature of that sanctity. We can say with strict
scientific accuracy that all which has been best in the line of holiness
among men since the time of Jesus has been modeled, expressly and
laboriously, on the moral perfections easily recognizable in His conduct.
The heroic St. Paul, whose preaching brought the message of Christ to the
gentiles through all the plots and oppositions raised against it, called
upon the Christian to imitate his activity, and at the same time proudly
professed that his own conduct had followed the example of Jesus. "Wherefore
I beseech you, be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ."" St. Ignatius
of Antioch, in writing to the Romans, saw in the very martyrdom he was about
to undergo a final step toward conformity
" 'Jan .9. Mark 1455-59-
'8 John it:56. I Cor. 4:16; it :1; Phil. 3:17; I Then. :6.
272 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
with the life of his Master, and thus he desired this immolation as a seal
of that perfection which he recognized in Jesus." As a matter of fact the
"Imitation of Christ" has always been and will ever be the only road to true
moral perfection open to the men of this world.
Now there would be nothing specifically miraculous in the fact that the
virtues of one individual served as exemplars in the moral life of another
person living under much the same set of circumstances as himself. However
we are keenly aware of the fact that the natural competence and influence of
a man is bound to be limited. By the very force of things, the individual
person exercises attraction and serves as a model within a definitely
circumscribed area, for a definite period of time, and within the confines
of a definite racial or occupational group. The kind of influence which is
effectively exercised without respect for any natural boundary whatsoever
is manifestly something which belongs to that One who alone is competent to
create and to direct the universe as a whole. Upon this salient and
unmistakable fact rests the application of the sanctity of Jesus as a
positive motive of credibility in the full and strict sense of the term. For
we do not show that the holiness of Jesus was miraculous merely because it
was outstanding as human perfection. In the probity and fullness of His
moral conduct, Jesus of Nazareth manifested a force which was evidently
beyond the capacity of any creature, actual or possible. He showed men a,
power of goodness which stands as a definite and recognizable seal of
divine approval upon His claim that the doctrine He set forth as revealed by
God really was all that He claimed it to be.
Since this holiness, by reason of its potent universality, is something
which belongs to God, and could not possibly pertain on natural grounds to
any creature whatsoever, it follows evidently that God has given it to the
Person who actually possesses it. Now this gift of God, like every other
dealing of the Creator with men, is something which He has obviously given
freely and intelligently. God is freely the Source of that holiness which we
find in Jesus of Nazareth in the sense that no man has a natural claim to
such universal and thus unlimited influence in any way whatsoever.
Furthermore, in giving it, God was perfectly cognizant of all the
circumstances which surrounded the conferring of this favor. As
St. Ignatius, To the Romans, Ch. 6.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 273
a result, if He had granted this manifestly supernatural moral perfection to
a man who was using it to back up a false claim of divine origin for a
doctrine he was propounding, God would have performed an act similar to that
perpetrated by a man who attaches his signature to a document he knows to be
false. God would not and could not be party to such deception. Consequently
we are perfectly assured that a teaching offered as divine revelation, and
signed with an evident seal which could only be that of the Creator, is
definitely and rationally credible as a communication made to men by the
living God.
We cannot insist too strongly upon this evidently supernatural universality
in the holiness of Jesus. He has been an effective model for sanctity in
persons of every condition, of every age, of every nation, and of both
sexes. St. Louis of France could imitate the virtues of Christ in ruling a
nation or in leading an army in the thirteenth century. Kateri Tekakwitha
could model her life on that same holiness as a little girl among the savage
Mohawks. There is no age so advanced, no country so distant, no condition so
highly specialized, but that in their circumstances men may achieve full
moral perfection in building their lives according to the manifest exemplar
in Jesus.
18. Unlimited holiness in the teaching of Jesus. We must keep the same
principle of effective universality in mind when we consider the miraculous
holiness apparent in the doctrine of Jesus. Naturally the term holiness has
the same basic meaning when it is applied to a man and when it is predicated
of a teaching. It always involves closeness to God and absolute removal
from evil. Now the sanctity which characterizes the doctrine set forth by
Jesus of Nazareth is clearly manifest in its utter aversion from evil of any
sort whatsoever, and in its insistence upon an effective closeness to the
Creator in any possible set of circumstances. In other words, the teaching
of Jesus is visibly holy in so far as it offers an accurate teaching about
the living God, a correct notion of the place and function of man in the
created universe, and finally a real appreciation of the activity by which
man achieves and lives according to the norm of holiness. The fact that it
can produce models of sanctity in every race and age attests the miraculous
character of that holiness.
First of all there could be no such thing as a really holy doctrine which
was not based upon an accurate natural knowledge about
274 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
God. It so happens that sanctity is an affair which may be recognized by
the effects which it brings about in the' visible universe. Jesus of
Nazareth was quite insistent upon this point. "Beware of false prophets, who
come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs
of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil
tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit:
neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit."" A man will be holy in so
far as he loves God with a true and constant love of benevolence which, in
its turn, motivates the acts of all the moral virtues. The moral virtues
themselves depend upon a recognition of the true and living God. The
doctrine of Jesus is basically and recognizedly holy in as much as it offers
an objective and exact understanding of what we can know naturally about the
existence and the attributes of the Creator.
There could be no such thing as a real affection for God unless He is
presented and recognized for what He is, a Being infinitely perfect,
merciful, wise, and just, and thus ineffably deserving of all the affection
which man is at all capable of showing Him. Actually Jesus of Nazareth
presented such a doctrine about the Creator at a time when Jewish sacred
studies had degenerated into an obscure zeal for rabbinical traditions and
while the pagan writers and teachers were attributing to the deities of
their pantheon a series of vices which would disfigure and pervert even
purely human activity. That doctrine about the divine nature and attributes
laid the groundwork for a perfect instruction on the place and the opera-.
tion of those virtues in the exercise of which man achieves the ideal of
holiness. As a result the doctrine itself, both from a practical and from a
speculative point of view was recognizably holy.
19. Uncompromising opposition to sin, the doctrine of Jesus. Even from a
negative aspect, the teaching of Jesus Manifests a real and splendid
sanctity. He gave no directions for compromising with evil. He did not point
out a standard of mere utilitarian respectability. There was no limit beyond
which He did riot wish the holiness of His followers to extend. After having
concluded the first injunctions which He laid upon His disciples in the
sermon on the mount, Jesus showed them the only ultimate stand-
'3 Matt. 7:15-18.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 275
ard in the light of which human perfection and holiness must be evaluated.
"Be you therefore perfect as also your heavenly Father is perfect."
In order to achieve this perfection, man must perform certain acts and omit
others. For example he must love God and his neighbor, and he must refrain
from adultery and murder. In this field Jesus gave His followers definite
and inescapable commandments, disobedience to which meant loss of
perfection. But there were certain conditions which, while not in themselves
necessary for all men, were still mightily helpful to man in his essential
task of advancing in perfection. Jesus advised those who were able to do so
to utilize these conditions. Thus we have the evangelical counsels of
poverty, chastity, and obedience. The ultimate exemplar of that perfection
depicted in the teaching of Jesus remains the ineffable goodness of the
divine nature itself. In a unique sense, His is the teaching'of absolute
sanctity. The doctrine is miraculously holy in that it betrays none of that
limitation which must naturally condition all of the purely natural efforts
of man.
20. The holiness of Jesus is manifestly beyond the natural competence of
creatures. The effects of this doctrine clearly indicate its absolute lack
of, limitation. The great figures of holiness within the world since the
time of Jesus have imitated Him in accordance with the directions contained
in that doctrine which He presented as divinely revealed. The results of His
doctrine have been lives of holiness and perfection incomparably beyond
anything which the world has ever seen outside of His influence. The
doctrine has been absolutely effective in producing sanctity despite all
obstacles of temperament and background on the part of the persons who have
accepted it, and against every sort of interference brought to bear 'against
it. It has been unlimited in its scope, producing miracles of holiness in
martyrs and virgins, in doctors and confessors of the Church, in men and
women of every age and of every walk of life. Such a doctrine, with its
unrestricted efficacy, could never have been evolved or produced by
creatures of limited competence. It is manifestly an argument for the
claims advanced in its own favor.
21. The historical background of the motive of holiness. We must not allow
ourselves to imagine that this argument from holi‑
" Matt. 5:48.
276 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
ness was merely an historical afterthought, a demonstration adduced in
later ages by brilliant students of that teaching which Jesus offered to the
world. As a matter of fact this, like every other motive of credibility
which has ever been properly advanced to show that Catholic dogma can
reasonably and prudently be accepted as divine revelation, was specifically
mentioned by Jesus of Nazareth Himself. Apologetics would be neither
scientific nor effective if it were not treated as what it really is, an
integral part of that highly unified discipline which we know by the name of
sacred theology. Now it is the essential function of sacred theology to
explain and to state, efficaciously, clearly, and without equivocation, the
actual meaning conveyed in the deposit of that revelation which God has
given to the world in the preaching of Jesus, and which is requisite for all
men. Jesus stated explicitly that His message was to be carried to the body
of humankind. "Going therefore teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you
all days, even to the consummation of the world."' He intended that every
available resource of human ingenuity should be expended in the
all-important task of bringing this communication to men. St. Paul took
cognizance of this intention in his instructions to Timothy. "I charge thee
before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by His
coming and His kingdom: Preach the word, be instant in season, out of
season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine."
22. Jesus Himself appealed to His manifest holiness as a criterion of
revelation. Now that doctrine was meant to be given to men as Jesus Himself
had formulated it. He had confided it to the care of the Apostles and of the
Catholic Church of which they were the very foundation stones as a teaching
which was evidently credible in its claim as divine revelation. Moreover He
had shown the very points on which the evident credibility of this teaching
was manifest. One of those points was holiness, His own manifest sanctity
and that of the doctrine He preached.
Jesus indicated His own visible and miraculous sanctity, along with miracles
and prophecies, as a true and compelling motive of
"Matt. 28:19-20; Mark r6;x5. "11 Tim. 4:1-2.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 277
credibility in that mysterious and powerful discourse which He addressed to
the Jews in the temple of Jerusalem on Solomon's porch. "The Jews therefore
came round about Him, and said to Him: How long dost Thou hold our souls in
suspense? If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them: I
speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of My
Father, they give testimony of Me. . . . If I do not the works of My Father,
believe Me not. But if I do, though you will not believe Me, believe the
works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the
Father."36 Now we happen to know • very well, from the explanation given by
Jesus Himself, exactly what He considered "the works of the Father," the
characteristic divine signature that guaranteed the message He proposed as
a true communication from God to man. The Master had already given a summary
list of these "works" to the disciples of John the Baptist, who had sent
what we might term the official inquiry to ascertain the identity of Jesus
as the Messias, and thus as the divinely appointed Messenger who was to bear
the teaching of God to His fellow men. "Now when John had heard in prison
the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, He said to Him: Art Thou
He that art to come, or look we for another? And Jesus making answer said to
them: Go and relate to John what you have herd and seen. The blind see, the
lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the
poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be
scandalized in Me.""
The response as a whole appeals to the motives of credibility, not as
separate and unrelated entities, but as constituting a co-ordinated and
unified signature of divine approval for that doctrine which Jesus was
preaching to the children of men. Naturally apologetics, as a part or
function of sacred theology, intends to bring out the exact meaning of Jesus
in His very claims to credibility. Thus it must, in order to accomplish its
task effectively, look to the manifest and miraculous holiness of Jesus and
of His teaching as motives which are intimately related to the other signs
of divine revelation, and meant to cooperate with them in showing the
evident credibility of His doctrine as divine revelation.
'John 10:24, 25, 36, 38- "Matt. I I:2-6; Luke 7:18-23.
278 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
In this answer of Jesus, there is a manifest reference to the prophecy of
Isaias. Twice this great herald of God had foretold the very phenomena which
Jesus of Nazareth recounted on this occasion. In the thirty-fifth chapter of
his book we read of the beneficent physical and social miracles which are to
characterize the work of the coming Messias." Later, however, he distinctly
refers to miracles of charity, which are to be accomplished by the same
Person and in the same set of circumstances. Isaias speaks in the name and
the person of the divine Messenger, whose coming he predicts. "The Spirit of
the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me: He bath sent Me to
preach to the meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release
to the captives, and deliverance to them that are shut up. To proclaim the
acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God: to
comfort all that mourn: To appoint to the mourners of Sion, and to give them
a crown for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, a garment of praise for the
spirit of grief. And they shall be called in it the mighty ones of justice,
the planting of the Lord to glorify Him ."59
Thus the great prophet of the Hebrews foretold explicitly that effective
holiness was to characterize the workings of the Messias. The sanctity of
the Messias, as described by Isaias, was to be clear and evident enough to
enable the people to recognize the Person who manifested it as the promised
Messenger from God. As a result it could be of no common order. Evidently
there were to be great and good men in Israel between the time of Isaias and
that of the promised Messenger. But there would be, and there could be no
man apart from Him, who would manifest the evidently miraculous and
unlimited effective holiness which was to characterize the Messias. The work
of this chief Prophet of God was to be summed up in the accomplishment of
delivering a saving truth about God to those who stood most clearly in need
of it. It was to the "meek," those who habitually restrain their impulses to
anger, that the Messias was to bring His teaching. These meek are the
captives, the' enclosed, the all but forgotten men of this world. They are
the poor in spirit, the men who, whether they possess a measure of this
world's goods or not, recognize the radical insufficiency of all
53 IS2i.
Isa. 61:1-3.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESTJS 279
material wealth. Naturally the greater number among them do not possess this
wealth in any considerable quantity.
The miracle of holiness to be manifest in the Messenger from God was to be,
according to Isaias, shown in the effective relief of these people through a
presentation to them of a saving truth about the living God. We can
recognize a work of true benevolence as a measure of human moral value. We
know very well that a man who devotes himself to assuaging the ills of
others and to heaping benefits upon those who stand in need of them is
clearly a morally good individual. Obviously the excellence or degree of
this moral goodness is to be measured by the worth of the benefit conferred,
by the perfection manifest in the intention of the benefactor, and finally
by the extent of the benefaction itself.
23. The beneficence of holiness. In this case the benefit to be conferred
upon the human race by the promised Messias, the good which Jesus of
Nazareth really brought to men and that to which He referred as an evident
sign when He mentioned the poor having the gospel preached to them, is the
most ineffably valuable possession which the children of men can attain. It
is nothing more or less than truth by which man can receive the accurate
notion of God, with all of the necessary cultural and moral implications
flowing from this concept. It is a definite teaching through which men may
have an eternity of perfect and ineffable happiness and avoid a never ending
frustration and failure. The gift that the promised Messias was to offer,
the holy teaching which Jesus of Nazareth actually set forth is something
apart from which man cannot have the final felicity which he seeks. Apart
from it there will be no concept of God available to all men and requisite
for the full enjoyment and perfection of that social life which men are
expected to live in this world. As a result the presentation of this truth
to men constitutes an act of benevolence and is thus a characteristic of
holiness.
In our own times men are prone to forget or to ignore the actual fact that a
correct doctrine about the living God constitutes a blessing of
incalculable magnitude for mankind. They will, as a rule at least, gaily
concede that an individual who has managed to acquire some hitherto
undiscovered truths in the field of medicine or of technology and who takes
the trouble to communicate this information to those of his fellow men who
are in a position to utilize it, is a benefactor of the human race. The real
favor done
280 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
to society and to the individuals who compose it in the publication of
information about God and about the eternal destiny of man is fully as
actual and as evident. After all the standard used is that of human welfare,
in the absolute sense of the term. The knowledge of the physician or of the
chemist is a benefit to mankind in the sense that it can prolong human
life, intensify the enjoyment of those goods which should be utilized in the
full and perfect living of this life and prevent suffering. In so far as man
has contributed to the attainment of these ends, he is rightfully considered
as a benefactor of the human race.
The correct natural teaching about the living God constitutes the necessary
keystone for all the cultural and moral doctrine that lends dignity to human
life. In giving this knowledge to his fellows, a teacher makes it possible
for them to live with realistic and intelligent happiness in the midst of a
world they understand. It preserves them against the dangers of ignorance in
the cultural and in the moral order. The revelation which Jesus of Nazareth
presented to the world, the "gospel" mentioned in the book of Isaias, is
actually information which makes it possible for a man to enjoy an eternity
of perfect felicity. Thus human welfare is advanced far more by this "good
tidings" (for thus the word evangelium or gospel should be defined) than by
any contribution which can be made in purely secular fields. That is
reality. It is the business of the apologist so to explain his matter that
his hearers may observe this reality.
24. The intention of Jesus. The second norm which we can apply in discerning
the miraculous holiness of Jesus, as evident in His presentation of that
doctrine which we mean to establish as rationally credible is the intention
manifest in His preaching. He Himself averred that His message was delivered
to the poor. The passage of Isaias the prophet mentions the meek, the
captives, and men who are under restraint as the recipients of that
teaching. The implication is clear enough. In the first place it was the
purpose of Jesus to benefit those who stood in the greatest and most obvious
need of His doctrinal ministrations. Secondly those for whom He worked were
precisely those in no position to gain for Him any material or social
emoluments. The only motive which could influence such activity was
manifestly a love for men as such, for men in so far as they are called upon
to be the adopted children of the living God. Ultimately, then, the motive
was an effective
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 28!
and benevolent affection for God Himself. This love constitutes the
essential and requisite basis for all true holiness.
Now it is evident that the performance of an act based upon the love for God
is heroically good when it is carried on in the face of opposition and when
no return is received from the beneficiaries at all commensurate with the
benefit which is conferred upon them. In the case of Jesus of Nazareth we
find such opposition. We find that He did not seek any sort of a material
reward. His preaching was carried on despite the most stupendous instances
of ingratitude and malevolence manifested in His own regard. A preacher like
Mohammed might make his teaching the means for acquiring a civic regal state
for himself and for his family. Gautama might find that his own doctrine
brought him a central position in a pleasant group of men devoted to the
practice of prayerIess meditation. Jesus of Nazareth paid with tortures and
with His own death for His work of evangelizing the poor.
25. The extent of that holiness manifest in the preaching of Jesus. The
third standard by which the holiness manifest in preaching may be discerned
is that of extent. Naturally and obviously a work which is beneficial for a
larger group of men is greater, positis ponendis, than that which is of
service only to a few. The sanctity of Jesus was clearly heroic and
miraculous in that He intended to give and actually presented a teaching of
invaluable worth to all men. The limitless beneficence of the Christian
message is something which any man, willing to consider real facts, can
readily observe. As a result this effective and absolutely unlimited favor
to humanity stands as a striking indication that the man who presented it
and the doctrine itself are miraculously holy. The love for God manifest in
the beneficent and holy activity of a creature as such could not possibly be
endowed with this absolutely universal perfection. Thus the holiness of
Jesus, to which He appealed in His response to the messengers of John the
Baptist, and which He set as the keynote of His lifework when He cited the
prophecy of Isaias in the synagogue at Nazareth, is a valid mark of God's
approval for the claim of divine origin set forth in favor of the Christian
message." The infinitely wise and veracious Creator would never freely have
given such holiness to a man who was engaged in presenting a spurious divine
message.
"Cf. Luke 4:I6-2T.
282 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
26. The appeal to wisdom. There was likewise manifest in the doctrine and in
the life of Jesus a wisdom or intellectual perfection evidently quite
superior to anything which might be found in the natural mental equipment of
any man. Wisdom ccinsists in the knowledge of all things in their ultimate
cause. In the speculative order it is described best as that perfection of
the mind in which it grasps the meaning of the universe as a whole. In the
practical order wisdom is that consummate prudence, in the light of which
man knows how to act in such a way as to manifest the dignity and perfection
of a true child of God under every set of circumstances which may befall.
The practical wisdom of Jesus is manifest in the miraculous holiness which
characterized His life. The fact that he acted always and perfectly in the
capacity of a holy man, and that He could face every set of circumstances
which can affect the morality of human acts without ever deviating from the
line of the most perfect moral conduct is an evidence that He possessed an
intellectual quality not naturally present in the human mind. It was
something of divine origin, something which God presented to Him and which
would never have been obtained by any individual who appealed to miraculous
sanctity, among other signs, as an indication of divine origin in that
message which He presented to the world as a communication from the living
God.
At the moment we are most concerned with the miraculous speculative wisdom
manifest in the, teaching of Jesus, in so far as that teaching has been set
down faithfully in reliable historical works at our disposal. It so happens
that the message of Jesus, considered as a unit, is presented as
intrinsically supernatural. As a result it stands as a body of doctrine
which men could never ascertain by the merely natural exercise of their own
cognitive faculties. Furthermore, even after men have accepted it with the
certain and unwavering assent of divine faith once it has been revealed,
they are still unable, as long as they remain in this life, to see and
observe this doctrine as something evidently true." Thus there is no direct
way to make it naturally certain that there are three divine Persons, or
that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became incarnate.
Indirectly, however, we have two means at our disposal for distinguishing
this intrinsically supernatural Christian message as a
The Vatican Council, The Constitution, Del Fi (Denzinger, 1796).
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 283
doctrine of naturally manifest miraculous wisdom. In the first place we can
compare the mysteries themselves with those truths which we can ascertain
through the purely natural powers of human reason. Secondly we may examine
the concepts or terms in which the intrinsically supernatural propositions
were and still are expressed. These terms were explained and defined in so
far as they entered into the statement of the Christian mysteries. We have
it within our power to judge whether or not the definitions of these terms,
or what we sometimes know as the preambles of Christian faith, were in
accordance with the dictates of natural intelligence. It will be to our
advantage to consider first the miraculous wisdom as manifest in the
formation of these preambles.
27. The mysteries taught by Jesus. We must not allow ourselves to overlook
the fact that while the truths presented as mysteries in the doctrine of
Jesus are thus set forth as absolutely beyond the natural competence of the
unaided human mind, the terms in which these mysteries are couched are quite
obviously within the realm of reason. Jesus had said "The Father and I are
one."" The truth which He stated is obviously one which no man could
possibly demonstrate by any merely natural process whatsoever. It is stated
as a fact about the intimate life of God Himself. As a result only one who
sees the intimate life of God can possibly have evidence of its vent)'. The
only way in which such a statement can be accepted with objective and
satisfactory certitude is in the definite assent of divine faith.
However, the terms which go to make up this proposition are words which any
man can understand naturally. We know very definitely what the significance
of "Father" and of "One" is in this particular statement. By far the most
important term in all the doctrinal message of Jesus is the word "God."
Jesus stated that His Father was God, the One who had always been adored by
the Jews themselves. "Jesus answered: If I glorify Myself, My glory is
nothing. It is My Father that glorifyeth Me, of whom you say that He is your
God."" He took very good care that the people to whom He addressed His
message should understand what He meant by the term "God." Thus His
teaching, as we have already seen, abounds in explanations about the
existence, the attributes, and the creative activity of God. In exactly the
same way He
'John I030. John 8:54.
284 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
sketched a picture of the world and of man. He stated truths which are in
themselves within the natural competence of human reason in order that there
might be ground for neither error nor ambiguity in accepting the mysteries
properly so called.
As a result the teachings of Jesus have come into intimate contact with the
body of that human wisdom which we know by the name of philosophy. Thus we
are at liberty to compare at least this portidn of it with the writings and
the teachings of those men who have been the outstanding philosophers of all
time. Plato and Aristotle, Porphyry, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius from
olden times have all left to the world well-articulated doctrines about God
and man. Utterly apart from and independent of their entire current and
tradition is that teaching which Jesus of Nazareth offered. The world has
learned to know and to appreciate the cultural competence of the ancient
seekers after wisdom. Yet, with the passage of time it has found that the
teachings of any individual, or for that matter of the entire body of the
great philosophers is incomparably and visibly inferior to the wisdom of
Jesus as Manifest even in those teachings within the natural realm of
reason. It is obvious that His intellectual perfection is of an order
entirely above that of which human nature is itself capable.
28. The unlimited wisdom manifest in the preaching of Jesus. Again the most
effective standard available, to us for the purpose of comparison is that of
universality. We know from experience, and we can demonstrate from rigorous
metaphysical principles that the perfections of any creature are necessarily
limited. This limitation, of course, extends to the field of wisdom itself.
A man can easily obtain a grasp of reality sufficient for himself or for his
own time and culture. Furthermore, if his exposition is at all complete and
effective, his teachings may be highly beneficial for students of all
subsequent ages. But there is not, and there obviously cannot be one man or
one group of men who can lay down a definite, complete, and coherent body of
natural wisdom which can serve as a wholly competent guide to the human
beings of all times and of all cultures, acting with even the full force and
competence of human nature alone. This, however, is exactly what Jesus of
Nazareth has done, and what He continues to do, in even the naturally
ascertainable portion of His doctrine. So it is that He manifests an
intellectual perfection of the divine rather than of the merely created
order. Thus He offers one added guarantee that the message
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 285
which He presented to the world as divinely revealed was actually of divine
origin, for God could never possibly have conceded such an evidently
supernatural wisdom as something to be utilized in bolstering up the claims
of a spurious revelation.
It is quite easy to recognize this transcendent universal perfection in the
teachings of Jesus. There is no necessary point of doctrine about God or man
which He did not expose with manifest accuracy. He did not utilize the
traditions of any of the powerful philosophical or rabbinical schools extant
and flourishing during the period in which He lived. Yet while the members
of all these schools have left us the sort of incomplete and sometimes even
erroneous doctrine which we may expect from the natural activity of any
creature, Jesus of Nazareth, acting as an independent Teacher, gave the
world a system of natural truth which remains a marvel of fullness and
accuracy even to our own day. As a matter of fact His influence upon the
progress of philosophy has been such that the men of our time have come to
recognize the appropriateness of "Christian" as the characteristic
designation of those philosophical systems which embody the naturally
ascertainable truths which He set forth.
29. Limitation manifest in man's intellectual accomplishments. The wisdom of
Plato or Aristotle or Epictetus, to mention only three of the best-known
ancient philosophers, may have more than a mere historic interest to the
students of our own time. Speculative and moral philosophers can and should
derive valuable information from consulting the books which the first two
wrote, and the volumes which set for the teaching of the latter. But no man
in his right mind today could consider himself fully and completely the
disciple of any of them. Some of these ancient writers mingled a good many
serious errors with the truths which they presented to the world, while all
of them are definitely limited in their immediate efficacy as teachers. No
one of them presented a clear, unequivocal, and accurate natural knowledge
about God definitely available to all men without exception. That is
precisely what Jesus of Nazareth has manifestly done, and it is in this that
we find the obviously supernatural and unlimited nature of His wisdom.
We must not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with matters which
can be checked up and verified just as clearly as any problem in the fields
covered by chemistry or physics. When a man makes a statement about the
nature or the attributes of
286 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
God, in so far as these can be learned from an examination of the proofs by
which we know of His existence, we can subject that statement to rigorous
analysis and find with perfect certainty either its truth or falsity.
Furthermore, when a man presents a systematic teaching about God, man, and
the universe, we have it within our power to examine the completeness and
the accuracy of this system. We can see if there is some lacuna that
definitely prevents some organized teaching which might otherwise be
considered as an adequate guide for all men. The wisdom of Jesus as an
intellectual miracle is very clear indeed in this field.
Most of those men who were charged with the expression of Christian teaching
had a high regard for Plato. Yet they were quite well aware that the founder
of the Academy condoned certain forms of unnatural vice and actually taught
that the best elements in society should possess women, not in the natural
bonds of matrimony, but in common." The philosophy of Aristotle is
recognized as the most accurate expression in all the ancient tradition,
yet the great Stagyrite had a very low concept of divine providence, and
failed to see the conjunction of his own argument frorri motion with the
absolute mercy of God." Philo disfigured his philosophy with a description
of an entity placed between God and the created universe. Epictetus had no
idea whatsoever of the divine mercy, and considered the men who followed his
teaching in some way equal to God Himself. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus begins
his Meditations with a prayer which would remind a reader of the gospels of
the declaration by the Pharisee in the parable of the Pharisee and the
publican.
30. A means of comparison. We must realize that the best basis for
comparison is the reading of the canonical gospels with the books which
contain the thought of these philosophical masters of antiquity. We cannot
help admiring the genius of these non- Christian authors, but the very
excellence of their production fades into insignificance in comparison with
the teaching of Jesus. They were brilliant, and their brilliance enlightened
not only certain men of their own nation and generations, but also a good
number of their successors. Yet in every case theirs was essentially a
talent of the schools. Scholars could achieve a certain serenity of conduct
through the reading of Plato or Epictetus. But they could never
"The Republic, Book 5.
The Physics, Books 7 and 8; Metaphysics, Book 12 on Lombda.
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 287
begin to appeal to all men without exception. Aristotle could bring men of
mature and trained judgment to acknowledge the existence of an unmoved First
Mover. But he could never begin to refresh the body of mankind by pointing
out that this First Cause was the tender and merciful Father of mankind.
Epictetus could speak of the fatherhood of God, but even a glance at his
teaching in this regard shows the infinite distance by which the doctrine of
Jesus surpasses it.
The fact of the matter is that the smallest child who learns the doctrine of
Jesus through the little traditional Baltimore catechism has a far more
perfect recognition of God than any cognizance these masters of
non-Christian thought ever achieved. That child is matched by the little
ones of China and Poland, by the boys and girls of Brazil and of Italy. The
genius of St. Augustine and of St. Thomas Aquinas, the erudition of a
Sylvius or a Petavius have all been expended in examining the teaching of
Jesus. Every one of these men has acknowledged that the task of explaining
the doctrine which the Nazarene set forth as divinely revealed was one which
surpassed whatever intellectual perfection they may have possessed. Truly
history has been the great standard for showing forth the sublime and
supernatural wisdom of Jesus.
Now this teaching has never suffered from a dearth of opponents. From the
very time of Jesus until this present day there have always been able and
distinguished men who have been willing to utilize every resource at their
disposition to discredit Jesus and His message. Yet we find that there never
has been one item in all the naturally attainable doctrine set forth by
Jesus which these men have been able successfully to controvert In some
ways, of course, this negative testimony is difficult to handle. Yet the
fact that the enemies of Christ have no single point on which they can claim
an intellectual victory over His teaching constitutes the strongest possible
evidence of its divine origin. It would be absurd to attempt such a defense
in favor of any other teaching which has been brought to men in the history
of the world.
31. Examination of the mysteries reveals their transcendent wisdom. With
reference to the mysteries themselves, the procedure is, of course, quite
different. When an enemy of the faith attempts to deny or to disprove some
naturally attainable truth enunciated by Jesus, we can offer satisfactory
and intellectually compelling evidence in favor of that truth itself. But
when someone chooses to
288 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
controvert a mystery, like the Trinity or the Incarnation, we can only point
out that any argument which might tend to show the falsity of these
statements is itself faulty and inconclusive. In other words, we can and
have established the inaccuracy of the real objections which have been
urged during the centuries against the central dogmas of our faith. At the
same time however we know very well that it is utterly beyond our competence
to demonstrate these mysteries in any way whatsoever. Still the fact that
they have withstood the onslaughts of able foemen for upward of nineteen
centuries is an indication that here too we find a more than natural wisdom.
It would be a greater wonder than all the mysteries if an obscure
Palestinian Jew could have fabricated as divinely revealed mysteries certain
statements, admittedly beyond the capacity of the human mind to demonstrate,
and then have submitted these forgeries to a serious but unsuccessful
attack for nearly two millennia. The hard common sense of mankind knows very
well the utter impossibility of such an hypothesis.
An even greater to and indication of the miraculous wis‑
dom contained in the doctrine of Jesus is to be found in the attitude of His
followers toward the mysteries themselves. During the more than nineteen
hundred years which have elapsed since the death of Jesus, the cultural and
social conditions of the world have been in a continual state of flux.
Theory has succeeded theory in realms scientific. Portions of the earth
which were absolutely unknown to the men of Jesus' time have been found and
inhabited. The technical advance has been tremendous. Yet in spite of all
these changes, the doctrine which was enunciated in the valley of the Jordan
by Jesus of Nazareth retains its validity, and what is more its vitality.
Origen could defend this teaching against the "modern" objections of Celsus
in the third century, and could gain an immortal triumph. Peter the Lombard
could state them dearly and unequivocally in the twelfth with such signal
success that his admittedly literal statement of the Master's teachings
could animate the culture of an era. In the midst of the scientific and
cultural activity of our own times Garrigou-Lagrange and Walshe can present
these same doctrines as fresh and totally in accordance with modern needs
and knowledge. Obviously no merely human doctrine could expect or receive
such unlimited success.
The post-Christian Jews saw their pharisaical traditions crystallize into
the Talmud. In spite of the fact that a great people re‑
THE HOLINESS AND WISDOM OF JESUS 289
mains to this day animated by the• spirit of this somewhat extensive
document, no educated Hebrew of our own time would venture to defend every
statement contained in this compilation. As a matter of fact the more
brilliant Jewish scholars have always shown a tendency to veer away from the
strict acceptance of this teaching. That tendency was manifest in Spinoza.
It is manifest in men like Adler in our own day. The Mohammedan scholars
began with the idea of commenting on the Koran. The most ingenious among
them invariably ended as suspect at least by reason of the necessity which
they found of avoiding or denying some of its content. Only with the wisdom
of Jesus do we find traditionalism and brilliance combined. Those Catholic
scholars who have done most for the thought of the world have been precisely
men like Sylvius, Suarez, and Vitoria, writers who held and defended every
statement which is set down in reliable documents as having been taught by
Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus Himself appealed to the obvious wisdom and truth in His message as an
indication of the divine guarantee for the credibility of the mysteries
themselves. "But if I say the truth, you believe Me not. Which of you shall
convince Me of Sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me? He
that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not
because you are not of God.""
32. Jesus Himself appealed to the manifest wisdom of His teaching. It is
obvious that the Master appealed to this wisdom or truth of His doctrine
directly. It was manifest to the Jews themselves, that in those portions of
His teaching which were within the natural competence of human reason, He
had spoken correctly. As a result He was justly indignant with them for
rejecting the message as a whole. The God of heaven and earth could never
allow His truth to be prostituted to the service of a false revelation. The
fact that Jesus had been truthful, and that His wisdom was of the miraculous
order, stands as an evident divine signature, attesting the credibility of
the teaching which He presented as revelation from God.
The Samaritans in whose village Jesus stopped for two days accepted His
teaching as a divine message and used the miraculous wisdom manifest in His
discourse as a principal motive of credibility. "So when the Samaritans
were come to Him, they desired
John 8:45-47.
290 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
Him that He would tarry there. And He abode there two days. And many more
believed in Him because of His own word. And they said to the woman: We now
believe, not for thy saying: for we ourselves have heard Him, and know that
This is indeed the Saviour of the world."" Those who take the trouble to
investigate the teachings of Jesus, seeking for the truth rather than for
mere dispute, will ever recognize the same ineffable intellectual
perfection.
However the clearest appeal of Jesus to the obviously supernatural wisdom of
His teaching is described in the first and the third gospels. This is an
unmistakable assertion that the manifestly supernatural perfection of His
discourses was sufficient evidence of their divine origin. He made this
statement when a group of the scribes and Pharisees, ignorant of the true
nature of miracles and their efficacy as indications of the divine
approbation, asked Him to perform a wonder for their own amusement or
edification. "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying:
Master, we would see a sign from Thee. Who, answering said to them: An evil
and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall' not be given it,
but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was in the whale's belly
three days and three nights; so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the
earth three days and three nights. The men of Niniveh shall rise in judgment
with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the
preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here. The queen of the
south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall con, demn it
because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon,
and behold a greater than Solomon here."'
In this assertion we find a clear prophecy of the resurrection. At the same
time we have the unequivocal statement that the wisdom manifest in His
teaching, as obviously superior to the legendary intellectual perfection of
Solomon the king, should have drawn the men of Judea and Galilee to
recognize the fact that God Himself was speaking to them in the discourses
of Jesus. Jesus said that the force manifest in the preaching of Jonas had
been sufficient evidence for the powerful and corrupt Ninivites of the
divine origin of that message which he proposed to them. His own teaching,
rejected by His compatriots, carried in itself far more striking
manifestation of the divine approbation.
John 44O-42.
Matt. 12:38-42; Luke 11:29-32.
CHAPTER XV
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES
,1. The reality of those miracles attributed to Jesus. In this chapter we
must answer a series of questions pertinent to the credibility of Catholic
dogma as divine revelation. In the first place we must find out whether or
not we have historical evidence to say that Jesus of Nazareth actually
performed miracles. Then we must learn what sort of deeds are ascribed to
Him on the pages of reliable historical documents as signs and wonders.
From this we must ascertain whether the actual works which are attributed to
Jesus of Nazareth actually support His contention that the doctrine He
preached was really a message from the living God, meant to be accepted by
all men with the assent of divine faith. In this regard we should look into
the connection between the miracles of Jesus and the ancient messianic
prophecies in which these were foretold. Finally it is our business to learn
of the way in which Jesus Himself appealed to these miracles and in which
the apologists of the Catholic Church have followed the example of their
Master.
To the man who approaches this question from an unbiased and scientific
historical point of view, nothing can be more evident in all the long career
of the human race than the fact that Jesus of Nazareth worked miracles. We
have the unanimous testimony of the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles
and the epistles of St. Paul to this effect, and all of these works stand as
absolutely reliable historical documents. The testimony of the friends and
followers of Jesus is fully corroborated by that of His most deadly
enemies. We have at our disposal ancient writings, from Christian and
non-Christian sources alike, all united in the contention that the life of
this man abounded in works which are obviously beyond the natural competence
of any creature whatsoever.
2. The gospels as sources of our knowledge about miracles. Obviously the
most important sources from which we can learn about
241
292 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
the miracles of Jesus are the four canonical gospels themselves. Arranging
the gospel narrative according to the biographical order taught by the most
eminent scripture scholar of our own days, Father M. J. Lagrange, 0.P.,1 we
find no less than forty-eight occasions on which Jesus is said to have
performed manifestly miraculous acts. Many of these accounts tell of a great
series of such acts, others describe individual healings or wonders in
detail. The recountal of these miracles obviously enters into the intimate
fabric of the gospel narratives themselves. In the acknowledgment of these
miraculous activities, the four gospels preserve exactly the same historical
narrative style that they manifest in telling about any other
accomplishments of Jesus.
The gospels not only recount the series of miracles and the individual
wonders performed by Jesus of Nazareth, but they also tell of the reaction
to these signs on the part of His friends and His enemies. His disciples as
a group are said to have believed in Him after His first public miracle, the
changing of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana in Galilee. "This
beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee: and manifested His
glory, and His disciples believed in Him "' The dignitary whose son He cured
by a mere word believed, and brought all of his dependents to the faith once
he had learned of the miracle.' The first four Apostles, Peter, Andrew,
James, and John accepted the definitive call to the ministry of Jesus once
they had witnessed the miraculous draught of fishes.' Those who learned of
the resurrection of the widow's son at Naim recognized in Jesus who had
performed the miracle a great Prophet whom God had raised up among the
people.' The men who witnessed the first multiplication of the loaves and
the fishes actually wished to seize upon Him and to acknowledge their
acceptance of His divine messengership by giving Him the temporal royalty
which they mistakenly considered an adjunct to that office' The men who were
on the ship with Him when He calmed the tempest acknowledged that He was
truly the Son of God.' The
We have used the "Synapse des Quatres Avangiles en Francois &an:is la
Synapse Grecque do R.P. M.—J. Lagrange, 0.P., par le R.P.C. Lavergne, 0.P.";
20th thousand (Paris, 1934). In this work Father Lavergne modifies the
order of the Greek synopsis only where the more mature studics of Father
Lagrange, manifest in his masterly L'Evangile dc Jesus-Christ, iich thousand
(Paris, 1930), have shown the way.
John 2:11. 'Luke 7:16.
'John 4:53. °Jahn 6:15.
§
Matt. 4:20-22; Mark :18-20; Luke 5:11. Matt 14:32.
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 293
.Galileans who heard of His healing of the deafmute acknowledged that "He
had done all things well."'
However, the evangelists are careful to state that a considerable number of
those who had been privileged to see His miracles refused to believe in
Jesus. The raising of Lazarus from the dead, with all of its explicit and
direct appeal as a motive of credibility, brought many of those who
witnessed it to believe and left others so unmoved that they were willing to
betray Him to His enemies. "Many therefore of the Jews who were come to Mary
and Martha, and had seen the things that Jesus did, believed in Him. But
some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things that Jesus had
done. The chief priests therefore and the Pharisees gathered a council and
said: What do we, for this man doth many miracles? If we let Him alone so,
all will believe in Him: and the Romans will come and take away our place
and nation."
3. The enemies of Christ and His miracles. Cold blooded, vicious, but
intensely realistic, the enemies of Jesus never attempted to deny His
miracles. They considered them as effective signs, performed by the sort of
man who was worthy of credence by reason of His intellectual and moral
integrity. It was precisely because they were effective and real that they
meant to take definitive action against Him. It would have been the easiest
thing in the world, from their point of view, to indicate to the people who
reverenced and followed them that the hated Nazarene had never performed any
miracles at all. The fact that these tireless spies and inquisitors did not
do this is most certain evidence that the supernatural character of Jesus'
works was so manifest as to render such instructions ludicrous. The men of
the Sanhedrin felt that they could not afford to let Jesus alone. Still less
could they afford to make themselves a laughingstock before the people by
denying the reality of His signs.
4. The case of Nicodemus. Some of the leaders among the Jewish people were
sufficiently free from passion and prejudice to acknowledge both the reality
of His miracles and their demonstrative value. Nicodemus was one of these.
At the same time he was well enough aware of the dire consequences which
would follow upon association with Jesus to come to Him by night for his
first interview. The words of this clear-thinking man show one corn-
Mark 8:37.
° John it :45-48.
294 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
mon response to the works of Jesus. "And there was a man of the Pharisees,
named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night, and
said to Him: Rabbi, we know that Thou art come a Teacher from God, for no
man can do these signs which Thou dost, unless God be with him."1° Contact
with Jesus evidently confirmed the judgment which Nicodemus had drawn from
observing His miracles, for we find on the other two occasions in which he
appears in the gospel narrative that he later braved the wrath of his fellow
Sanhedrinites in defending Jesus against their attacks," and finally that he
was definitively numbered among the disciples." In all the history of
Christian apologetics no one has expressed the reality and the probative
force of those miracles which Jesus wrought with more perfect accuracy than
did this amicable and cultured leader.
5. An official investigation. The actual enemies of Jesus did not take his
miracles on mere hearsay. They were witnesses to a good many of them, and we
have seen how they sent investigators into Galilee from Jerusalem itself in
order to observe His works and His teaching." Moreover the entire ninth
chapter in the fourth gospel is given over to the account of one of the most
striking miracles Jesus ever performed and the relentless inquisition which
the Sanhedrin set up to discredit it if possible. The miracle was the giving
of sight to a man born blind. The work was occasioned by a question the
disciples themselves put to Jesus. "And Jesus, passing by, saw a man who was
blind from his birth: And His disciples asked Him: Rabbi, who bath sinned,
this man or his parents, that he should be born blind ?"" The answer of
Jesus was an indication of the nature of a miracle as such, and the
assertion that this man's affliction was something which God had ordered to
His own glory. "Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, not his
parents; but that the works of God should be manifested in him."" What was
to be performed would be precisely and evidently a divine work.
Then came the action of granting sight to this man who had been
"John 3:1-2.
." John 7:50-51.
"John 1'939-41.
"Cf. Mark 2:6, 16, 24; 3:6; 7:1; Matt 9:3, II; 12:2, 14; 15:1; Luke 5:21,
30; 6:2, H.
"John 9:1-2.
"John 9:3.
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 295
born blind. This time Jesus did not act as He did in the performance of most
of His other miracles and bring about the effect merely by the pronouncement
of a command or through touching the afflicted person. He made use of
natural means, but of means manifestly incapable of restoring sight by their
own power. Again, as happened on a few of the other occasions mentioned in
the gospel histories, the actual effect was not produced in the sight of
those who were with Jesus at the time. "When He had said these things, He
spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon
his eyes. And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe (which is
interpreted, Sent), He went therefore and washed, and he came seeing.""
The people who were acquainted with this man were naturally astounded at the
wonderful turn of events. When they ascertained that the miracle had been
wrought by Jesus, they brought the man to the Pharisees, knowing well that
they would object to the work because the man had been given his sight on
the Sabbath. "The neighbors therefore and they that had seen him before,
that he was a beggar, said: Is not this he that sat and begged? Some said:
This is he. But others said: No, but he is like him. But he said: I am he.
They said therefore to him: How were thy eyes opened? He answered: That man
that is called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to
the pool of Siloe and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see. And they said
to him: Where is He? He saith: I know not. They bring him that had been
blind to the Pharisees. Now it was the sabbath when Jesus made the clay and
opened his eyes.'"7
The subsequent conduct of the Jewish rulers makes it evident that they could
not be accused of any kind credulity. They made three distinct official
inquiries, questioning the man that had been cured twice and his parents
once. They learned to their own satisfaction that the man had been blind
since birth, and that Jesus had actually given him his sight by using a
simple ointment of mud on the helpless eyes and by enjoining upon the man a
bath in one of the pools around Jerusalem. By every device within their
power they attempted to bring the recipient of this miraculous favor to turn
against his Benefactor. At every turn they were met and
John 9;7-8. "John 9:8-14.
296 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
confuted by an irresistible appeal to facts. Their inquisition served to
confirm, rather than to becloud, the fact that this cure was actually a
miracle. The rigid character of their inquiry can be best shown by an
examination of the gospel narrative itself. "Again therefore the Pharisees
asked him how he had received his sight. But he said to them: He put clay on
my eyes, and I washed, and I see. Some therefore of the Pharisees said: This
man is not God who keepeth not the Sabbath. But others said: How can a man
that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. They
say therefore to the blind man again: What sayest thou of Him that hath
opened thy eyes? And he said: He is a prophet. The Jews then did no believe
concerning him that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they
called the parents of him that had received his sight: And asked them,
saying: Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then doth he now
see? 1--Es parents answered them and said: We know that this is our son, and
that he was born blind: But how he now seeth, we know not: or who bath
opened his eyes, we know not: ask himself: he is of age, let him speak for
himself. These things his parents said because they feared the Jews: for the
Jews had already agreed among themselves, that if any man should confess Him
to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. Therefore did his
parents say: He is of age: ask him.
"They therefore called the man again that had been blind, and said to him:
Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner. He said therefore to
them: If He be a sinner I know not: one thing I know, that whereas I was
blind, now I see. They said then to him: What did He do to thee? How did He
open thy eyes? He answered them: I have told you already, and you have
heard: why would you hear it again? Will you also become His disciples? They
reviled him therefore and said: Be thou His disciple: but we are the
disciples of Moses. We know that God spoke to Moses: but as to this man, we
know not from whence He is. The man answered and said to them: Why, herein
is a wonderful thing that you know not from whence He is, and He hath opened
my eyes: Now we know that God cloth not hear sinners: but if a man be a
server of God, and doth His will, him He heareth. From the beginning of the
world it bath not been heard that any man bath opened the eyes of one born
blind. Unless this man' were of God, He could not do anything. They answered
and said to him:
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 297
thou wast wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him
out.""
The reality of the miracle of which he had been the beneficiary so affected
the man who had been born blind that He acknowledged the divinity of Jesus
by an act of adoration which was reserved for the living God. "Jesus heard
that they had cast him out: and when He had found him He said to him: dost
thou believe in the Son of God? He answered and said: Who is He, Lord, that
I may believe in Him? And Jesus said to him: Thou hast both seen Him, and it
is He that talketh with thee. And he said: I believe, Lord. And falling down
he adored Him."" Knowing that his own cure was a miracle in the strictest
sense of the term, the man who had been cured recognized it for what it was,
an indubitable indication of the divine messengership belonging to the man
who had performed that miracle. Jesus tested that reaction by revealing to
him the central mystery in all His teaching, the fact of His own divine
Sonship. This Jew, convinced of the divine unity as were all his countrymen,
and upright enough to have braved the wrath of his national leaders rather
than betray the truth, instantly manifested his acceptance of this teaching
as a divine message. His words and his actions expressed his belief in the
divine Sonship of Jesus, and his acceptance of the Healer's message on the
authority of God Himself.
6. Miracles performed on the Sabbath. The Jewish leaders objected to many
of the miracles of Jesus precisely because He had performed them on the
Sabbath day. They claimed to see in this failure to observe the rigor of
their human traditions a transgression of the divine law itself, and thus an
indication that the healings of Jesus proceeded from some supernatural force
other than that of God. We have already seen how the council of the
Pharisees objected to the giving of sight to the man born blind. Similar
reclamations are found in the Jewish leaders' injunction to the man whom
Jesus healed at the pond called Probatica, not to carry his bed as Jesus had
commanded him." In this instance it is said explicitly that the persecution
suffered by Jesus at the time was caused by the fact that His miracle was
performed on the sacred day of rest. "Therefore did the Jews persecute
Jesus, because He
" john 9:15-34. " John 9:35-38. 'John 5:1-16.
298 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
did these things on the sabbath."" On this occasion Jesus replied to their
contentions by stating that the miracle was the work of God, His own Father.
In a similar situation, when the master of the synagogue where a miracle of
healing was performed inveighed against Jesus because He had acted on the
Sabbath day, the Master retorted "ad hominern et ad natianetn" by pointing
out that their concern for the Lord's day was in reality much less heroic
than they would have had it appear. The gospel narrative simply states that
His enemies were put into confusion by the miracle and by their own
unmasking." Furthermore, it is recounted that Jesus was aware of the
resentment of his enemies when, in the house of one of the leading
Pharisees, He miraculously cured a man who was ill of the dropsy on the
Sabbath day."
7. Admission of miracles as superhuman acts. We have already seen that, in
their railing against Jesus, the Jews shrieked that He was mad, and
possessed by a devil." The epithet of madman was evidently a mere expression
of unthinking rage. However His enemies seem to have made something of a
deliberate and organized effort to convince themselves and the multitude who
were subject to this influence that the miracles of Jesus were actually
brought about by the power of the devils. This charge was brought forward
particularly on those occasions when Jesus used His supernatural force to
cast out the evil spirits who possessed certain individuals. "But the
Pharisees said: By the prince of devils, He casteth out devils.""
The fact that the scribes and the Pharisees attributed the cures of Jesus to
a diabolical rather than to a divine power is the surest indication possible
that these individuals were convinced, much against their will, that He was
performing works far beyond the natural competence of any human being. They
were evil men, but they definitely and obviously were not stupid. They hated
Jesus, and they much preferred the comfortable security and leadership they
enjoyed at the moment to membership in a kingdom that demanded penance and
humility. There were two manifest facts' which they had to take into very
practical consideration. In the first place they were not going to
acknowledge His authority. Sec‑
" John ro:r9-21.
"Matt. 9:34; Mark 3:23-27; Luke Tr :r7-23.
"John 5:16.
"Luke 13:10-17. Lu k e
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 299
ondly they were faced with their own realization, and that of the people,
that works obviously beyond the capacity of human nature were being effected
by Jesus. To be consistent with their own stand, they had to declare that
these works were accomplished by the spiritual enemy of God, rather than by
God Himself. When Jesus triumphantly refuted their claim, most of them
persevered in making it. This was the one stand harmonious with their
frantic hatred for Jesus, and the voice of logic is faint indeed in the ears
of aversion like their own.
8. Witnesses of miracles. The conduct and the words, both of the friends and
of the enemies of Jesus, clearly and evidently attests the reality of those
miracles He performed. In the first place we can bring forward a recognized
and authoritative historical document which recounts the events that took
place immediately after the ascension of Jesus, and the first missionary
activity of the Church which He had founded during His life on earth. This
book is the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth and last of those historical
books included in the canon of the New Testament. It is convincing evidence
that those who had known Jesus of Nazareth most intimately were perfectly
convinced, even after His death, that He had actually performed works over
and above the natural competence of any creature. It recounts the actual
words of the followers of Jesus, spoken to the people who had seen and known
Him. The tenor of those words and the effect they produced make it
abundantly clear that those in a position best to know Jesus and His acts
realized that He had performed true miracles, genuine motives of
credibility.
In the first place, when the Apostles gathered to choose a man who would
take the place left vacant by the suicide of Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of
Jesus, they judged that their work consisted in acting as "witnesses of the
resurrection," the greatest and the most important of all the miracles of
Jesus. "Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that
the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of
John until the day wherein He was taken up from us, one of these must be
made a witness with us of His resurrection."" These were the words of Peter.
The same prine of the apostolic college was able confidently to
3° Acts 1:21-22.
300 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
appeal to the fact that the Jews to whom he spoke on that first Pentecost
had firsthand knowledge of the mirades performed by Jesus. "Ye men of Israel
hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth a man approved by God among you by
miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as
you also know."" We must note that on this occasion St. Peter adverted not
only to the existence of true miracles, manifestly performed by his Master,
but to the demonstrative value of these signs as well. The Man who had
worked these wonders was "approved by God," and obviously approved for what
He claimed to be, the bearer of a message from God to man which all men are
to accept with the certain and unwavering assent of divine faith. The
reaction to this assertion on the part of the Jews showed that they, as a
group, were perfectly cognizant with the reality of those miracles,
particularly the resurrection itself, to which St. Peter had appealed. "Now
when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and
said to Peter and to the rest of the Apostles: What shall we do, men and
brethren. But Peter saith to them: Do penance and be baptized, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins: and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to
your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God
shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort them
saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation. They therefore that
received his word were baptized, and there were added in that day about
three thousand souls. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the
Apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in
prayers."" In this case we have a clear acknowledgment of the fact that
Jesus had performed supernatural acts, an admission expressed in the only
truly adequate and congruous way possible, the acceptance of His teaching
as a true message from the living God.
Again St. Peter was able to assert publicly that Jesus had risen from the
dead after he and St. John had miraculously given the power to walk to the
lame man who was a beggar in the Beautiful Gate of the temple. "But the
Author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we
are witnesses."" The same
27 Acts 222,
215 Acts 237-42.
Acts 3:15.
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 301
statement was made without fear of contradiction to the leaders of the
Jewish nation after the two Apostles had been arrested and examined by
reason of the tumult which the miracle in the Beautiful Gate had
occasioned. "Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel: that
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom
God bath raised from the dead, even by Him this man standeth here before you
whole.' As far as the science of apologetics is concerned, the most
important aspect of these narratives is to be found in the fact that within
a few weeks after the crucifixion of Jesus, the Apostles who were interested
in bringing as many as possible to accept His message as divine revelation
could speak publicly and appeal without fear or danger of contradiction to
public wonders done by their Master.
9. The response of the Sanhedrin. Since Jesus Himself no longer appeared
among them, the leaders of the Jewish race had no reason to allow these
claims to go unchallenged unless they realized that the miracles had
actually been performed, and unless furthermore they were fully aware that
the populace itself knew about their reality. The Apostles repeated their
statement that Jesus of Nazareth had risen miraculously from the dead when
the high priest himself called them before him on the charge of disobeying
the orders of the Sanhedrin. "But Peter and the apostles answering said: We
ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers hath raised up
Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging Him upon a tree. Him bath God exalted
with His right hand to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel,
and remission of sins; and we are witnesses of these things, and the Holy
Ghost whom God bath given to all that obey Him."" Actually the words of the
Apostles so angered the chief priests that they were ready to put them to
death, and actually would have done so had it not been for the prudent
judgment of Gamaliel in their behalf. They administered the cruel and
degrading punishment of scourging, in order obviously to lessen the
influence of the Apostles upon the people of Jerusalem. But they did not and
could not take what would have been otherwise the easiest means of attaining
their objectives and putting an end to the party of Jesus, by offering some
sort of refutation against the public assertion that He had shown a divine
commission by performing works which were manifestly beyond the
" Acts 4:10. At 5:29-32.
302 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
competence of any created nature whatsoever. The fact that they did not do
so indicates very clearly their own conviction that the miracles of Jesus
were indeed real, and that, despite all evidence of divine approbation given
to Him, they intended to continue their opposition.
10. Paul and the resurrection. The idea of one miracle of Jesus, the most
striking and by all means the most effective as a motive of credibility
pervades all the teaching of St. Paul, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles
and in his epistles. This miracle is, of course, the glorious resurrection.
The manner in which he refers to this miracle in one of the first of his
doctrinal letters shows very clearly the kind of certitude he possessed
about the reality of this supernatural act. "Now I make known unto you,
brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received
and wherein you stand. By which also you are saved: if you hold fast after
what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I
delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received: how that Christ
died for our sins according to the scriptures: And that He was buried, and
that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures: After that He
was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven: Then He was seen by more
than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present,
and some are fallen asleep. After that, He was seen by James, then by all
the apostles: And last of all He was seen also by me, as by one born out of
due time."" The implication of this statement is clear enough. St. Paul
staked all the claims of Christianity on the reality of God's approbation as
manifest in the motives of credibility, and ultimately on this one most
effective motive, which was the resurrection itself. He points out that the
very man with whom the Corinthians are most familiar have been privileged to
witness this most powerful of all signs which to attest the veracity of
those claims advanced in favor of the Christian message. The Apostles as a
group, and then the most prominent among them, Peter, James, and Paul, are
all cited as having seen the Master alive after He had really died in the
horrible torments of crucifixion. Writing to a body of believers in the
great commercial port of Corinth, a place where the news of the world would
be received and dispensed most effectively, St. Paul clearly stated that
five hundred men had
"1 Cor. 1511-13.
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 303
seen the risen Jesus less than twenty-five years ago, and that a great
number of these men were still alive. Naturally, if no such men existed, the
Corinthians would very well know the falsity of this claim. The fact that he
dared to make this assertion to such a group is the best possible indication
that St. paul knew very well that he could substantiate every element and
aspect of this proof.
11. The testimony of Quadratus. It is interesing to note that, years later,
Quadratus, the first of the glorious company of Catholic apologists, was
able to set forth a like assertion in a letter to the Roman emperor,
Hadrian. Eusebius of Caesarea, the father of Church history has recorded the
following statement from the apology of Quadratus, a book which has
unfortunately been lost during the course of the centuries. "But Trajan
having held the sovereignty for twenty years, wanting six months, is
succeeded in the imperial office by Aelius Adrian. Quadratus addressed a
dis- course to him as an apology for the religion that we profess; because
certain malicious persons attempted to harass our brethren. The work is
still in the hands of some of the brethren, as also in our own. Frcfrn it
anyone may see evident proof both of the man's understanding and of his
apostolic faith. This writer shows the antiquity of the age in which he
lived in these passages. 'The deeds of our Saviour,' he says, 'were always
before you, for they were true miracles. Those that were healed, those that
were raised from the dead, were seen, not only when healed and when raised,
but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only while
our Lord was on earth, but likewise when He had left the earth. Thus some of
them have also lived to our own times.' Such was Quadratus."83
12. Celsus. Perhaps the most eloquent testimony to the reality of Jesus'
miracles is to be found in the writings of His enemies themselves. C,elsus
in his book, The True Discourse, written during the early years of the third
century uses the device of citing typically Jewish attacks against the
Master as the contention of a fictitious Jew whom he pictures as reviling
Jesus Himself. This personage attacks the Master as One who "having hired
Himself out as a servant in Egypt, on account of His poverty, and having
there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride
themselves, returned to His own country highly elated on
'Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Book TV, Ch. 3.
304 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
account of them, and by these means proclaimed Himself a God."" Origen
points out very shrewdly that in formulating this accusation, Celsus like
all the other instructed adversaries of Christianity implicitly admits the
historical accuracy of the canonical gospels themselves. The invective of
the fictitious Jew is an obvious twisting of facts set forth by St. Matthew
(2:13-22). Moreover the great apologist remarks that Celsus is here
"admitting somehow the miraculous works done by Jesus, by means of which He
induced the multitude to follow Him as the Christ.""
13. The list of miracles. There can be no room for any reasonable doubt
that Jesus of Nazareth was and is known to history as One who performed
miracles. Knowing that He actually did these things, it remains for us to
investigate in some detail the actual works which man has always recognized
and designated as wonders.
The four canonical gospels record forty-eight distinct individual or group
miracles as brought about by Jesus of Nazareth. The synopsis of
Lagrange-Lavergne distributes them in the following order:
t. Cana in Galilee, the changing of water into wine at the marriage feast
(John
2. Again at Cana, the restoration to health of a boy who was at the point of
death. The boy's father, a dignitary from Capharnaum, received this favor
of Jesus in Cana, where he had gone to entreat the Master to come to the
lakeside city and cure his son. The boy recovered in Capharnaum at the
moment when Jesus granted the petition to his father, some fifteen miles
away (John
4 :46-54) •
3. At Capharnaum, the casting out of an impure spirit from a man possessed.
The demon recognizes Jesus as "the Holy one of God," but He forbade any
further mention of His dignity by this unworthy being (Mark 1:23-27; Luke
4:33-36).
4. At Capharnaum, the mother-in-law of St. Peter cured of a fever (Matt.
8:14,15; Mark I:29-31; Luke 4:38, 39).
5. At Capharnaum, the curing of all the sick and infirm who were brought to
Jesus (Matt. 8:16; Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40. 6. At Capharnaum, casting out of
devils (Mark i 34; 3:11; Luke
4:41).
"Origen, Contra Celsum, Book 1, Ch. 28. The True Discourse of Celsus has
come down to us only in so far as it is cited by Origen.
" Origen, o.c., Book IT, Ch. 38.
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 305
7. The towns of Galilee outside Capharnaurn, many cures and beatings (Matt.
423).
8. On the sea of Galilee, a miraculous draught of fish (Luke 5:1-11).
9. In an unnamed town in Galilee, the cleansing of a leper (Matt. 8:1-3;
Mark 1:4o, 4r; Luke 5:12, 13).
1o. Capharnaum, before a crowd that included Pharisees from every part of
Galilee, from Judea and from Jerusalem; the cure of a paralytic. This
miracle was used by Jesus as a demonstration of the fact that He was
competent to perform the divine work of forgiving sins (Matt. 9:2-7; Mark
2:1-12; Luke 5:18-26).
Capharnaum, the same day, other cures which are not described in detail
(Luke 5:17).
12. A synagogue in Galilee, the restoration of a withered hand, a miracle
performed on the Sabbath, in the presence of scribes and Pharisees. Jesus
read the thoughts of these men and confuted their objections (Matt. 12:9-13;
Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-1o).
13. Capharnaum, a servant, about to die was restored to health. Jesus
commended the faith of his master, a centurion, who acknowledged that the
Master could heal the servant at a word, without actually going to see and
touch him (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-lo).
14. Naim, a young man who had died, and whose body was being carried out for
burial was restored to life (Luke 7:11-16).
15. Place and time unknown, seven devils cast out from Mary Magdalen (Mark
16:9).
16. The sea of Galilee, the calming of a tempest at the word of Jesus (Matt.
8:18-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25).
17. Near Gerasa, southeast of the sea of Galilee, the casting out of many
devils from a possessed man. These demons recognized Jesus and hailed Him as
the Son of God. They asked to be sent into a herd of swine grazing near the
site. Their request was granted and the swine plunged from a cliff into the
sea and were drowned. The Gerasians, struck with terror, asked Jesus to
leave their country (Matt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-2o; Luke 8:26-39).
x8. Galilee on the return from Gerasa, the healing of a woman who had been
under medical care for an incurable issue of blood for twelve years. She was
relieved of her infirmity on touching the garment of Jesus (Matt. 9 :20-22 ;
Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48).
19. Galilee, the same day, the daughter of Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue
in a Galilean town was raised from the dead. It was
306 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
while He was on the way to perform this miracle, at the request of the
girl's father, that the incident recorded under 18 took place (Luke 8:51-56;
Matt. 9:23-26; Mark 5:35-43).
20. Nazareth, a few sick persons were restored to health by Jesus through
the laying on of His hands. Both evangelists who mention this incident
remark that the number of these miracles was comparatively small because of
the unwillingness of the Nazarenes to believe (Matt. 13:58; Mark 6:5).
21. Galilee, the twelve Apostles, acting as the agents and heralds for
Jesus, cast out demons and cured the sick by anointing them with oil as He
had commanded them to do (Mark 6:13; Luke 9:6).
22. Near Bethsaida of Galilee, the first multiplication of loaves and
fishes. Five loaves of bread and two fishes were sufficient to satisfy the
hunger of a crowd of about five thousand men, not counting the women and
children. Twelve baskets were filled with what remained of the food after
this banquet (Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:35-44; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:1-15).
23. Near Bethsaida, healing of sick brought to Jesus (Matt.
14:14).
24. The sea of Galilee, Jesus walks on the surface of the water. The storm
which had agitated the boat in which His Apostles were sailing ceased when
He came aboard. St. Matthew recounts that Peter asked for the favor of
walking on the sea with Jesus. His petition was granted, but he began to
sink when he lost confidence. Jesus rescued him (Matt. 14:22-32; Mark
6:45-52; John 16-21).
25. Genesareth, on the shore of the sea of Galilee, Jesus healed all the
infirm who were brought to Him (Matt. 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56).
26. Jerusalem, at the pool called Probatica, the healing, on the Sabbath day
of a man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. The Jewish leaders
persecuted Jesus because of this act of mercy (John 5:1-18).
27. In the territory of Tyre and Sidon, north of Galilee on the eastern
shore of the Mediterranean, the daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman
relieved of diabolical possession. Her mother begged this favor of Jesus who
at first would not grant it because His mission was primarily to those of
the Jewish race. The humble perseverance of the mother won both the
commendation of the Master and the favor she petitioned (Matt. 15:21-28;
Mark 7:24-30).
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 307
28. In the region of Decapolis, the "ten cities" occupied the territory east
of the Jordan river and to the southeast of the sea of Galilee, here Jesus
cured many infirm. St. Matthew mentions that there were several lame, with
mangled or withered hands, blind and deaf-mutes, as well as numerous other
afflicted individuals. St. Mark tells in some detail the granting of speech
and hearing to one deaf-mute. Jesus put His fingers into the ears of the
sufferer, then, spitting, touched his tongue and gave the command "Open."
St. Mark records that the newly relieved man spoke correctly (Matt. 15
:29-31 ; Mark 7:31-37).
29. On the shore of the sea of Galilee, probably near the site of the
previous miracle, a second multiplication of loaves and fishes. This time
there were seven loaves and a few small fish. A crowd that counted four
thousand men, besides women and children were filled with this meal. Seven
full baskets of leavings were gathered up (Matt. 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-1o).
30. Bethsaida on the northern shore of the sea of Galilee, sight was given
to a blind man who had been brought to Jesus by the people. St. Mark, the
only evangelist to record this incident, states that, unlike the other works
of Jesus, this healing was first partially then completely effected. Jesus
took the man out of the town, spat on his eyes and then laid His hands upon
the afflicted individual. When He asked whether the man could see, the
beneficiary of the miracle informed Him that he could see "men like trees,
walking." Then Jesus laid hands on him again and from this time on his sight
was perfect (Mark 8:22-26).
31. On a high mountain, apart from the cities, a strong and constant
tradition, which finds literary expression as early as the fourth-century
writings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem fixes the site as Mount Tabor, a high
elevation near and almost directly east of Nazareth and roughly southeast of
Cana, the transfiguration of Jesus before Peter, James and John, the
Apostles. This comforting vision was inseparably connected, in the minds of
all three synoptic evangelists, with the profession of faith by St. Peter in
Caesarea Philippi and the consequent prediction of the passion and
resurrection which had taken place six days previously (Matt. 17:1-8; Mark
9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36).
32. In the midst of the crowd which had gathered at the foot of the mountain
upon which Jesus had been transfigured, the relief and cure of a boy who was
afflicted with epilepsy and possessed of
308 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
a devil. The father of the boy recounted to Jesus that the Apostles who were
left with the crowd had tried to cure the sufferer, but had failed. Jesus
ascertained that the boy had been stricken since his infancy. The father
gave evidence of his own faith. Jesus cast out the devil from the boy, who
then gave every appearance of dying. The Master then took him by the hand
and restored him to his father, alive and well. Later He informed the
Apostles that • demons of this type could be cast out only after prayer and
fasting. Furthermore, He stressed the ineffable power of faith (Matt.
17:14o; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 9:37-43).
33. Jerusalem, near the temple in which the Jews had just attempted to
stone Jesus, Jesus gave sight to a man born blind. This work was
investigated by the Pharisees as described above in this chapter (John
9:1-38).
34. On the road from Capharnaum, Jesus gave sight to two blind men. He
touched their eyes after having asked whether they believed that He could
cure them (Matt. 9:27-30).
35. Place not given, but this work is connected, in the account of St.
Matthew, with the miracle mentioned above, the relief of a possessed man who
was also stricken with dumbness. The Jews attributed this miracle to the
power of the prince of devils (Matt.
9:31-34).
36. Place not given, another distinct miracle in which relief was given to a
man who was both deprived of speech and possessed of a devil. SS. Matthew
and Luke describe this work, and St. Mark, while not mentioning the work
itself, recounts the comment of the Jews which is also set down in the books
of his fellow synoptic evangelists. The enemies of Jesus claimed that this
miracle as well as the other wonders wrought by Jesus were done by the power
of Beelzebub, prince of the devils (Matt. 12:22-24; Luke ri:14-16; see also
Mark 3:22).
37. In the synagogue of an unnamed town, on the Sabbath day, the cure of a
woman who had been an invalid for eighteen years. Jesus confuted the
insolence of the synagogue-master who blamed Him for this work of mercy on
the Sabbath (Luke 12:10-17).
38. In the house of one of the leaders among the Pharisees, on the Sabbath
day, the cure of a man sick with the dropsy. The doctors of the law and the
Pharisees refused to express their opinion on the legality of this cure when
they were challenged by the Master (Luke 14:1-6).
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 309
39. In a town near the border between Galilee and Samaria, the cleansing of
ten lepers. Jesus bade them to go and show themselves to the priest. The
cure took place while they were on the way. One only of the ten, a
Samaritan, returned to thank Jesus (Luke 17:12-19).
40. In Bethany, near Jerusalem, Jesus raised Lazarus, His friend, to life
after he had been buried for four days. The body gave evidence of
corruption. Jesus explicity thanked His Father before the miracle took place
for having heard Him always. He announced that the divine power was
manifest for the sake of those who were present, that, they might know that
God had sent Him. It is the clearest possible claim to divine messengership,
a claim substantiated by the miracle that followed. The Jews made this
miracle the immediate occasion for their final and effective design to put
Jesus to death (John 11
41. Near Jericho, Jesus gave sight to two blind men. The second and third
evangelists mention only one beneficiary, whom St. Mark calls Bar Timaeus
(Matt. 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-49).
42. On the road from Bethany to Jerusalem, a fig tree which did not bear
fruit withered and died the very day that Jesus cursed it for its idleness
(Matt. 21:18-22; Mark n:12-21).
43. In the garden called Gethsernani outside of Jerusalem, Jesus restored
the ear of the servant Malchus, who had been struck with a sword by St.
Peter. All four of the evangelists record the blow, but only St. Luke tells
of the miraculous cure (Matt. 26:51; Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50, 51; John
18:1o).
44. Gethsemani, that same night, the cohort which had come to arrest Jesus
fell to the ground when He announced His identity (John 18:6).
45. Jerusalem, at the hour when Jesus died, the temple veil was torn, there
was an earthquake. Tombs were opened and, after the resurrection of Jesus,
many of the dead appeared to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. A terrible and
unnatural darkness covered the earth. These events were enough to convince
the centurion who had been placed in charge of the execution that Jesus was
a just man and the true Son of God (Matt. 27:51-54; Mark 15:38, 39; Luke
23:45-47).
46. The Holy Sepulcher, the first Easter, the triumphant resurrection of
Jesus (Matt. 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-11; Luke 24:1-9; John 20:1-18). The various
appearances which Jesus made, even entering
310 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
a room while the doors were closed (John 20:26) are rightly considered as
manifestations of the resurrection itself.
47. The shore of the sea of Galilee, another miraculous draught of fishes
(John 21:6).
• 48. The Hill near Bethany, the Ascension (Luke 24:50-52; 'Acts 1:9-11).
Such were the wonders which history attributes to Jesus of Nazareth. These
works, perfectly attested as they are by the friends and enemies of Jesus,
stand as perfect indications of the divine power. Individually or taken as a
group they obviously surpass the natural capacity of any creature, actual or
possible. Furthermore, they are in harmony with what we knew and can demon.
strate rigidly about the divine nature itself.
14. The demonstrative force of the individual miracles. Con. siderecl
individually, every one of these works was such that no creature could
possibly perform them by natural power alone. We must not lose sight of the
fact that a creature, as such, is a definitely limited being. One of the
obvious manifestations of this limitation is the inclusion of the creature
within the single plan of divine providence. Now we do not see that plan as
it exists in the mind of God. However, we can know its accomplishment in so
far as it applies to the fixed physical laws of the material universe. We
know very well that there is a cycle that runs from birth to maturity and to
death, and we can see that no agency within the created universe has the
power to reverse this cycle. Furthermore, we know very well certain obvious
qualities of inanimate nature.
The surface of a lake will not support a man who walks upon it. Earth and
saliva will not immediately quicken an atrophied optic nerve. The sound of a
man's voice will not restore a hand that is withered, nor will it call back
to life a man whose body is already rotting in the grave. Most important of
all a man whose body has been torn by every torment known to the perverse
ingenuity of his fellows, and who has died cannot and will not return to
life because he wishes to do so. Yet these precisely are the actions which
Jesus of Nazareth performed.
We might search into the realm of absolute possibility, and conjure up the
figure of some creature to whom works of this type would be natural. Yet, by
the most manifest and rigorous scientific demonstration we can show that
such a figure would be merely a figment of the imagination. The basis of
this effective proof is, of
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 315
course, the accurate naturally attainable knowledge about God Himself. We
can know God as the necessary First Cause of all the reality contained
within the created universe. This First Cause is obviously the Lord and
Master of all things distinct from Himself. As a result we shall find
activity which is manifestly characteristic of God whenever we see operation
which is clearly unlimited by any of the confines which circumscribe the
effectiveness of created beings. Quite clearly the activity which Jesus of
Nazareth performed was of this type. No creature actual or possible could
act as the Lord of the universe any more than it could operate and exist as
the necessary First Cause. Hence the works which we recognize as having been
performed by Jesus of Nazareth are quite obviously operations of which God
Himself is the principal Cause.
15. The cumulative power of the miracles as a motive of credibility. We see
this truth very clearly first of all when we consider the works of Jesus
altogether. There was no type of creature with which He was not perfectly at
home and with respect to which He was not absolutely the Master. He showed
His mastery over the inanimate matter which abounds in the universe by
walking on the water in the sight of all. His control over vegetative life
was manifest in the destruction of the fig tree. He made sensible
manifestation of His power over the realm of pure spirits by casting out
innumerable demons that infected and possessed the souls of so many among
His countrymen.
Most frequently however we find Him working miraculous effects upon the
human body itself. At times, as in the cure of St. Peter's mother-in-law, He
produced an effect which might naturally have been brought about even in
this particular subject, but which most certainly could never have been
produced naturally in the manner in which He brought it into being. A person
may very well recover from an ordinary fever, but only an individual who
controls the order of nature itself can cure a fever merely by commanding it
to leave the one who is ill" or by taking the hand of the sufferer."
Most frequent, and for that matter the most spectacular among the miracles
Jesus performed were those in which He brought about effects which nature
itself is able to produce, but which it manifestly could not have caused in
those definite subjects upon
"E.g., Luke 4:39.
Matt. 8:15; Mark z:31.
WE STAND WITH CHRIST
312
which He worked. Nature, or to be more concrete, a created being by its
natural power can produce the act of vision, but most obviously it can
never produce this act in an eye that has been darkened since birth. The
power of created beings is sufficient to produce the acts of life, but
certainly these acts will not be brought about in a body already moldering
in the grave. In His activity, Jesus of Nazareth showed an unlimited ability
to perform works of this type. He manifestly cured diseases like leprosy
which are incurable. He gave not mere prolongation of life, but absolute
freedom from the disfiguring characteristic of the disease itself. He gave
sight to the blind, speech to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, and the power
of locomotion to those who had lost the use of their legs. His
accomplishments were manifestly those of One who is not in any way limited
by the physical laws themselves, but who has control of the material
universe, as the omnipotent Lord and Creator of that universe. Thus they
were manifestly works beyond the natural power of any creature, actual or
possible, acts freely performed by an infinitely wise and veracious God.
The risen Jesus clearly showed operations which physical nature is entirely
unable to produce in any subject whatsoever. For example the Apostles
gathered in the upper chamber at Jerusalem could see that Jesus entered a
room that was entirely closed off. This necessitated, on His part, a
miraculous compenetration of matter. His body passed through solid wall
without disturbing the substance of which the wall was composed. Likewise He
left the sepulcher in the garden without moving the stone which sealed it.
These were manifestly works which could not be performed other than with
the divine power.
16. The miracles of Jesus and the divine attributes. Moreover all of these
miracles were eminently consonant with what we know naturally about the
divine attributes. God is infinite perfection and goodness. As a result we
would at once recognize as spurious a work attributed to Him, when that work
resulted in real harm, and particularly in moral ruin to the individuals
upon whom it was accomplished. Judged by this standard the works of Jesus
are clearly in harmony with the divine nature. The overwhelming majority of
His miracles gave life, health, and bodily integrity to men. Demons who
impelled men toward degrading activity were cast out so that the resultant
conduct of these individuals was good. In no case was a person harmed by
these miracles. As a matter of
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 313
fact Jesus firmly refused to make use of the divine power which He enjoyed
in order to destroy His enemies."
God is infinitely Holy. As a result His works would not be performed like
tricks which conjurers do on the stage to amuse a group of onlookers. Jesus
of Nazareth upheld the divine dignity in the performance of His works. We
know that He refused to gratify the curiosity of the Nazarenes who wished to
see Him duplicate, in their city, the wonders He had previously wrought in
Capharnaum." The men who had witnessed the first multiplication of the
loaves and fishes had the temerity to ask Him for another sign by which
they could recognize the reality of His mission and reasonably believe the
doctrine He propounded, in this instance the sublime teaching on the
Eucharist. He was unwilling, of course, to accede to a request based upon
hardness of heart and mere curiosity." He would not make the ostentatious
entry into Jerusalem, performing idle wonders, as His relatives suggested.'
The fiery sons of Zebedee could not persuade Him to use His power to destroy
the Samaritan village which refused them hospitality." When the Pharisees
and the sadducees, both knowing His deeds very well by reason of their
constant spying upon His movements, asked Him for a sign from heaven, He
would not accede to their• request and flatter their vanity, but instead
gave them the somber prediction of His own death and the glorious prophecy
of His own resurrection." Herod was curious about Jesus, and wished to
witness a miracle, but Jesus would not oblige him even while He stood before
the tetrarch's tribunal." As He hung on the cross of Calvary, the enemies
who had encompassed Him taunted Him and challenged Him to come down. He did
not prostitute His - wondrous power to answer these blasphemous insults.
Manifestly, then, there is nothing in the accounts of these miracles to
justify the least reasonable doubt about their character as divine works.
17. Jesus appealed to His miracles as motives of credibility. However, we
see the full probative force of the miracles wrought by Jesus only when we
realize that He appealed explicitly to them as evidence for the credibility
of that teaching which He proposed to the world as a message from God. Here
again the power of the
Matt. 2653. Luke 423. 'John 6:30. 'John 7:2-8. Luke 9:54-55-
'Matt. 12:38-41; 16:1-4; Mark 7:11-12,
" Luke 23:8-11.
314 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
demonstration depends upon an accurate natural concept of God Himself. The
omnipotent Creator, who is infinitely just and all seeing, could not affix
what is manifestly His seal of approval on a spurious divine revelation.
Even an honest man would refuse to affix his signature to a statement he
knew to be false. Because it is historically certain that Jesus performed
real miracles, and because these signs were given precisely as a seal of
divine approbation that His doctrine was from God, we have perfect and
unwavering certitude that this teaching is credible for what it claims to
be.
The four canonical gospels abound in statements showing that Jesus appealed
to miracles and actually performed them precisely to demonstrate His
position as a messenger from God. He cured the paralytic in Capharnaurn in
order that His hearers might know "that the Son of man hath power on earth
to forgive sins."" Obviously in this case Jesus claimed for Himself a
divine power. The miracle was testimony that He could offer a divine act to
show that He was empowered to do what only God can accomplish, a forgiveness
of sin in His own name. But the greater dignity includes the lesser.
Showing Himself as a divine Person, Jesus demonstrated that it was
reasonable to accept the message He proposed as divine revelation, and to
hold it with the certainty of divine faith.
When the disciples of John the Baptist came to Him for a definitive and
official declaration of His messianic character, and consequently for His
office as the bearer of a message from the living God, Jesus pointed
explicitly to His miracles. "Now when John had heard in prison the works of
Christ, sending two of his disciples, he said to Him: Art Thou He that art
to come, or look we for another? And Jesus making answer to them: Go and
relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk,
the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have
the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized
in Me."" In this instance Jesus appealed to the miracles He had performed,
precisely in so far as these had been prophesied by Isaias and in so far as
they were joined with and confirmed by the manifest sanctity of His conduct.
Seen in this light they offer man absolutely incontrovertible evidence that
God approved with His own signature the claim that the message of Jesus was
divine.
A very practical way in which Jesus attached miraculous works
'Matt. 9:6-7; Mark 2:1/-12; Luke 5:24-25- "Matt. ii:2-6; Luke 7:18-23.
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 315
as evidences of credibility to His own doctrine is to be found in His
granting of miraculous powers to the Apostles. He chose these men that "They
might be with Him: and that He should send them to preach. And He gave them
power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils."" The Apostles exercised
that power both before and after the death of their Master." Furthermore, He
allowed others to perform miracles in His name, even though these were not
members of the apostolic college." The seventy-two disciples received a like
commission and attained the same results." Jesus then deemed the miracles as
a requisite seal for His own doctrine. His control of the divine power was
complete. He could effectively grant men the authority to perform these
miraculous works as His agents. The actual performance of these wonders
testified to the reality of His control and the genuineness 'of His claim.
Before the Jewish leaders who persecuted and hated Him, alleging as a motive
the puerile excuse that He performed manifestly divine acts on the Sabbath,
Jesus stated clearly that His miracles demonstrated that He was a messenger
from God, and that consequently the doctrine He preached was actually divine
revelation which men were bound to accept with the certain assent of divine
faith. He added that the power to perform these miracles was His own, as the
natural and consubstantial Son of the living God. Unquestionably a just God
could not have allowed further miracles to be performed unless the doctrine
as a whole, and this claim of divine Sonship in particular, had been really
a truth communicated by God to man. The account in the gospel according to
St. John follows the story about the cure of the sick man by the pool called
Probatica. The man had reported to the Jews that Jesus was the One who had
cured him. "Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus because He did these
things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now,
and I work. Hereupon, therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him:
because He did not only break the Sabbath, but also said God was His Father,
making Himself, equal to God. Then Jesus answered and said to them: Amen,
amen, I say unto you: the Son cannot do anything of Himself, but what He
seeth the Father doing: for what things
'Mark 314, 15. CE. Matt. 10:1; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1, 2. 'Matt. tr:t; Mark
6:12; Luke 9:6; Acts 3:6-8.
*Mark 938-40; Luke 9:49, 50.
"Luke 10:9, 17.
316 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
soever He doth, these the Son also doth in like manner. For the Father
loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things which Himself doth: and greater
works than these will He show Him, that you may wonder. For as the Father
raiseth up the dead and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom He
will."51 The meaning is clear. Jesus acknowledges His own work as a true
miracle, and thus as a genuine motive of credibility. He asserts that the
work is done by His own power.
However, in this same discourse, Jesus showed that His own teaching had been
manifested as credible by works of sufficient clarity. "The works which the
Father hath given Me to perfect: the works themselves which 1 do, give
testimony of Me that the Father hath sent Me: And the Father Himself who
hath sent Me, hath given testimony of Me.' The composite statement is clear.
The actual miracles which He had performed up to that time are alleged as
sufficient evidence for the divine origin of His teaching. At the same time
He promised that other and greater works, likewise authentic and certain
signs of divine revelation would follow. There could be no more perfect and
effective joining of an actual divine signature to a doctrine than that
which was manifested here by Jesus of Nazareth.
We find the same conclusion, that His miracles were meant to indicate the
divine origin of the doctrine of Jesus in His triumphant refutation of those
Pharisees and scribes who had attributed His casting out of devils to the
power of Beelzebub. "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is
the kingdom of God come upon you."" He had shown that His work was directly
opposed to that of the powers of evil. The prince of devils would not
destroy his own achievements. Furthermore, the effect produced by the
exorcisms of Jesus was similar to that brought about by those Jews who used
the name of the living God to cast out devils. The conclusion was
inescapable. His work was a divine operation. The implication was sure also.
Since the miracle was performed by One who claimed to present a divine
message, the message was authentic and credible. The kingdom had arrived
because its Leader and Prince was on the scene. Furthermore, their rejection
of His miracle was, according to Jesus, a sin against that Spirit of
John 5:16-21.
'John 5:36, 37.
46 Man, 12:28; Luke I I :20.
THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES 317
God by whose power the devils were cast out." The miracle then was
considered as a divine sign by Jesus.
Again He asserted that He, by virtue of His resurrection, would be a sign to
mankind. He claimed to be a greater and more effective sign than Jonas had
been by reason of his miracle, or Solomon because of his wisdom. The effect
of these lesser signs had been the belief of those men to whom they were
directed. Jesus bitterly blamed the men of His own generation for their
unwillingness to believe Him." Here we have the clearest indication that
Jesus considered His miracles as true motives of credibility and appealed to
them as such.
At the Feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem, in the Temple, on Solomon's
porch "The Jews therefore came round about Him, and said to Him: How long
dost Thou hold our souls in suspense? If Thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly. Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe Me not. The
works that I do in the name of My Father, they give testimony of Me."" The
works to which Jesus refers are the miracles themselves. Explicitly He
appeals to them as indicating His divine mission.
However by far the most striking appeal recorded as having been made by
Jesus to an individual miracle as a motive of credibility is found in the
account of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Standing in the midst of a
crowd before the tomb in which the body of His friend was already rotting
away, Jesus thus spoke to God. "Father, I give Thee thanks that Thou hast
heard Me.' And I knew that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the people
who stand about have I said it: that they may believe that Thou hast sent
Me."" He invoked and used the divine power, He performed the miracle
precisely so that men might recognize Him as an envoy sent from God and
might thus be led to accept His teaching as divine revelation.
Finally Jesus asserted, in that solemn discourse that followed the Last
Supper, that the evidence of His works was so clear and unique that those
who were aware of them and still refused to accept His teaching were guilty
of serious moral fault. The words resume all the subsequent theological
teaching on the demonstrative
"Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:1o.
"Matt. 12:39-42. Cf. Luke 15:29, 32.
John 1024-25. °John 11:45-42.
318 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
force of Jesus' miracles. "If I had not done among them works that no other
man hath done, they would not have sin. But now they have both seen and
hated both Me and My Father.' The words echo the terrible warning He gave to
the Pharisees before that time. "Therefore I said to you that you shall die
in your sins; for if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your
sin."" The sin of the Jews consisted in rejecting the manifest testimony of
God in the miracles of Jesus, as He told His enemies after they had
blasphemously refused to believe after they had seen the evidence in the
cure of the man born blind. "Jesus saith to them: If you were blind, you
should not have sin. But now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth.""
The miracles of Jesus have a tremendous cumulative force as motives of
credibility. As He declared they were truly works such as no other man has
ever done in all history. Long ago Arnobius" remarked that the miracles of
Jesus surpassed in number all of the wonders attributed to the various pagan
gods. Performed in every field of reality, innumerable, foretold in
prophecy, and joined with His manifestly supernatural goodness and wisdom,
the miracles of Jesus offer not some proof, but actual overwhelming evidence
that His teaching is a message from God which all men are bound to accept as
divine revelation. Incontestably they demonstrate the genuineness of the
divine good He offered to mankind.
58 John 15:24. "John 8:24. "John 941.
Arnobius, Adversus Nationcs, Book I, Ch. 43.
CHAPTER XVI
THE RESURRECTION
1. Supreme moment of the resurrection as a criterion of revelation. Jesus of
Nazareth died. He was buried. Then He lived and walked again. This
incontrovertible truth constitutes the supreme evidence for the reliability
of His teaching as divine revelation. So intimately is the fact of the
resurrection bound up with the credibility of divine faith, that St. Paul
could state that the acceptability of the Christian message as such
depended upon it. "But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ
is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching
vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of
God: because we have given testimony against God, that He hath raised up
Christ, whom He hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again. For if the
dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. And if Christ be not
risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins. Then they
also that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we
have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now Christ is
risen from the dead, the first fruit of them that sleep."
Since the resurrection of Jesus from the dead occupies this position of
unique importance as a motive of credibility, it is essential that
scientific apologetics should take special cognizance of the naturally
available information about it. We must first examine the historical
evidence about the reality of the death, the burial, and the resurrection.
Then we can analyze this datum and understand exactly why it constitutes the
outstanding seal of God's approval for the claim that the message of Jesus
was actually divine revelation.
2. The gospel accounts of the resurrection: The most important documents on
this matter are the four canonical gospels. We shall examine, side by side,
the independent accounts given by the evangelists of those events which
were of primary importance in world history.
COr. 15:13-20.
319
St. Matthew 27
50. And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51. And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to
the bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent.
52. And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had
slept, arose.
53. And coining out of the tombs after His resurrection, they came into the
holy city and appeared to many.
54. Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having
seen the earthquake and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying:
Indeed This was the Son of God.
St. Mark 13
37. And Jesus having cried out with a loud voice, gave up the ghost.
38. And the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom.
39. And the centurion who stood over against Him, seeing that crying out in
this manner He had given up the ghost, said: Indeed this man was the Son of
God.
St. Matthew 27 St. Mark 15
55. And there were many women afar off who had followed Jesus from Galilee,
ministering unto Him:
56. Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph,
and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
40. And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary
Magdalen, and Mary the Mother of James the less, and of Joseph and Salome.
4r. Who also when He was in Galilee, followed Him and ministered to Him, and
many other women that came up with Him to Jerusalem.
42. And when evening was now come (because it was the Parasceve, that is the
day before the sabbath).
St. Luke 23
46. And Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father into Thy hands I
commend My spirit. And saying this, He gave up the ghost.
45. And the sun was darkened and the veil of the temple was rent in the
midst.
St. John 19
30. Jesus therefore when 1.3 He had taken the vinegar, said: It is
consummated. And bowing His head, He gave up the ghost.
47. Now the centurion seeing what was done, glorified God, saying: Indeed
This was a just man.
St. Luke 23
48. And all the multitude of them that were come together to that sight, and
saw the things that were done, returned striking their breasts.
49. And all His acquaintance, and the women that had followed Him from
Galilee, stood afar off beholding these things.
St. John 19
31. Then the Jews (because it was the Parasceve), that the bodies might not
remain upon the cross on the sabbath day (for that was a great sabbath day)
besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be
taken away.
4.1
St. Matthew 27 St. Mark 15 St. Luke 23
St. Matthew 27
57. And when it was evening, there came a certain rich man of Arimathea,
named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus.
58. He went to Pilate and asked the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded
that the body should be delivered.
St. Mark r5
43. Joseph of Arirnathea a noble counsellor, who wa's also himself looking
for the kingdom of God, came and went in boldly to Pilate and begged the
body of Jesus.
44. But Pilate wondered that He should be already dead. And sending for the
centurion, he asked him if He were already dead. 45. And when he had
understood it by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
St. Luke 23
5o. And behold there was a man named Joseph, who was a counsellor, a good
and just man.
51. (The same had not consented to their counsel and doings); of Arimathea,
a city of Judea; who also himself looked for the kingdom of God.
52. This man went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
59. And Joseph taking the body, wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth;
6o. And laid it in his own
46. And Joseph buying fine linen and taking Him down, wrapped Him up in the
fine linen and laid
53. And taking Him down, he wrapped Him in fine linen, and laid Him in a
sepulcher that was hewed
St. John 19
32. The soldiers therefore came: and they broke the legs of the first, and
of the other that was crucified with Him.
33. But after they were come to Jesus, when they saw that He was already
dead, they did not break His legs.
34. But one of the soldiers with a spear opened His side, and immediately
there came out blood and water.
35. And he that saw it hath given testimony: and his testimony is true. And
he knoweth that he saith true: that you also may believe.
36. For these things were done that the Scripture might be fulfilled: You
shall not break a bone of Him.
37. And again another Scripture saith: They shall look on Him whom they
pierced.
St. John 19
38. And after these things Joseph of Arimathea (because he was a disciple
of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews) besought Pilate that he might
take away the body of Jesus. And Pilate gave leave. He came therefore and
took away the body of Jesus.
39. And Nicodemus also came, he who at the first came to Jesus by night,
bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight.
40. They took therefore the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with
the spices, as the
milowwww•er.n.
St. Matthew 27
new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone
to the door of the monument and went his way.
St. Mark 55
Him in a sepulcher which
was hewed out of a rock,
and he rolled a stone to
the door of the sepulcher.
St. Luke 23
in stone, wherein never yet any man had been laid.
54. And it was the day of the Parasceve, and the sabbath drew on.
61. And there was there Mary Magdalen and the other Mary sitting over
against the sepulcher.
62. And the next day, which followed the day of preparation, the
chief
priest and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, 63. Saying: Sir, we have
remembered that that seducer said, while He was yet alive: After three days
I will rise again.
47. And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joseph beheld where He was
laid.
55. And the women that were come with Him from Galilee, following after, saw
the sepulcher, and how the body was laid.
St. Matthew 27
64. Command therefore the sepulcher to be guarded until the third day; lest
perhaps His disciples come and steal Him away, and say to the people He is
risen from the dead: and the last error shall be worse than the first.
65. Pilate said to them: You have a guard: Go, guard it as you know. 66. And
they departing, made the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone, and setting
guards.
St. Matthew 28
1. And in the end of the
sabbath when it began to
dawn towards the first day
of the week, came Mary
Magdalen, and the other
Mary to see the sepulcher.
' St. Mark 15
St. Mark 16
r. And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of
James, and Salome, brought sweet spices, that coming they might anoint
Jesus. 2. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they
came to
St. Luke 23
St. Luke 24
r. And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning they came to
the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared.
St. John 19
manner of the Jews is to bury.
4/. Now there was in the place where He was crucified a garden: and in the
garden a new sepulcher wherein no man had yet been laid.
42. There, therefore, because of the Parasceve of the Jews, they laid
Jesus, because the sepulcher was nigh at hand.
St. John 19
St. John 20
x. And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen corneth early, when it
was yet dark, unto the sepulcher.
c4.1. %Jr
1L•
- - -
St. Matthew 28
2. And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord
descended from heaven: and coming, rolled back the stone and sat upon it.
3. And his countenance was as lightning, and his raiment as snow.
4. And for fear of him the guards were struck with terror, and became as
dead men.
5. And the angel answering said to the women: Fear not you: for I know that
you seek Jesus who was crucified.
6. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, and see the place
where the Lord was laid.
St. Mark 16
the sepulcher, the sun being now risen.
3. And they said one to another: Who shall roll us back the stone from the
door of the sepulcher?
4. And looking they saw the stone rolled back. For it was very great.
5. And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the
right side, clothed with a white robe: and they were astonished.
6. Who saith to them: Be not affrighted: You seek Jesus of Nazareth who was
crucified. He is not here, behold the place where they laid Him. 7. But go,
tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there
you shall see Him as He told you.
St. Luke 24
2. And they found the stone rolled back from the sepulcher.
3. And going in, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4. And it came to pass, as they were astonished in their mind at this,
behold two men stood by them in shining apparel.
5. And as they were afraid and bowed down their countenance towards the
ground, they said unto them: Why seek you the living with the dead?
6. He is not here, but is risen: Remember how He spoke unto you, when He was
yet in Galilee,
7. Saying: The Son of
St. Matthew 28
7. And going quickly tell ye His disciples that He is risen: and behold He
will go before you into Galilee: there you shall see Him. Lo, I have
foretold it to you.
8. And they went out quickly from the sepulcher, with fear and great joy,
running to tell His disciples.
9. And behold, Jesus met them, saying: All hail. But they came up and took
hold of His feet, and adored Him.
to. Then Jesus said to them: Fear not, go, tell my brethren that they go
into Galilee, there they shall see Me.
rt. Who when they were departed, behold some of the guards came into the
city, and told the chief
St. Mark 16
8. But they going out fled from the sepulcher: for a trembling and fear had
seized them: and they said nothing to any man: for they were afraid.
St. Luke 24
man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and
the third day rise again.
8. And they remembered his words. And going back from the sepulcher, they
told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
St. Matthew 28
priests all things that had been done.
12. And they being assembled together with the an- dents taking counsel,
gave a great sum of money to the soldiers,
r3. Saying: Say you, His disciples came by night and stole Him away when we
were asleep.
54. And if the governor shall hear of this, we will persuade him, and secure
you.
15. So they, taking the money, did as they were taught: And this word was
spread abroad among the Jews even unto this day.
St. Matthew 28
St. Mark 16 St. Luke 24 St. John 20 Liu
n.)
9. But He rising early the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary
Magdalen, out of whom He had cast seven devils.
so. She went out and told
9. And going back from the sepulcher, they told all these things to the
eleven: and to all the rest.
ro. And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and
2. She ran therefore and cometh to Simon Peter and to the other disciple
whom Jesus loved, and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out
St. Mark x6
them that had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping.
Ir. And they hearing that He was alive and had been seen by her, did not
believe.
St. Luke 24
Mary of James, and the other women that were with them who told these things
to the apostles.
ii. And these words
seemed to them as idle tales, and they did not believe them.
12. But Peter rising up ran to the sepulcher: and stooping down he saw the
linen cloths laid by themselves, and went away wondering in himself at that
which was come to pass.
St. John 20
of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid Him.
3. Peter therefore went out and that other disciple, and they came to the
sepulcher.
4. And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter,
and came first to the sepulcher.
5. And when he• stooped down, he saw the linen clothes lying, but yet he
went not in.
6. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher and
saw the linen cloths lying.
7. And the napkin, that had been about His head,
330 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
THE RESURRECTION 331
3. Details of the appearance to Mary Magdalen.
John 20.:11-18 (cf. Mark 16:9). ri. But Mary stood at the sepulcher without,
weeping. Now as she was weeping, she stooped down, and looked into the
sepulcher. sa. And she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and
one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. 13. They say to her:
Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: Because they have taken away my
Lord: and I know not where they have laid Him. 14. When she had thus said,
she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing: and she knew not that it
was Jesus. 15. Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest
thou? She thinking that it was the gardener saith to Him: Sir, if thou hast
taken Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him: and I will take Him
away. 16. Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning saith to Him: Rabboni (which
is to say,. Master). 17. Jesus saith to her: Do not touch Me, for I am not
yet ascended to My Father. But go to My Brethren and say to them: I ascend
to My Father and to your Father, to My God and to your God. 18. Mary
Magdalen cometh and telleth the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and these
things He said to me.
4. The appearance to the Disciples at Emmaus. St. Mark 16 St. Luke
24
12. And after that He appeared in 13. And behold, two of them went another
shape to two of them that same day to a town which walking, as they were
going into was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, the country. 13. And they
going named Emmaus. 14. And they told it to the rest: neither did they
talked together of all these things believe them. which had happened. 15.
And it
came to pass that while they talked, and reasoned with themselves: Jesus
Himself also drawing near went with them. 16. But their eyes were held that
they should not know Him. 17.. And He said to them: What are these
discourses that you hold, one with another as you walk, and are sad? r8. And
one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to Him: Art Thou only
a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done
there in these days? rg. To whom He said: What things? And they said:
Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet, mighty in work and word
before God and all the people. 20. And how our chief priests and princes
delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. 21. But we hoped
that it was He that should have redeemed Israel. And now besides all this,
today is the third day since these things were done. 22. Yes, and certain
women also of our company affrightened us, who, before it was fight, were
at the sepulcher, 23. And not finding His body came, saying that they had
also seen a vision of angels, who say that He is alive. 24. And some of our
people went to the sepulcher, and found it so as the women had said, but Him
they found not. 25. Then He said to them: 0 foolish and slow of heart to
believe in all things which the prophets have spoken! 26.
332 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His
glory? 27. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to
them in all the scriptures the things that were concerning Him. 28. And they
drew nigh to the town whither they were going: and He made as though He
would go farther. 29. But they constrained Him, saying: Stay with us,
because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And He went in
with them. 30. And it came to pass, whilst He was at table with them, He
took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. 31. And their eyes
were opened, and they knew Him: And He vanished out of their sight. 32. And
they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst He
spoke in the way, and opened to us the scriptures? 33. And rising up the
same hour they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered
together, and those that were with them, 34. Saying; The Lord is risen
indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35. And they told what things were done
in the way: and how they knew Him in the breaking of bread.
5. The appearance to the disciples in the absence of Thomas.
St. Luke 24 St. John zo
36. Now whilst they were speak- 19. Now when it was late that ing these
things, Jesus stood in the same day, the first of the week: midst of them
and saith to them: and the doors were shut, where Peace be to you: it is I.
Fear not, the disciples were gathered to-
37. But they being troubled and gether for fear of the Jews, Jesus frighted,
supposed that they saw came, and stood in the midst, a spirit. 38. And He
said to them: and said to them: Peace be to you. Why are you troubled, and
why 20. And when He had said this, do thoughts arise in your hearts? He
showed them His hands and 39. See My hands and feet, that His side. The
disciples therefore it is Myself: handle and see: for a were glad, when they
saw the spirit hath not flesh and bones as Lord. 21. He said therefore to
you see Me to have. 40. And them again: Peace be to you. As when He had said
this, He showed the Father hath sent Me. I also them His hands and feet. 41.
But send you. 22. When He had said while they yet believed not and this, He
breathed on them: and wondered for joy, He said: Have He said to them:
Receive ye the you here any thing to eat? 42. Holy Ghost: 23. Whose sins you
And they offered Him a piece of shall forgive, they are forgiven a broiled
fish, and a honeycomb. them: and whose sins you shall 43. And when He had
eaten be retain, they are retained.
fore them, taking the remains,
He gave to them.
6. The appearance to the eleven in the presence of Thomas.
St. Mark 16 St. John 20
14. At length He appeared to the 24. Now Thomas, one of the eleven as they
were at table: and twelve who is called Didytnus,
THE RESURRECTION 333
was not with them when Jesus came. 25. The other disciples therefore said to
him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in His
hands the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not
believe. 26. And after eight days, again His disciples were within: and
Thomas with them. Jesus corneth, the doors being shut, and stood in the
midst, and said: Peace be to you. 27. Then He saith to Thomas: Put in thy
finger hither and see My hands, and bring hither thy hand, and put it into
My side: and be not faithless but believing. 28. Thomas answered, and said
to Him: My Lord and my God. 29. Jesus saith to Him: Because thou hast seen
Me, Thomas, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen, and
have believed.
7. The appearance on the shore of Galilee.
St. John 2 r. r. After this Jesus showed Himself again to the disciples at
the sea of Tiberias. And He showed Himself after this manner. 2. There were
together Simon Peter, and Thomas who is called Didymus, and Nathanael who
was of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His
disciples. 3. Simon Peter said to them: I go a fishing. They say to him: We
also come with thee. And they went forth and entered into the ship: and that
night they caught nothing. 4. But when the morning was come, Jesus stood on
the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. 5. Jesus therefore
said to them: Children have you any meat? They answered Him: No. 6. He saith
to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship: and you shall find.
They cast therefore: and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude
of fishes. 7. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved, said to Peter: It is
the Lord. Simon Peter when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat
about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea. 8. But the other
disciples came in the ship: (for they were not far from the land, but as it
were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with the fishes. 9. As soon then
as they came to land, they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and
bread. ro. Jesus saith to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have
now caught. ii. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land, full of great
fishes, one hundred fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net
was not broken. 12. Jesus saith to them: Come and dine. And none of them who
were at meat durst ask Him: Who art Thou? knowing it was the Lord. 13. And
Jesus cometh and taketh bread and giveth them, and fish in like manner. 4.
This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to His disciples, after
He was risen from the dead. r5. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith
to Simon Peter, Simon son of jahn,lovest thou Me more than these? He saith
to Him: Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him: Feed My
Iambs. r6. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? He
saith to Him: Yea, Lord, Thou
He upbraided them with their incredulity and hardness of heart: because
they did not believe them who had seen Him after He was risen again.
334 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
knowest that I love Thee. He saith to him: Feed My lambs. 17. He saith to
him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me? Peter was grieved
because He had said to him the third time: Lovest thou Me? And he said to
Him: Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love Thee. He said
to him: Feed My sheep. x8. Amen, amen I say to thee: When thou wast younger,
thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst: but when thou
shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird
thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19. And this He said,
signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when He had said this,
He saith to him: Follow Me. 20. Peter turning about, saw that disciple whom
Jesus loved, following, who also leaned on His breast at supper, and said:
Lord, who is he that shall betray Thee? 21. Him therefore when Peter had
seen, he saith to Jesus: Lord and what shall this man do? 22. Jesus saith to
him: So I will have him to remain till I come, what is it to thee? Follow
thou Me. 23. This saying therefore went abroad among the brethren, that that
disciple should not die. And Jesus did not say to him: He should not die;
but: So I will have him to remain until I come, what is it to thee?
;
l'
!
!
8. The appearance on a hill in
St. Matthew 28
x6. And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where
Jesus had appointed them. 17. And seeing Him they adored, but some doubted.
18. And Jesus, coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to Me in
heaven and in earth: 19. Going therefore teach ye all nations: baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And
behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Galilee.
St. Mark 16
x5. And He said to them: Go ye
into the whole world, and preach
the gospel to every creature. r6.
He that believeth and is baptized,
shall be saved: but he that be‑
lieveth not, shall be condemned.
17. And these signs shall follow
them that believe. In My name
they shall cast out devils. They
shall speak with new tongues. 18.
They shall take up serpents. And
if they shall drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them.
They shall lay their hands upon
the sick, and they shall recover.
9. The last appearance in Jerusalem.
St. Luke 24. 44. And He said to them: These are the words which I spoke to
you while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled which
are written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms
concerning Me. 45. Then He opened their understanding, that they might
understand the scriptures. 46. Then He said to them: Thus it is written, and
thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third
day. 47. And that penance and remission
THE RESURRECTION 335
of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations beginning at
Jerusalem. 48. And you are witnesses of these things. 49. And I send the
promise of My Father upon you; but stay you in the city till you be endued
with power from on high.
10. The ascension.
St. Mark 16 ' St. Luke 24 Acts r
19. And the Lord 50. And He led them i. The former treatise Jesus, after He
had out as far as Bethania, I made, 0 TheophiIus, spoken to them, was and
lifting up His of all things which taken up into heaven, hands, He blessed
Jesus began to do and and sitteth on the them. 51. And it came to teach. 2.
Until the right hand of God. to pass whilst He day on which giving
20. But they, going blessed them, He de- commandments by the forth, preached
every- parted from them, Holy Ghost to the where, the Lord work- and was
carried up to apostles whom He had ing withal, and con- heaven. 52. And they
chosen, He was taken firming the word with adoring went back up: 3. To whom
He signs that followed. into Jerusalem with also showed Himself
great joy. 53. And alive after His passion,
they were always in by many proofs, for
the temple praising forty days appearing
and blessing God. to them and speaking
Amen, of the kingdom of
God. 4. And eating together with them, He commanded them that they should
not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father,
which you have heard (saith He) by My mouth. 5. For John indeed baptized
with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days
hence. 6. They therefore who were come together asked Him, saying: Lord,
wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7. But He said
to them: It is not for you to know the times or the moments which the Father
hath put in His own power: 8. But you shall receive the power of the Holy
Ghost coming upon you. And you shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and
in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth. 9.
And when He had said these things, while they looked on, He was raised up:
and a cloud received Him out of their sight. to. And while they were
beholding Him going up to heaven, behold two men stood by them in white
garments. Ir. Who also said: Ye men of Galilee, why stand you looking up to
heaven? This Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come as
you have seen Him going into heaven. 12. Then they returned to Jerusalem
from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem within a
sabbath day's journey.
11. The purpose and the signature of St. John.
St. John 20. 30. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His
disciples, which are not written in this book. 31. But these are written
336 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that
believing you may have life in His name. St. John 21. 24. This is that
disciple who giveth testimony of these things, and hath written these
things: and we know that his testimony is true. 25. But there are also many
other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written every one, the
world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be
written.
11 The appearances mentioned by St. Paul
I Corinthians r5. r. Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I
preached to you, which also you have received and wherein you stand, 2. By
which also you are saved: if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto
you, unless you have believed in vain. 3. For I delivered unto you first of
all, that which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins according
to the scriptures: 4. And that He was buried, and that He rose again the
third day according to the scriptures: 5. And that He was seen by Cephas and
after that by the eleven. 6. Then He was seen by more than five hundred
brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are
fallen asleep. 7. After that He was seen by James, and then by all the
apostles. 8. And last of all, He was seen also by me, as by one born out of
due time.
13. The resurrection in apostolic preaching. We have ample
historical evidence to show that the Apostles spoke openly of the
resurrection in the city of Jerusalem before those very individuals who had
been responsible for the murder of their Master and who now focused their
attention on the task of preventing and discrediting the teachings of His
followers. Had there been the slightest chance of disproving the apostolic
assertions, the high priest and the Pharisees would have produced the body
of Jesus, or at least shown what had happened to it, and thereby stopped the
existence of that society which they hated. They never made any move in this
direction. Thus the earliest preaching of the Apostles stands as an
unshakable evidence for the reality of the resurrection itself.
These Apostles considered themselves primarily witnesses to the
resurrection, and the successor to the traitor, Judas Iscariot, was meant to
act in that same capacity. "Wherefore of these men who have companied with
us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, beginning
from the baptism of John until the day wherein He was taken up from us, one
of these must be
made a witness with us of His resurrection."2 These were the words of Sr.
Peter.
/ Acts 1:21-22.
THE RESURRECTION 337
The prince of the apostolic college showed very well what he meant by
fulfilling the function of a witness to the resurrection of Jesus in his
pentecostal sermon to the Jews, delivered in Jerusalem a matter of only
seven weeks after the event he describes. "Ye men of Israel, hear these
words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and
wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as you also
know: This same being delivered up by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and
slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was
impossible that He should be holden by it. For David saith concerning Him: I
foresaw the Lord before My face always: because He is at my right hand that
I may not be moved: For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath
rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope: Because Thou wilt not
leave My soul in hell, nor suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast
made known to Me the ways of life: and Thou shalt make Me full of joy with
Thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the
patriarch David, that he died, and was buried; and his sepulcher is with us
to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God
had sworn to him with an oath that of the fruit of his loins One should sit
upon his throne: Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ,
for neither was He left in hell, neither did His flesh see corruption. This
Jesus bath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses."
We find the same positive and unquestioned statement of fact in the sermon
of St. Peter, delivered to the throng that gathered when he and St. John the
Evangelist healed the lame man in the Beautiful Gate of the temple at
Jerusalem. "Ye men of Israel, why wonder you at this? Or why do you look
upon us as if by our virtue or power we had made this man to walk? The God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our
fathers, hath glorified His Son Jesus, whom you indeed delivered up and
denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged He should be released. But
you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted
unto you. But the Author of life you killed, whom God bath raised from the
dead, of which we are witnesses."'
'Acts 2:22-32.
Acts
312-15.
338 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
The prince of the Apostles made the same statement, unchallenged, before
the Sanhedrin, the body which was officially responsible for the murder of
Jesus. These rulers had thrown Peter and John into prison by reason of the
miracle which they had performed, and which had resulted in the Christian
community's so increasing in numbers that it then included more than five
thousand men. "And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the
officer of the temple and the sadducees came upon them, being grieved that
they taught the people, and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the
dead. And they laid hands upon them, and put them in hold, till the next
day: for it was now evening. But many of them who had heard the word,
believed: and the number of men was made five thousand. And it came to pass
on the morrow, that their princes, and ancients and scribes were gathered
together in Jerusalem; and Annas, the high priest, and Caiphas and John and
Alexander, and as many as were the kindred of the high priest. And setting
them in the midst, they asked: By what power, or by what Name have you done
this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of
the people and ancients, hear: If we this day are examined concerning the
good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole, be
it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel: that by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised
from the dead, even by Him this man standeth here before you whole."'
The reaction of the Sanhedrin constitutes an admission of the reality of the
resurrection itself. "Now seeing the constancy of Peter and John,
understanding that they were illiterate and ignorant men, they wondered. And
they knew them that they had been with Jesus. Seeing the man also who had
been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. But they
commanded them to go aside out of the council: and they conferred among
themselves, saying: What shall we do to these men? For indeed a known
miracle hath been done by them to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. It is
manifest and we cannot deny it. But that it may be no farther spread among
the people, let us threaten them, that they speak no more in this Name to
any man. And calling them, they charged them not to speak at all, nor teach
in the name of
5ACtS 4:I-t0.
THE RESURRECTION 339
Jesus. But Peter and John answering said to them: If it be just in the sight
of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the
things which we have seen and heard."'
The ordinary teaching of the Apostles was designated as witnessing to the,
resurrection. "And with great power did the apostles give testimony of the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, our Lord: and great grace was in them all."7
There was no possibility of deception. The men who spoke had seen and heard
the risen Jesus, and the very enemies they confronted and sought to aid were
men who were all too well aware that Jesus had died and lived again.
The first official instruction given to candidates for baptism who were not
of the Jewish nation contains this same insistence upon the fact of the
resurrection. St. Peter spoke to Cornelius the centurion about "Jesus of
Nazareth: how God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went
about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by. the devil, for God
was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things that He did in the land of
the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging Him upon a tree. Him
God raised up the third day, and gave Him to be made manifest, not to all
the people, but to witnesses preordained by God: even to us who did eat and
drink with Him after He rose again from the dead." A solemn assertion that
Jesus really rose from the dead, an assertion strengthened by the fact that
His official witnesses ate and drank, with Him after the resurrection.
The various sermons recounted in the Acts of the Apostles manifest the
habitual mode of teaching employed by the earliest Christian teachers. We
find that form exemplified in the instructions of St. Peter, which we have
seen above. We see it again in the discourse of St. Stephen, the first
martyr,' and in the recorded sermons of St. Paul. The Apostles taught the
doctrine of Jesus in its proper historical perspective. His words are
inserted into the context telling of His life, death, and resurrection.
This announcement in its turn is placed against its proper background when
the earliest teachers of Christianity preface the recountal of God's
dealings with the chosen people to the actual account of their Master's life
and doctrine. Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen and
Eusebius all show us that the second gospel itself is a transcrip‑
° Acts 4:13-20. Acts 433. Acts 1038-41• Acts 7:2-53.
340 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
tion of St. Peter's own instruction." Thus we see the certitude which those
who knew Jesus possessed about the resurrection, and the great importance
they attached to it.
14. The catechesis of St. Paul. In the Acts of the Apostles we have several
examples of such teaching set forth by St. Paul. One of these, the sermon
delivered by the Apostle of the gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia manifests the
reality of the resurrection with special clarity. "Men, brethren, children
of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you fear God, to you the word
of this salvation is sent. For they that inhabited Jerusalem, and the
rulers thereof, not knowing Him, nor the voices of the Prophets which are
read every sabbath, judging Him have fulfilled them. And finding no cause of
death in Him, they desired of Pilate that they might kill Him. And when they
had fulfilled all things that were written of Him, taking Him down from the
tree, they laid Him in a sepulcher. But God raised Him up from the dead the
third day: Who was seen for many days by them who had come up with Him from
Galilee to Jerusalem: who to this present are His witnesses to the people.
And we declare unto you that the promise which was made to our fathers, this
same God hath fulfilled to our children, raising up Jesus, as in the second
Psalm is also written: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. And
to show that He raised Him up from the dead now not to return any more to
corruption, He said thus: I will give You the holy things of David faithful.
And therefore in another place also He saith: Thou shalt not suffer Thy Holy
One to see corruption. For David, when he had served in his generation
according to the will of God, slept: and was laid unto His fathers, and saw
corruption. But He whom God hath raised from the dead, saw no corruption."
So we have the open and unchallenged assertion of St. Paul that Jesus had
died, had been buried, and had risen again. Like all of his fellow Apostles,
he insisted that the risen Jesus was utterly incorruptible, immortal, and
glorious. He stated plainly that a good number of those who had seen Jesus
after the resurrection were still living, and thus still competent to
testify about the reality of His risen body. Like the other Apostles too,
St. Paul insists that the greater number of those who were privileged to see
Jesus
"Cf. Ch. 8.
11 Acts 1326-37.
THE RESURRECTION 341
after the resurrection were those who had known Him best, and thus those
best able to realize that the Person they saw was actually the Master they
had long loved and followed.
15. The resurrection in the apocryphal "Gospel of Peter." The earliest
noncanonical account we possess about the resurrection of Jesus is the
fragmentary and apocryphal "Gospel of Peter," most probably written a few
years before A.D. 150. The work manifests Docetist tendencies in that it
slides over the actual sufferings and death of the Master. In its own way,
however, it is valuable as an indication that even those men who had broken
away from the unity of Catholic faith were still certain that Jesus had
risen from the grave. We shall cite the most pertinent parts. "Now it was
noonday, and darkness prevailed over all Judea. . . . And many went about
with lamps and some fell. And the Lord cried out aloud saying: My power, My
power, thou hast forsaken Me. And when He had so said, He was taken up. And
in the same hour was the veil of the temple of Jerusalem rent in two.
"And then they plucked the nails from the hands of the Lord and laid Him
upon the earth: and the whole earth was shaken, and there came a great fear
upon all.
"Then the sun shone forth, and it was found to be the ninth hour. And the
Jews rejoiced, and gave His body unto Joseph to bury it, because he had
beheld all the good things which He did. And he took the Lord and washed Him
and wrapped Him in linen and brought Him unto his own sepulcher, which is
called the Garden of Joseph.
"Then the Jews and the elders and the priests, when they perceived how
great evil they had done themselves, began to lament and to say: Woe unto
our sins: the judgment and the end of Jerusalem is drawn nigh.
"But I with my fellows was in grief, and we were wounded in our minds and
would have hid ourselves; for we were sought after by them as malefactors,
and as thinking to set the temple on fire. And beside all these things, we
were fasting, and we sat mourning and weeping night and day until the
sabbath.
"But the scribes and Pharisees and elders gathered one with another, for
they had heard that all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts,
saying: If these very great signs have come to pass at His death, behold how
righteous He was. And the elders were afraid and came unto Pilate,
entreating him and say‑
342 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
ing: Give us soldiers that we may watch the sepulcher for three days, lest
His disciples come and steal Him away and the people suppose that He is
risen from the dead, and do us hurt. And Pilate gave them Petronius the
centurion with soldiers to watch the sepulcher: and the elders and scribes
came with them unto the tomb; and plastered thereon seven seals; and they
pitched a tent there and kept watch.
"And early in the morning as the sabbath dawned, there came a multitude from
Jerusalem and the region round about to see the sepulcher that had been
sealed.
"Now in the night whereon the Lord's day dawned, as the soldiers were
keeping guard two by two in every watch, there came a great sound in the
heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men descend thence, shining
with a great light, and drawing near unto the sepulcher. And that stone
which had been set on the door rolled away of itself and went back to the
side, and the sepulcher was opened and both of the young men entered in.
When therefore those soldiers saw that, they waked up the centurion and the
elders (for they were also there keeping watch); and while they were yet
telling them the things which they had seen, they saw again three men come
out of the sepulcher, and two of them sustaining the other, and a cross
following after them. And of the two they saw that their heads reached into
heaven, but of Him that was led by them that it overpassed the heavens. And
they heard a voice out of the heavens saying: Hast Thou preached unto them
that sleep? And an answer was heard from the cross, saying: Yea.
"Those men therefore took counsel one with another to go and report these
things unto Pilate. And while they yet thought thereabout, again the
heavens were opened and a man descended and entered into the tomb. And they
that were with the centurion, when they saw that, hastened to go by night
unto Pilate, and left the sepulcher whereon they were keeping watch, and
told all that they had seen, and were in great agony, saying: Of a truth He
was the Son of God.
"Pilate answered and said:, I am clear from the blood of the Son of God, but
thus it seemed good unto you. Then they all came and besought him and
exhorted him to charge the centurion and the soldiers that they should tell
nothing of what they had seen. For they said, it is expedient for us to
incur the greatest sin before
THE RESURRECTION 343
God rather than to fall into the hands of the people and be stoned. Pilate
therefore charged the centurion and the soldiers that they should say
nothing.
"Now early on the Lord's day, Mary Magdalen, a disciple of the Lord, who
being afraid because of the Jews, for they were inflamed with anger, had not
performed at the sepulcher of the Lord those things which women are
accustomed to do unto them that die and are beloved of them, took with her
the women, her friends, and came unto the tomb where He was laid. And they
feared lest the Jews should see them and said: Even if we were not able to
weep and lament Him on that day whereon He was crucified, yet let us now do
so at His tomb. But who will roll away for us the stone also that is set
upon the door of the tomb, that we may enter in and sit beside Him and
perform that which is due? For the stone was great and we fear lest any man
see us. And if we cannot do so, yet let us cast down at the door these
things which we bring for a memorial of Him, and we will weep and lament
until we come unto our house.
"And they went and found the sepulcher open. And they drew near and looked
in there, and saw there a young man sitting in the midst of the sepulcher,
of a fair countenance and clad in very bright raiment, who said unto them:
Wherefore are ye come? Whom seek ye? Not Him that was crucified? He is risen
and is departed: but if ye believe it not, look in and see the place where
He lay, that He is not here. For He is risen and is departed thither whence
He was sent. Then the women were affrighted and fled.
"Now it was the last day of unleavened bread, and many were coming forth out
of the city and returning unto their own homes because the feast was at an
end. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, were weeping and were in
sorrow, and each one being grieved for that which had befallen, departed
unto his own house. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets
and went unto the sea: and there was with us Levi, the son of Alphaeus, whom
the Lord
16. The testimony from the enemies of Jesus. Actually the explanations
offered by those who sought to discredit and to destroy
Here the manuscript ends. The English text of the entire document may be
studied in M. R. James's translation of the Apocryphal New Testament.
Oxford, 1926 (2nd impression), PP. 91-94; and in the version of J. Armitage
Robinson, found in the ninth volume of the "Ante Nicene Fathers" (New York).
11
344 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
the teachings of Jesus constitute a valuable indication of the reality of
His resurrection. Naturally enough these explanations would never have been
set forth unless there had been definite and universally manifest facts
which the foes of Christ felt that they must interpret in their own way. The
basic and what we may term the classical statement of the enemies of the
Christians is that which St. Matthew recounts in his gospel. "And they being
assembled together with the ancients, taking counsel, gave a great sum of
money to the soldiers, saying: Say you, His disciples came by night and
stole Him away while we were asleep."'
It is very important for the scientific apologist to realize how that
identical claim was advanced during the next generations. Justin the Martyr
alludes to it in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. "And though all the men
of your nation knew the incidents in the life of Jonas, and though Christ
said that He would give amongst you the sign of Jonas, exhorting you to
repent of your wicked deeds at least after He rose again from the dead, and
to mourn before God as did the Ninevites, in order that your nation and city
might not be taken and destroyed, as they have been destroyed; yet you not
only have not repented after you learned that He rose from the dead, but as
I said before, you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the
world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one
Jesus, a Galilean deceiver, whom we crucified, but His disciples stole Him
by night from the tomb where He was laid when unfastened from the cross, and
now deceive men by asserting that He has risen from the dead and ascended to
heaven.""
Even in the time of St. Justin, who died about A.D. 165, the Jews were far
too close to the actual events which followed upon the death of Jesus to
overlook the fact of the empty tomb. They were far too effective and
realistic in their hatred of Christianity to pretend that Jesus had not
died and had not been buried. Furthermore, they took cognizance of the
manifest reality, that His body was no longer within the tomb where His
disciples had placed it, and that it had disappeared a matter of hours after
the inhumation itself, while the tomb was guarded. The men who watched over
the sepulcher of Christ were not some hangers on of the temple, sent for the
purpose by the Jewish leaders. They were Roman
13 Matt.
2812-13.
14 St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, Ch. ,o8.
THE RESURRECTION 345
soldiers, under the command of an officer. Nevertheless the body of Jesus
left that tomb, and the Jews were driven to assert that the poor frightened
and ineffectual disciples had managed to overpower the legionaries.
Any denial of the resurrection is and must be an attempt to explain away
obvious facts. Yet the Jewish prodamation was less ineffective than later
hypotheses in that it denied as few facts as possible.
It so happened that the very ferocity of His enemies constituted a means by
which the men of all times may be perfectly certain that He rose again from
the dead. In the first place the manner in which Jesus was afflicted by His
enemies left no doubt whatsoever concerning the reality of His death. It
would be perfectly possible for a false report to be spread abroad about the
death of some person who lived remote from any crowd. Jesus of Nazareth was
condemned to the ignominious death of the cross, and actually suffered it.
He died in the presence of official witnesses, and before a throng gathered
from the city of Jerusalem itself. He suffered on the chief feast day of the
Jews, on a day when the city housed, not only its own inhabitants but a
tremendous throng of pilgrims from Palestine and even from the Diaspora.
This tremendous crowd saw Him die on the cross, and then observed the "coup
de grice," the lance thrust of the Roman guard that opened His side.
Furthermore, they knew that His body had been taken down from the cross and
buried, wrapped in linen cloths with a hundred pounds of spice. Both His
friends and His enemies were aware that He had promised to rise from the
dead after having undergone the torture of crucifixion which He had
actually suffered. Consequently His enemies, wishing to forestall any
argument in His favor from this source adopted the very course of conduct
which rendered the reality of His resurrection absolutely unmistakable to
the men of their generation and for that matter to historians of all times.
They set a guard around the sepulcher and sealed it, thus insuring
themselves that no marauders would take away that body they feared so much.
Obviously it was their intention to point to that sealed tomb after the
three days were over, and blast every attempt to preach the doctrine of
Jesus with the evidence that He did not accomplish what He had promised and
set out to do.
The position of the guard in those days carried a heavy responsibility. We
know from the Acts of the Apostles what happened
346 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
to the men who were placed in charge of St. Peter when he was awaiting the
sentence of Herod. An angel had led the prince of the apostolic college out
of the prison. The fate of those men who had been set to guard him shows us
very well why those in similar positions took their duties seriously. "Now
when day was come, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was
become of Peter. And when Herod had sought for him and found him not, having
examined the keepers, he commanded that they should be put to death."" The
guard at the tomb of Jesus was a serious affair. No man who is capable of
forming an historical judgment would imagine that the disorganized and
terrified disciples, who had fled from Jesus at His arrest, were ready or
able to match their strength with the men of the legions.
In modern times there is a great deal of attention paid to an hypothesis
that the body of Jesus was thrown into a common grave, together with the
corpses of the malefactors who had been crucified with Him and by inference
at least with the bodies of those who had previously suffered a like fate at
the same place. Against this airy theory stands the solid rock of fact. The
canonical gospels all assure us that, because of the interposition and
influence of Joseph of Arimathea, this practice was not followed in the case
of Jesus. History testifies with clarity and certitude that Joseph and
Nicodemus, both wealthy and influential Jews, buried Jesus in a new stone
vault, the property of Joseph himself. This was the vault which the soldiers
guarded, and it was from this same tomb that Jesus rose triumphantly.
The tactic of the Jews more than a century after the crucifixion is the best
possible extrinsic testimony of the historicity of our accounts about the
burial of Jesus. Had the body of Christ merely been thrown into a common
grave arid left unattended, there would have been no possible reason for the
anxiety of His enemies to spread the report that the body had been stolen.
In a common pit the remains of any one man are tragically soon
indistinguishable from those of any other. Soon there would be no evidence
one way or another as to the presence of any particular body in such a
place. Had such a procedure been followed, then it would have been to the
advantage of the Jews simply to deny the reality of those appearances which
Jesus made. There would have been no
"Acts 12:18-19.
THE RESURRECTION 347
reason for stressing that the body had been removed surreptitiously had it
not been for the all too manifest fact that there was a place where that
body had been placed, and where it would have been, were it not that an
Agency more powerful than all created force had intervened.
17. Hypotheses contradicting the verity of the resurrection. During the
nineteenth century, when imaginations ran wild on the subject of scriptural
interpretation, some seriously advanced the hypothesis that the Sanhedrin
itself spirited away the body of Jesus in order to prevent the Apostles from
doing the same thing. This hypothesis attributes to the Jewish leaders a
stupidity and -weakness utterly at variance with what we know about their
intellectual acumen. They would never have withheld evidence that would
devastate forever the claims of their antagonists. We have already seen that
the Apostles, after that first Christian Pentecost continuously stressed
the resurrection as a chief motive of credibility before the people and
before the assembled Sanhedrin itself. If the leaders could have shown the
people where the body of Jesus actually was, no power on earth would have
prevented them from doing so. Certainly they would have been not antagonists
but proponents of Christianity had they sent envoys abroad to testify that
the body was stolen while all the time they could have produced it
themselves.
We must remember that the fact of the resurrection assumed tremendous
importance in the minds of those who knew something about the hatred of the
Jews for Christianity. When Festus spoke to Agrippa and Bernice about his
illustrious prisoner, Paul, he summed up the belief of the Apostle as an
insistence upon the fact that Jesus had died and now lived again. The
delegates of the Sanhedrin, he said "brought no accusation of things which I
thought ill of: but had certain questions of their own superstition against
him, and of one Jesus, deceased, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.' The Roman
court gave every opportunity for the Sanhedrinites to produce the remains of
Jesus, and thus to convict Paul of manifest perjury. The fact that no such
evidence was received or even offered disposes once and for all of any
suggestion that the Sanhedrinites had smuggled away the body and knew of its
whereabouts.
2° Acts 25118—.19.
348 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
However the outstanding evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the fact
that those men and women who had known Him and who had seen Him die, met
Him, spoke with Him, and ate with Him after He had been buried, and after
His body had disappeared from the tomb in which it was enclosed and sealed.
From the earliest ages of Christianity, the enemies of Jesus have striven to
prove that these apparitions were mere phantasms or visions, impressions
recorded in the minds of those who claimed that they had seen Jesus, yet
devoid of any real contact with external reality. We find this claim set
down by Celsus in his True Discourse, a book which the peerless Origen
refuted point by point, and which he has conserved for posterity in the
process. The technique of Christ's opponents has not improved since the time
of Celsus, as we can assure ourselves through examining this document and
the works of our own times.
Celsus seems to have been an able rhetorician. He set out thoroughly to
discredit the teachings of Christianity. The first part of his volume
contains the arguments against the Christian message which were set forth in
the name of orthodox Judaism, while the remainder, and by far the larger
portion of the work is devoted to pagan attacks which seek to disprove the
contentions of Christianity and of Judaism as well. In the first portion of
the True Discourse he writes in the person of a Jew who inveighs against the
doctrines and works of Jesus. When he comes to the question of the
resurrection, and the recognition of Jesus with the marks of the crucifixion
still upon Him, he says, "Who beheld this? A half-frantic woman, as you
state, and some one also of those engaged in the same system of deception.""
The implication is, of course, that it was at best a mere vision or dream of
Jesus which the Apostles tried to palm off upon the world as an actual
appearance of their risen master. Origen states that Celsus was speaking of
a vision conjured up in the minds of certain followers of Christ during
their waking hours."
This hypothesis is as evidently untenable as that of the Sanhedrin's
stealing away the body of Jesus. In the first place the disciples of the
Lord had been so badly broken in spirit that they no longer looked for the
accomplishment of the resurrection. They refused to credit the stories told
by Mary Magdalen, and by those
" Orion, Contra Ce'sum, Book II, Ch. 49. 'Ibid., Ch. 50.
THE RESURRECTION 349
others who were first favored with a visit from their risen Lord, and for
this they were roundly and publicly upbraided when He came to them while
they were gathered together. He ate with them, and let them examine and
consume the remains of His meal. He spoke to them and gave them definite and
ordered directions. To satisfy the incredulity of St. Thomas, He commanded
this reluctant Apostle to put his fingers into the imprints of the nails,
and to put his hand into the opening which the soldier's lance had made in
His side. The Apostles were manifestly men who had to be convinced. After
Jesus had appeared to them, they recognized Him just as well as any man or
group of men has ever been able to know an intimate friend, gone away a few
days ago and now returned.
18. The vision theories. Furthermore, and most important of • all, visions
are by their very nature individual experiences. Mary Magdalen, and Peter
and James and Paul at least saw and recognized their Master alone while
others were not with them, or, in the last case, while others did not see
Him. But on some occasions the disciples as a group saw Jesus. The most
striking apparitions occurred when Jesus spoke and ate with the disciples
altogether, and answered, in the hearing of all, questions which individuals
put to Him. In the forthright world of men, those disciples could never be
said to have enjoyed a mere collective vision of Jesus. Either they saw and
recognized their risen Master, or they did not. In the first case they told
the truth; in the second they were the most gruesome deceivers and
destructive falsifiers in the history of mankind.
Modern writers are unwilling to follow the impeccable logic of Celsus and of
the Jews who opposed Christianity in the days of St. Justin the Martyr.
These men refused to believe that the message of Jesus was divinely
revealed. They rejected it as the teaching of the living God. They denied
that Jesus had really risen from the dead. Since the Apostles said that He
lived again, they stigmatized the Apostles as mendacious villains, and their
teaching as a godless deception. If Jesus had not really risen, then their
contention would have been true. There is no room for the dreamy
sentimentality of moderns who picture these same Apostles as having invented
the story of the resurrection out of the whole cloth while at the same time
exonerating them of all formal guilt. The Apostles declared from one end of
the world to the other that their Master
350 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
had died and had risen again to die no more. They said that they had seen
Him, and set themselves up explicitly as witnesses of that occurrence. No
sane man could speak and act in this manner unless either the statement were
literally true or he was an unrepentant scoundrel.
We cannot fully appreciate the full force of the historical certitude for
the resurrection of Jesus until we read the bald statement of modern infidel
opinion on the subject. The manifest denial of scientific evidence needed
for the rejection of the resurrection constitutes a perfect demonstration
of its reality. One of the most forcefully written modern accounts of the
events described at the end of the canonical gospels is that of Lewis
Browne. He speaks of the disciples after the death of Jesus. "Without their
faith in him and his Messiahship, their own lives became empty,
meaningless. Skulking there amid the rock-strewn hills outside Jerusalem,
they realized as never before that they still had to believe in him — or
die. . . And, because believing in a corpse was too difficult, they began to
believe that Jesus was still alive. They began to say that three days after
his burial he had miraculously arisen from the dead. They even declared that
they had actually seen him in the act of rising from the sepulcher, had seen
him as he was taken up to Heaven, right up to the throne of glory. They
began to tell how his spirit had actually walked and talked with them, had
even broken bread With them! . . . It was not desire to deceive that
impelled those disciples to tell such stories. They sincerely' believed the
stories themselves."19
In the charming never-never land where deniers of the resurrection dwell,
there can be no such thing as a plain blunt fact. Naturally this paragraph
ignores the datum about the empty tomb. Of course, one of the striking
features manifest in the historical treatise on the early Church is the fact
that the disciples never claimed to have seen their Master emerging from the
sepulcher. They found the tomb empty; they received, in a supernatural way,
information that Jesus of Nazareth who had been dead now lived again. Then
they saw Him. But such sober realities have no place in the denial of fact.
Again no existent source speaks of the "spirit" of Jesus as having walked
and eaten with the disciples. Certainly they never said that the "spirit" of
their Master had Come to them. They were insistent that the Visitor had
stated and had demonstrated
This Believing World, 4 ed. (New York, 1941), p. 213.
THE RESURRECTION 35r
precisely that He was not a mere spirit. But all this is accuracy, and
accuracy has no place in these fanciful hypotheses.
Realistic men know very well that a person who is firmly convinced of the
existence of some phantasm is deluded. They are also quite well aware that
mass delusions of the type described by Mr. Browne and by the modern
romanticists do not occur in the order of nature. Scattered through the
various insane asylums around the world are unhappy and manifestly
maladjusted individuals who sincerely believe themselves to be Napoleon.
Conceivably there are others who claim to have talked with that famous
conqueror. But there never has been a case in history where a battalion has
come in and claimed to have seen and talked with their deceased commander
and where each man offered himself as a witness of this event. Should such
an occurrence be reported, the scientific modern man would never have
recourse to mass delusion as an explanation. In such an instance there
would be no middle ground between truth and criminal conspiracy. The
conspiracy would obviously be all the more revolting if the falsehood
involved loss of life and happiness to mankind.
If the sequence of events described by Mr. Browne actually took place, they
would have constituted a wonder fully as striking as the resurrection
itself. They would be recognized as a miracle of incoherence and disorder. A
number of lunatics all hitting upon the same delusion simultaneously, and
encountering enemies fierce enough to kill them so as to stop their
preaching and at the same time gentle enough not to expose their error such
a picture is - utterly outside the bounds of reasonable reality. Yet these
are the basic lines of the situation accepted as sober fact by the learned
enemies of Christianity.
Still another hypothesis has been suggested to account for the events
described as taking place after the death of Jesus. This is the famous
"swoon theory" according to which Jesus of Nazareth never really died at
all, but simply lost consciousness. While in this state He is said to have
been buried. Later in the cool and quiet of the tomb He awoke, and simply
walked out of the place. In the course of His wanderings He met several of
His disciples who were of course astonished to see Him. Later, it is thought
that He sickened and died from the wounds He had received that day on
Calvary.
This hypothesis is interesting from a scientific point of view in
352 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
showing the utter impossibility of finding an alternative to the manifest
fact of the resurrection which men have riot sought out and tried to
exploit. In the first place there is no fact in history better attested than
the death of Jesus. Again, if He was not really dead when the people and the
soldiers saw every evidence of death upon Him, He would most certainly have
expired immediately as a result 9£ the lance thrust which the Roman soldier
gave as a "coup de grace." Finally any man, well or wounded, would have
smothered to death in a matter of seconds, sealed in a tomb and wrapped up
in a hundred pounds of spices.
The spectacle of a man who had undergone all of this, who had not tasted
food or water for three days, walking out from a sealed tomb, rolling back a
stone which a group of women confessed themselves unable to stir would be
again as great a miracle as the resurrection. Add to the story the essential
ingredients of this man, with his poor pierced hands and feet, moving the
stone and hurrying through an armed camp of Roman legionaries, and the
thing enters the realm of absurdity. There is nothing in all the realms of
history to justify a like conjecture.
19. The conditions of the risen Christ. One essential feature of the story
witnessed by the Apostles is to be found in the characteristics of the
risen Jesus. We must not forget that the disciples recognized their Master
just as truly as any men have ever recognized one of their fellows. At the
same time they saw that His body was radically in a different condition from
that which had hitherto characterized it. Previously the body of Jesus had
been amenable to suffering. Now the Apostle Thomas could put his finger into
the frightful wounds of the hands, and could bring his hand into the opened
side without causing pain or distress to the Master. Now Jesus appeared and
disappeared as He would. •The locked door of the upper room remained as it
was. The Apostles gathered without Jesus, and while the door stayed locked,
He came in to them. When He had completed the instructions He wished to give
the disciples at Emmaus, He vanished from their sight. In other words, Jesus
of Nazareth, risen from the grave, manifested a complete mastery over the
laws which govern the created universe.
Those whom Jesus had raised from the dead previous to His own resurrection
did not manifest these qualities at all. Quadratus could very well assert
that people whom Jesus had brought back to life had lived in his own time,
but the implication is, of course, that
THE RESURRECTION 353
finally they died. Jesus was the first to return to life glorious and
immortal. His return, and the qualities He manifested, both constitute
overwhelmingly ample evidence that the doctrine which He offered to the
world as divine revelation actually was what He claimed it to be.
20. The resurrection as prophesied. However, we would not have a complete
understanding of the demonstrative force contained in the resurrection of
Jesus unless we realized that this event was clearly foretold by Him. On
four distinct occasions Jesus informed His hearers that He would be put to
death, and would rise triumphantly from the dead on the third day. The first
prediction took place immediately after the confession of St. Peter and the
primacy in the Church made to him by Christ. "From that time Jesus began to
show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things
from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and
the third day rise again."20 The second time Jesus added the information
that He would be betrayed to His enemies. "And when they abode together in
Galilee, Jesus said to them: The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands
of men; and they shall kill Him, and the third day He shall rise again.""
Jesus predicted the resurrection the third time when He refused to perform a
miracle to satisfy the curiosity and to cater to the intellectual pride of
the Pharisees. This prophecy is the famous sign of Jonas. "Then some of the
scribes and Pharisees answered Him, saying: Master we would see a sign from
Thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh
a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights; so shall
the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.""
The last time He foretold the resurrection to His disciples was in the final
journey toward Jerusalem. "And Jesus going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve
disciples apart, and said to them: Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the
Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes, and they
shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the gentiles to be
mocked and
'Matt. 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 922.
Matt. 17:21-22; Mark 9:30-31; Luke 9:44. "Matt. 12:38-40; Luke 11129-30.
354 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
scourged and crucified, and the third day He shall rise again.""
There was however still another way in which Jesus spoke of His
resurrection. It was a cryptic announcement which He made at the very
beginning of His public life, in the temple at Jerusalem after He had cast
out the men who bought and sold in that house of prayer. "The Jews therefore
answered and said to Him: What sign dost Thou show unto us, seeing Thou dost
these things? Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said: Six and forty years was
this temple in building, and wilt Thou raise it up in three days? But He
spoke of the temple of His body.""
21. The results of the prophecies concerning the resurrection. Long ago
Celsus anticipated many of the claims made by modern enemies of Christ when
he declared that the prophecies which Jesus had enunciated had been made up
out of the whole cloth by the disciples after the events in question had
already taken place. "The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on
which to rely, devised the fiction that He foreknew everything before it
happened."" In a less raucous form, this claim is repeated in practically
every non-Christian treatise on the life of Jesus. Certainly the accepted
historical facts known to us are such that there would be no reasonable
explanation of them at all possible had there been no prophecy about the
resurrection made by Jesus of Nazareth. Two of the four accounts we possess
about His trial in the court of the high priest tell that He was accused of
threatening to destroy the temple. Furthermore, these chronicles tell us
that the iniquitous judges themselves recognized the worthlessness of this
charge. The words used by the false witnesses who assailed Jesus were
nothing but misstatements of that first mysterious prophecy He had made
within the temple precincts about His own resurrection. "And some rising up,
bore false witness against Him, saying: We heard Him say: I will destroy
this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another not
made with hands. And their witness did not agree.""
However they manifested their bad faith, and showed very clearly that they
knew the existence and the meaning of Jesus' prophecy
24 Mast. 2o:17-19; Luke 18:31-33; Mark 10:32-34. "John 2:18-21.
'Cited by Origen, Contra Celsum, Book II, Ch. 15. 'Mark 14:57-60; Matt.
26:60-62.
THE RESURRECTION 355
when they appealed to Pilate for a guard around His tomb. "The chief priests
and the Pharisees came together to Pilate, saying: Sir we have remembered
that that seducer said while He was yet alive: After three days I will rise
again."2r There would have been no reason for their placing a watch around
the tomb of Jesus had they not realized that He had promised to return alive
from death itself. They realized, before it happened, that the resurrection
precisely as the supreme miracle which Jesus had frequently and clearly
foretold, would influence many men to accept His teaching as divine
revelation. The whole procedure of the Pharisees at the trial and after the
death of Jesus would be beyond understanding if there had been no public and
widely understood prophecy about the resurrection.
These prophecies had their own effect upon the apostolic college. St. John
mentions their reaction to the fact that Jesus had foretold His own
resurrection in the verse that follows the prophecy about the temple which
was the body of Christ. "When therefore He was risen again from the dead,
His disciples remembered that He had said this, and they believed the
scripture and the word that Jesus had said.""
The obvious reference is to those prophecies of the Old Testament which, as
we know from the Acts of the Apostles, the first disciples of the Lord
continually cited as evidence that His resurrection had been foretold
during the earlier dispensation. Once they had seen the risen Jesus, they
recalled what He had said. In properly scientific language St. John the
Evangelist confutes the fantastic theory that the words of Jesus and the
faith of His disciples had produced the illusion of a resurrection. After
they had assured themselves that Jesus was risen, they recalled His own
prophecies, and saw that these had been fulfilled. They believed the
scriptures in that they realized that the promise of the Old Testament
really referred to that Leader who died and rose again. Finally they
believed the word that Jesus had said. They utilized the resurrection as
the supreme miracle, foretold by Jesus Himself and announced in the Old
Testament generations before them for what it was meant to be— the
outstanding and all-sufficient motive of credibility.
The story of Christ's rising from the dead is something of a
7' Matt. 2762-63.
John 2:22.
356 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
different order from those nature legends which entered into the fabric of
Egyptian and Babylonian religion. In these stories there is an obvious
personification of natural forces, the powers of fecundity and growth. The
exploits of Jesus are on the contrary those of an historical personage. The
figures that crowd the pages of the gospels, the acts and the epistles are
known to us through other reputable historians of the same epoch. Pontius
Pilate, Tiberius, Herod, Joseph Caiphas, Annas, Festus and Felix, all of
these are men whom we know from other writers. The places are recognized
historical localities. The actions of the Romans and of the Jews are those
which history has taught us to expect from the men of their nations.
A man died and lived again as He had said that He would. He had promised
this miracle as a proof that the teaching He proposed to men was actually
what it claimed to be, the teaching of the living God. The resurrection, as
authenticated and prophesied, constitutes a divine signature, which no man
can begin effectively to counterfeit. This event, manifestly beyond the
power of all created nature is, and should be for us the great sign that God
has sent Jesus, and that the message which Jesus brought to the world is
actually the teaching of the living God. Because Jesus of Nazareth rose
from the dead, Catholic dogma is manifestly and rationally credible as
divine revelation.
CHAPTER XVII
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY
1. Prophecy in modern Catholic apologetics. It was the studied contention of
St. Thomas Aquinas' that the divine signature attached to the Christian
message could best be recognized for what it is only when all of the motives
of credibility are seen as cooperating for the achievement of a common end.
In this way we best realize that God has guaranteed the authenticity of
Catholic dogma as a divine message in that He has sealed it with works
obviously beyond the natural competence of any creature, actual or possible,
and moreover He has announced that these works would be accomplished
precisely as testimony to the genuineness of a divinely revealed doctrine.
When we see this picture as a whole, we can see at once that there could be
no counterfeit motive of credibility effectively imitating those signs which
God offers to man to show that His message is rationally acceptable. Thus
prophecy, in the authentic and traditional background of Catholic
apologetics, is not meant to be a motive of credibility entirely separated
from those other divine works which guarantee the divine origin of a
message.
There are two distinct types of prophecy which are used to indicate the
divine mission of Jesus and the authenticity of His teaching as divine
revelation. Some of these prophecies are declarations which He made Himself
during the course of His earthly life. Others are statements about Him, made
by the inspired prophets of God during the course of Old Testament history.
Each of these types of prophecy constitutes a certain and reliable motive of
credibility. Taken together, and in union with the other signs of divine
revelation which are available to men, they make it strikingly evident that
Catholic dogma is a message which God has communicated to man in a way
distinct from and superior to the natural
1Cf. S. Thomas, Summa Gotha Gentiles, Book 1, Ch. 6.
357
358 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
mode in which man acquires his knowledge. They form a sign which a man can
misinterpret only through his own fault and his own blindness.
By themselves prophecies, like miracles, are primary and powerful motives
of credibility. They are of service to man in that they manifest the divine
omniscience. Only God can possess certain and accurate knowledge of those
actions which are not produced necessarily, but which depend upon the free
activity of creatures. When such knowledge is manifest it is obviously a
divine work. When this divine work is attached as a true signature to a
doctrine which claims to be divine then the claim is justified.
However, for the people of our own time, we must be careful to bring out the
full demonstrative value of prophecy as a motive of credibility. Prophecy
has a tremendous probative force, a power valid in and valuable for the
conditions of our own days. But it is fairly easy to waste that power by
looking, as it were, in the wrong direction for the value of a prophecy.
We must not lose sight of the fact that a prophecy is always the foretelling
of future events which depend upon the free and consequently the
undetermined operation of rational beings. Clearly the prophecy receives its
power as a motive of credibility at the moment it is fulfilled. Once men
have seen that some event which obviously a created mind could never
possibly know by its own natural light, but which has nevertheless been
foretold with absolute confidence and certainty, they have a right to say
that the knowledge manifest in the prediction was divine rather than merely
human. And if this prophecy was uttered by or about a man who offers to the
world a doctrine which he presents as divinely revealed, then it is evident
that God Himself has communicated this truth to the man who uttered the
prophecy, perfectly well aware that this expression of His own omniscience
would be used as a motive of credibility.
2. The uses of messianic prophecies in apologetics. The messianic prophecies
themselves fulfill a double function. They constitute a means by which we
can recognize the character and content of the messianic office, as it
belongs to Jesus of Nazareth, and at the same time they are a corporate
intellectual miracle of the first order. Very briefly we have considered the
first function in that section of this volume dealing with the messianic
claims of Jesus. It is now our business to inquire into the second function.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 359
The messianic prophecies were set down in writing over a long period of
time. Taken together they, describe with tremendous accuracy and force the
life, the works, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus. It is easy
enough to see that the doctrine contained in them constitutes a real
intellectual miracle of the first order once we have examined them in some
detail.
We must remember from the very outset that, in order to have a real
prophecy, there must be a real description of some future event which no
created mind could possibly know by its own natural power. Thus the
statement in itself must refer to a future event, and must be so couched
that men may understand its reference to coming times. However, as we might
very well expect, the meaning of a prophecy becomes more apparent once it
has been fulfilled. It is not necessary for the validity of a prophecy that
man should have realized its full meaning from the very moment that it was
made. However it is essential that we can know, from an examination of the
statement itself, that it refers to some event or series of events which had
not as yet taken place at the time that the assertion was made. Naturally it
makes no difference for the probative force of the prophecy whether the
statement is made in the future tense, or in the narrative present or past.
The only thing requisite is that we be able to demonstrate that the
assertion referred to the future, and that it was accomplished to the letter
in the career of Jesus. The Catholic apologist has at his hands
scientifically reliable information to show that such statements were issued
as prophecies long before the time of Jesus, and he can demonstrate that
these prophecies were fulfilled in the life of the Master. From this point
he can prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that these statements
constitute a real and powerful motive of credibility in favor of Catholic
dogma.
3. The existence of messianic prophecies. There is a tendency today, even
among men of unquestioned scholarly achievements, to deny that there were
any real prophecies about Jesus at all. Thus we find the eminent Harvard
professor Nock writing: "Most churchgoing people have in the creed recited
'according to the Scriptures' as a phrase which has now little interest and
meaning other than those which cling to a survival. It is a commonplace that
the passages in the OM Testament which were thought to foretell the coming
and' death and rising of Christ can bear no such sense, that they refer to
imminent or past events of an earlier
it
360 WE STAND WITH
CHRIST
time.'2 No semblance of a proof is attached to this assertion. The
examination of those passages from the Old Testament, cited by Jesus Himself
and by His immediate followers will show its radical inaccuracy.
For, while the nonexistence of messianic prophecy may very well be a
commonplace to Professor Nock and to certain moderns, it was most obviously
not so to Jesus of Nazareth and to His contemporaries. The Jewish people as
a whole were firmly convinced that their sacred books indicated the coming
of a royal prophet who was to institute a victorious and everlasting
kingdom. The sovereign proof that this conviction existed is to be found in
the readiness of the Jews to accept even spurious claimants to this role.
History has recorded for us the names of several of these imposters. We
know Judas of Galilee and two distinct individuals, both named Theudas, who
arose and led rebellions against the power of Rome within the lifetime of
that generation in which Jesus lived. Bar Chochebas began his fierce
rebellion in the year 132 crowned and anointed by one of the leaders in
Israel and claiming to be the messias promised in the scriptures. Certainly
Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the messias, and the people to whom His
words were addressed knew very well what He meant, and what He claimed.
Both Jesus and His foes claimed to find in the inspired writings of the Old
Testament the clear and unequivocal notice of a Saviour who was to come. No
man among their hearers called the prophecies themselves into question,
although the leaders refused to acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ.
Obviously no such reaction could have occurred unless the Scriptures, as
they were expounded to the people of that time really designated the advent
of a royal prophet. That was the way the people understood these divinely
inspired books.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the Scripture or any other volume
for that matter, can never be a dead text. The Jewish nation considered
these divinely inspired words as their special property, and as embodying a
message which God meant for them. This same racial group utilized rules of
the most severe mechanical tradition to preserve intact the meaning which
that message had conveyed to their forebears. It is perfectly true that the
'A. D. Nock,
Conversion, The Old and the New in Religion From Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo (Oxford, 1933), p. 237.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 361
dominant pharisaical party came at long last to pay more attention to the
rules which they had set up to guard the purity of the scripture message
than they did to the content of the message itself. Nevertheless they never
attempted to tamper with the substantial meaning contained in the Bible.
What they taught as the actual statement of Scripture was substantially what
was contained in the books themselves. Jesus of Nazareth acknowledged this
fundamental accuracy in their teaching, while at the same time He
excoriated the hypocrisy by which they failed to conform their lives to the
divine law. "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All
things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. But
according to their works do ye not: for they say and do not."3
4. The appeal to prophecy in the synagogue at Nazareth. The canonical
gospels record several occasions on which Jesus appealed to ancient
prophecies. One of the most interesting of these appeals was made in the
synagogue of Nazareth. "And He came to Nazareth where He was brought up:
and He went into the synagogue according to His custom on the sabbath day,
and He rose up to read. And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered
'unto Him. And as He unfolded the book, He found the place where it was
written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me: wherefore He hath anointed Me,
to preach the gospel to the poor He bath sent Me, to heal the contrite of
heart, to preach deliverance to the captives, and sight to the blind, to set
at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord,
and the day of reward. And when He had folded the book, He restored it to
the minister and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed
on Him. And He began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in
your ears."4
The passage which Jesus read is to be found in the first two verses in the
sixty-first chapter of Isaias. No one could possibly begin to appreciate the
meaning of these verses until he looks at them in their proper background of
the entire writing from Chapter 59, verse 20, to the end of the book. The
passage is quite long, but an examination of its content from a scientific
point of view
a Matt. 231-3. 4 Luke 4:16-21.
362 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
will once and for all dispel the "commonplace" mentioned by Professor Nock.
We cite the first portion.
Chapter 59
20. And there shall come a redeemer to Sion, and to them that return from
iniquity in Jacob, saith the Lord. 21. This is My covenant with them, saith
the Lord: My Spirit that is in Thee, and My words that have put in thy
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and
for ever.
Chapter 6o
1. Arise, be enlightened, 0 Jerusalem: for thy light is come, and the glory
of the Lord is risen upon thee. 2. For behold darkness shall cover the
earth, and a mist the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His
glory shall be seen upon thee. 3. And the gentiles shall walk in thy light,
and kings in the brightness of thy rising. 4' Lift up thy eyes around about
and see: all these are gathered together, they are come to thee: thy sons
shall come from afar and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side. 5. Then
shall thou see and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when
the multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the strength of the
gentiles shall come to thee: 6. The multitude of camels shall cover thee,
the dromedaries of Madian and Epha: all they from Saba shall come, bringing
gold and frankincense, and showing forth praise to the Lord. 7. All the
flocks of Cedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nabainth
shall minister to thee: they shall be offered upon My acceptable altar, and
I will glorify the house of My majesty. 8. Who are these that fly as clouds,
and as doves to their windows? 9. For the islands wait for Me, and the ships
of the sea in the beginning, that I may bring thy sons from afar: their
silver and their gold with them, to the name of the Lord thy God, and to the
Holy One of Israel, because He hath glorified thee. io. And the children of
strangers shall build up thy walls; and their kings shall minister to thee:
for in My wrath have I struck thee, and in My reconciliation have I had
mercy upon thee. ii. And thy gates shall be open continually: they shall
not be shut day or night, that the strength of the gentiles may be brought
to thee, and their kings may be brought. 12. For the nation and the kingdom
that will not save thee, shall perish: and the gentiles shall be wasted with
desolation. 13. The glory of Libanus shall come to thee, the fir tree and
the box tree and, the pine tree together, to beautify the place of My
sanctuary: and I will glorify the place of My feet. 14. And the children of
them that afflicted Me shall come bowing down to thee, and all that
slandered thee shall worship the steps of thy feet, and shall call thee the
city of the Lord, the Sion of the Holy One of Israel. r5. Because thou wast
forsaken and hated, and there was none that passed through thee, I will make
thee to be an everlasting excellence, a joy unto generation and generation:
r6. And thou shalt suck the milk of the gentiles, and thou shalt be nursed
with
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 363
the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I am the Lord thy Saviour and
thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. 17. For brass I will bring gold, and
for iron I will bring silver: and for wood, brass, and for stones, iron: and
I will make thy visitation peace, and thy overseers justice. IS. Iniquity
shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction in thy borders,
and salvation shall possess thy walls, and praise thy gates. 19. Thou shall
no more have the sun for thy light by day, neither shall the brightness of
the moon enlighten thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee for an everlasting
light, and thy God for thy glory. 20. Thy sun shall go down no more, and thy
moon shall not decrease: for the Lord shall be unto thee for an everlasting
light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. 21. And thy people shall
be all just. They shall inhabit the land forever, the branch of My planting,
the work of My hand to glorify Me. 22. The least shall become a thousand,
and a little one a most strong nation. I the Lord will suddenly do this
thing in its time.
Chapter 61
1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me. He
hath sent Me to preach to the Meek, to heal the contrite of heart, and to
preach a release to the captives and deliverance to them that are shut up.
2. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of
our God: to comfort all that mourn: 3. To appoint to the mourners of Sion:
and to give them a crown for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, a garment
of praise for the spirit of grief. And they shall be called in it the mighty
ones of justice, the planting of the Lord to glorify Him. 4. And they shall
build the places that have been waste from of old, and shall raise up
ancient ruins, and shall repair the desolate cities, that were destroyed for
generation and generation. 5. And strangers shall stand and shall feed your
flocks: and the sons of strangers shall be your husbandmen, and the dressers
of your vines. 6. But you shall be called the priests of the Lord. To you it
shall be said: Ye ministers of our God. You shall eat the riches of the
gentiles, and you shall pride yourselves in their glory.
5. The fulfillment of this prophecy in Jesus. This prophecy belongs to the
second portion of Isaias, beginning with the fortieth chapter and continuing
until the end. Manifestly its immediate purpose is to instruct and to
encourage the Jews during the Babylonian captivity. It was offered and
received as the word of the living God, hence as a literally exact statement
of the future. We must not forget that. In part this second portion of
Isaias refers explicitly to Cyrus, the ruler who liberated the Jews and gave
them permission to return into Palestine. However it is perfectly obvious
that the passage we have cited as well as most of the prophecies contained
in this second part of Isaias can have proper reference
364 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
neither to Cyrus nor to any ordinary or imminent Jewish ruler. The men who
accepted it as referring to a past age, or to a condition which was to
follow through political and military change, simply would not and could not
receive it as the word of God. Applied to any merely political ruler, the
statements could never be termed prophecies, but simply expression of a
cross and deluded demogogy. The fact that the Jewish nation accepted them as
divinely inspired is a clear indication that they accepted them for what
they were meant to be, descriptions of the person, the function and the
reign of one who wants to give perfect felicity to the true Israel.
It is not too difficult to see how this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus of
Nazareth. The personage described in the book of Isaias is a ruler who
brings about a status of perfect power and felicity in Israel, and who
preaches the beneficial message of God to those who stand in need of it. No
ruler, either from the outside or among the Jews themselves could begin to
correspond to the outlines of that portrait. Jesus preached, and directed
His doctrine to sinners, to the afflicted, in short to those who were ready
and willing to profit by the consolation He offered. He proclaimed Himself a
Ruler, and drew under His sway not only men of Jewish blood, but those from
the gentiles who came, under His direction to adore the God of Israel and to
unite themselves in the Jerusalem of true believers. He exercised a power
greater than that of any political king in that He manifested control over
all the natural forces and finally overcame death itself. In short if a man
examines this testimony of Isaias, he will find, beneath the typically
oriental imagery, a true picture of Jesus. This is a portrait which could
have been drawn only from the divine omniscience. No creature, actual or
possible, could have made, on his own natural knowledge alone, the certain
statement that such a 'leader would appear and live within the land of
Israel.
6. The response to the disciples of John the Baptist. We have already
alluded5 to the gospel passage in which Jesus referred to the prophecies
which foretold His miracles. "Go and relate to John what you have heard and
seen: The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear,
the dead rise again, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he
whosoever shall not be scandalized in Me."' This passage is an obvious
reference to Isaias.
'Cf. Chapter 15.
Luke 7:22-23; Matt. 1146.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 365
Chapter 35
I. The land that was desolate and impassable shall be glad, and the
wilderness shall rejoice, and shall flourish like the lily. 2. It shall bud
forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise. The glory of
Libanus is given to it, the beauty of Carmel and Saron. They shall see the
glory of the Lord and the beauty of our God. 3. Strengthen ye the feeble
hands and confirm the weak knees. 4. Say to the faint hearted: Take courage
and fear not: behold your God will bring the revenge of recompense. God
Himself will come and will save you. 5. Then shall the eyes of the blind be
opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. 6. Then shall the lame
man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be free: for waters are
broken out in the desert, and streams in the wilderness. 7. And that which
was dry land shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water. In
the dens where dragons dwelt before shall rise up the verdure of the reed
and the bulrush. 8. And a path and a way shall be there, and it shall be
called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it. And this shall be
unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein. 9. No lion
shill be there, nor shall any mischievous beast go up by it nor be found
there. But they shall walk there that shall be delivered. ro. And the
redeemed of the Lord shall return, and shall come into Sion with praise: and
everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. They shall obtain joy and
gladness, and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.
When Jesus cited this passage to the disciples of John, He was of course
claiming for Himself the office described in the prophecy of Isaias. He
utilized the prophecy in the same way that science of sacred theology has
always employed these predictions in demonstrating to those who accept as
true the teachings of the Old Testament that He was actually the leader
foretold and described on its pages. At the same time, however, there is
another way in which the scientific theologian can utilize the datum of
prophecy. He can appeal to it as an intellectual miracle. He can show that
it is a clear and certain prediction of events which no creature could
possibly have foreseen by its own unaided natural power. In the chapter on
miracles as seals testifying to the actual divine origin of the Christian
message, we have seen how this prophecy can be
effectively employed in the first way. Now it is our duty to inquire into
its efficacy as a manifest intellectual miracle.
The chapter we have just seen describes the condition of Israel, the true
Israel that is to say, when God Himself shall have come to the assistance of
His people. There is to be life and fecundity over and above anything that
was to be found in the kingdom of
366 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
Juda as the writer and his contemporaries knew of it. Moreover there was to
be a manifestation of the divine power through the frequent performance of
miraculous cures. Now it is obvious that no such condition existed in the
time of Isaias or of his immediate disciples. Likewise it is perfectly clear
that these men did not expect such a condition to eventuate through any
purely political change to be brought about in the policy of Israel and
Juda. As a result, since it was offered and accepted as the literally true
word of God, it is evident that it had reference to some status which God
would bring about in the more or "less remote future.
From the purely natural point of view these men had no more right than we
have certainly to predict a widespread performance of miracles within the
confines of their own territory. However such a state was foretold, and the
career of Jesus attested the veracity of the prediction. Manifestly this
certain knowledge could only belong to God, who, in His infinitely perfect
providence, foresees all the events that will take place in the universe
until the end of time. The knowledge expressed in this chapter is manifestly
supernatural. Its basic connection with the doctrines of Jesus affirms once
again the divine .origin of that doctrine which He proposed to the world as
divinely revealed. The connection comes from the fact that He is evidently
the One whose activity is foretold. Above all the men who have lived, Jesus
was seen and recognized primarily as a worker of miracles, and then wonders
were not the capricious and meaningless operations ascribed to the pagan
magicians, but benefits conferred upon His fellows. Thus, at the end of the
third century, Arnobius was able to taunt the enemies of Christianity with
this challenge. "Can you specify and point out to me any one of all those
magicians who have ever existed in past ages that did anything similar, in
the thousandth degree, to Christ ?'" The worker of miracles foretold in the
book of Isaias is precisely the Man who offered the world a doctrine which
He proposed as divinely revealed. Furthermore, the prophecy declared that
the Person who was destined to accomplish these wonders was God Himself.
That Jesus declared Himself to be a divine Person we have already seen.
7. The prediction of a precursor for'the Messias. In the discourse which
followed Jesus' announcement to the disciples of John, He
'
Arnobius, Adversus Nationes, Book 1,
Ch. 43.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 367
cited a prophecy which stated that the Messias would be preceded by a herald
who would prepare the way for Him. He identified this herald as John the
Baptist. "This is he of whom it is written: Behold I send My angel before
Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee."' Of course, only God could
have known that a Redeemer would actually come to Israel, to bring to men
the benefits which God Himself wished to confer upon them. Obviously, too,
no one but God Himself would have known the details which surrounded the
advent of this Messias, and the work of a precursor was one of these
details. Now the whole tenor of the gospel narrative shows that John the
Baptist announced Himself precisely as one who was to prepare the way for a
greater Figure to follow him. "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance:
but He that shall come after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not
worthy to bear. He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."'
Explicitly John pointed out that the One who was to follow after him was
Jesus of Nazareth. "The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith:
Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world.
This is He of whom I said: After me there corneth a man who is preferred
before me: because He was before me. And I knew Him not. But that He may be
made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. And John
gave testimony, saying: I saw the spirit coming down as a dove from heaven,
and He remained upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He who sent me to baptize
with water said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and
remaining upon Him, He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw:
and I gave testimony that this is the Son of God.' As a matter of fact John
the Baptist himself appealed to the prophecy of Isaias to explain his role
as precursor to the Messias when he was officially interrogated by the
Pharisees. "They said therefore with him: Who art thou, that we may give an
answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself? He said: I am the
voice of one crying in the wilderness: make straight• the way of the Lord,
as said the prophet Isaias. And they that were sent were of the Pharisees.""
Luke 727; Mutt. t :I°.
*Matt. 2:i I; Mark 1:7-8; John r :26.
"John 1:29-34. Cf. also Matt. 3:76; Mark r :1 o; Luke 3:21-22.
"John 1:22-24. Cf. also Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:2-4; Luke 3:3-4.
368 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
Now both Isaias and Malachias had foretold exactly the operation of a
precursor before the Messias who was to come. "Be comforted, be comforted My
people, saith your God. Speak ye to the heart of Jerusalem, and call to her:
for her evil is come to an end, her iniquity is forgiven. She hath received
from the hand of the Lord double for all her sins. The voice of one crying
in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
wilderness the paths of our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every
Mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall become straight,
and the rough ways plain. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and
all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord bath spoken."" The
prophecy of Malachias, cited by Jesus Himself, is fully as clear. "Behold I
send My angel, and he shall prepare the way before My face. And presently
the Lord whom you seek, and the Angel of the testament, whom you desire,
shall come to His temple. Behold He cometh, saith the Lord of Hosts.""
In both of these instances we are obviously confronted with promises that
deal with the future. In and through the oriental imagery in the context of
the two writers we find the announcement that a Personage, long and
ardently awaited by the Hebrew people will appear and will confer the
benefits which it shall please God to render to men. Both insist that this
Messias will be preceded by an agent whose duty it will be to prepare the
people for His coming. Neither could possibly apply to any merely political•
or military aid which might be brought to the service of Israel. The whole
context of the documents stands out against any such interpretation. We are
left with two descriptions, which could only have been made in function of
the divine foreknowledge. The appearance of Jesus, preceded by John the
Baptist clearly demonstrated that these had been true prophecies. As true
prophecies, and consequently miracles in the intellectual order, they stand
then as criteria in the light of which we may judge with certitude that the
doctrine of Jesus was of God, as He claimed it to be.
8. The prediction about the use of parables. Jesus likewise appealed to a
prophecy of Isaias which testified that the coming Messias was to teach
through parables, in such a way that actually the people who heard His
instructions would not profit from them. "And His disciples came and said to
Him: Why speakest Thou to
"ha. "Mai. 3a.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 369
them in parables? Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given
to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that
hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he bath. Therefore do
I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they
hear not, neither do they understand. And the prophecy of Isaias is fufilled
in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand:
and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this
people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing,
and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be
converted, and I should heal them.""
In the use which Jesus makes of this prophecy, we notice at once that the
parable is not used as a teaching form in order that the bearers should
refuse to believe. On the contrary, the hardness of heart found in those who
were privileged to hear the instructions of Jesus made analogy the only form
of statement which would be at all effective for them. Jesus then cites
Isaias as prophesying that the very persons who would receive the teaching
of the Messias would reject that teaching. Taken in its context with the
prediction of innumerable miracles and other authentic signs by which the
genuineness of His message might be recognized, the prophecy stands as a
manifestly divine pronouncement.
In effect the composite picture given in the prophecies cited by Jesus is
that of a divine Redeemer who comes among His own people, identifies Himself
as a divine Messenger in the performance of tremendous and innumerable
miracles, and then finds that people unwilling, and, because of the
voluntary hardness of their hearts, unprepared to receive His teaching. Each
separate prophecy shows another part or aspect of this portrait. Each part
has its own demonstration value. However, the testimony of these prophecies
as a whole manifestly understood by the people as divine oracles and as
predictions about one Redeemer, possesses an unsurpassed force in
demonstrating the rational credibility of that doctrine which Jesus offered
as divine revelation. No created mind could naturally foretell the coming of
a Redeemer at all. Moreover, granted that
"Matt. 13:to-15; Mark 4:10-12; Luke 8:9-1o. Cf. also John 12.139-41.
WE STAND WITH CHRIST
such information had been given, only God would be in a position to know
with absolute certitude and assurance that His teaching would be rejected by
those very individuals who were immediate witnesses of the competent proofs
of authenticity brought forward in its favor.
The prophecy of Isaias to which Jesus referred is this "And He said Go, and
thou shalt say to this people: Hearing hear and understand not, and see the
vision and know it not. Blind the heart of this people, and make their ears
heavy, and shut their eyes: lest they see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted and I heal
them."" The prophecy, here issued in the form of a command, is manifestly
fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth and in no other. Although the Jewish people
at times contended against Isaias, and still more frequently reacted against
Jeremias and some of their successors in the prophetical office, they
ultimately received all of them and incorporated the books in which their
doctrines are set down into the canon of those books which they revered as
divinely inspired. Jesus, whose teaching was certified by signs far more
effective and spectacular than those which accompanied the doctrine of any
among His heralds, they rejected flatly. Truly but solely in the sense that
His teaching was too spiritual for them to receive, He could be said to have
"blinded their hearts." The force of this prophecy strikes us when we
consider the reaction of the false disciples to His eucharistic discourse,
given in the synagogue at Capharnaum. "Many therefore of His disciples,
hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it.""
Such were the false notions entertained by the Jews with reference to the
kingdom of God, that Jesus could not ordinarily speak openly about it
without exasperating the very populace He meant to instruct. "All these
things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes: and without parables He
did not speak to them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophet saying: I will open My mouth in parables. I will utter things hidden
from the foundation of the world."' The words of the evangelist constitute
a further development of that portrait of Jesus which existed in the
prophecies. The psalmist begins his didactic poem on the dealings
6:g—/ o.
"John 667.
17 Matt. 73:34-35.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 371
of God with His people with the words: "Attend, 0 My people, to My law:
incline your ears to the words of My mouth. I will open My mouth in
parables. I will utter propositions from the beginning." The Jews considered
this psalm, one inscribed "Understanding for Asaph" as a prophecy. "And
Ezechias and the princes commanded the levites to praise the Lord with the
words of David and Asaph the seer: and they praised Him with great joy, and
bowing the knee, adored.' Asaph was recognized as a seer or prophet
precisely in so far as he predicted the future. In the seventy- seventh
psalm he speaks in the person of God Himself, and announces clearly that
the divine message would come to the people in the form of parables. The
words which are ascribed to him in the psalter manifest no characteristic
use of parables. As a matter of fact the only one who used this form of
teaching in such a way as to have it considered as it were proper to His
presentation was Jesus of Nazareth.
Here we find a clear prediction that a definite and well-known type of
illustration will be utilized in teaching a religious message. The
fulfillment of that prediction, in the actual and observable preaching of
Jesus could never have been known naturally to any created mind. When Jesus
taught in parables, He conformed to one more aspect or portion of that
picture which the divine foreknowledge had painted of the Messias
generations ago. He showed that the prediction was an act of the divine
foreknowledge, and thus a certain and evident motive of credibility advanced
in favor of His teaching.
9. The people among whom the Messias was to live. Again Jesus cited a
prophecy of Isaias, this time not having reference to Himself but to those
among whom His message was preached. "And the Pharisees and scribes asked
Him: Why do not Thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the
ancients, but they eat bread with common hands? But He answering said to
them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This
people honoreth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in
vain do they worship Me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For leaving
the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots
and of cups: and many other things you do
'5 Ps. 77;1-2.
11' II Para. 29:30.
372 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
like to these."" The words of the prophet were "And the Lord said: Forasmuch
as this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips glorify
Me, but their heart is far from Me, and they have feared Me with the
commandment and doctrines of men: Therefore behold I will proceed to cause
an admiration in this people by a great and wonderful miracle. For wisdom
shall perish from their wise tnen, and the understanding of their prudent
men shall be hid.""
As the statement stands it cannot truthfully refer to Isaias himself nor to
any of those Hebrew prophets who followed him. None of these men were
extraordinary in their power of miracles, as was Jesus of Nazareth.
Furthermore, only the divine mind could have known with absolute certainty
that the people who would be unwilling to accept an obviously marked
Messias, a people whose opposition was such as to compel Him to address them
in parables rather than by a direct statement of doctrine, would be a group
professing ardent worship of God. However unlikely such• an eventuality
might seem from a purely human point of view, Isaias made this statement as
a divine prophecy, and the people of Israel accepted it as such. The
fulfillment of this prophecy in Jesus of Nazareth again showed that it was a
true motive of credibility, attesting that the claims advanced in favor of
His teaching were genuine and reliable.
N. The triumphant King. When Jesus entered triumphantly into Jerusalem on
the first Palm Sunday, He acted in such a way as to fulfill expressly and
manifestly a prophecy enunciated long before Zacharias. "Rejoice greatly, 0
daughter of Sion: Shout for joy, 0 daughter of Jerusalem. Behold thy King
will come to thee, the just and Saviour. He is poor, and riding upon an ass,
and upon a colt, the foal of an ass. And I will destroy the chariot out of
Ephraim, and the horse out of Jerusalem, and the bow for war shall be
broken. And He shall speak peace to the gentiles, and His power shall be
from sea to sea, and from the rivers even to the end of the earth.""
Here we find a certain and unwavering declaration about the future. The
scene described is manifestly one of which no creature could be at all sure
by the natural power of his own mind. A
'Mark 7:5-8; Matt. 15:1-3. ka. 2913—t4.
" Zach.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 373
glorious King who is the Saviour shall ride into Jerusalem upon an ass. He
will be poor, and at the same time ruler over all the earth. His power shall
be acknowledged not only by the children of Israel but also by the gentiles
themselves. History fails to record any other person to whom that prediction
might apply. The political rulers of Juda might enter into Jerusalem in any
way they pleased, but certainly none of them was ever considered poor in the
financial sense of the term. Manifestly, too, none claimed nor enjoyed
universal dominion. Jesus alone corresponded in every way to this
prediction. "And when they drew nigh to Jerusalem, and were come to
Bethphage unto Mount Olivet; then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them:
Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall
find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them and bring them to Me. And
if any man shall say anything to you, say ye that the Lord hath need of
them: and forthwith he will let them go. Now all this was done that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: Tell ye the daughter
of Sion. Behold thy King cometh to thee, meek and sitting upon an ass and a
colt, the foal of her that is used to the yoke. And the disciples going did
as Jesus commanded them. And they brought the ass and the colt: and laid
their garments upon them, and made Him sit thereon. And a very great
multitude spread their garments in the way: and others cut boughs from the
trees and strewed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before and
that followed cried saying: Hosanna to the Son of David. Blessed is He that
cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest."" Mark and Luke
mention the incident without`citing the prophecy."
This occasion stood out in the minds of the Aposdes only after the
resurrection of their Master. "These things His disciples did not know at
the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these
things were written of Him: and that they had done these things to Him.""
The portrait of the Messias in Zacharias the prophet was far too striking
for the Apostles to overlook its conformity and fulfillment in Jesus.
11. The Messias to be rejected. Jesus took advantage of the parable about
the evil husbandman to cite another prophecy fore-
"Matt. 211-9; John 1212-14, "Mark II :1--I0; Luke 51:29-38. "John 12:16.
374 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
telling that the Lord would be rejected by His own people. "Jesus' saith to
them; have you never read in the scriptures: The stone which the builders
rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this bath
been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes. Therefore 1 say to you that the
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation
yielding the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall upon this stone shall
be broken. But on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard His parables, they knew
that He spoke of them.""
The first part of this composite prophecy cited by Jesus is found in Psalm
117." It is a literal quotation. The second, portion is found in Isaias.
"Sanctify the Lord of Hosts Himself, and let Him be your fear, and let Him
be your dread. And He shall be a sanctification to you, but for a stone of
stumbling and for a rock of offense to the two houses of Israel, for a snare
and a ruin to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And very many of them shall
stumble and fall, and shall be broken in pieces, and shall be snared and
taken."" The same idea is brought out in the prophecy of Daniel."
Here we have a definite statement, made long before the time of Jesus, to
the effect that the Lord Himself would be rejected by His own people, and
exalted by reason of their very refusal to accept Him. The statement is
clear enough. The two houses of Israel, the northern and the southern
kingdoms together would reject this Redeemer who was to offer amply
sufficient indication of His identity. The result of that rejection was to
be the ruin and the reprobation of Israel itself. Again that prophecy was
manifestly fulfilled in the rejection of Jesus, and in no other event
recorded in history.
12. The Son of David. Tremendously important for the purposes of apologetics
on the various prophecies to which Jesus appealed in His encounter with the
Pharisees in the temple on the Wednesday before He died. "And the Pharisees
being gathered together, Jesus asked them saying: What think you of Christ?
Whose Son is He? They say to Him: David's. He saith to them: How then doth
David in spirit call Him, Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord:
Matt. 2142-45; Mark 1270-11; Luke 2o:i7-18. Ps. yr722-23.
"Isa. 8:13-15.
*Dan. 2:34-44.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 375
'sit on My right hand, until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool. If David then
call Him Lord, how is He his Son? And no man was able to answer Him a word:
neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions.'
The entire context of this passage shows us very clearly that Jesus of
Nazareth made no effort to deny that, according to the universally accepted
prophecy, the Messias was to be a lineal descendant of that David whom God
had raised up to replace Saul, the first king of Israel. He merely pointed
out that David's own understanding of the Redeemer supposed that He was to
be a divine Person, the equal of the omnipotent and eternal Father. In the
conduct of scientific apologetics we can of course do no better than follow
the line of procedure laid down by Jesus. The Master did not use the fact of
His own divinity as a criterion of revelation. Quite on the contrary the
fact of His divinity constituted one of the essential and central statements
in that communication which He proposed to men as divinely revealed, and
which He demonstrated as rationally credible through these manifestly
divine seals; one of which is prophecy itself.
Now it is a fact that the Jewish people at the time Jesus taught were
unanimous in their expectation of a Redeemer or Messias, who was to be a
lineal descendant of the royal patriarch, David. The prophecy was given to
David by Nathan. "From the day that
appointed judges over My people Israel: and I will give thee rest from all
thy enemies. And the Lord foretelleth to thee, that the Lord will make thee
a house. And when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy
fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy
womb. I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house to My name, and I
will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a Father,
and he shall be to Me a son: and if he commit any iniquity, I will correct
him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men. But My
mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed
from before My face. And thy house shall be faithful, and thy kingdom
forever before thy face, and thy throne shall be firm forever."31
In this prophecy we can discuss very clearly certain statements which would
apply to Solomon, David's son and his immediate
" Matt. 22:4r-46; Mark 2235-37; Luke 2O 4I-44. " II Kings 7:11-16.
WE STAND WITH CHRIST
successor upon the throne of Israel. However, there are other
pronouncements which could never, by even the wildest stretch of the
imagination, have reference to Solomon or to any of his royal followers. The
people who received this as a divine oracle knew very well that the
political rule had been taken away from the family of David long ago. Thus,
when they accepted this message as absolutely true, they manifestly applied
it to some ruler quite distinct from the line of kings who had already, lost
their power. That ruler was the Messias, long awaited and promised as the
descendant of Adam through Noe, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, when Jesus
asked the Jewish leaders of His own time about the ancestry of that
Iviessias whom they all expected, they replied as they would have done to
anyone who made a similar inquiry. They were perfectly assured that the
Redeemer would be the lineal descendant of David the King.
Jesus of Nazareth conformed to this prophecy, as He did to all the others
which had reference to the Messias in His first coming. He was the Son of
David, tracing His ancestry back by way both of legal and natural ancestry
to the ancient and illustrious king of Israel. Here again manifestly we have
a fact which only the divine foreknowledge could apprehend during the
centuries previous to the coming of Jesus. Briefly the Wonder-Worker who was
to give ample and certain evidence of His divine mission was to be a member
of a definite and known family. Jesus appeared, worked the wonders which had
been foretold with perfect certainty, and manifested Himself as a member of
this royal race. Thus He showed that the prediction was an act of the divine
foreknowledge and consequently a true motive of credibility, testifying to
the reliability of His claims in favor of His own teachings.
The probative force of that prophecy which described the Messias as a
descendant of David the king can be seen in its full extent only when we
realize that this was only the final determination in a prophecy which had
grown progressively clearer during all the years the Jews were receiving
that message which they accepted as divinely revealed. According to this
communication set down on the pages of the Old Testament, God had promised
to our first parents that a descendant of Eve would undo the harm which had
come to the human race through the offense of Adam. "And the Lord God said
to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou are cursed among all
cattle and beasts of the earth.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 377
Upon thy breast thou shalt go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy
life. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her
seed. She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.""
13. The Son of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jews understood from this same
message that the Messias was to be a descendant of the patriarch Abraham.
"And the Lord said to Abraham: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall
show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee,
and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed. I will bless them that
bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and in thee shall all the
kindreds of the earth be blessed."" The blessing was to come through the
family of Isaac, the son of Abraham, according to a promise given to Isaac
himself. "And the Lord appeared to him and said: Go not down into Egypt, but
stay in the land that I shall tell thee. And sojourn in it, and I will be
with thee, and will bless thee. For to thee and to thy seed I will give all
these countries, to fulfill the oath which I swore to Abraham thy father.
And I will multiply thy seed like the stars of heaven. And I will give to
thy posterity all these countries. And in thy seed shall all the nations of
the earth be blessed."" Again the promise of God was to be accomplished in
the progeny of Isaac's son, Jacob. "And God appeared again to Jacob after he
returned from Mesapotamia of Syria, and He blessed him, saying: Thou shalt
not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name. And He called
him Israel, and said to him: I am God almighty. Increase thou and be
multiplied. Nations and peoples of nations shall be from thee, and kings
shall come out of thy loins. And the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac,
I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee.""
Previously Isaac had conferred his prophetic blessing upon Jacob, giving to
him rather than to his brother Esau the privilege of having the Redeemer
among his descendants. "And immediately as he smelled the fragrant smell of
his garments, blessing him he said: &hold the smell of my son is as the
smell of a plentiful field which the Lord bath blessed. God give thee of the
dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, abundance of corn and wine.
And let peoples serve thee, and tribes worship thee. Be
"Gen. 3:54-15. "Gen. 26:2-4.
"Gen. 12:1-3. "Gen. 35:9-52.
378 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
thou lord of thy brethren, and let thy mother's children bow down before
thee. Cursed be he that curseth thee: and let him that blesseth thee be
filled with blessings."" Later Isaac renewed this blessing. "And God
almighty bless thee, and make thee to increase, and multiply thee: that thou
mayst be a multitude of peoples. And give the blessings of Abraham to thee,
and to thy seed after thee, that thou mayst possess the land of thy
sojournment which He promised to thy grandfather."" This blessing God
Himself conferred upon Jacob, according to the doctrine which the Jewish
people accepted as divine revelation. "And he saw in his sleep a ladder
standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching heaven: the angels
also of God ascending and descending by it: And the Lord leaning upon the
ladder saying to him: I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father and the God of
Isaac. The land wherein thou sleepest, I will give to thee and to thy seed.
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth. Thou shalt spread abroad to
the west, and to the east, and to the north and to the south. And in thee
and thy seed all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed.""
Jacob prophesied that the promise of God would be fulfilled in the progeny
of Juda, his son. "Juda, thee shall thy brethren praise: thy hand shall be
on the necks of thy enemies: the sons of thy fathers shall bow down to thee.
Juda is a lion's whelp: to the prey, my son, thou art gone up. Resting thou
hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness. Who shall rouse him? The sceptre
shall not be taken away from juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till He come
that is to be sent, and He shall be the expectation of nations. Tying his
foal to the vineyard, and His ass, 0 my son, to the vine. He shall wash His
robe in wine, and His garment in the blood of the grape. His eyes are more
beautiful than wine, and His teeth whiter than milk.""
In appealing to His own Davidic origin, Jesus of Nazareth implicitly
referred to still another messianic prophecy which testified that the
promised Redeemer would be an all-triumphant ruler. The prediction was made
by Balaam, a prophet whom Balai the king had hired to curse the children of
Israel during their peregrinations toward the promised land, but who found
himself unable to give a, message other than that which he received from
God. The Jews
2727-29. Gen. 28:12-74.
"Gen. 28:3-4. "'Gen. 49:8-12.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 379
received this blessing as divine revelation, and as a prophecy which would
be fulfilled in the coming of the Messias. "Therefore taking up his parable
again, he said: Balaam the son of Beor hath said: The man whose eye is
stopped up hath said: The bearer of the words of God hath said, who knoweth
the doctrine of the Highest, and seeth the vision of the Almighty, who
falling bath his eyes opened. I shall see Him, but not now: I shall behold
Him, but not near. A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall
spring up from Israel: and shall strike the chief of Moab, and shall waste
all the children of Seth. And he shall possess Idumea: the inheritance of
Seir shall come to their enemies: but Israel shall do manfully. Out of
Jacob shall He come that shall rule, and shall destroy the remains of the
city.""
14. The family of David. The unspeakable impostor who is known to history as
Bar Chochebas adopted that name, meaning Son of the star, to mislead his
deluded countrymen into thinking that the prophecy of Balaam was fulfilled
in his person. The success he achieved is the best possible indication that
the Israelites, even long after the times of Jews, continued to be certain
that the promised Messias was an individual person, a ruler rather than the
flebre'vv nation or race as a whole. That attitude of the Jews was
traditional. It expressed the meaning which the inspired writer had placed
in the prophecy of Balaam, and the significance which the people had always
found in all the predictions we have mentioned. Only in Jesus of Nazareth
have we a figure conforming to this composite portrait. His Davidic origin
was unquestioned. We have not only the testimony of the first and third
gospels to this effect, but also an eloquent and independent later
testimony. The passage is too beautiful and eloquent to be overlooked. "But
when the same Domitian had issued his orders, that the descendants of David
should be slain, according to an ancient tradition, some of the heretics
accused the descendants of Judas, as the brother of our Saviour according to
the flesh, because they were of the family of David and as such also were
related to Christ. This is declared by Hegesippus as follows. 'There were
yet living of the family of our Lord the grandchildren of Judas, called the
brother of our Lord according to the flesh. These were reported as being of
the family of David, and were brought to Domitian by the Evocatus.
°Num. 2415-2o.
380 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
For this emperor was as much alarmed at the appearance of Christ as Herod.
He put the question, whether they were of David's race, and they confessed
that they were. He then asked them what property they had, or how much money
they owned. And both of them answered that they had between them only nine
thousand denarii. And this they had not in silver, but in the value of a
piece of land containing only thirty-nine acres; from which they raised
their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor. Then they also
began to show their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies, and the
callosity formed by incessant labor on their lands, as evidence of their own
labor. When asked also, respecting Christ and His kingdom, what was its
nature and when and where it was to appear, they replied that it was not a
temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would
appear at the end of the world, when coming in glory He would judge the
quick and the dead, and give to everyone according to his works. Upon which
Domitian despising them made no reply: but treating them with contempt, as
simpletons, commanded them to be dismissed and by a decree ordered the
persecution to cease. Thus delivered, they ruled the churches, both as
witnesses and relatives of the Lord. When peace was established they
continued living even to the times of Trajan: Such is the statement of
Hegesippus.""
This Hegesippus, cited by Eusebius of Caesarea, was one of the most
interesting and valuable Christian writers of the second century. Very well
versed in the customs and laws of the Jews, and perfectly conversant with
the traditions of the Christian Church in Palestine, he set down in his
"Memorials" a digest of ecclesiastical lore. The incident he records is
undoubtedly historical. We know far too much about the thoroughness of the
informers who worked in the Roman Empire to imagine that either Domitian or
his satellites would have bothered for one moment about a spurious claim of
royal ancestry. When the Roman emperor received the descendants of Jesus'
cousin as members of the Davidic family, we have a remarkable guarantee that
the Master Himself conformed to the picture drawn in the prophecies,
assuring us that these were genuine manifestations of the divine
foreknowledge, and applying them as motives of credibility to the message He
gave to the world.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the blessing given to Juda
Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chs. 19-20.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 381
the patriarch stated dearly that the scepter would not be taken away from
him until such time as the promised Messias would arrive. This introduces a
temporal element into that prophecy which Jesus invoked in His question to
the Pharisees. As a matter of fact this element too was fulfilled in His
coming. From the time of David until the days of Jesus Himself there were
temporal rulers specifically over the house of Juda. Until the time of the
Babylonian captivity these rulers were of the house of David himself. After
the captivity there was a priestly rule, but these Aaronitic kings governed
as rulers of Juda. The last of these Asmoneans was succeeded by Herod the
Great. This adventurer was a foreigner whose kingdom was supported by and
dependent upon the Roman Government. From the time of his death, however,
his dominions were divided, and, after the short-lived kingly administration
of Archelaus his son, Roman governors or prefects controlled Jerusalem and
the surrounding territory-. Jesus was born in the last days of Herod. The
holy family returned from Egypt during the reign of Archelaus. Thus, even on
this point the prediction made to Juda was accomplished. Only the divine
mind could have foreseen with certainty that events would shape themselves
in this way. That divine foreknowledge, manifest in the accomplished
prophecy, named the One who was to come as the Messias, and thereby
guaranteed the credibility of Jesus' teaching as divine revelation.
15. Prophecy of the betrayed. Jesus of Nazareth pointed out to His disciples
that His own betrayal had been foretold in the scriptures. Here again we
find a prediction obviously applying to Him and again obviously beyond the
natural competence of any creature, actual or possible. "I speak not of you
all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled: He
that eateth bread with Me, shall lift up his heel against Me. At present I
tell you before it come to pass: That when it shall come to pass, you may
believe that I am He. Amen, amen, I say to you: He that receiveth whomsoever
I send, receiveth Me: and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent
Me.""
The implication is clear enough. According to Jesus Himself, the prophecy
about His betrayal, cited by Himself that night at the last supper, was
sufficiently clear. It constituted, according to His own claim, a definite
and effective motive of credibility, valid in itself
4' John / 3:18-2o.
382 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
yet incalculably powerful when used together with the other pronouncements
which foretold the Messias.
The second portion of the fortieth psalm, from which Jesus of Nazareth
quoted, has an obvious Messianic significance. "My enemies have spoken evils
against Me: When shall He die and His name perish? And if he came in to see
Me, he spoke vain things. His heart gathered together iniquity to itself. He
went out and spoke to the same purpose. All my enemies whispered together
against Me. They devised evils to Me. They determined against Me an unjust
word: shall He that sleepeth rise again no more? For even the man of My
peace in whom I trusted: who ate my bread, bath greatly supplanted Me. But
Thou, 0 Lord, have mercy on Me and raise Me up again: and I will requite
them. By this I know that Thou bast had a good will for Me: because My enemy
shall not rejoice over Me. But Thou hast upheld Me by reason of My
innocence, and hast established Me in Thy sight forever.""
16. Fulfillment of this prophecy in Jesus. Manifestly the person whom God
had established in His sight forever was not David the king nor any of the
other prophets who came to enlighten the land of Israel. David was truly a
type, in the sense that the prophecy has an obvious reference to the plots
engineered against him by Arbitophel and the other partisans of Absalom. But
the full meaning of the statement could never be applied to the royal
patriarchs. In the history of Jesus we find the full meaning of this
prediction. The canonical gospels tell of four distinct plots against Him
before the final conspiracy in which the traitor Judas Iscariot agreed to
betray his Master. The first came after Jesus had miraculously healed the
man with the withered hand and had triumphantly unmasked the hypocrisy of
His enemies who objected against this miracle being performed on the
Sabbath." The second took the form of preparing stratagems to betray Him in
His speech. The scribes and Pharisees took part in this plot after Jesus had
excoriated their hypocrisy." The third was still more ambitious. At first
the Pharisees and the Herodians had conspired against Jesus in Galilee. Now
the plotters included the chief priests, the scribes and the princes of the
people." The next day on the Tuesday of holy week,
"Ps. 40:6-13.
"Matt. r3:14; Mark 3:6; Luke 6:ii.
'Luke 11:53.
"Mark 11:18; Luke 19:47-48.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 383
the chief priests and the Pharisees again laid snares for Him after He had
unmasked their iniquity through the parable of the evil, husbandmen." The
first and third gospels recount that the popularity of Jesus was such that
the cowardly schemers despaired of any open attack upon Him.
On the following day, Wednesday, the Sanhedrinites entered into their
infamous agreement with the traitor Apostle, Judas Iscariot." Previously
they had decided finally to encompass the death of Jesus." Judas Iscariot
partook of the last supper with his Master and then betrayed Him. The men
who engineered those plots unconsciOusly and in spite of themselves filled
out one more portion of that portrait which the inspired writers had drawn
of the coming Messias. Certainly only God Himself could have known that the
Person who offered such compelling guarantees of a beneficent mission would
be or could be the Victim of plotting and treachery on the part of those to
whom He presented the divine message.
In the previous chapter we have seen that Jesus Himself predicted His
passion, death, and resurrection. We must not forget that both before the
last supper and after the resurrection Ile appealed to prophecies in the Old
Law relative to these events. "Then Jesus took unto Him the twelve and said
to them: 13ehold we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be accomplished
which were written by the prophets concerning the Son of man. For He shall
be delivered to the gentiles, and shall be mocked and scourged and spit
upon. And after they have scourged Him, they will put Him to death, and the
third day He shall rise again."" At the same time the evangelist assures us
that the Apostles did not understand the teaching of their Master in this
regard. "And they understood none of these things, and this word was hid
from them, and they understood not the things that were said.' Patently
then the Apostles did not realize, in spite of the explicit declaration of
their Master, that the prophetic announcements in the Old Testament
described a Messias who was to suffer and to die. We know very well that the
rabbinical teachers of that time had distorted the portrait of the Messias
in the Old Testament oracles into the image of an all- conquering
politico-religious hero. That misconception dulled the
"Matt. 11:45-46; Mark 12:12; 1.11ke 20:19.
48 Matt. 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-1 1 ; Luke 22:3-6; John 1312. " Matt. 26:1-5;
Mark 14:r-2; Luke 22:2; John 01 :47-53. 'Luke 18:31-33.
"Luke 18:34.
384 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
understanding of the Apostles themselves. Yet even a forgotten truth
remained evident. The descriptions of the suffering Messias abounded in the
Old Testament writings, even when the teachers of the day chose to pass over
the austere truth conveyed in these portraits. The prophecies in this regard
were not less truly expressions of the divine and infinite foreknowledge
simply because they ran counter to the popular errors.
Even at the last supper itself Jesus insisted that His forthcoming
sufferings and death had been prophesied. "And the Son of man indeed goeth,
as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be
betrayed; it were better for him if that man had not been born.""
17. The messianic prophecies in the message of Jesus. Now it is clear enough
that a considerable part of the instruction which Jesus gave to His
disciples after the resurrection had to do with the verification of
prophecies about Him contained in the Old Testament. The disciples on the
road to Emmaus heard Him explain these predictions. "Then He said to them: 0
foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have
spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into
His glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them
in all the scriptures the things that were concerning Him."" Thus we may
expect to find the prophecies which Jesus cited used by the Church during
the first period of her missionary activity. We have moreover, in the
canonical gospels themselves, certain quotations indicating the places in
the Old Testament which Jesus alleged as predictions of His own passion,
death, and resurrection.
When, after the last supper, Jesus made as it were a final effort to impress
upon the minds of the Apostles the tremendous gravity of the situation they
were about to face, He made use of a citation from Isaias. "Then said He
unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a
scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I
say unto you, that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in Me: And
with the wicked was He reckoned. For the things concerning Me have an end.""
Moreover He contended that the unjust hatred which the Jewish
"Mark 14:21; Matt. 26:24; Luke 2222.
"Luke 2425-27. "Luke 22:36-37.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 385
leaders maintained against Him had been foretold in the Old Testament. "If
the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated Me before you. If you had
been of the world: the world would love its own. But because you are not of
the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world
hateth you. Remember the word that I said to you: The servant is not greater
than his master. If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.
If they have kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things
they will do to you for My name's sake: because they know not Him that sent
Me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin. But now
they have no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father also.
If I had not done among them the works which no other man hath done, they
would not have sin. But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My
Father. But that the word may be fulfilled, which is written in their law:
They hated Me without cause."" Furthermore, He appealed to the prediction
that the Apostles would scatter when their Master was attacked. "They went
out unto Mount Olivet. Then JeSus saith to them: All -you shall be
scandalized in Me this night. For it is Written: I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.""
18. The messianic prophecies in primitive Christian teaching. St. John the
Apostle, instructed as he was by Jesus Himself on the prophecies which
concerned the passion, cites one other prediction as verified in the
sufferings of his Master. "The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified
Him, took His garments (and they made four parts: to every soldier a part)
and also His coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top
throughout. They said then one to another. Let us not cut it, but let us
cast lots for it, whose it shall_ be. That the scripture might be fulfilled
saying: They have parted My garments among them: and upon My vesture they
have cast lot. And the soldiers indeed did these things."57
The same instruction on the fulfillment of the prophecies is manifest in the
doctrine of Philip the deacon. "Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip,
saying: Arise, go towards the south, to the way that goeth down from
Jerusalem into Gaza: this is desert. And rising up he went and behold a man
of Ethiopia, an eunuch
"John r518-25.
"Matt. 26:3o-3I; Mark 14:27.
John 19:23-24.
386 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge
over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore. And he was
returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the prophet. And the
Spirit said to Philip: Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And
Philip, running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias, and he said:
Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how
can I, unless some man show me? And he desired Philip that he would come up
and sit with him. And the place of the scripture which he was reading was
this: He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb without voice
before His shearer, so openeth He not His mouth. In humility His judgment
was taken away. His generation who shall declare, for His life shall he
taken from the earth? And the eunuch answering Philip said: I beseech thee,
of whom doth the prophet speak this, of himself or of some other man? Then
Philip opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto him
Jesus."" From these citations we have exact clues to the prophecies which
Jesus of Nazareth declared to have been fulfilled in Him.
19. The prophecies to which Jesus appealed. The best way in which we can
realize the import of these prophecies as motives of credibility is to
examine the very passages to which the Christians and their Master appealed.
If we find that these passages offer a description of events which no
creature could naturally foretell, and which actually transpired, we may
recognize them as art intellectual miracle, as expressions of the manifestly
divine foreknowledge which serve to guarantee the divine origin of that
definite doctrine Jesus brought to the world of man.
The prophecy to which Jesus referred when He predicted the confusion and
dispersion of the Apostles is found in the book of Zacharias. "Awake, 0
sword, against My Shepherd, and against the man that cleaveth to Me, saith
the Lord of Hosts. Strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered: and
I will turn My hand to the little ones.' When He spoke of His enemies as
unjustly hating Him, and appealed to scriptural prophecies of this hatred,
He pointed to actual and clear messianic declarations in the psalms. "Let
not them that are My enemies wrongfully rejoice over Me: who have hated Me
without cause, and wink with the eyes. For
Acts 8:26-35, *Zach, 13:7.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 387
they spoke indeed peaceably to Me: and speaking in the anger of the earth,
they devised guile. And they opened their mouth wide against Me. They said:
Well done, well done, our eyes have seen it. Thou hast seen this, 0 Lord, be
not Thou silent: 0 Lord depart not from Me."" The same prediction of a man
despised and unjustly persecuted is conveyed in another of the songs of
Israel. Nothing could be more striking than the picture drawn in the
sixty-eighth psalm, a picture which obviously refers to the sufferings and
death of Jesus. "They are multiplied above the hairs of My head, who hate Me
without cause. My enemies have grown strong, who have wrongfully persecuted
Me. Then did I pay that which I took not away. . . . Because for Thy sake I
have borne reproach: shame hath covered My face. I am become a stranger to
my brethren, and an alien to the sons of My mother.. .. Thou knowest My
reproach, and My confusion, and My shame. In Thy sight are all they that
afflict Me. My heart hath expected reproach and misery. And I looked for one
that would grieve together with Me, but there was none: and for one that
would comfort Me, and I found none. And they gave Me gall for My food: and
in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink."" Again the twenty-first psalm
foretells the historically verifiable circumstances of the passion, as well
as the bestial hatred which influenced the Jewish leaders to encompass the
death of Jesus. The first words of this psalm are those which Jesus recalled
during His agony on the cross. "0 God, My God, look upon Me: why hast Thou
forsaken Me? . . . But I am a worm and no man, the reproach of men and the
outcast of the people. All they that saw Me have laughed Me to scorn: They
have spoken with the lips and wagged the head. He hoped in the Lord, let Him
deliver Him. Let Him save Him, seeing He delighteth in Him. . . Depart not
from Me, for tribulation is very near: for there is none to help Me. Many
calves have surrounded Me. Fat bulls have besieged Me. They have opened
their mouths against Me, as a lion ravening and roaring I am poured out like
water: and all My bones are scattered. My heart is become like wax, melted
in the midst of My bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My
tongue hath cleaved to My jaws: and Thou hast brought Me down into the dust
of death. For many dogs have encompassed Me. The council of the
Ps. 34:19-22.
°1 Ps. 69:5, 9-9, 20-22.
388 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
malignant hath besieged Me. They have dug My hands and feet. They have
numbered all My bones. And they have looked and stared upon Me. They parted
My garments amongst them, and upon My vesture they cast lots."'
20. The canticles of the servant of God. However, by far the most striking
prediction concerning the passion of the Messias is to be found in the
canticles of the servant of God, found in the book of Isaias. There are four
of these canticles, each depicting with surprising wealth of detail some
observable aspect of the ministry and death of Jesus. These by themselves as
well as with the other predictions which are manifestly verified in Jesus of
Nazareth, constitute an intellectual miracle of the first order, and thus a
motive of credibility accessible to the intelligence of all men, even to the
spirit of our own age.
The first of these canticles depicts the dignity and-beneficence which will
characterize the work of the Messias. 1,Behold My Servant, I will uphold
Him: My Elect, My soul delighteth in Him. I have given My Spirit upon Him.
He shall bring forth judgment to the gentiles. He shall not cry, nor have
respect to person. Neither shall His voice be heard abroad. The bruised reed
He shall not break and smoking flax He shall not quench. He shall bring
forth judgment in truth. He shall not be sad nor troublesome, till He set
judgment in the earth. And the islands shall wait for His law. Thus saith
the Lord God that created the heavens and stretched them out: that
established the earth and the things that spring out of it that giveth bread
to the people upon it, and spirit to them that tread thereon. I the Lord
have called Thee in justice, and taken Thee by the hand, and preserved Thee.
And I have given Thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the
gentiles. That Thou rnightest open the eyes of the blind, and bring forth
the prisoner out of prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison
house.""
The second canticle expounds the glory of this servant. "Give ear, ye
islands, and hearken ye peoples from afar. The Lord hath called Me from the
womb. From the bowels of My mother He hath been mindful of My name. And He
hath made My mouth like a sharp sword: in the shadow of His hand He hath
protected Me, and bath made Me as a chosen arrow. In His quiver He hath
Ps. 21 :2, 7-9, 12-19. " ISa. 42:x-7.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 389
hidden Me. And He said to Me: Thou art My Servant, Israel, for in Thee will
I glory. And I said, I have labored in vain. I have spent My strength
without cause and in vain. Therefore My judgment is with the Lord, and My
work with My God. And now saith the Lord that formed Me from the womb to be
His Servant, that I may bring back Jacob unto Him, and Israel will not be
gathered together. And I am glorified in the eyes of the Lord, and My God is
made My strength. And He said: It is a small thing that Thou shouldst be My
Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to convert the dregs of Israel.
Behold I have given Thee to be the light of the gentiles, that Thou mayst be
My salvation, even to the farthest part of the earth. Thus saith the Lord
the Redeemer of Israel His holy One, to the soul that is despised, to the
nation that is abhorred, to the servant of rulers: Kings shall see, and
princes shall rise up and adore for the Lord's sake, because He is faithful,
and for the holy One of Israel who hath chosen Thee.""
The third describes the courage of this Servant. "The Lord hath given Me a
learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary.
He wakeneth in the morning, in the morning He wakeneth My ear that I may
hear Him as a Master. The Lord God hath opened My ear, and I do not resist,
I have not gone back. I have given My body to the strikers, and My cheeks to
them that plucked them. I have not turned away My face from them that
rebuked Me and spit upon Me. The Lord is My Helper, therefore am I not
confounded. Therefore have I set My face as a most hard rock. And I know
that I shall not be confounded. He is near that justifieth Me. Who will
contend with Me? Let us stand together. Who is My adversary? Let him come
near to Me. Behold the Lord God is My Helper. Who is He that shall condemn
Me? So they shall all be destroyed as a garment, the moth shall eat them
up.""
However, the fourth canticle gives the most circumstantial picture of the
suffering Redeemer. "Behold My Servant shall understand. He shall be
exalted and extolled, and shall be exceeding high. As many have been
astonished at Thee, so shall His visage be inglorious among men, and His
form among the sons of men. He shall sprinkle many nations, kings shall shut
their mouth at
" Isa .
"isa, 50:4-9.
WE STAND WITH CHRIST
390 THE WITNESS .OF PROPHECY 391
• .
Him. For they to whom it was not told of Him have seen; and chapter of
Isaias describes the Servant of God as working unosten‑
they that have not heard have beheld. Who hath believed our re-
tatiously. We have already seen how, time after time, Jesus of
• port? And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? And He
. Nazareth forbade His disciples, the beneficiaries of His
miracles,
shall grow up as a tender plant before Him, and as a root out of and above
all the evil spirits to publish the news of His wonders
a thirsty ground. There is no beauty in Him, nor comeliness. And -
and of His supernatural wisdom. The Jews themselves were forced we have seen
Him, and there was no sightliness, that we should to acknowledge that He was
not a respecter of persons and that be desirous of Him: Despised and most
abject of men, a man of
, He taught truth." Alone among the prophets of Israel, Jesus pre‑
sorrows-and acquainted with infirmity: and His look was, as it sented a
message which was intended for the gentiles as well as
were, hidden and despised, wherefore we esteemed Him not. Surely for
those of his own nation. The forty-ninth chapter describes the
He bath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows. And we Servant of God
as one whose mission it was to bring salvation to
have thought Him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God .
the ends of the earth. This corresponds exactly to the injunction
, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our iniquities. He was which
Jesus, alone among the teachers in Israel, gave to His dis-
.
bruised for our sins. The chastisement of our peace was upon ciples." The
fiftieth chapter describes One who receives a teaching
,
Him and by His bruises we are healed. All we like sheep have
, from God. Many times, as we have already seen, Jesus asserted
gone astray. Every one hath turned aside into his own way. And that His
doctrine had been given Him by the Father. Only Jesus
•
the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was offered
suffered the revolting indignities described in the sixth verse of
H
hbecause it was His own will, and He opened not His mouth. e
. this chapter. The historical accounts of His captivity in the house
shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as
• of Caiphas and what we know of the fate of condemned prisoners a lamb
before His shearer. And He shall not open His mouth. . in
Oriental countries combine to show the graphic accuracy of
He was taken away from distress and from judgment. Who shall
the description in Isaias. Furthermore, this same chapter describes declare
His generation? Because He is cut off out of the land of the courage of the
Servant. History tells us with absolute certainty the living. For the
wickedness of My people have I struck Him.
that Jesus of Nazareth was never overcome by fear during the
And He shall give the ungodly for His burial, and the rich for •
, dark hours of His agony.
. His death: because lie hath done no iniquity, neither was there
However, the fourth canticle contains the greatest wealth of de-
deceit in His mouth. And the Lord was pleased to bruise Him in
• tail. The abject appearance of the Servant in the prophecy
constiinfirmity. If He shall lay down His life for sin, He shall see a
tutes a vivid and accurate description of a man who was scourged
• long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in and
ducified. The book of Isaias tells of a willing Victim, and
His hand. Because His soul hath labored, He shall see and be
• both the express words of Jesus and the verifiable historical
records
filled. By His knowledge shall this, My just Servant, justify many,
of His arrest show that He could have avoided capture and death.
and He shall hear their iniquities. Therefore will I distribute to
Jesus had said, "Therefore doth the Father love Me: because I lay
Him very many, and He shall divide the spoils of the strong, be-
down My life, that I may take it up again. No man taketh it away
cause He hath delivered His soul unto death, and was reputed
. from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. And I have power to lay
with the wicked, and He hath borne the sins of many, and hath
• it down and I have power to take it up again. This commandment prayed for
the transgressors.' ,
• have I received of My Father."" The freedom which Jesus claimed, 21. Jesus
as the Servant described in Isaias. Line for line, these
and which the resurrection proved Him to possess, was that de-
canticles describe with considerable detail and perfect accuracy the
• scribed in Isaias. Naturally the truth is far more perfect and
strik-
• passion of Jesus and the events which led up to it. The forty-second i'
ing than the description of it in the prophetical book. Nevertheless,
•,
15a. 52:13-15; 53:1-12. For a modern scientific investigation of these
prophecies
'" Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 2021.
i • See R. P. F. Ceuppens, 0.P., De Prophetiis Messianicis in
Antigua Testament° (Rome, "Cf. Matt. 28:59; Mark 16:t5.
II I T935)• 'John 10:17-18.
392 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
the prophetic description is accurate, and manifestly beyond the natural
competence of any creature, actual or possible. Furthermore, this
fifty-third chapter of Isaias insists that the Servant is to die, and to be
counted among the wicked and reprobate.
The psalter of David describes details of the suffering which this Servant
of God was destined to undergo. That suffering embraced thirst, the piercing
of the hands and feet of the victim, nudity, abandonment, and absolute
rejection by His own people. All of these circumstances are verified fully
and solely in the agony of Jesus.
22. The death on the cross. There is one point in these prophecies which
deserves special mention. The Jews at the time of St. Justin the Martyr and
in our own day alleged as a reason for rejecting the messianic claims of
Jesus the fact that He died hanging on the cross. They cite the text of the
pentateuch. "When a man hath committed a crime for which he is to be
punished with death, and being condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet: his
body shall not remain upon the tree, but shall be buried the same day, for
he is accursed of God that hangeth on a tree: and thou shalt not defile thy
land which the Lord thy God shall give thee in possession."" As a matter of
fact the Man of Sorrows spoken of in the prophecy of Isaias is recognized as
taking upon Himself freely the guilt of others and suffering for sins He did
not commit. St. Paul gave an explanation alone consonant with the doctrine
of the prophecy and with the history of Jesus, "Christ hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for• us: for it is written: Cursed
is every one that hangeth on a tree.""
Even the title "Servant of God" fits the character and the claims of Jesus
perfectly. There was no other who could say "I do always the things that
please Him."" The composite picture is such that any reasonable man can
recognize it as a prophecy. It would be manifestly far above the natural
competence of any man to predict with certainty the series of details which
as a matter of fact appeared in the messianic prophecies. When Jesus of
Nazareth appeared and when everything which had been foretold about the
sufferings and death of the Messias actually happened to Him, the prediction
was clearly manifest as a true prophecy and thus an effective motive of
credibility.
"Deut. 21:22-23. "John 8:29.
"Gal. 3:13.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 393
23. Apostolic preaching about the prophecies. We must not forget that the
Apostles appealed to prophecies about the resurrection in the Old Testament.
Jesus Himself had asserted that His rising from the dead, as well as the
other events in His life, had been foretold in the ancient writings." The
pentecost sermon of St. Peter pointed out the place of that prophecy and St.
Paul recalled it many times during the course of his own preaching." The
prediction was contained in one of the psalms of David. "The Lord is the
portion of My inheritance and of My cup: It is Thou that wilt restore My
inheritance to Me. The lives are fallen unto Me in goodly places: for My
inheritance is goodly to Me. I will bless the Lord, who hath given Me
understanding. Moreover My reins also have corrected Me even till night. I
set the Lord always in My sight: for He is at My right hand, that I be not
moved. Therefore My heart hath been glad, and My tongue hath rejoiced.
Moreover My flesh also shall rest in hope. Because Thou wilt not leave My
soul in hell: nor wilt Thou give Thy holy one to see corruption. Thou hast
made known to Me the ways of life. Thou shalt fill Me with joy with Thy
countenance. At Thy right hand are delights even to the end.""
St. Peter explained that the prophecy could not have been applied to David
himself, since the royal psalmist had died and since the tomb in which his
body was enclosed was visible even while he was preaching on that first
Christian pentecost. Manifestly the only Teacher of the divine word who died
but whose body never saw corruption was Jesus of Nazareth. To this day that
explanation retains its validity. A teaching which men accepted as divinely
revealed and consequently as sovereignly true could never have been
understood other than in a way compatible with that truth. Since David had
died, like all the kings and prophets after him, the Jewish people could not
have imagined that the promise of in- corruption applied to any of them.
Only Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. In Him alone the prophecy was
verified.
24. Prophecy about the birthplace and homeland of Christ. Two more messianic
prophecies of high apologetical importance are cited by the evangelists. The
first referred to the birthplace of the promised Redeemer. St. Matthew
explains how this prediction,
"Luke 8:31-33; 24:26-27.
"Acts 2:24-33; 12:23; 17:2; 26:22. "Ps. 15:5-11.
394 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
with its messianic implications, was known to the Jewish leaders at the time
Jesus was born. "When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda in the
days of king Herod, behold there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
saying: Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star
in the east, and are come to adore Him. And king Herod hearing this was
troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And assembling together all the chief
priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where Christ
should be born. But they said to him: In Bethlehem of Juda. For so it is
written by the prophet: And thou Bethlehem, the land of Juda, art not the
least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come forth the
captain that shall rule My people Israel."" Later the Jews in Jerusalem,
ignorant of the fact that Jesus had really been born in Bethlehem, urged
that He could not be the true Messias, since the promised Redeemer was to be
born in this town. "Of the multitude therefore, when they had heard these
words of His, some said: This is the prophet indeed. Others said: This is
the Christ: But some said: Doth the Christ come out of Galilee? Doth not the
scripture say that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem,
the town where David was
In both of these cases the Jewish leaders obviously referred to a statement
found in the book of Micheas. "And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one
among the thousands of Juda: out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is
to be the Ruler in Israel. And His going forth is from the beginning, from
the days of eternity.' It is obvious, of course, that the Pharisees and the
other Jews, conserving jealously the meaning contained in the divine
message at least substantially, recognized this as a true prophecy about the
Messias. The fact that Jesus, who fulfilled in such marvelous accuracy of
detail, all the other predictions about the Messias was also born in
Bethlehem vindicates this prophecy, and shows it as a valid and effective
motive of credibility in favor of His own doctrine.
Again there was a distinct reference in an ancient prophecy, to the region
where the Messias would begin His ministry. "At the first time the land of
Zabulon, and the land of Nephthali was lightly touched: and at the last the
way of the sea beyond the Jordan, of
"Matt. 2:1-6. John 7:40-42. "Mich. 5:2.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 395
the Galilee of the Gentiles was heavily loaded. The people that walked in
darkness have seen a great light. To them that dwelt in the region of the
shadow of death, light is risen."" St. Matthew, when he mentions that Jesus
left Nazareth to carry out His ministry in Capharnaum and in the other
sea-coast cities, states that this town was on the border of Zabulon and
Nephthali and sees in the initial preaching of Jesus a fulfillment of this
old prophecy."
25. Jesus and the prophecies about John the Baptist. Jesus also appealed to
the prophecies of John the Baptist as confirming the intellectual miracles
of the Old Testament predictions. "You sent to John: and he gave testimony
to the truth. But I receive not testimony from man: but I say these things
that you may be saved. He was a burning and a shining light. And you were
willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater testimony
than that of John. For the works which My Father hath given Me to perfect:
the works themselves which I do, give testimony of Me that the Father bath
sent Me. And the Father Himself who hath sent Me hath given testimony of Me.
Neither have you heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape. And you
have not His word abiding in .you. For whom He hath sent, 1-Jim you believe
not. Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting,
and the same are they that give testimony of Me. . . . Think not that I will
accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you. Moses, in whom you
trust. For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe Me also, for
he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe
My wor4s?"81
That was the appeal of Jesus. As far as the teaching of John was concerned,
many Jews freely acknowledged that he had prophesied concerning Jesus "And
He went again beyond the Jordan into that place where John was baptizing
first: and there He abode. And many resorted to Him, and they said: John
indeed did no sign. But all things whatsoever John said of this man were
true. And many believed in Him."" The Church from the time of the Apostles
and the first apologists has never ceased to allege the prophecies of the
Old Testament as intellectual miracles, guaranteeing the divine origin of
that doctrine which Jesus of Nazareth proposed to men.
"Isa.
Matt. 4:12-16. John 533-39; 44-47-
"John io:40-42.
396 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
26. The prophecies as criteria of revelation. The messianic prophecies to
which we have made explicit reference are those of primacy and unquestioned
apologetical value. Even the most cursory reading will assure the student
that the Old Testament abounds in figures and in predictions which are
fulfilled in the new dispensation under Jesus Christ. As a matter of fact
the theologians have always maintained that the truths of the Old Testament
are made manifest in the new, while the verities of the new dispensation or
covenant are foreshadowed in the old. However, not all of the doctrine about
Jesus and about the Church of which He is the Founder and the Head can be
said to have full demonstrative force in the science of apologetics. Only
those events which were clearly foretold, and which were publicly verified
in the conduct and teaching of Jesus can obtain full and perfect historical
recognition as intellectual miracles. In the science of apologetics as we
know it, the most effective criteria of divine revelation in the line of
intellectual miracles are those prophecies which have been so dearly
fulfilled that we can compare the accomplishment, known as a plain
historical fact, with the prediction and the literal meaning with which it
was endowed among the chosen people. Where the prophecy itself 'must serve
as a reason for the acceptance of the fact, it is manifest that this
condition is not verified.
27. Prophecies about the birth of Jesus. Thus, for example, the virgin birth
of Jesus was foretold long before He came into the world by Isaias the
prophet. "And the Lord spoke again to Achaz, saying: Ask thee a sign of the
Lord thy God, either unto the depth of hell or unto the heighth above. And
Achaz said: I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord. And He said: Hear
ye therefore 0 house of David: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to
man, that you are grievous to my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall
give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and His name
shall be called Emmanuel."" The prophecy evidently has reference to the
birth of the Messias, for only the promised Redeemer was ever acknowledged
among men as possessing the name and the dignity of the living God.
Furthermore, the reference is obviously to a virgin birth in the strict and
miraculous sense of the term. A tremendous and awful sign, given by God to a
fearful but unrepentant king, and, as it were forced
" tsa. 710—I4.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 397
upon him despite his refusal to petition God would manifestly be in the
miraculous order. It would have been the height of naIvete to suppose that,
under the circumstances, Achaz or anyone else for that matter would have
been able to find anything extraordinary in the prediction that a young-
woman who had been a virgin had conceived and borne a child in the natural
manner. The extraordinary portent must obviously be the conception and birth
of a child by and from a woman who remained a virgin. There is no room for
serious doubt on this point.
Moreover it is a fact that Jesus of Nazareth was born in the way described
in this prophecy. The first gospel says explicitly "And Joseph rising up
from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto
him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born Son:
and he called His name Jesus."" The evangelist moreover cites the conception
and birth of Jesus precisely as the fulfillment of this prophecy, "Now the
generation of Christ was in this wise. When His mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found with Child of the Holy
Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man and not willing
publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. But while he
thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his
sleep saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy
wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall
bring forth a Son: and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save His
people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled
which the Lord spoke by the prophet saying: Behold a virgin shall be with
child and bring forth a Son. And they shall call His name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted is, God with us.""
In the third gospel we learn of the actual message which God sent to Mary.
"And the angel said to her: Fear not Mary, for thou hast found grace with
God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a Son,
and thou shalt call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called
the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of
David His father. And He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of
His kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the
" Matt. 24-25. Matt. 1:18-23.
398 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man And the angel
answering said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall
be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.""
Now the virgin birth was obviously not the sort of event which would
ordinarily fall within the competence of historians. As a matter of fact it
is a fact, and moreover a fact which we believe. When we offer a theological
explanation of this Catholic belief, it is only reasonable that we should
follow the example of St Matthew and cite the prophecy which foretold this
very occurrence. The person who examines the prophecy of Isaias
scientifically and impartially is bound to see that it predicts a virgin
birth. If that person accepts the content of the Old Testament as true on
the authority of God revealing, he would naturally be certain that the
Messias would appear in the world of men in this manner. If He examined the
claims of Jesus to the messianic honor and dignity, he would be bound to see
that, as St. Justin Martyr said to Trypho the Jew, "Now it is evident to all
that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh, no one has been born of
a virgin or is said to have been born of a virgin save this our Christ.""
This would constitute a serious, though not an apodictic proof for the
credibility of Christ's doctrine as the statement stands in Justin.
The person who sincerely accepted the prophecy as the word of God would have
no scruples about believing that the virgin birth was possible to God. He
would, if he came to accept the credibility of the Christian message because
of the innumerable other signs which attest its divine origin, be ready to
accept as strictly true the account of the virgin birth. Thus the prophecy
of Isaias is of tremendous importance for scholastic theology properly so
called and for what is called the apology of dogma as well. However we would
harm our cause by placing this fact, absolutely true as it is, on a level
with the resurrection and the prophecies which were verified in public and
manifest events as motives of credibility. It has not the first or most
important place in the scheme of apologetics, even though, in this very
science, it retains a certain power.
28. Prophecies not yet fulfilled. These are some prophecies which
"Luke t30-35.
" St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, Ch. 6o.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 399
have not yet been fulfilled. These Old Testament predictions refer to the
second coming of Christ. As such they constitute objects of belief rather
than motives of credibility. The prophecy which is clear, and which is
manifesdy fulfilled is the manifest intellectual miracle which attests, to
any man ready to examine the evidence, the divine origin of the doctrine
with which it is connected. A man does not have to accept the content of
that prophecy with an act of divine faith to see its demonstrative force as
a motive of credibility. He merely ascertains that at a certain time this
definite event— A —is predicted. He knows that no created mind would or
could be in a position to foretell that event with certainty. He examines
his evidence and finds that this— A has really taken place, in the manner in
which it was prophesied. The obvious and necessary implication is that the
prediction was an act of the divine knowledge. If a man has uttered it, he
has manifestly received from God information which is valid and effective as
a motive of credibility. The man who possesses an accurate natural knowledge
about God is quite well aware that the Creator, all wise and just as He is,
will never be party to a lie, and will never prostitute His seal to the
cause of deception. Since the verified and apologetically effective
prophecies of the Old Testament speak of the Messias as a Bearer of a
message from God, the seal of the divine approval is manifestly attached to
the Person in whom these prophecies are fulfilled. Manifestly His teaching,
proposed as a divine message, is rationally credible for what it claims to
be.
29. The prophecies of Jesus. No less important but far less difficult to
study are the prophecies uttered by Jesus of Nazareth and verified in the
sight of all men. It is to our distinct advantage to list a number of these
intellectual miracles, remembering that a knowledge of hidden truth in the
past or present is fully as much an evidence of the divine mind as a certain
and verified prediction of future events.
In the first place Jews of Nazareth manifested a knowledge of men's thoughts
and hidden past life beyond that of which any creature would be naturally
competent. The Apostles as a group acknowledged this: "Now we know that Thou
knowest all things, and Thou needest not that any man should ask Thee. By
this we believe that Thou comest forth from God."" An exercise of this
'John t6:3o.
400 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
power had influenced Nathanael to believe." The Samaritan woman
acknowledged Jesus as the Messias when she saw an example of such an
intellectual wonder."
Jesus foretold with certitude and absolute accuracy events which were about
to take place but which could never have been foreseen by any creature
whatsoever. He foretold the finding of the ass and its colt, upon which He
made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem.91
In the same way He gave the Apostles directions for entering into Jerusalem
and finding the man with the water vessel, who was to lead them to the house
where they would eat the last supper."
We have already seen, in the previous chapter, how Jesus clearly predicted
His own passion, death, and resurrection. He foretold the treason of Judas,
at first in such a way that the faithful Apostles could not know the
identity of the traitor, then finally at the last supper clearly, at the
instance of John who had been moved to question the Master by Peter." He
predicted the denial of St. Peter at the very moment when this ardent and
impetuous Apostle was protesting. his own undying faith and loyalty." He
foretold the fate of St. Peter and of St. John," the former of whom was
destined to be crucified, and the latter to die a natural death.
Very clearly He predicted the bloody persecutions which would be raised
against the Apostles and their successors." He announced that the Jews would
accept impostors who would claim the dignity and the office of Messias. "I
am come in the name of My Father, and you receive Me not. If another shall
come in his own name, him you will receive?"' This prophecy was abundantly
fulfilled when a great number of the Jewish people accepted adventurers like
the nameless Egyptian and later Bar Chochebas.
Finally He predicted the utter ruin of Jerusalem within the lifetime of
those who listened to His voice. According to Jesus the temple and the city
would be utterly destroyed at the hands of a
" John 1:49. " John 4:19. IM Man. 21:1-8; Mark ii :i-8; Luke 19:19-36.
ga Matt. 26:17-19; Mark 14;12-56; Luke 22:7-13.
" Matt. 26:70-71; Mark 14:18-21; Luke 22:21-23; John 6:70-71; 1321-30.
" Matt. 26:33-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:33-34; John 13:36-38.
" John 21:z 7-23.
" Cf. John 16:2; Matt. ro;r7-r 8; Mark 13:9-1o; Luke 21:12-19.
" John 5:43.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 401
victorious army after a military siege conducted in the orthodox tactical
manner. In the accounts of this prophecy, given in the three synoptic
gospels, the teaching on the destruction of Jerusalem is interspersed with
instruction relative to the end of the world and the second coming of
Christ. However, St. Matthew notes" that the reply answered two distinct
questions put by the Apostles to Jesus. One question was "when shall these
things be?" These things were the events which would transpire during the
destruction of the holy city. The other was "what will be the sign of Thy
coming and of the consummation of the world?" According to the express
declaration of Jesus "these things" were to happen during the lifetime of
His own generation." The end of the world would take place at a time which
God had not revealed to any creature and which the Son of God was not
commissioned to insert into that doctrine which He offered to the world as
divine public revelation.'
History tells us very clearly that the followers of Christ in Jerusalem
left the city before it was besieged by the Romans. "The whole body however
of the Church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation,
given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city,
and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella."' Eusebius
mentions a divine revelation or prophecy but does not identify this with the
words of Jesus. However the fact stands. Those who were the recipients of
that instruction which the Master had given were prepared for this fall.
Books which manifestly were written before that event describe it in detail,
and ascribe the prophecy to Jesus.
30. The demonstrative power of these prophecies. However the scientific
apologist must be prepared to encounter a somewhat bizarre attitude with
regard to prophecy even on the part of men whose learning and competence
enable them to work more intelligently. A couple of citations from an
eminent modern work will illustrate this attitude better than any words
could describe it. "Little that is certain can be said as to the date at
which the three oldest gospels arose. The passage on the End of the World
and the parousia of Jesus give a hint in Luke's case, for instead of
'Mau. 243.
Matt. 2434; Mark 12:3o; Luke 2132.
Matt. 24:36; Mark 12:32.
2E.11SebillS, The Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Ch. 5,
402 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
Mark's enigmatic wording 'When ye see the abomination of desolation standing
where he ought -not,' Luke says 'When ye see Jerusalem compassed with
armies." Whoever wrote like that had been through the siege and destruction
of Jerusalem. Hence Luke's Gospel and Acts were written after A.D. 70." . .
. If then the story of the empty grave was first published by Mark, the
assumption is not remote that this took place at a time when the location
could no longer be pointed out — otherwise there would probably have been a
search. Hence even our oldest Gospel arose only after the destruction of
Jerusalem, i.e., after A.D. 70.5
Now all of this is quite interesting. The learned professor, however, has
set out to propose an hypothesis to explain the origin of New Testament
literature. The hypothesis is ingenious. A very considerable amount of
erudition is expended in explaining it. However, as the professor propounds
it, the explanation remains a mere hypothesis. The conclusions which he
states so decisively happen to be drawn, not from the certain and evident
content of the New Testament books nor from ancient testimony about them and
about their origin, but from the very hypothesis he started out to
demonstrate and to elucidate. That hypothesis supposes the impossibility of
motives and prophecies. It supposes the radical inaccuracy of the New
Testament literature. It is clever, but unfortunately it happens to be at
variance with naturally ascertainable facts. Professor Dibelius may believe
that no one knew about the empty grave of Jesus until well after A.D. r. The
important fact however is that the Christians and their enemies among the
Jewish leaders labored under no such delusion, He may be persuaded that St.
Luke and the other synoptic authors could not have written their accounts of
the prophecies uttered by Jesus until after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Frankly all the scientific evidence, both from internal and from external
sources, is against him. The accumulation of erudition he displays (and that
erudition is vast and exceedingly helpful) can never make up for a lack of
science in the Aristotelian sense of the term. His conclusions are certainly
not self-evident. No one can say that they are validly and rigidly inferred
from proper evidence and principles. Science, in the strict
1
Mark r3:/4.
Luke itt
Martin Dibelius; A Fresh Approach to the Neu" Testament and Early Christian
Literature, English Translation (New York, 1936), pp. 64-66.
THE WITNESS OF PROPHECY 403
and Aristotelian sense shows very clearly that true prophecies, manifestly
fulfilled and manifestly attached to the message of Jesus, marked that
message as rationally credible and acceptable on divine faith. We will be
recreant to our duty as apologists if we fail to exploit, for the glory of
God and the benefit of mankind, this available and strictly scientific
resource.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY
1. Jesus and miracles of the social order. Effects which are manifestly
beyond the natural competence of any creature, and which serve as authentic
and effective signs of divine revelation can exist in many orders. In the
first place they can take place in the world of bodily activity, and these
motives of credibility are miracles in the strict sense of the term. A
prophecy is a miracle in the intellectual order, the manifestation of some
knowledge which evidently could belong naturally to God alone. When, in the
life of an individual man we find moral and mental excellence of unlimited
perfection and consequently beyond the natural sphere of man's capacity, we
rightly designate these qualities as moral or sapiential miracles. The only
other sort of objective or external motive of credibility available to man
and useful as a guarantee of the divine origin of some doctrine must be
sought in the social order. God could produce and sustain in the world some
society which is visibly beyond the natural power of man either to originate
or to continue. The Catholic Church proposes herself as such a sign of
divine revelation.
Jesus of Nazareth Himself appealed to signs in the social order which were
to be indicative of His divine mission. "That they all may be one, as Thou,
Father in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world
may believe that Thou bast .sent Me, and the glory which Thou hast given Me,
I have given to them: that they may be one, as we also are One. I in them,
and Thou in Me: that they may be made perfect in One, and the world may know
that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast also loved Me."'
He intended that the unity of His disciples should stand as a firm
indication that His message was actually the teaching of God. As the
doctrine on the kingdom of God
John 17:21-23.
404
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 405
has shown us, He intended that union among His disciples to be social and
supernatural. They were to be one with Him and with each other in so far as
they sincerely loved one another as fellow members of an organization of
which He was at once the Founder and the Head. That love, the principle of
ecclesiastical unity, was meant to be the affection for God or charity which
is the source of all holiness, and the principle of all full perfection in
the life of man. Thus, when Jesus of Nazareth insisted that the disciples,
in so far as they were to be one, would constitute a true motive of
credibility, He pointed out that all of those characteristics dependent upon
that unity might denominate the Church as a true social miracle.
2. The natural competence of man in the social order. It is perfectly
obvious, of course, that man is naturally competent to found and to continue
societies. However, it is equally manifest that none of these social
organizations will surpass the limits imposed upon the power of those who
brought them into being or who compose them. The natural force of man is
finite. He produces a limited effect. He can found a society, but the
organization thus brought into being will, in so far as it is proportioPed
to the natural strength of man, be effective in one time or among people of
one racial or social group. To imagine for a moment that the opposite could,
possibly be true would be to indulge in the idle fancy that an effect could
be greater than its principal cause.
A society which is manifestly unlimited by any of those factors which
encompass works proportioned to the natural force of any creature is
manifestly an effect which is proportioned to the infinite power of God. As
such it is a true motive of credibility, attesting the divine approbation
for claims made in favor of that doctrine with which it is connected. Now
the Catholic Church is such a society. It is the business of the apologist
to point out those aspects of the Church and of her activity which most
effectually and convincingly manifest and exhibit its character as a miracle
in the social order.
3. The characteristics by which the Church is recognizable as a criterion of
revelation. The fathers of the Vatican Council pointed out five of these
characteristics.2 According to their teaching, the Catholic Church is a true
and perpetual motive of credibility and
The Vatican Council, The Constitution, Dci Filius, Ch. 3.
406 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
an unwavering indication of her own divine commission because of x. Her
admirable propagation
2. Her exalted holiness
3. Her marvelous and unlimited fruitfulness in all good things
4. Her catholic unity
5. Her unconquered stability.
We must realize that we do not use these manifest qualities of the Catholic
Church in the same way that the four notes are used in Ecelesiology. The
historical sources at our disposition show us very clearly that Jesus of
Nazareth actually instituted a Church which was one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic. Thus, when the student of Ecdesiology finds evidence that the
Roman Catholic Church alone is endowed with these characteristics, he can
rightfully infer that this organization has the sole right to propose
herself as the true church of Jesus Christ. All that is required for this
purpose is to ascertain that the Church manifestly possesses those qualities
with which Jesus of Nazareth endowed the society He founded.
The task of the apologist who uses the Church as a true motive of
credibility is something quite distinct. The apologist considers the
qualities with which he is concerned, not in so far as they were described
by Jesus of Nazareth, but precisely in so far as they could not have been
brought about by thp natural power of any creature in any society. Our work
will not have been accomplished successfully unless we can bring forth
evidence that no created agency could have produced and maintained an
institution which was propagated and which endured like the Catholic Church,
and which still maintained in holiness, beneficence, and unity.
4. The marvelous propagation of the Church the political background. The
founding of the Catholic Church is historically a miraculous phenomenon
because the natural created causes which were brought into play were in no
way proportionate to the effect achieved. There are two ways in which we can
ascertain the manifesdy miraculous character of this foundation. In the
first place, it is obvious that the agencies which have been used to
propagate the Church were in themselves incapable of bringing about a
powerful and international organization. In the second place it is
historically evident that there were forces thrown against the nascent
Christian Church which would most certainly have destroyed any organization
which depended upon the natural power of creatures for its subsistence. In
order to have a scientific understanding of
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 407
these facts, we must take many circumstances into consideration.
We must not forget that the Church was first propagated by a group of Jews,
devoid of any special education and certainly without political influence.
We know very well that the Romans and the Greeks during the first century
and the second looked upon the Jewish race with particular disfavor. At
first they were despised as superstitious and antisocial, as enemies of the
human race. Later they were attacked and hated as fierce but unsuccessful
rebels against the power and the authority of Rome. The Christians insisted
that all men must worship as God this Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew who had been
condemned to the humiliating and terrifying death of the cross.
At a time when religion and the state were inseparably joined together and
when the adoration of the national gods was considered as a part of the
recognition due to the state itself, the Christians not only proposed their
crucified Lord as an object of worship, but steadfastly refused to recognize
the civic deities at all. At a time when certain types of vice were
permissible or even fashionable, they insisted upon the full observance of
the moral law. Humanly speaking the twelve Apostles could perhaps have
worked for the institution and maintenance of those little sects that
flourished for a time among the Jews. Their natural powers were totally
insufficient for the foundation and support of a world-wide and forceful
society.
Moreover, from the first, the infant Church was faced with the hatred of the
governments and the peoples to whom the gospel of Jesus was preached. The
healing c)f the lame man in the Beautiful Gate of the temple was followed by
a discourse of Peter. As a result of this sermon Peter and John his
companion were arrested by the Jews. From that time on the opposition to
Christianity among the Israelites was bitter and unrelenting. The Apostles
were imprisoned, they were scourged and threatened by the Sanhedrin
itself.' The heroic deacon Stephen was stoned according to the judicial mode
of execution among the Jews.5 Paul was maltreated continually.° James was
put to death by Herod, who saw that his persecution pleased the people.'
At first the Romans held themselves aloof from what they considered an
internal quarrel of a despised and ignorant people. How-
'Acts 5:18. 'Acts 5:57-5g. - 'Acts 12:1-3.
4 ACtS 5:40. 611 CO/. IT :23-33,
4°8 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
ever the infamous Nero made the Christians, who were manifestly in great
disrepute among the pagans, the scapegoats for himself when he was accused,
rightly or wrongly, of setting the fire which destroyed a good portion of
the imperial city during his reign. From that time until the edict of Milan
in 313,s the followers of Christ lived under the official ban of the Roman
empire. During a good portion of that time they enjoyed a certain de facto
toleration. However, very frequently the government of what the old Celts
used to call the King of the World employed every device of craft and force
to induce its subjects to abandon Jesus. Only the most naive student could
imagine for a moment that a society thus hated and proscribed by Jews and
Romans alike and directed by men of no social or political prominence could
have been propagated by forces natural to any creature.
We must remember that the Church did not advance with members inseparably
bound to one another by ties of race or by the hope of material booty. The
Christian leaders enjoined cheerful obedience to political masters and
insisted, as had Jesus Himself, that the kingdom they sought was not of this
world. The Christians themselves embraced their faith freely and
intelligently. They . suffered and lived, not as barbarian fanatics, but as
reasonable men, ready and willing to give an account of the hope that was in
them. With all of these factors which humanly would have condemned the
Catholic Church to relative impotence and restricted it to a small
membership, the Church as a visible society very soon overflowed throughout
the known world. As the frontiers of geographic knowledge have advanced, the
cross has gone ahead with them. Today there is no considerable portion of
the earth upon which the Catholic Church does not exist and carry on its
salvific work.
The change of dynasties and of cultures has never prevented this
propagation. The missions of the Church are active during the present war as
they were during the lifetime of the Apostles themselves. It goes without
saying that no other religious organization can boast of such a record.
There were powerful and important religious societies in existence when the
Catholic Church embarked upon her missionary career. They have changed or
perished. All of them have found that limitation which inexorably
characterizes all things merely human.
°Cf. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, Ch, 48; Kidd, Documents
Illustrative of Me History of the Church, Vol. z, No. 182.
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 409
We must not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with the Catholic
Church as a motive of credibility even when we con- skier this aspect of her
marvelous propagation. The Church claims to be and is a perfect society. She
must be judged according to the norms applied to societies and compared with
other organizations. Thus it is more than a religious movement and more
again than a dogmatic system. The thing whose marvelous propagation• we can
easily recognize is a society with a definite monarchical and hierarchical
form of government. The men who embraced the teachings of Jesus Christ
became incorporated into this society. They acknowledged and obeyed its
leadership. At times that society found itself opposed and even proscribed
by the state. It propagated itself as a society. It claimed and exercised
the right of expelling disobedient and unworthy members. It never allowed a
mere nominal membership in its adherents, but imposed upon them the works of
faith and penance and charity. The Catholic Church, humanly speaking, is an
institution which would spread itself throughout the world with considerable
difficulty. Its propagation is manifestly a work beyond the competence of
any created nature.
Sometimes there has been a tendency to ascribe the missionary success of the
Catholic Church to the political or diplomatic astuteness of her leaders. A
glance at the ascertainable facts will show any student that this strategic
skill, when it existed at all, could not be the adequate cause of any such
propagation as we find in the Catholic Church. We will find in the history
of this society that it has frequently been directed by men of consummate
genius. Some of the first minds that God has given to the children of men
have been proud to consecrate themselves to the work of spreading the
Catholic Church and thus serving the cause of Jesus. Nevertheless, even a
brief study will show us that the missionary effort of the Church has not
always been carried on along lines suggested by human genius. Moreover the
definite failings of her own children have frequently hampered or prevented
her progress. The Catholic Church insists upon the fact that some of her
members do not follow and have not followed the moral teachings of Christ.
A society whose membership or whose missionary corps consisted entirely of
men like St. Paul or Si. Francis Xavier would naturally have made tremendous
strides in the line of growth and new foundations. However, the Church has
very frequendy found that incompetence or carelessness which would have
ruined any merely human organ‑
410 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
ization within her own ranks. Neither this nor any other factor could limit
or prevent a work which is manifestly supernatural.
5. Miracles in the primitive Church. The first propagation of the Church was
accompanied and aided by manifest miracles. The history of the primitive
Church mentions a good many of them specifically. The throng at Pentecost
heard the announcement of Christ, each man in his own language although the
members of that crowd were from every section of the diaspora. "And they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers
tongues according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. Now there were
dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven. And
when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were
confounded in mind because that every man heard them speak in his own
tongue. And they were all amazed and wondered saying: Behold are not all
these that speak Galileans? And how have we heard every man our own tongue
wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and Ela mites and inhabitants of
Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia; Phrygia and Pamphilia,
Egypt and the parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome; Jews also
and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians: We have heard them speak in our own
tongues the wonderful works of God.'
The miraculous cure of the lame man in the Beautiful Gate of the temple was
an outstanding event in the life of the early Church and one which resulted
in the accession of many converts. "Now Peter and John went up into the
temple at the ninth hour of prayer. And a certain man who was lame from his
mother's womb was carried: whom they laid every day at the gate of the
temple which is called Beautiful, that he might ask aims of them that went
into the temple. He, when he had seen Peter and John about to go into the
temple, asked to receive alms. But Peter with John, fastening his eyes upon
him said: Look upon us. But he looked earnestly upon them, hoping that he
should receive something from them. But Peter said: Silver and gold I have
none: but what I have I give thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
arise and walk. And taking him by the right hand, he lifted him up, and
forthwith his feet and soles received strength. And he leaping up stood and
walked: and went in with them into the temple,
'Acts 2:4—I x.
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 4"
walking and leaping and praising God. And all the people saw him walking and
praising God. And they knew him that it was he who sat begging alms at the
Beautiful Gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement
at that which had happened to him."" The Sanhedrin, apprised of this event
attempted to prevent the Apostles from preaching about Jesus, but they were
in no way able to deny the reality of the miracle. "But they threatening
sent them away: not finding how they might punish them, because of the
people: for all men glorified what had been done, in that which had come to
pass, for the man was above forty years old in whom that miraculous cure had
been wrought.' When Ananias and Saphira his wife lied to Peter, they were
immediately struck dead by the divine power."
The text of the Acts recounts that many unnamed miracles were wrought by the
Apostles, so that even those not glorying in the Christian name hastened to
take advantage of the healing power manifest in the witnesses of Jesus. "And
there came great fear upon the whole church, and upon all that heard these
things. And by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought
among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. But
of the rest no man durst join himself unto them: but the people magnified
them. And the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord was more
increased, insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and
laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at the least
might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their
infirmities. And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of
the neighboring cities, bringing sick persons and such as were troubled with
unclean spirits; who were all healed.""
The Apostles as a group were liberated from prison by the ministry of an
angel," as was St. Peter alone at a later date." St. Step'hen, one of the
first deacons, is mentioned as having performed miraculous works, which drew
upon him the hatred of his countrymen." St. Philip, one of his companions,
did likewise." The conversion of St. Paul was certainly a moral miracle of
the first order." The intellectual miracle of prophecy was found among the
Christians. "And in these days there came prophets from Jerusalem to
'g Acts 3:1-10. it Acts 5:11-16. " Acts 6:8.
11 Acts 4121-22, "1' Acts 518-20. n Acts 8:6-8.
" Acts 5:1-1c). 15 Acts 12:5-11. 15 Acts 9:1-19.
412 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
Antioch. And one of them named Agabus, rising up, signified by the Spirit
that there should be a great famine over the whole world, which came to pass
under Claudius."" St. Paul cast out an evil spirit from a girl in Philippi,"
and obtained a reputation as a miracle worker in Ephesus. So great was his
fame that the Jewish exorcists attempted to expel devils from possessed
persons by the use of his name. "And God wrought by the hand of Paul more
than common miracles: so that even there were brought from his body to the
sick handkerchiefs and aprons. And the diseases departed from them and the
wicked spirits went out of them. Now some also of the Jewish exorcists who
went about attempted to invoke over them that had evil spirits the name of
the Lord Jesus, saying: I conjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And
there were certain men, seven sons of Sceva, a chief priest, that did this.
But the wicked spirit answering said to them: Jesus I know, and Paul I know:
but who are you? And the man in whom the wicked spirit was, leaping upon
them and mastering them both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out
of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all the Jews and
the gentiles that dwelt at Ephesus: and fear fell on them all, and the name
of the Lord Jesus was magnified."" On two occasions the Apostles restored
life to persons who had died. St. Peter raised up Dorcas at Joppe and St.
Paul a young Christian Troas."
As a matter of fact the place of miracles in the early church was so well
recognized that St. Paul was compelled to remind his disciples that the
power of performing them was only one of the many gifts which God had
vouchsafed to His followers, and that it was by no means the most excellent
of these gifts. "Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit,
and there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are
diversities of operations, but the same God who worketh all in all. And the
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. To one
indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word
of knowledge according to the same Spirit: to another faith, in the same
Spirit: to another the grace of healing in one Spirit: to another the
working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discerning of
Spirits, to another diverse kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of
speeches.""
" Acts ii :27-28. Acts 19:11-17.
Acts i6:t 6-18. Acts 9:36-42; 20:9-12.
" I Cot. 12:4—so.
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 413
The Church which possessed and exercised this power spread abroad and
flourished in spite of official and popular resentment against it. It
manifested no political ambition. As a matter of fact the pagans declaimed
against it precisely because it had a tendency to turn men away from offices
of civic preferment. It offered no inducement of earthly pride and luxury.
Yet, a bare three centuries after its Founder had died on Calvary, the Roman
emperor Constantine was proud to act as the patron and protector of this
organization. In itself this would constitute a manifest social miracle,
but the marvelous propagation of the Catholic Church can be seen in its
proper background only when we consider it with reference to the holiness
and other qualities mentioned by the Council.
6. The exalted holiness of the Church. This characteristic is perhaps the
easiest to recognize of all those qualities by which the Church can be
distinguished as a social miracle. Holiness consists in a firm and perfect
adherence to good, coupled with an absolute aversion from evil in the moral
order. As an organization that Catholic Church manifests this holiness to an
unlimited extent. Thus it appears certainly as a society beyond the natural
competence of any creature to organize or to maintain.
The Church, according to the promise of Her divine Founder, and also in the
light of history and experience, is and has been an organization which
includes within its membership both good and evil men. As a result it is
worse than idle to attempt an appreciation of that sanctity which
characterizes the Catholic society from the point of view of some constant
and universal holiness in all of her children. The Church is an
organization, and as such she must be described and judged. Now this society
manifests an exalted holiness precisely in so far as any organization can
show it.
Primarily the way in which this organization manifests its holiness is by
devoting itself corporately to the worship of God. The Catholic Church, as a
society, has its central and essential function in the sacrifice of the
Mass. The person who takes the trouble to examine this activity can see
immediately that, in the ineffable profundity and complexity of its nature,
it is an operation of outstanding holiness. Jesus of Nazareth commanded His
Church to repeat, in memory of Him, the solemn sacrificial act which He
instituted in the upper room the night before He died. "Do this. for a
commemoration of Me."" The act consisted in the double
"Luke alag.
44 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
consecration. Jesus took bread and said to His Apostles, "This is My Body,"
and then took wine and said This is the chalice of My Blood."" The Church
has interpreted this sacrificial act into a prayer of ineffable beauty and
holiness, a prayer which is, in the last analysis, a kind of paraphrase of
that petition which Jesus Himself had commended to the Apostles and which we
know as the Lord's Prayer. The action, as sacrificial, is pre-eminently
social in its nature. It is meant to express and to vivify the corporate
petition of that society which wills that which Jesus Himself intended and
which He still intends. The object of the petition which is set forth in
this sacrifice is the glory of God through the eternal salvation of men. In
order that men may enjoy this unending happiness, Jesus and the Church He
founded will that they may enjoy peace and prosperity in this world.
For the Church, as for Jesus Himself, a sincere and benevolent love of God
is inseparable from a true philanthropy. When God is glorified, the benefit
accrues not to Him, but to those intellectual creatures who honor and
reverence Him. As a result the Church seeks unfailingly to bring men to an
eternity of eternal happiness. Conscious of the fact that Jesus Himself laid
down baptism, which is the sign of entrance into her communion, as a
necessary condition for salvation, she does all in her power to bring all
men to recognize the validity of her claims to believe the teaching which
Jesus has given her with the assent of divine faith, and finally to enter
and persevere in her communion.
Centering around the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church exhibits to the world
six other sacraments, all of them calculated to bring man closer to God and
to remove him from that condition of sin which alone could prevent him from
enjoying eternal happiness. Around these sacraments she has constructed a
liturgy of outstanding perfection and purity. All of her effort has been
expended in bringing about the fulfillment of that intention which animates
her central sacrifice.
The teaching of the Catholic Church unmistakably expresses this same high
holiness. In her official instruction she has labored incessantly to
preserve pure and inviolate the complete message which Jesus of Nazareth
entrusted to her care. Every pronouncement in all of her dogmatic history
has been made either to repel some fatal misinterpretation of that
communication or to bring its
" Man. 26:26-28; Mark 14=-24; Luke 22:19-20.
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 415
meaning home even more effectively to her children. The Church instructs its
members about God, about human nature, and about the world, showing the
divine sanctity of which all human holiness is meant to be a sharing and an
imitation. At the same time it holds up to its members the divine command
that they should be holy as their heavenly Father is holy."
This fact has a great deal to do with the manifest and miraculous holiness
of the Catholic Church. Naturally there is nothing remarkable about an
organization which intends to raise its members up in the standard of human
virtue. Nearly every society, religious or civic, intends some moral
excellence on the part of its own members. However, it is one thing to
enjoin the practice of some moral virtues and quite another to insist upon a
complete and ever increasingly perfect observation of the divine law. This
latter intention is visibly the characteristic of our Church. This
organization sternly forbids the practice of any vice and at the same time
refuses to allow any individual within its ranks to be satisfied with the
degree of moral excellence already attained. In this way she manifests
herself as a society of outstanding or extraordinary holiness, a social
miracle in the strictest sense of the term.
The basic commandments upon which the Catholic Church insists are distinctly
positive in character, the active benevolent and sincere love of God and of
our neighboifs. Thus a man who follows the instruction of this Church
realizes that he does not possess the perfection which God expects of him
merely by omitting certain operations or flying from some temptations. The
motive which underlies all his obedience to the divine law is a real and
active affection for that God who has deigned to call him to the dignity of
an adoptive sonship. The Church does not allow him to lose sight of the fact
that God is so good that any affection we may conceive for Him is unworthy
of Him, and that therefore he Should strive unceasingly to love God ever
more effectively and intensely.
At the same time the Church obviously conforms and has conformed to the
negative exigencies of real sanctity. She has been in existence for nearly
two millennia, and during all that time she has consistently and
conspicuously refrained from any official complacency in or toleration of
moral evil. During these two millennia naturally enough a good many moral
vices have become fashionable or popular at one time or another. The Church
could
2°Cf. Matt. 548.
416 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
obviously have kept the loyalty and the affection of England and
consequently of the British Empire as a whole, had she been willing to
condone the divorce of Henry VIII. She refused to tolerate this act, just as
she has condemned the pernicious practices of birth control and mutilation
in our own day.
We are perfectly aware that in these similar events not all the men who have
been influential in determining the policy of the Catholic Church need
necessarily have been motivated by a pure love of holiness. All that entered
into the individual conduct of such ecclesiastical personages is, in the
last analysis at least, quite impertinent to the question of corporate
sanctity. The manifest fact of the matter is that in every case the Catholic
Church as a society has refused to countenance sin in any form whatsoever.
The fact that an organization could act in this way while at the same time
it counts within its membership men and women not remarkable for sanctity
itself constitutes a manifest and striking social miracle.
7. The saints. We would not sufficiently appreciate the exalted holiness of
the Catholic Church unless we realized that this holiness of doctrine and
intention produced practical effects within the membership of this
organization. From the very beginning of its existence until the present
time there have been persons of eminent and manifest sanctity who have lived
according to the tenets of the Church and whose sanctity was the vital
expression of that teaching which they received from this society. Many of
these individuals are inscribed among tfie saints, venerated by the Church
itself. It is a striking tribute to the effective holiness of the Church as
a teacher in modern times that no less than one hundred and fifty members of
the Catholic Church who lived during the nineteenth century have been
seriously proposed for canonization. Many of these have been recognized as
authentic saints, worthy of the veneration of their fellows" by reason of
the eminent and heroic sanctity which characterized their earthly lives.
Naturally individual holiness is a quality quite difficult to ascertain. As
a result the Catholic Church insists that every individual raised to its
altars should have his holiness attested by well-authenticated miracles,
performed through the intercession of the candidate for canonization. The
men who are acquainted with the processes which govern the administration of
the Church are well aware of the intense scrutiny to which these miracles
are unfailingly
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 417
subjected. These miracles are accepted only when they are manifestly and
unquestionably motives of credibility, signs of the divine approval for the
claim that this definite person has livea a life of eminent holiness and is
now enjoying his eternal reward. The miracles are facts, and the realist
must accept them as such or deny the actual.
8. The martyrs. In every age, and most especially in the past two centuries,
the Church has been manifest as a motive of credibility through the heroism
of innumerable martyrs who have sacrificed their lives rather than betray
the message and the love of Jesus. In the nineteenth century there were mass
executions of Catholics in Japan, Korea, China, Uganda, and Paris. Our own
century has seen bloody persecution in Russia, Mexico, and particularly in
Spain under the bolshevist reign of terror. History informs us that there
have been martyrs in the Catholic Church since the days of St. Stephen. The
Church which can evoke that type of adherence from men and women of every
age and social class is obviously a reality which could not have been
produced and maintained by any merely created agency.
Naturally enough we do not hold that the Catholic Church is manifestly a
society of which God is the principal Cause merely because some persons have
died for her sake. History shows us very clearly that there is hardly a
cause, however worthless or evil it might have been, which has not claimed
the lives of some of its adherents. There have always been fanatics
delighted to have the opportunity of accepting death for one reason or
another. However, it is perfectly manifest to any man who takes the trouble
to investigate the matter that the Catholic martyrs can be explained by no
merely natural cause or reason. Their fortitude and perseverance bespeaks
much more.
In the first place these martyrs could never, as a group at least, be
classified as fanatics. Among their number we find such eminent literary
figures as SS. Justin and Cyprian. We have at our disposal the intensely
human letters of SS. Isaac Jogue and John de Brebreuf. The students who
crowded the old Angelico classroom of Father Joseph Garcia-Diaz knew him as
a gentle and brilliant professor. Yet, only a few short years ago he laid
down his life in Barcelona in glorious martyrdom. The martyrs suffered
freely. They accepted a death which was in itself most horrible because they
would not abandon the living doctrine of Jesus. Thus
418 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
they were pre-eminently witnesses to the truth of that doctrine. Only an
absolutely universal and unlimited Cause could have produced this effect.
9. The fruitfulness of the Church in beneficial works. The Church again is
visible as a social miracle precisely because of the good effects in her
ministry. Any person who is at all acquainted with the activity of this
organization knows very well that there is hardly a branch of philanthropic
work in which she is not prominent. The property of any diocese or
religious community is invariably devoted to the welfare of the people as a
whole. Those who have given their lives to the service of the Church are
engaged in activity which is uniformly beneficial. This unique
characteristic of the Church marks it as an organization beyond the natural
power of man to organize and maintain.
The reason for this beneficial activity must be sought in the basic
intention of the Church. Intending the supernatural and eternal happiness of
all men, she works sincerely to bring about the conditions of peace and
prosperity in which men can most effectively work out their final destiny.
Naturally the greatest service she renders to mankind is to be found in her
central activity, the conduct of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the attendant
administration of the sacraments, and the preaching of the divinely
revealed message. However we cannot consider this work as a valid evidence
of credibility, since it is good only in the supposition that the teaching
offered by the Church actually is what it claims to be, a message
communicated in a supernatural way by Goa to man. Still there are visibly
philanthropic works, so common in the life of Catholicism, that they can
serve easily as evidence of the sublime origin of the Church itself.
First there is the work of instruction. Prescinding for a moment from the
teaching of the mysteries, the Church obviously proposes to all men an
accurate certain and universally attainable natural knowledge about God. To
this end she works with an eaucational system far greater in extent and in
perfection than any other school system in the history of the world. Any
thoughtful man can easily see that such a notion of God is by far the
greatest natural intellectual benefit attainable to the human race. With
this accurate natural knowledge about his creator, man can recognize an
objective moral order, both in the individual and in the social sphere.
Without it he is hopelessly involved in mental darkness.
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 419
No institution has done as much as the Catholic Church to bring this
accurate natural notion of God to men.
Moreover the Church has always devoted a great part of her energy to
alleviating bodily suffering among men. History tells of the many occasions
when the leaders of this society were willing and able to relieve want in
the districts confided to their care even to the extent of selling the
possessions of the Church to procure necessary food and clothing for the
afflicted. The charities of the Church are enormous. Her hospitals and
dispensaries are scattered throughout the world ready and able to give
assistance to those who are in need of it.
On the other hand, there is no activity foreign to the best interests of man
upon which the Church has ever embarked. This is a strong statement, but one
which can be verified easily enough from the available datum of history. It
is perfectly true that there have been, and that there actually are
Catholics quite unworthy of their high calling. At the same time, however,
the organization as such, in her laws and in her corporate activity, has
confined her activity to works manifestly beneficial to the human race.
Naturally enough this aspect shows the Church as a social miracle when it is
taken in conjunction with the other four enumerated by the Council of the
Vatican. The Church which was propagated in a marvelous way, which is
eminently and manifestly holy, which rejoices in a Catholic unity and which
has endured in the face of 'difficulties which most certainly would have
destroyed any merely human organization is even more evidently a social
miracle when we consider its unlimited fruitfulness in all good things for
mankind. The Church is not a social miracle merely because it is a
philanthropic organization, nor for that matter, merely because its
activities are purely beneficial. It is outstanding, a source of wonder in
the created universe because its activity for good is totally unrestricted.
It was beneficial to the Romans and the Persians. It is beneficial today in
America and in China. Wherever it exists it manifestly adapts itself to the
temper, to the requirements, and to the capacities of the peoples who
rejoice in its presence.
A society within the natural compass of human achievement can obviously be
of benefit to some peoples at some times. Only the Catholic Church, among
the visible organizations laboring in the world in which we live, has proven
an unmixed blessing to the men of all lands and of all ages. We do not
speak, of course, of
420 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
the beneficial capacity of the Church. We are concerned only with the
visible benefits actually conferred upon the human race throughout the world
in the past and now being produced across the face of the earth.
As we have seen, a created power, by the very fact that it is created,
necessarily finds a limited object. Thus when we learn of an institution
which produces good effects with no sign of circumscription at all, an
organization which is fully as much at home among and beneficial to the men
of the first century, the twelfth, and the twentieth, we have every reason
to say that this society could never have been produced and maintained by
any natural power. We have a right scientifically to assert that it is an
effect freely produced by the living God above and independently of the
natural forces active in the world. It is manifest as a work which has God
alone as a principal Cause. Attached as it is to a doctrine which is
presented as a divinely revealed message, the Catholic Church is an obvious
and powerful motive of credibility, an evidence that the teaching it
presents has really come from God.
10. The Catholic unity of the Church. Unity and Catholicity are notes of the
true Church which Jesus of Nazareth founded in the world. In other words, it
is manifest, from the reliable historical documents which tell us of His
activity, that He meant to establish a religious organization which should
subsist throughout the entire world and which should be undivided as a
social entity. Thus it is obvious that only some society actually endowed
with these qualities can have the right to claim that it is the organization
which Jesus constituted and which He wished men to enter. On the contrary,
any, religious movement which does not possess these marks is manifestly a.
society quite foreign to the true church of Christ.
When we say however that the Church is a manifest social miracle by reason
of its catholic unity, we-affirm that an organization so constituted is
manifestly beyond the natural coMpetence of creatures to form and to
continue. Man has always found it quite impossible to set up any sort of a
strictly universal kingdom which functioned successfully. Time and again the
world has been plagued with would-be conquerors who were avid to bring the
entire earth under their sway. And, each time such an individual has
appeared, the world has very soon enjoyed the pleasure of seeing his
efforts overthrown.
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 421
This tentative universality is all the More difficult in the religious
field. One after another the great religious bodies which have achieved some
sort of international power have seen that the men of one nation were quite
unwilling to accept definite direction from the citizens of another region.
Alone among all the religious organizations in history, and manifest as a
miraculous organization, the Catholic Church has penetrated every quarter of
the globe, and has peacefully received the rule of that man, who as the
successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostolic college, speaks to men
with the voice of Christ. Thus the Church constitutes a supernatural and
highly unique phenomenon among the societies of the world.
We find the centrifugal tendencies of religious organizations sufficiently
manifest on even a national scheme. Of the two hundred fifty-seven
religious societies mentioned in the Selected Statistics for the United
States by Denominations and Geographic Divisions," we find that no less
than seventy-seven have changed their names or broken of from other groups
since the religious census of 1906. Only a few of the two hundred
fifty-seven can honestly be said to be "at home" in this country. Certainly
no society other than the Roman Catholic Church is organized and at home in
every section of the earth.
Yet with all of its universality, the Church retains its inflexible social
unity. Manifestly it has one visible head or ruler, whose commands are
obeyed by Catholics throughout the world. It has one body of dogma, manifest
and explicit, which all its members hold with the certain assent of divine
faith. It has one sacrifice and one sacramental system. It has one
episcopate and one priesthood.
Moreover, the dogma of the Church does not consist in a series of
pronouncements like the thirty-nine articles of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, which every member is practically free to interpret and to accept
in whatever sense he chooses. The doctrinal unity of the Catholic Church is
a plainly realistic affair. The Church claims and exercises the right of
declaring the meaning of Holy Scripture and of the dogmatic formulae she has
hitherto pronounced. She claims and exercises the faculty of deciding, once
and for all, whether such a meaning is actually contained in a book and
intended by a given author. Enthusiastically and with absolute certitude the
members of the Church accept this direction. We
Washington, The Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1941.
422 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
need not inquire what would happen to the organization of any other
religious body which attempted a like function.
H. The unconquered stability of the Church. One of the attributes or
qualities of the true Church, founded and maintained by Jesus of Nazareth,
is its indefectibility. It is characteristic of this society that it will
endure, substantially unchanged until the end of time. Naturally enough we
hold that the Church is indefectible by an act of divine faith, for we have
no means of acquiring evidence about future times. However, we can see very
well that the Church has endured and still continues in the face of
obstacles which would manifestly have destroyed any organization within the
natural competence of man. Hence we can realize that the Church, living in
spite of these forces which have been brought into play against her,
constitutes a true social miracle and as such a true and evident motive of
credibility.
When we speak of the Church's unconquered stability, we take cognizance of
the definite and naturally overwhelming attempts which have been made to
destroy her. In the first place, there have been open and formidable
persecutions in which secular authorities have exerted every effort to
destroy this society by trying to force its members to disclaim their
affiliation and to prevent others from joining it. It is plainly evident
that these attempts would have been plentifully sufficient to dissolve any
organization within the natural competence of man. Furthermore, we can
easily see that the Church does not possess the natural means which other
societies have exploited in order to survive persecutions. We must bear in
mind that the attack upon Christianity has been universal. The history of
the Church shows us that, in general, faithful adherence to this society
has been surrounded with difficulties during the greater part of the time
since Jesus of Nazareth brought it into existence. In only a relatively
small number of cases has membership in this organization been anything
other than a political and social handicap.
To limit ourselves to the official persecutions suffered by Christians, we
must still contemplate a corporate or composite force infinitely greater
than that brought into play against any other society in the history of the
world. The Church did not, and by its very nature could not, adopt the
tactic of ambitious and organized counterforce which might possibly have
overcome some of the efforts made against it. She did not seek or did she
acquire
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 423
financial or military control which would have protected her against her
enemies. Furthermore, it would be a lamentable inexactitude to state that
the prudence, the zeal, or the natural courage of her members or her
directors could be considered a sufficient and principal cause of her
survival.
From the year 70 until 313 the Catholic Church was under, the official ban
of the pagan Roman empire. Nero, the inaugurator of the persecution, put a
great many Christians to death, as did Domitian. Under Trajan and Aelius
Adrian the Christians suffered both from official persecution and from
rioting among the people. The coldly philosophical Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
showed his contempt for the Church by putting a considerable number of its
members to death. Septimius Severus, Gallus, and Valerian were still more
vicious. The persecutions under Decius, Diocletian, and other emperors
associated with this latter were by all means the most sanguinary that the
Church was called upon to endure under the pagan states. During the earliest
period of its existence the Church suffered sanguinary opposition from the
Jewish Sanhedrin, from the ruler Herod Agrippa, and from the impostor Bar
Cochebas.
During the fourth and fifth centuries the Great Kings of Persia resolved to
extirpate the Catholics from their dominions. We have records of sixteen
thousand individual Christians who suffered .death under one of them, Sapor
II (340-399). At the same time the faithful Catholics in northern Africa
were tormented by the lawless Donatists, whose fanatical zeal spread death
and destruction throughout the province.
The Arians within the Roman empire, particularly under Constantius II, by
far the most brilliant and successful opponent the Catholic Church has ever
faced, brought about conditions under which it seemed humanly impossible
that this society could endure. Outside the empire the Vandals, imbued with
this heresy carried out a relentless persecution of the Church until well
into the sixth century.
The Protestant revolution made the lives of Catholics exceedingly difficult
and even placed them in serious danger in what had been the best provinces
of the Church. The reformers themselves made no pretense of dealing fairly
with members of the ancient Church. Luther, Calvin, and Melarichthon all
made themselves obnoxious by seeking the violent destruction of Catholic
leaders and the dis‑
424 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
solution of the Church as a society. Beza considered liberty of conscience
as a diabolical teaching. In France, Belgium, and Holland the greatest
cruelty was practiced upon Catholics, while martyrdom was visited upon the
faithful by the Calvinists in Switzerland and Hungary.
The English who remained as members of the Church were persecuted and often
put to death from the time of Henry VIII until that of Queen Anne. However,
the most atrocious treatment was accorded the clergy and the people of
Ireland. Every device of cruelty and corruption was brought into play in
order to induce the people of that glorious land to abandon their allegiance
to the successor of St. Peter.
The Mohammedan nations habitually treated their Christian and particularly
their Catholic subjects with brutal severity. The Greco-Russian schismatics
never lost the opportunity of arousing and intensifying a hatred of
Catholicism among their peoples. In the field of foreign missions,
throughout Africa, Asia, and Oceania the members of the Catholic Church have
been subjected to barbarous presecutions. However, the cruelty of
"liberals" during the French Revolution, and in the infamous Commune of
Paris, in Russia, in Mexico, and in Spain has gone far beyond the savagery
of pagan tribes.
At this moment the Catholic Church is the object of hatred to governments
which control a very considerable number of the world's inhabitants. In
other places Catholics have been and still are considered as "citizens of
the second order" and deprived practically of the positions and influence
which they are naturally entitled to possess. The forms of literature, of
popular education, and of finance have been thrown into the fray against the
Church. Despite all of these forces the society flourishes and endures.
An infinitesmal fraction of the power which has been exercised against this
organization would manifestly have sufficed to destroy any merely human
society. Only a Church equipped with absolutely unlimited force, or, to put
the thing in other words, a Church assisted and maintained by the living God
could have survived and prospered. This the Church has done.
She has lived precisely as an institution that claims to possess and to
propound a divine revelation. If God has accomplished and continues to bring
about this visible social miracle, it is evident that He wishes to affirm
and to seal the verity of those claims
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 425
advanced by and for this institution. The message which Jesus of Nazareth
preached as a divine communication, and which the Catholic Church offers to
mankind in His name is thus attested as rationally credible by every type of
objective motive of credibility.
12. Catholicism and the internal motives of Credibility. Our own reactions
to the Christian message constitute the internal motives of credibility. In
so far as the Catholic dogma actually satisfies man to an extent utterly
beyond the capacity of any other religious teaching, it gives evidence of
having been formed by that same divine Agent who has created the world and
who is the Master of human activity. The satisfaction or joy which men have
derived from the acceptance of Catholic dogma has been and is plainly
manifest. From it we know at least that this system of religious teaching
does not run counter to the legitimate and basic tendencies of human nature.
Thus the response of the individual man to the Catholic faith constitutes a
real and valuable negative motive of credibility. From this point of view,
as from every other, there is no valid objection against the authenticity of
those claims advanced in favor of that doctrine which Jesus of Nazareth
preached to men.
In so far as it represents an individual reaction, the marvelous
satisfaction experienced in the act of Catholic faith has efficacy as a
positive sign of revelation also. However, in this case it does not offer a
full and objective certitude. After all, the claims put forth in favor of
Catholic teaching are too far reaching to be judged merely in the light of
an individual's response to that doctrine. Catholic dogma presents itself as
a message revealed to man in a supernatural manner and containing truths and
mysteries of a definitely and intrinsically supernatural character. When we
assent to this doctrine with the certain act of divine faith, we feel that
this teaching has actually' come from the living God who has created us.
This experience affords us a high degree of probability that the message is
what it claims to be. In ordinary cases at least it offers nothing more. The
satisfaction we find in Catholic faith tells us only that this is the sort
of message we might expect from the infinitely perfect God.
In their proper place, then, the internal motives of credibility perform an
humble yet valuable service in the central demonstration of apologetics.
However, certain teachers and writers have managed to slip into dangerous
errors on the subject of Christian faith precisely by misusing these
motives. As a group the Modern‑
426 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
ists, condemned by Pope Pius X for their utter misinterpretation of Catholic
dogma, ascribed to these internal motives the sole efficacy in supporting
the contentions of dogma. They refused to accept the external motives at all
as effective means for demonstrating the divine origin and consequently the
rational credibility of that message which Jesus Christ had taught. In
attempting to elevate the internal motives out of their proper sphere, they
destroyed their effectiveness and utterly misconstrued the very doctrine
they had ostensibly set out to defend.
The errors of modernist apologetics, like practically all of the mistakes
which have been made in the field of this science, spring from a false
notion of God and an utter misconception of the basic doctrines contained in
the Christian message. The contention of the modernists would have been true
if there were no one true God, infinitely perfect and absolutely distinct
from the created universe, whose existence can be proved and demonstrated
by a strict and certain scientific process. The motives of credibility are
acceptable to men precisely because they manifest the free and intelligent
activity of a Being of whose existence and of whose attributes we are
naturally aware. When that naturally ascertainable and correct teaching
about God has been ignored or distorted man can never understand the true
significance of revelation itself or of its discernibility.
The modernists, in refusing scientific and demonstrative value to external
or objective motives of credibility, tried to make man himself the measure
of divine revelation. They considered this revelation as "nothing else than
man's acquired consciousness of his own relation with God."" With such
confused notions, it is hardly remarkable that they preferred internal
motives of credibility to all others.
We can and should consider the internal motives of credibility in their
universal as well as in their individual manifestations. The satisfaction
which men of all ages and of all nations have found in the acceptance of
Catholic dogma manifestly constitutes a psychological miracle. As such it is
an evident divine work, clearly performed in support of the contention that
God Himself is the Author of that message which is set forth in His name.
The internal motives of credibility, seen in their universal aspect, corre‑
28 Pius X, The Decree "Lamentabili," July 3, 19(17 (Denzinger, zozo),
THE CHURCH AS A MOTIVE OF CREDIBILITY 427
spond to the miraculous holiness and wisdom seen in the Catholic dogma
itself. •
13. The summary of St. Thomas. In all the history of Catholic apologetics
there is no more effective and conclusive statement of the motives and their
adequacy than that contained in the Sum ma Contra Gentiles. "Those who give
faith to such truth to which human reason does not attain do not believe
without reason 'following learned fables' as it is said in the second
epistle of St. Peter.
"For the divine Wisdom Itself, which knows all things most perfectly has
deigned to reveal these secrets of the divine wisdom to men. It has shown
Its own presence and the truth of Its doctrine and inspiration by most
fitting demonstrations when, to confirm those truths which surpass natural
knowledge, It has shown visibly works which surpass the competence of all
nature. It does this in the marvelous cure of ailments, in the raising of
the dead, in the marvelous movement of heavenly bodies and in what is still
more wonderful, the inspiration of human minds so that unlearned and simple
men, filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, attain in an instant the
highest wisdom and eloquence.
"Moreover, through the power of this above-mentioned proof, not by the
violence of arms nor by the promise of sensual delights and, what is most
remarkable, amid the tyranny of persecutors an innumerable throng, not only
of untutored men but also of those most perfectly versed in wisdom has
gathered to the Christian faith, in which truths surpassing all human
understanding are preached, in which the pleasures of the flesh are
restrained and in which they are taught to despise all earthly things. It is
the greatest miracle to have the minds of mortal men assent to such
doctrines and it is a manifest work of divine inspiration that men should.
condemn visible things and desire only that which they do not see.
This,..however, has taken place neither without warning nor by chance, but,
by a divine disposition it was made manifest that this would occur. Long ago
God foretold by many pronouncements of the prophets that He would bring
about these things. The books of these prophets are venerated among us as
giving testimony in favor of our faith.
"This mode of confirmation is meant in the statement 'which (that is human
salvation) having begun to be declared by the Lord was confirmed unto us by
them that heard Him. God also bearing them witness by signs and wonders and
divers miracles, and distribu‑
428 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
tions of the Holy Ghost according to His own will."' This so wonderful
conversion of the world to the Christian faith is a most certain index of
the past miracles, so that there is no longer any need to repeat these
ancient signs, since they appear manifestly in their effects. For it would
have been more wonderful than all the miracles if the world had been led by
men devoid of learning and nobility, without miraculous signs to believe
doctrines so hard to accept, to accomplish works so difficult to perform and
to hope for such lofty benefits. As a matter of fact however God does not
cease, even in our own times, performing miracles by the instrumentality of
His saints for the confirmation of our faith.
"But those who have introduced the sects of error have acted in quite
another way. This is evident in Mohammed, who enticed the people by promises
of sensual delights to the desire of which their carnal appetite spurred
them on. He also gave commandments consistent with those prômises. He
relaxed the reins of fleshly pleasure precepts which carnal men are prepared
to obey. He offered no documents of truth other than those which any man of
ordinary culture could know very readily. Then he mingled the truths he
taught the people with fables and with the most erroneous doctrines. He set
forth no supernaturally performed miracles, b-y which alone a fitting
testimony for divine inspiration is advanced, since the visible operation
which cannot be other than divine points out the teacher of truth who is
invisibly inspired. He said, however, that he was sent in the power of arms,
which sign even robbers and tyrants possess.
"Moregver, neither men well versed in the doctrine about God, nor those
experienced in divine and human sciences believed in him from the beginning.
His followers were savages dwelling in the deserts, ignorant of all teaching
about God. By the force of the arms of this multitude he compelled others to
accept his law.
"No divine pronouncements of the ancient prophets bear witness to him.
Rather he adulterated almost all the documents of the Old and the New
Testaments with mythical stories. Hence astutely he forbade his followers
to read the books of the Old and the New Testaments lest he himself should
be convicted of falsity through them. Thus it is manifest that those who
accept his faith believe imprudently.""
Heb. 23-4.
St. Thomas, Ammo Contra Gentiles, Book 1., Ch. 6.
CHAPTER XIX
THE CONCLUSION OF APOLOGETICS
1. The Fact of Credibility. The evidence of the signs of revelation is
amply sufficient to show that Catholic dogma is really credible for what it
claims to be, a message from God to man, supernatural both in the manner in
which man has received it and in its central and essential content. Since
the subject matter of divine faith is something which can be scientifically
demonstrated as credible, then it follows that the act of faith itself is
eminently a reasonable and prudent human operation. Beyond this conclusion
the science of apologetics, properly so called, does not advance.
The positive proof supposes, as does every other section of fundamental
dogmatic theology, the transcendent and all-important fact that a personal
God really exists. There is, as the Catholic Church officially proclaims
."one true and living God, the Creator and Lord of heaven and of earth. He
is omnipotent, eternal, unlimited, incomprehensible, and infinite in
understanding, in will and in all perfection. Since He is one singular,
entirely simple and immutable spiritual substance, He must be considered as
really and essentially distinct from the world, most blessed in Himself and
of Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which are or can be
conceived apart from Him.
"This only true God, by His own goodness and His omnipotent power, neither
to increase nor to acquire His own beatitude, but to manifest His own
perfection through the good things which He vouchsafes to creatures, has
most freely, 'together from the beginning of time made from nothing both
types of creatures, namely the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the
angelic and the mundane, and finally the human as something common to both
as being constituted of both spirit and body.".
"God guards and governs by His providence all the things He
The Vatican Council uses the words of the Fourth Lateran (Denzinger, 428).
429
430 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
has established, 'reaching from end to end strongly and disposing all things
sweetly.' For 'all things are bare and open to His eyes' even those things
which are going to come about by the free action
of His creatures.'4
This God can be known with certitude and can even be demonstrated in the
natural light of reason by the things that are made; that is by the visible
works of creation as a cause is known and demonstrated through its effects.'
This is the great and all-important fact upon which the proof of
credibility is based.
Since God is infinitely perfect in understanding and in will, He knows all
the circumstances which surround the performance of one of His miracles. He
could not possibly perform a miracle which is attached to a doctrine that He
knows to be untrue. The true motive of credibility is a seal of the divine
approval. When it is performed in support of a doctrine that claims to be
divinely revealed, it constitutes the best possible indication that God
Himself has actually given this teaching to men.
The existence of a God who is infinitely wise and just can be and is
demonstrated with absolute certitude by an examination of naturally
ascertainable evidence. We have the most perfect historical evidence to the
effect that Jesus of Nazareth preached a definite and distinct doctrine,
claimed that this teaching was divinely revealed, and then adduced motives
of credibility plentifully sufficient to demonstrate the validity of His
claim. We have naturally attainable scientific historical certitude that the
Apostles and their successors proposed the very doctrine that Jesus had
given and then offered ample evidence of its divine origin with manifest
signs of revelation. Finally the existing Catholic Church, as it is,
constitutes a great and spectacular miracle in the social order. An
infinitely wise and just God could not have allowed these things to happen
in support of an erroneous assertion.
2. The obligation of faith. However, once we have ascertained the naturally
evident credibility of Catholic dogma, we must investigate its implications
in the line of human conduct. We have already seen that the very doctrine
which gives naturally demonstrable evidence of credibility offers itself as
a benefit, doubly
'Citation from Wisd. 8;s.
Citation from Heb. 14:13.
The Vatican Council, The Constitution, Del Faitis (Denzinger, 1782-1784). 5
Cf. The Anti-Modernist Oath (Denzinger, 2145), and the Vatican Council
(Denzinger, 1785).
THE CONCLUSION OF APOLOGETICS 431
necessary to mankind. It is proposed as something apart from which man
cannot obtain the eternal and supernatural happiness God wishes him to
enjoy. Furthermore, man stands in moral need of this revealed truth in order
that there may be an accurate and certain natural knowledge about God,
readily available to all men. Consequently once man has realized the
validity of those claims that Catholic dogma actually is divinely revealed,
he can see that it is to his best interest to accept this teaching with the
certain assent of divine faith.
We must realize, of course, that the act of faith is by no means forced by
the evidence of credibility. As a matter of fact the judgment of
credibility itself is essentially in the natural order. It is based upon
evidence available to any man who is willing to examine it and to accept
the truth. However, the act of faith itself is definitely and essentially in
the supernatural realm. It belongs to the order of mysteries, having to do
with the intimate life of God Himself. Furthermore, the act of faith is
inherently free. When a man says, "I believe," he accepts with absolute and
unwavering certitude statements for which he has no direct evidence
whatsoever. All the naturally attainable objective evidence points to the
fact that God attests the validity of the claim that the doctrine of the
Blessed Trinity, for example, has been divinely revealed. It is not evidence
that, in the ineffable unity of the divine nature there coexist three
distinct, equal, and consubstantial Persons. This latter statement is one
which man can accept with absolute certitude only on the authority or on
the word of God Himself. In spite of naturally ascertainable evidence to the
effect that God attests the divine origin of this statement, and the
perfectly sure naturally attainable truth that God is and must be infinitely
veracious and omniscient, men can refuse to believe Him.
There are two ways in which a man is free in affairs of this kind. In the
first place, there is what is called the freedom of exercise. A man need not
apply his mind to the consideration of any given problem. Naturally if he
does not consider the problem, he will not be in a position to make any
statement whatsoever.
However, in certain cases, when a man has considered the matter itself, he
still retains a freedom of specification, even in the intellectual realm.
Evidence as such, if it is clear enough, forces itself upon the mind. Thus I
am not free to deny that two plus two equals four. But objective evidence is
the only factor competent
432 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
to act upon the mind so as to remove its freedom of specification. Where
there is no such evidence, the mind can make a certain assent only in so far
as it is moved by the will. In other words, a man can make a fully certain
assertion where there is no immediate evidence for it only because he wills
to do so. This is the case in the act of faith.
Precisely because it is free, and distinct from the evident judgment of
credibility, the act of faith can possess a firmness and certitude far
surpassing those which characterize this judgment. After all the conclusion
that Catholic dogma is rationally credible as divine revelation is only as
strong as human science can make it even though it is sufficiently firm to
set aside all possibility and danger of error. The act of faith however
partakes of the power inherent in the divine mind itself. The believer
accepts this truth, not as evident to natural reason, but as seen in the
knowledge of God Himself.
There is a definite naturally ascertainable moral obligation to accept
Catholic dogma with an act of divine faith. This obligation, like the
doctrine on the existence of a personal God, is no less naturally attainable
because it has been set down with scientific nicety by the Catholic Church
itself. "Since man depends utterly upon God as upon his Creator and his
Lord, and since created reason is entirely subject to uncreated truth, we
are bound to offer God in faith the full service of understanding and of
will." Once again our grasp of this truth is entirely dependent upon our
appreciation of the fact that there is an infinitely perfect God who has
created us and who watches over us, from whom we derive every fiber and
aspect of goodness which we possess and enjoy. We know His existence through
the examination of naturally and ascertainable evidence. All of the
reasoning requisite for demonstrating His existence and His primary
attributes is perfectly within the natural competence of man.
3. The obligation of religion. Once we are realistic enough to take
cognizance of this transcendently important fact, the obligation of
religion is apparent. Objectively religion is the service of recognition
which we owe to God because precisely of His infinite excellence.
Subjectively considered it is the virtue by which a man is prepared to
render God this honor or cult which is due to Him.
The Vatican Council, The Constitution, Di Filius, Ch. 3 (Denzinger, 1789).
Cf. also Denzinger, iSio.
THE CONCLUSION OF APOLOGETICS 433
Religion is a virtue because it belongs to a good man. One who refuses to
give God the tribute of service which is due to Him has failed signally in
his human life. He has withheld something which a good man is ready and
eager to render. Lacking this moral virtue, a human being lives as an evil
man.
Now the service of religion obviously includes the act of faith, whenever
and wherever there appears a doctrine which gives certain evidence that it
has come from God. The man who refuses to accept such a teaching is by that
very fact unwilling to acknowledge fully God's infinite excellence in the
line of veracity and omniscience. In itself then the message which possesses
credibility as divine revelation enjoys credentity by reason of the firm
demands religion makes upon us. The man who refuses to accept this doctrine
has failed in that worship he owes the living God.
4. Two concepts of religion. We are, of course, perfectly aware of the fact
that the world abounds in definitions of religion quite distinct from our
own. Monsignor Fulton Sheen, among others, has done excellent work in the
scientific field by pointing out the existence and the futility of "religion
without God." The somewhat popular and colorful account which Lewis Browne
gives of the origin of religion may serve to show the general trend of
tfiese doctrines. This eminent writer offers a vivid description of the
thought-processes in primitive man that "poor gibbering half-ape nursing his
wound in some draughty cave." The first emotion that arose in "his poor dull
pate" was fear, a terror based upon the unfortunate fellow's conviction that
all the objects in the world were intentionally hurting him. From this
condition he finally evolved faith and religion. "Instinctively he too
wanted to thrash whatever seemed to bring him evil. Only he was afraid. From
experience he knew that fighting was useless, that the enemy objects,
falling boulders that maimed him, and the flooding streams that wrecked his
hut, were in some uncanny way proof against his spears and arrows. That was
why he was finally forced to resort to more subtle methods of attack. Since
blows could not subdue the hostile rocks or streams, our ancestors tried to
subdue them with magic. He thought words might avail: strange syllables
uttered in groans, or meaningless shouts accompanied by beating tom-toms. Or
he tried wild dances. Or luck charms. If these spells failed, then he
invented others; if those in turn failed, then he invented still others. Of
one thing he seemed most stubbornly
434 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
convinced: that some spell would work. Somehow the hostile things around him
could be appeased or controlled, he believed; somehow death could be
averted. Why he should have been so certain, no one can tell. It must have
been his instinctive adjustment to the conditions of a world that was too
much for him. Self-preservation must have forced him to that certainty, for
without it self-preservation would have been impossible. Man had to have
faith in himself, or die — and he would not die.
."So he had faith— and developed religion.'
The author is quite explicit in describing his notions of religion and of
faith. "Religion is not all of faith, but only a part of it.
By the word faith we mean that indispensable— and therefore
imperishable—illusion in the heart of man that, though he may
seem a mere worm on earth, he nevertheless can make himself the lord of the
universe. By the word religion, however, we mean one specialized technique
by which man seeks to realize that
illusion."8
We would only deceive ourselves were we to imagine that, using the
definition employed by Mr. Browne and approved by a great many modern
leaders, we could arrive at any satisfactory conclusion in the science of
apologetics. Apologetics, after all, is a realistic discipline, and it
demands a realistic outlook on life and on the world. God does exist, and a
realist must take cognizance of this fact. We do owe God a tribute of
service and love. Taking these transcendent facts into consideration, only
the objective and traditional notions of faith and of religion are valid.
Naturally enough the nonrealistic writers are as consistent in their line of
thought as the realists are in the science of apologetics. If religion is
the illusion Mr. Browne says it is, he is perfectly correct in considering
one technique as pretty much the same as another. But, if we wish to dice
cognizance of the evident facts which lie before us, we must realize that
obedience to God is accomplished only in that form of worship which He has
designated. The unique testimony which He offers in favor of one body of
religious teaching is ample indication that He wishes to be served and
honored according to the precepts contained therein.
However, we have both the right and the duty, as apologetics, to inquire
into the reason which justifies the two diverse defini‑
'This Believing World, p. 29. 'ibid., pp. 29-30.
THE CONCLUSION OF APOLOGETICS 435
dons of religion, offered by the nonrealists and by the traditional
teachers. It is perfectly obvious that they do not refer to the same thing.
The service which is seen as due to an evidently existing and infinitely
perfect God has absolutely nothing in common with the specialized technique
by which man seeks to realize the illusion that he can make himself the lord
of the universe. Taken literally this second type of "religion" would be
merely the procedure of a megalomaniac.
Now the first type is readily understood. Religion, in this sense, is the
thing which Moses and Plato and St. Paul and Mohammed all professed, at any
rate, to describe. The world knows what it is. It has been the motive force
in the lives of the saints. It has been the essential business of the Church
and the synagogue during the passage of two millennia. The term religion
applies to this reality and to the technique for realizing an illusion in
much the same way that the word "bank" designates a financial institution
and the side of a stream or that the term "pitcher" denominates a vessel
from which liquids are meant to be poured and a member of a baseball team.
To speak of "Christianity" in connection with religions of this second type
is as ridiculous and absurd a pro-. cedure as to include a life of Lefty
Grove in a treatise on early American pottery.
5. The necessity for teaching Catholic dogma. The obligation of real
religion obliges men to accept the message of Jesus Christ with the firm and
unwavering assent of divine faith. This message comes to them today, as it
has in the past since the time of our Lord Himself, in the form of Catholic
dogma. As Catholic dogma it is verified, not only by those motives of
credibility which surrounded the life of Jesus, but also by the various
miracles which have taken place within the Church since the apostolic age,
and particularly by that outstanding and spectacular social miracle which is
the Catholic Church itself. This doctrine is not left idly in the world as a
prize which pious' men are expected to seek out and find entirely by their
own devices. As a matter of fact it is carried to men, through all the
strife and operations of the world. Jesus of Nazareth preached that message
openly. The Apostles whom He sent and their successors in the sacred
ministry have brought this teaching to every quarter of the globe. St. Paul
commanded Timothy his disciple "I charge thee before God and Jesus Christ,
who shall judge the living and the dead, by His coming
436 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
and His kingdom: preach the word, be instant in season, out of season:
reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine."' The teaching Church
has, throughout its history, obeyed that precept to the letter. The men who
have been entrusted with the task of presenting the divine message of Jesus
Christ to the world have exploited every resource of human ingenuity in
bringing this teaching to those who are meant to profit by it. The Catholic
dogma, manifest as credible through ample signs of divine revelation, is
presented to men, one might even say forced upon their attention, as an
exclusive and ultimate body of doctrine.
We must not lose sight of the fact that our Lord Himself had specifically
stated that His message, and His alone, was to be preached until the end of
time. "And Jesus coming spoke to them, saying: All power is given to Me in
heaven and in earth. Going therefore teach ye all nations: baptizing them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with
you all days, even to the consummation of the world."" The only message then
which the Apostles were commanded and commissioned to teach was the actual
doctrine of Jesus.
6. Liberalism and Christianity. St. Paul made that teaching quite explicit.
"I wonder that you are so soon removed from Him that called you unto the
grace of Christ, unto another gospel: Which is not another, only there are
some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though
we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we
have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say
again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have
received, let him be anathema."" In her doctrinal pronouncements the Church
has reaffirmed this same position. "If any one ghould say that the position
of the faithful is like to that of those who have not arrived at that faith
which alone is true, so that Catholics can have a just cause for calling
into doubt, with suspended judgment, the faith which they have already
received under the magisterium of the Church until they have completed a
scientific demonstration of the credibility and the truth of their faith,
let him be anathema."" Likewise Pius IX stigmatized the follow-
11 Tim. 4I-2. " Matt. 28:18-20. 'Gal. 1:6-7.
"The Vatican Council, Canon 6, De Fide (Denzinger, 1815). Cf. also
Denzinger, 1794.
THE CONCLUSION OF APOLOGETICS 437
ing statements under the heading of indifferentism and latitudinarianism in
the Syllabus of December 8, 1864.
15. Each man is free to embrace and to profess that religion which, led by
the light of reason, he might consider true.
16. Men can find the way of eternal salvation and can achieve eternal
salvation in the cult of any religion whatsoever.13
7. Claims for non-Catholic doctrine. The message of Christ, presented to us
in the form of Catholic dogma, is manifesdy credible.
The claim of exclusive and ultimate effectiveness in presenting divine
public revelation constitutes manifestly an integral part of
the Christian message. As a result the realistic approach to the conclusion
offered by and in the science of apologetics demands an acceptance of this
fact. When the message of Christ has presented its credentials, the virtue
of religion will not allow a man to proceed to further inquiries. The
direction of duty is clear. Only by an immediate and complete acceptance of
Catholic dogma in
the act of divine faith by the man who is aware of its credentials can the
obligations of true religion be satisfied.
However, we have no fear that any other religious teaching can
or will rival Catholic dogma in either its claims or its credentials. In
this respect the most valuable practical manual is to be found
in the results of the religious census, taken every ten years by the bureau
of the census in the Department of Commerce.. The results of this census of
religious bodies give, among other valuable information, the history,
doctrine, and works of all the religious societies existent within the
United States of America." With calm impartiality the book in which these
results are set forth advances the claims and the guarantees cited by the
various organizations.
There are several religious groups professing doctrines entirely or in a
great measure independent of the Christian message.
Buddhism, Brahmanism, professed by the Vedanta Society, Spiritualism,
Christian Science, Mormonism, and Judaism are examples
of such doctrines. Here we are faced, not with teachings which have been
accepted in the past, but with the attitudes and doctrines influential in
the world today. Thus, for example, the Jewish congregation claim that they
have no distinct and obligatory articles of faith at all. "The Jewish
religion is a way of life and has no formulated creed, or articles of faith,
the acceptance of which brings
Denzinger, 1715-1716.
Vol. II, parts i and 2, Washington, 1941.
438 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
redemption or salvation to the believer, or divergence from which involves
separation from the Jewish congregation. On the other hand it has certain
teachings, sometimes called doctrines or dogmas, which have been at all
times 'considered obligatory on the adherents of the Jewish religion,"" The
"dogmas or doctrines" enumerated in this volume are for the most part
beautiful and true: But in no case is there any inference that God wills all
men to accept this doctrinal content of the Jewish religion as it is
presented today. This teaching does not present itself with those claims
which are made for Catholic dogma. Certainly there is no evidence of any
divine seal by which such claims might be attested. The other distinctively
non-Christian religious teachings sometimes, as in the case of Mormonism,
propose themselves as divinely revealed. They give no appreciable evidence,
by either internal or external motives of credibility, of any divine origin.
The Christian groups naturally claim to present the teaching of Jesus. Yet,
without exception, every non-Catholic religious teaching glories in some
origin subsequent to and distinct from Christ Himself. Their ever shifting
multitude, taken concretely and corporately, is a clear indication that men
can never successfully change the content of Christian teaching. As a matter
of fact only the Catholic Church claims to have been instituted by Christ.
Historically her assertions are unquestionable. Her identity with the Church
of the Apostles is just as manifest as is the identity of the great nation
in which we live with the United States of which George Washington was
president. Only her teaching is set forth as the message of Christ,
presented to the world unchanged unto this day.
8. The beneficial and credible message. Finally the science of apologetics
should bring us to see that the message of Jesus constitutes the great
blessing for mankind. Here again we depend upon the realistic and accurate
natural knowledge about God which the science of apologetics demands and
gives. The God whose existence and perfection we know through natural reason
is not like some tyrant who forces his will upon his subjects. God,
infinitely, holy and just, reveals His message to man in order that man may
derive from it blessings incalculable, blessings in this world and in the
next. The doctrine which He manifests as credible is preeminently a
beneficial teaching. The obligation to believe, imposed
"The Census of Religious Bodies, 1936, Vol. 2, P. 763.
THE CONCLUSION OF APOLOGETICS 439
by the virtue of religion, binds man to what is his own supreme good, now
and forever. God does not drag us down to defeat. He lifts us up for an
eternal victory. The divine Prophet, with whom the apologist is privileged
to stand has made that clear. "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me
you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress: but have
confidence, I have overcome the world.' "This is the victory which
overcometh the world, our faith.""
" John 16:33. "I John 5:4.
CHAPTER XX
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS
1. Background of the study. A treatise of this sort would be hopelessly
incomplete without some indication of the stages through which the science
of apologetics has passed in attaining its present condition of
methodological perfection. It is very definitely a science with a history.
Each thesis set forward within that science has, at one time or another
during the life of the Catholic Church, been asserted against serious
opposition. The claims and the verification of the claims asserted in
scientific apologetics were both put forward by Jesus of Nazareth. Since the
time He ascended into heaven, the men of the Church have been faced with the
necessity of presenting both the claims and the proofs of Jesus to men who
have denied His teaching and tried to discountenance His organization.
It is axiomatic that each of these men who has been privileged to stand with
Christ and to defend Him against the assaults of His enemies has contributed
something to the science of apologetics. Each has grasped, in some
particular way, according to the intellectual force with which God has
endowed him, some aspect of apologetics in which the credibility and
inherent beneficence of the gospel message has been more effectively
presented. However, in a volume of this type, we have no room for any
extensive or detailed treatment of the history of apologetics.i It is merely
our intention to point out some of the most illustrious among these
champions for Christ and to see the most general stages through which
scientific apologetics has progressed.
As a matter of fact the twentieth century has been remarkably remiss in this
field. Dr. Karl Werner's Gtschichte der ripologetischen und Polemischen
Literatur der Christlichen Theologic (Schaffhausen, 0360, 5 vols., is still
the most complete text. Acceptable outlines have been written by
Maisonneuve, Seitz, and Charles F. Aiken for the Dictionnaire de Theologie
Catholique, Lexikon fur Theologie mid Kirche, and the Catholic Encyclopedia
respectively. Acceptable summaries appear in the manuals of Dieckmann and
Michelitsch.
440
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 441
2. The apostolic fathers. Among the writings of the apostolic fathers, the
so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably written at some time during the
first third of the second century, contains the elements of apologetical
demonstration. The author, obviously writing to those who knew the Old
Testament scriptures and who were inclined to follow them, seeks to prove
that the sacrifices and rites therein described are no longer pleasing to
God. He refers to the resurrection of Christ and to the messianic
prophecies. About the same time lived Ariston of Pella, to whom the
seventh-century writer, St. Maximus the Confessor, attributes the first
apologetical work against the Jews. This was a book entided The Debate
Between Jason and Papiscus on the Subject of Christ. It is possible that
the long list of similar works, including the famous Dialogue With the Jew
Try pho, by St. Justin the Martyr, contain doctrine actually set forth in
this volume.
3. The early Greek apologists. We have seen the lone citation of Quadratus
the apologist which has come down to us. In this apology to Aelius Adrian,
most probably written about the year i2.4, he made special reference to the
reality of those miraculous cures which had been wrought by Christ. The long
lost but recently discovered apology of Aristides the Athenian Philosopher,
written about the same time and likewise dedicated to Adrian, distinguishes
the religious teaching of the Christians from that of the Greeks, the
Barbarians, and the Jews. After showing the manifest errors of idolatry and
pagan mythology, and after claiming that the religious practice of the Jews
honored angels rather than God (an assertion occasionally repeated by
ancient Christian writers), he proceeds to show that the Christians alone
possess the truth. He appeals to the resurrection of Jesus and to His
miracles and mentions the written account of our Lord's life which Adrian is
at liberty to consult if he chooses to do so. However, his chief argument
for the acceptability of Christian teaching is to be found in the miraculous
holiness of the Church as visible in its precepts and in the lives of the
faithful, together with the outstanding and manifest wisdom of the message
itself.
The author of the letter to Diognetus, written during the second third of
the second century, has left us a masterpiece of early apologetical
reasoning. Like Aristides he considers Christians as the "soul of the
world." He appeals chiefly to the miracle of the Church itself as .evidence
for the acceptability of its doctrine. Mar‑
442 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
cus Aurelius mentions a Diognetus who was his own teacher. The pagan to whom
this letter was sent may possibly have been this individual.
By far the most powerful and important of these early apologists was St.
Justin the Martyr, who suffered death because of his faith about the year
165. From him we have three works of paramount importance, the two apologies
addressed to Antoninus Pius, while he shared the throne of empire with
Marcus Aurelius and with Lucius Verus. The two apologies were written in an
attempt to induce the authorities to abandon the cruel persecution then
raging against the Christians. In these works Justin appeals to prophecies
uttered by Jesus, to the miraculous holiness of Christian doctrine in itself
and in its effects upon believers, but most of all to prophecies about
Christ. He spoke of miracles as signs attesting the divine origin of
messages which claimed to be prophecies, but made no special appeal to the
miracles of our Lord. In the dialogue with Trypho he developed the argument
from the messianic prophecies magnificently, demonstrating that Jesus was
really the redeemer expected by the Jews.
Justin contended that the pagan philosophers had derived their best
doctrines from the revealed monotheistic system set forth by Moses. As a
result he was willing to concede a great value in their works, even while he
asserted that they were utterly inferior to the Christian writings. He
looked incessantly for parallels between Catholic teaching and the religious
philosophical tenets of the pagans, holding that the emperors. had no
business to persecute the Christians when even the pagans themselves
accepted teachings somewhat similar to theirs. He blamed the persecution of
the Church on the demons who misrepresented the teaching of Christ to men.
Tatian, the bitter and brilliant disciple of St. Justin died during the last
third of the second century, after having fallen into the heresy of the
Encratites. His one apologetical work is the Discourse to the Greeks, in
which he manifests a much more pessimistic attitude about pagan culture than
had his master. Athenagoras, writing to Marais Aurelius and to his son
Commodus, refutes the charges of immorality made against the Christians and
insists upon the visible and marvelous truth of their teaching about God and
about human morality. He also wrote a treatise on the resurrection, showing
that this article of Christian belief was in conformity with
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 443
reason. St. Theophilus of Antioch wrote, shortly after the year 180, three
books of a Discourse to Autolycus. Like his predecessors Theophilus insists
upon the silliness of idolatry and polytheism and points to the innocence of
Christians. He insists upon the attributes of the living God and makes
specific appeal to prophecy as a motive of credibility. He is most concerned
with the temporal and sapiential superiority of the Old Testament books over
the pagan narratives.
St. Melito of Sardis, who died about the year 195, has left fragments of an
apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius. The Oration falsely attributed to him
is a Syriac treatise on the one God, probably composed shortly after his
death. His contemporaries, Miltiades and Apollinaris, both wrote treatises
against the Greeks and against the Jews but these early works of apologetics
have not come down to us.
4. Early Latin apologists. During the second half of the second century
there appeared the first of the Latin apologists, Marcus Minucius Felix,
author of the famed Octavius. In this book, written with a literary
brilliance far surpassing that of the contemporary apologists, Caecilius, a
pagan, is represented as setting forth all of the stock arguments against
Christianity. Octavius, a Christian, responds to these charges, triumphantly
demonstrating the superiority of the Christian doctrine and exposing the
shameful weakness of polytheism. In this book, as in most of the Greek
apologetic works we have considered, the author is mainly concerned with
showing the acceptability of Christian teaching about the one God. In the
Octavius we meet, for the first time, the pagan contention that it would be
unwise to embrace Christianity since Rome has prospered under the cult of
the pagan Gods. Both Arnobius and St. Augustine faced that same objection
generations afterward. The men who wrote in Latin were obviously more
concerned with the fate of the empire than were their Greek confreres.
The Apologeticus of Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus resembles the
Octavitts of Minucius Felix so closely that it would seem that either one
was based upon the other or both upon some common source. The resemblance is
limited to sections of the text, since the works differ greatly in literary
style and in spirit. Tertullian does not plead for cessation of persecution
against the Christians. He demands it. In the five books which he wrote on
the field of apologetics this turbulent genius excoriated the errors
444 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
and evils of the pagans, pointed out the moral miracle of Christian
martyrdom and showed its effects in the spread of Christianity, taunted the
pagans with the failure of their efforts to destroy the faith in Jesus, and
then showed that the messianic prophecies demonstrated clearly the divine
legateship of Jesus. The death outside the Church sometime after 222 of this
dauntless champion is one of the great tragedies of Catholic history. The
rigorism which eventually drove him to embrace the cause of Montanism, if
not permanently to affiliate himself with their organization, is all too
evident in his apologetical works, as well as in the other books he devoted
to the cause of Christ. St. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage who suffered a
glorious martyrdom in 258, followed the lead of Tertullian, whom he called
his master, with three books of Testimonies against the Jews. These books
are collections of prophecies contained in the Old Testament and manifestly
fulfilled in the life of Jesus and His Church. By far the most important
doctrinal work of St. Cyprian was done in the field of ecclesiology.
5. St. Irenaeus. Although St. Irenaeus, who died a martyr in 202 or 203 is
not as well known in the field of apologetics as he is in that of
controversy, he wrote an apologetical treatise, the Demonstration of the
ApostOlic Preaching. His masterpiece, the five books Against the Heresies,
contains material of great service to the science of apologetics,
particularly in so far as it shows the unwavering and enlightened tradition
in the early Christian Church.
6. The Great Alexandrians. Titus Flavius Clemens, whom we know as Clement of
Alexandria, died between the years 211 and 216. One of his works is a book,
the Exhortation to the Heathen, in which he begs the pagans to accept the
Christian faith. The motives alleged are the manifest errors in pagan
teachings and the obviously supernal wisdom in the doctrine of Jesus.
However, by far the most illustrious and important treatise in apologetics
during the third century came from his successor as master in the
Dicliscalium of Alexandria. This is the volume, in eight books, Against
Celsus, written by the great Origen. Celsus, an Epicurean philosopher had
written a treatise in four books and called it The True Discourse. In this
work he set out to demolish the pretensions of both Christianity and of
Judaism. However, his hatred of our Lord would seem to have surpassed the
dislike he felt for His fellow countrymen, so he began his work with a
resume of the various
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 445
objections raised against Christianity within the Jewish world of that time.
The remainder of the work was taken up with carefully thought out attacks
on what he regarded as the common ground of the two religious systems he
detested. This was the work which Origen set out to answer.
His response was certainly one of the most brilliant treatises in all the
long and rich history of Christian letters. After a sublime prologue and a
worthy opening, Origen answered the charges of Celsus point by point. As a
matter of fact the True Discourse itself has long since vanished from the
face of the earth, and the only text we possess is incorporated in the books
of his triumphant and outstandingly brilliant adversary. There is hardly an
objection which modern opponents of Christianity have raised which Celsus
did not press and which Origen did not demolish. Celsus came forward as an
enlightened philosopher, a scientist, and a literateur. Origen met him on
his own ground. Carefully and with a meticulous impartiality he analyzed
each objection. He took cognizance of the points which CeIsus held and those
which he denied. Under the skillful and scientific searching of Origen the
very enemies of Christianity are seen as testifying to the truth of her
contentions.
We would be greatly mistaken were we to imagine that the Contra Celsum is
merely a piece of negative apologetic. Supremely competent as he was, and
certainly gifted with scientific acumen far beyond that of his
contemporaries, Origen contrived to bring out an adequate apologetic in the
process of refuting Celsus. He followed the order of the old Epicurean. He
cited his words, even those in which the pharisaical insults against the
Person of our Lord are conveyed. But in and through his examination he
managed to demonstrate, with faultless accuracy, that the message preached
by Jesus of Nazareth and proposed by the Catholic Church was guaranteed by
unquestionable motives of credibility as authentic divine revelation. Origen
died at Tyre about the year 254. It is safe to say that, among those who
have been privileged to stand with Christ and defend Him during the ages,
none has accomplished his work more perfectly than the great Alexandrian.
7. Later Latin apologists. Among the Latin apologists of this time,
Commodianus, who lived during the latter half of the third century, is more
remarkable for the fact that he wrote in verse than for any particular
excellence of doctrine. In his work Adversus Gentes, Arnobius, who died in
327, made better use of miracles
446 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
as motives of credibility than had any of his predecessors with the possible
exception of the great Origen himself. Furthermore, he applied himself to
show that the spread of Christianity was in no way responsible for the evils
the Roman empire endured in his own times. His pupil and successor
Lactantius, who seems to have survived him a short time, was the first Latin
apologist to write after the peace which came to the Church through the
edict of Milan. Even so, his masterpiece, the Divine Institutions,
constitute a contrast of Christian doctrine with the now fading pagan
teaching, rather than an apologetic in the strict sense of the term.
8. The last antipagan writers. After the great Council of Nicea, the
attention of the great patristic writers was focused on the homoousian
controversy rather than on apologetics as such. Nevertheless, several of
these men contributed to the literature of apologetics, and one at least
instituted a new method. Eusebius of Caesarea, halfhearted proponent of
Arius though he was, labored valiantly toward perfecting the literature of
apologetics. In his Ecclesiastical History he conserved sections of ancient
writings which otherwise would have been entirely lost. However he did
yeoman service in discounting, once and for all, the legend of Apollonius of
Tyona. This Neo-Pythagorean philosopher had flourished during the first
century of our era, and had been known as a magician. The empress Julia
Domna, wife of Septimius Severus (2II) had prevailed upon the savant
Philostratus to write his life. The book may have been animated by that
hostility for Christianity which characterized its author's patroness. At
any rate it represented Apollonius as a wonder-worker whom contemporaries of
Eusebius (and for that matter our own) suddenly patronized as a rival to
Christ. The suave and erudite Bishop of Caesarea examined a work written by
Hierocles, governor of Bithynia under Galerius, in which the author compared
Apollonius and our Lord. The result of his painstaking research (for
Eusebius was a man of tremendous ability and learning) seems to have
embittered the eminent historian. Eusebius unhesitatingly declared
ApoIlonius as a rival to Jesus was "like a jackass covered with the skin of
a lion." The book Against Hierocles regrets that no more formidable figure
could have been selected by a dying paganism as its champion. Eusebius also
wrote a book called The Evangelical Preparation, in which he shows the
superiority of Judaism and Christianity over the decadent heathen doctrines,
and another entitled The
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 447
Evangelical Demonstration, which demonstrates the messianic dignity of
Jesus from acknowledged prophecies in the Old Testament.
St. Athanasius (373), the outstanding ecclesiastical figure of the fourth
century, has left us a Discourse Against the Greeks in which pagan errors
are noted and refuted. Julian the Apostate wrote three books Against the
Gospels and Against the Christians. St. Cyril of Alexandria (444) found
little difficulty in refuting the imperial assailant of Christianity in his
Contra fulianum lmperatorem. Theodoret of Cyr (458) closes the list of great
Eastern apologists with his Curing of Pagan ills, a work in which he showed
that the teachings of the great philosophers would and could lead a man
toward Christianity.
It was given however to St. Augustine (430) to make the most outstanding
contribution to the science of apologetics in the later patristic period. In
his treatise De Vera Religione he laid the groundwork for later books on
apologetical methodology, showing how God leads men to truth by authority
and reason. In the monumental City of God he carried out the work which had
been begun by Minucius and Arnobius. He makes a definitive examination of
pagan doctrine and then elaborates an apologetical philosophy of history by
pointing out the contrast between the two cities, of God and of the world.
9. Anti-Mohammedan controversy. With the death of St. Augustine, St. Cyril
of Alexandria, and Theocloret, the conflict of the Church with the pagans
ceased. 41most immediately, however, a new enemy of Christianity appeared,
an enemy to challenge the attentions of the apologist rather than of the
controversialist. The heretics, Arian, Nestorian, and the like, had required
the services of an apologist of dogma to confute their errors. The
Mohammedans, like the Jews themselves, were foernen from the outside. They
opposed Christianity as such. St. John Damascene (749) was the first of the
important ecclesiastical writers to take the field against them. His
Dialogue Between a Christian and a Saracen was the model for many subsequent
works. The same writer, in his Philosophical Chapters, contributed toward
the establishment of fundamental dogmatic theology by establishing standard
definitions which could be of service in the sacred discipline.
After the time of St. John Damascene, because of the regrettable schism in
the orient, Greek writers had, for all practical purposes, no influence
whatsoever in the development of the science of apol‑
448 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
ogetics as we know it. The western or Latin writers who continued the
tradition of apologetics did so chiefly by means of treatises directed
against the arguments of the Jews. Such writers were St. Isidore of Seville
(636) and Rabanus Maurus (c. 856). Agobard (876), bishop of Lyons, wrote to
refute the talmudic diatribes against our Lord as did Si, Peter Damian
(1072) and Peter the Venerable (1156). Raymond Martin (1278), in his Pugio
Fidei ad versus Mauros et fudaeos, relied mostly on the messianic
prophecies in demonstrating the excellence and the divinity of Catholicism.
10. St. Thomas and his successors. The thirteenth century, however, saw the
production of one book which has had a tremendous individual influence on
the development of scientific apologetics. It was the Summa Contra Gentiles,
written by St. Thomas Aquinas (1274). The university circles of his day were
troubled by a group whose admiration for Mohammedan philosophical
scholarship had turned them away from Catholic dogma. They received the
apellation of Averroists, after the brilliant Saracen commentator on
Aristotle whom they idolized.
St. 'Thomas distinguished those statements of Catholic dogma which had been
revealed supernaturally but which still remained within the field of man's
natural intellectual competence from the mysteries of the faith themselves,
those truths which were intrinsically and essentially supernatural. He set
out to demonstrate the first order of doctrines apadictically, utilizing
every device at the disposal of a medieval philosopher. Then he showed
clearly that the mysteries themselves were manifestly and rationally
credible because of the motives of credibility which pointed out their
divine origin. Finally he pointed out, for each mystery of faith taken
individually, that there could be no true variance between revealed doctrine
and naturally ascertainable truth.
The following centuries saw still more books written to help in converting
Jews and Mohammedans. Some of these volumes were eminently successful in
their own times, but they contributed very little toward the advancement of
scientific apologetics. Among the more prominent authors who produced such
books we must number Ricoldus a Monte Crucis, Hieronymus a Sancta Fide,
Paul of Burgos, Abdallah, and the Franciscan Alphonsus de Spina. Pedro de la
Cavalleria wrote, in 1487, a layman's book of apologetics in which he
stressed the internal motives of credibility. The English Carmelite, Thomas
Netter Waldensis (1430), wrote against the
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 449
Wycliffites a treatise which was to have important influence in the
development of fundamental dogmatic theology. Savonarola (1448), the
platonist Marsilius Ficinus (1499), and Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1464)
defended Catholic dogma during the first years of the Renaissance, although
only the great Dominican managed this work along lines of scientific
excellence.
11. Controversialists during the Reformation. With the advent of the
Reformation, a new and glorious chapter in the history of Catholic
apologetics appears. Attacks upon Catholic doctrine by Protestants were soon
followed by the works of deists, rationalists, and naturalists. In the face
of this opposition the men who were privileged to guard and propose the
doctrine of Christ renewed their examination of its motives of credibility.
Melchior Cano, a Dominican bishop (1560), is rightly listed as the founder
of fundamental dogmatic theology by reason of his De Locis Theologicis,
although he made wide use of earlier writers, among others of Thomas Netter
Waldensis and John Turrecremata (1468). The great Catholic
controversialists, men like John Eck (1543), Bishop Frederich Nausea (1552),
John Cochlaeus (1552), Ruard Tapper (1559), John Dried° (1553), Bishop
Ambrose Catharinus (1553), Albert Pighius (1542), and James Latomus (1546)
perfected that portion of apologetics which deals with the Church as such.
Outstanding contributions in this line were made by St. Robert Bellarmine
(1621), Thomas Stapleton (1589), and Cardinal William Allen (1594).
12. The Post-Tridentine theologians. The great scholastics and commentators
made what might be termed the immediate preparation for modern and
scientific apologetics, particularly when they dealt with the treatise on
faith. Particularly valuable work in this regard was done by Francis Suarez,
S.J. (1617), Gabriel Vasquez, S.J. (1604), and William Estius (1613),
Francis Sylvius (1649) and the Dominican John of Saint Thomas (164,4)
considered the problems of apologetics quite directly. The great
seventeenth-century polemic theologians, the brothers Van Walenburch, Adrian
(1669), and Peter (1675) already considered the problems of credibility.
During the seventeenth century the brilliant Blaise Pascal (1662) began his
project of apologetics. He wrote a series of notes, left uncompleted at his
death, and later gathered together and edited many times as the Thoughts. He
was in vital contact with the scientific world of his own time and he
possessed the genius and
450 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
foresight to expound the acceptability of the Catholic religion as such in
the face of opposition which denied the need and the validity of any
systematic or supernatural religious doctrine whatsoever. He used internal
motives of credibility freely, but at the same time he used the external
signs, miracles, and prophecies much more scientifically and effectively
than did some of his scholastic contemporaries. The bishops Jacques Benigne
Bossuet (1704) and Daniel Huet (1721) used history to show the divinity of
Christianity. The latter however utilized some rather eccentric scientific
methods which did little to augment the value or utility of his writing.
13. Apologists of the eighteenth century. During the eighteenth century what
has been called the traditional form of scientific scholastic apologetics
began to appear. In 1747 Antonine Valsecchi published at Venice his work, De
Fundamentis Religionis, in which he traced the path of apologetics through
proofs of the existence of an all-just and omniscient God and of the
immortality of the human soul to the final conclusion that the Catholic
Christian message has been divinely revealed. Vitus Pichler, S.J. (5736),
had covered much the same method very successfully. Cardinal Vincent Gotti
(i742), Martin Gerbert 0793), Claudius Regnier, SS. (179o), and Peter Maria
Gazzaniga, O.P. 0799), are intimately connected with this rise of the
scholastic method. Daniel Concina, • 0.P., had given, in his treatise on
faith in the Theologia Christiana a magnificent explanation of the various
motives of credibility.
From that time on we can easily recognize twin currents of scientific and
literary apologetics. During the early part of the nineteenth century a
great many defenders of the faith seriously compromised their own position
and weakened their arguments by a somewhat credulous confidence in the
edicts of Emmanuel Kant. Drey, Kuhn, Schell, and Klee lost much of their
effectiveness in this way. The literary apologists, Vicomte Francois-Rene de
Chateaubriand (1848), Count Joseph de Maistre, and Frederick Ozanam (1853)
set the fashion for a militant Catholic interest in the credentials of the
Catholic message.
14. Apologetics in the nineteenth century. The scholastic apologists of the
nineteenth century are too well known to need any special explanation. They
continued, with some variations, the order that had been followed by Pichler
and Valsecchi during the previous century. Naturally some of them were more
effective and
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 451
scientific than others. Certain proponents of popular and ofttimes quite
eccentric systems have unjustly blamed the group for faults which are found
in only a few scattered individuals. It is a fact that some among the
traditional scholastic apologists in the past century (and a few in our own
time for that matter) have been rather cavalier in their attitude toward
demonstration, doubtless imagining that any process of proof is acceptable
if it is used for the truth. So it has happened that the carelessness of
some writers has brought objections against the effectiveness of scholastic
demonstration when, as a matter of fact, these men were ineffective
precisely because they failed to conform their works to the exigencies of
such proofs.
Among the most eminent of these traditional apologists of the nineteenth
century we must list Bishop Bouvier (1854), Louis Brugere, S.S. (1888),
Jeremias Dalponte, J. V. DeGroot, 0.P., Bishop Francis Egger (1917),
Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin, S.J. (1885), Hugo Hurter, S.J., Bernard
Jungmann (1895), Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick (1863), Joseph Kleutgen,
S.J. (1893), Albert Knoll a Bulsano, 0.M.Cap., Gustavus Lahousse, S.J.,
Bishop Henry Lambrecht, Bruno Francis Liebermann (i844), John Lottini,
Cardinal Camillus MazeHa, S.J. (1900), Joseph Mendive, S.J. (1896),
Parthenius Minges, 0.F.M., Patrick Murray (1882), Norbertus a Tux,
0.M.Cap., Ignatius Ottiger, S..j. (1891), Dominic Palmieri, S.J. (1909),
Carlo Passaglia (1887), Joseph Perrone, S.J. (1876), Francis Henry
Reinerding, George Reinhold, Louis de San, S.J. (1904), Constantine
Schaezler (188o), Santo Schiffini, S.J., Francis X. Schouppe, S.J. (19o4),
Clemens Schrader, S.J. (1875), John Schwetz, Archbishop Joseph Stadler
(1917), Ferdinand Stentrup, S.J. (r898), Angelus Sturnmer, 0.M.Cap., Ad.
Tanquerey, S.S., Bernard Tepe, S.J. (1894), William Warners, S.J, and
Cardinal Thomas Maria Zigliara, O.P. (1893).
These men wrote in Latin. Father Devivier, S.J., and the German apologists,
Frances Hettinger (1890) and Paul Schanz, also wrote traditional treatises
which have been translated into English and have exercised a powerful
influence upon American Catholic thought.
Catholic writers during the nineteenth century did not by any means confine
themselves to what was soon termed the traditional method in asserting the
acceptability of their dogma. Theodore Paul De Broglie (1895) preferred to
use a properly historical meth‑
452 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
od and to manifest the contrast between the effects produced by the
Christian faith and those brought about by other religious doctrines.
Cardinal Victor Augustus Deschamps (1883) developed the use of the Church
herself as a motive of credibility. Bishop Emil Bougaud (1888) preferred
what he called the "intimate" method and strove to show particularly how the
Catholic dogma corresponded with the most profound exigencies of the human
heart. At the same time, however, he acknowledged the value of the external
motives of credibility and actually made use of them in his apologetical
demonstrations. The same attitude, if not the same method, was manifest in
the works of the great Cardinal John Henry Newman (1892) in England.
15. The Vatican Council and apologetics. The Vatican Council in 1870 was
pre-eminently concerned with fundamental dogmatic theology. It stated
clearly that "in order that the service of our faith should be conformed to
reason, God has willed to join with the internal aids of the Holy Ghost
external proofs of His divine revelation, that is to say, divine works and
first of all miracles and prophecies which, since they manifestly indicate
the omnipotence and the infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of
divine revelation and accommodated to the understanding of all. Hence both
Moses and the prophets, and especially Christ the Lord Himself gave out
many and most evident miracles and prophecies, and we read of the Apostles
'But they going forth preached every where, the Lord working withal, and
confirming the word with signs that followed' and 'we have the more firm
prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that
shineth in a dark place.' The corresponding canon is still more explicit.
"If anyone should say that no miracles can take place and that consequendy
all the accounts of them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be
classified as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with
certainty and that the divine origin of the Christian religion cannot
properly be demonstrated by them, let him be anathema."'
At the same time the Council, in expressing the dogmatic teaching of the
Church, took full cognizance of the fact that the Church herself is a great
and ever present living motiv'e of credibility, as
'The citation is from Mark 16:20.
'The citation is from II Pet. 1119. The words of the Vatican Council, the
Constitution, Dei Filius, are to be found in Denzinger, 1790.
The Vatican Council, Canon 4, De Fide (Denzinger, I and 13).
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 453
Cardinal Deschamps had pointed out in his writings. The Fathers of the
Council acknowledged the traditional correctness of the Cardinal's stand
when they stated "To the Catholic Church alone belong all those things, so
many and so wonderful which are divinely disposed to the evident credibility
of the Christian faith. Moreover, the Church by herself, by reason of her
admirable propagation, her exalted sanctity, and her inexhausted
fruitfulness in all good, by reason of her Catholic unity and her
unconquered stability is a certain great and perpetual motive of credibility
and an unwavering testimony to her own divine mission.' But even in making
these decisions and in insisting upon the necessity of external motives, the
Church acknowledged the existence and the limited efficacy of purely
internal reasons. "If any one should say that divine revelation cannot be
rendered credible through external signs, and that consequently men should
be moved to faith by the internal experience of each one alone or by private
inspiration, let him be anathema."'
16. The Modernists. The matter was clearly enough defined. Yet there
remained certain Catholics of literary ability who had lost confidence in
the actual effectiveness of these external motives. In 1893 the then young
Maurice Blondel published his dissertation L'Action. It was his contention
that "Greek Thought" or Aristotelian philosophy had been overthrown in that
ideological movement of which the writings of Henri Bergson constituted the
most powerful expression. As a result he had little place in the scheme of
things for that system of apologetics which was taught in the traditional
manuals of the school. He felt that he could show that the full and perfect
activity of man would be impossible without the force we know as Catholic
dogma or the Christian religion. Some of his disciples, notably
Laberthonniere and Le Roy, carried his ideas further than he did himself,
and thus drew upon their books the condemnation of the Church. The movement
was one of those which entered into the teeming complexity and confusion of
modernism. With the condemnation of that movement during the first decade of
our century there came a renewed impetus to scientific apologetics.
17. Contemporary apologetics. In general, the manuals of apologetics which
have appeared in our own time are appreciably better
The Vatican Council, the Constitution, Dei Filius, Ch. 3 (Denzinger, v794)-
The Vatican Council, Canon 3, De Fide (Denzinger, 1812).
WE STAND WITH CHRIST
454
than those of the past century. The twentieth-century apologist has superior
material at his disposal, although we must not forget that through the
efforts of nineteenth-century savants, and particularly through the work of
Jacques-Paul Migne (1875), they were very well equipped for their tasks. The
careless simplicity of the nineteenth-century unbeliever who imagined that a
little scientific archeology, history of dogma, or biblical criticism would
overthrow the Church's claims has vanished entirely. The naïve
sentimentalism of Schliermacher and Renan, the pretentious skepticism of
Kant and Boyle, the crude fancies of Strauss, Reimarus, and Baur are out of
place in a century that loves and needs realism.
New objections are ever present, but the corps of Catholic apologists is,
and has demonstrated itself to be adequately master of the situation. As a
group the apologists of the twentieth century have shown themselves much
more perfectly in contact with the world about them than did some at least
of their predecessors. The twentieth-century apologist knows full well that
he is privileged to cooperate toward the extension of Christ's kingdom in
the world. He has no merely defensive attitude. In order to spread the word
of God through the world, he knows full well that he must know both the
attitudes of those whom he means to benefit and the content and credentials
of the message with which he is
entrusted.
Of prime service to the twentieth-century apologist was the methodological
gem, La Credibilite et l'Apologetique, by Father Gardeil, O.P. Excellent
manuals have been written by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, 0.13., Christian
Pesch, S.J., Herman Dieckmann, S.J., Aemilius Dorsch, S.J., Bishop
Hilarinus Felder, O.M. Cap., Archbishop Valentine Zubizarreta, 0.C.D., John
MacGuiness, CM., and J. V. Bainvel, all in the Latin tongue. In the various
languages of Europe the vernacular works of Mariano Cordovanni, 0.P.,
Nicolas Mann Negueruela, Joseph Mausbach, and Gerhard Esser, John Brunsmann,
S.V.D., Eugene Duplessy, and Canon Boulenger are readily available. A system
somewhat resembling that of Blondel has appeared in France in the writings
of Henri Morice. Eugene Masure has written well on the theory
of apologetics.
Besides the source collections, numerous dictionaries and encyclopedias
have combined to make the work of the modern apologist more effective and
scientific. Among others we must note the
THE STORY OF APOLOGETICS 455
American Catholic Encyclopedia, the German Lexicon fiir The- °logic tend
Kirche, the French Diction naire de T heologie Catholique, the Diction
naire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, and the various symposia which
issued from the publishing house of Bloud et Gay.
18. Apologetics in the English language. In the English language and
particularly in the United States of America the science of apologetics
flourishes. The Catholicism in English-speaking countries has always
abounded- in good polemic writers. That tradition began with the valiant
exiles of Douay and Louvain, with Cardinal Allen, Thomas Stapleton, Richard
Smith, Matthew Kellison, Edmund Campion, S.J., and Gregory Martin. It was
preserved in the scholarship and courage of Bishop John Milner (1826). Here
in America it grew with the writings of England and Kenrick and Spalding,
worthy episcopal contemporaries of the great English cardinals, Wiseman and
Newman and Manning. Orestes Brown- son brought all the resources of his
literary power to the service of American apologetics.7
We have books of popular apologetics beyond number. In the line of Latin
scholastic works America has as its own the texts of Archbishop Francis
Patrick Kenrick, and of two brilliant modern Jesuits, John Langan and
Anthony Cotter. Aiding in the preservation of that accurate notion of God
which is requisite for all work in this science have been John Moran, S.J.,
William Brosnan, S.J., and Father John T. Driscoll. The Theory of
Revelation, by Joseph Baierl, is acknowledged as one of the best works
extant on this section of apologetics. Brilliant monographs by Monsignor
Fulton Sheen have done a great deal for this science in our own country.
English-speaking Catholics have always been well supplied with translations
of foreign works in apologetics. Nevertheless, they have at their disposal
manuals of lasting excellence written in their own language. Prominent among
these are the two books by T. J. Walshe, and volumes written by Paul Glenn
and Archbishop Sheehan.
Perhdps the greatest asset the American apologist possesses is his
conviction that no work of his can measure up to the excellence of that
Master he is honored to serve. The ideal apologist was
'Information on early American apologists can be found Catholic Apologetical
Literature in the United Statet (1784-1858), by Robert Gorman, This book, a
doctoral dissertation, was written under the brilliant direction of Msgr.
Peter Guilday.
456 WE STAND WITH CHRIST
Jesus Christ our Lord. It is the task of the modern apologist to strain
every resource at his disposition in order that men may see effectively the
goodness and the credentials of the divine message He preached. The ideal
apologetic is Jesus Christ. That is why the apologist today must point to
Him, and to what He has said and done. The man who is privileged to stand
with Jesus would only spoil the effect if he allowed some error, some
personal bias, to stand in the way and distract men's attention from the
Master. Because men must know and love Him, the apologist will polish and
perfect his demonstrations, will search out every possibility, by which men
may see the signature of God in His message.
INDEX
Abdallah, 448
Acts of the Apostles, 112
Adler, Mortimer, 289
Agnosticism, 12, 39 f., 46
Agobard, 448
Agrapha, 109
Allen, Cardinal William, 449, 455 Alphonsus de Spina, 448
Analogy, in theological process, 28 Apocalypse, 113
Apologetics, analogy in, i6 f,; and apology of dogma, 3; and canonical sources,
113 ff.; and controversy, 3; and ecclesiology, 9 (note); and messianic prophecy,
358 f.; and polemics, 3; and proofs for God's existence, 12; and prophecy, 357
f.; and signature of God, 5 f.; and the Vatican Council, 432 f.; arrangement of
matter in, 94; basic theory of, a ff.; certitude in, 8 f.; conclusion of, 429--
439; definition of nominal, I (note); divinity of Christ, x87 f.; historical
evidence in, 100; procedure in, 95 ff.; story of, 440-456; work of, I-1 a
Apology, term applied to second century works, I (note)
Apology of dogma, and apologetics, 3
Apostles, and messianic prophecies, 393; as witnesses for Christ, 243 ff.; their
attitude toward the divinity of Christ, 191 f.
Appolonius of Tyona, 446
Arendzen, J. P., Ho (note)
Aristides the apologist, 441
Aristotle, 223, 262, 284 ff.; on religion and morality, 58 f.
Arnobius, 78 (note), 366, 443, 445 f. Ascension of Christ, gospel accounts of,
335
Athanasius, St., I, 447
Atheism, 46
Athenagoras, I, 442
Augustine, St., s1 57, 287, 447 Averroists, 448
Baler', Joseph J., 32 (note), 43 (note), 50 (note), 81 (note), 455
Bainvel, Joseph, 8.J,, 454
Bar Chochebas, 360
Barnabas, the so-called Epistle of, 441 Bauer, Bruno, 126
Baur, Christian, 126
Beatific vision, 25 f.
Beatitudes in the teaching of Jesus, 184 f. Bergson, 453
Binet-Sangle, 254
Blonde', 453
Bossuet, James, 450
Bougaud, Emil
Boulenger, Canon, 95 (note), 454 Bouvier, 451
Brillant and Nedoncelle, iso (note) Brosnan, William, 8.J., 455
Browne, Lewis, 215 (note), 350 433 ff.
Brownson, Orestes, 455
Brugere, Louis, 02., 451
Brunsmann, John, S.V.D., 32 (note), 454
Campion, Edmund, &J., 455
Cana, Melchior, 449
Canonical sources, use of, in apologetics, 513 ff.
Catharinus, Ambrose, 449
Cayre, F., A.A., 118 (note)'
Celsus, x, 107 (note), 288, 303 f., 348 f.,444 f.
Certitude, and judgment of credibility, 85 ff.
Chateaubriand, 450
Chrestus, substituted for the word Ch ristus, to I
Christ, and divine law, .2ox ; and forgive. ness of sin, 201 f.; and His Mother,
258 ff.; and love of Gad, 262 ff.; and messianic prophecies, 382 if.;
apocryphal Christian sources for life of, 109 f.; apostles as witnesses for,
243 ff.; as a divine messenger, 530 f.; ascension of, 335; attributes of God
457
458 INDEX
claimed by, 197 if,; authority of, 169; beneficence in life of, 266 ff.;
beneficent character of teaching, 157 f.; betrayal of, as predicted, 382 ff.;
canonical sources on life of, x so ff.; Chrestus for Christus, Ica; Christian
SOIIICeS about life of, 107 f.; claims of, 128-159; consubstantial with God the
Father, 2°8 f.; creative sanctity in the life of, 271 if.; denounces pharisaic
tradition, 70 f.; discernibility of holiness in, 269 ff.; divine honors claimed
by, 155 f.; divinity of, 187 ff.; divinity of, and Caiphas, 197; divinity of,
and commission of the apostles, 597; divinity of, and glorification of the
Father, 194 f.; divinity of, and voice of the Father, 193; divinity of,
apostles attitude toward, 191 ff.; divinity of, asserted in gospel stories
about His infancy, 189 f.; divinity of, fourth gospel on, 204 ff.; divinity of,
synoptic gospels on, 189 ff.; doctrinal content of message, 559-240; eschatology
of, 174 ff.; freedom from sin in, 268 f.; gospels on life of, r to ff.; holiness
of, 252, 271, 275; intrinsically supernatural character of teaching, 156 f.;
Jewish legends about, 260 f.; Jewish sources on life of, 504 ff.; messianic
claims of, 535 f.; miracles of, 202 f., 291 ff., 304 ff.; miracles of, and the
divine attributes, 312 f.; miracles of, as a motive of credibility, 313 ff.;
miracles of, their cumulative force, 311 f.; moral teaching of, 127; mosaic
dispensation in teaching of, 163 f.; pagan sources on life of, IQ° ff.; papyri
on life of, sop (note); prayer of, 534 f.; prophecies of, see prophecy;
redemptive death of, 257 E.; relations of, 380; resurrection of, see
resurrection of Christ; role at the Last Judgment, 200 f.; Roman sources on
life of, ioo ff.; salvific mission of, 2,5 f.; servant of God, 390 ff.; social
acceptability of, 257 f.; teaching of, credible, 532 f.; teaching of, moral,
177; teaching on beatitudes, 584 f.; teaching on charity, 179 ff.; teaching on
created spirits, 1721f.; teaching on end of world, 195 E.; teaching on eternal
reward for men, 176f.; teaching on faith, 177 f.; teaching on God the
creator, 170 2.; teaching on the Holy Ghost, 209 ff.; teaching on hope, 178 f.;
teaching on judgment, 174 ff.; teaching on prayer, Or ff.; temperance in life
of, 261 E.; title of Christ claimed by, 146 ff.; uncompromising opposition to
sin in the teaching of, 274; unlimited holiness in the teaching of, 273 f.;
wisdom of, 252, 271; wisdom of, as a motive of credibility, 2892.
Church, as a motive of credibility, 96 f., 404-428; fruitfulness of, in good
works, 418 ff.; holiness in, 413 ff.; persecution of, 423 ff.; saints in, 416
f.; stability of, 422 ff.; unity in, 420 ff.; unity of, in Catholic epistles,
241 ff.; visible, 238 f.
Claudius, and troubles among Jews occasioned by Chrestus, ioo f.
Clement of Alexandria, 1o9 (note), 116,
444
Cochlaeus, John, 449 Commodianus, 445
Concina, Daniel, 0.P., 450
Constitution, De i Filius, see Vatican Council
Controversy, and apologetics, 3
Cotter, Anthony C., S.J., 43 (note), 5D (note), 455
Council of Trent, 250
Counsels, the evangelical, 5692.
Credibility, and Catholic dogma, 3 ff.; and prophecy, Si f.; and revelation, 4;
certitude in judgment of, 87 f.; Christ's holiness as negative motive of, 252;
Christ's holiness as a positive motive of, 265 if., 276 if.; Christ's wisdom as
negative motive of, 252; Christ's wisdom as positive motive of, 282 ff.; Church
as motive of, 96 f., 404-428; fact of, 429 ff.; general conditions of, 64 f.;
internal motives of, 85, 425 ff.; judgment of, 611.; judgment of and certitude,
85 ff.; meaning and demonstration of, 4; miracles as InOtiveS Of, 71 f.; motive
of, and transsubstantiation, 72; motives of, 64-92; negative motives of, 65, 67
Cyril of Alexandria, St., 447
Dalponte, 45o
De Broglie, 451
De Grandmaison, Leonce, S.J., 103
INDEX 459
Felder, Hilarinus, 0.M.Cap., 50 (note), 94 (note), 98 (note), lio (note), 135
(note), 454
Fenton, J. C., 24 (note), 26 (note), 113 (note), 182 (note)
Ficinus, Marsilius, 449
Fideism
Franzelin, Cardinal, S.J.
Frazer,. 209 (note)
(note), iso (nOte), 135 (note)
De Groot, J. V., 451
De Maistre, Joseph, 450
De San, Louis, S.J., 451
Decree Lamentabili, 8 (note), 21, 86, 426
Deschamps, 452
Devivier, W., S.J., 94 (note), 451 Diatesseron of Tatian, x 18
Dibelius, Martin, 402
Didiscalion of Alexandria, is 6 Dieckmann, Hermannus, S.J-, 24, 50
(note), 65 (note), 70 (note), 81
(note), 98 (note), 454
Diognetus, the letter to, 441
Divinity of Christ, see Christ
Dodd, C. FL, r6o 1.
Dogma, and credibility, 3 ff.; and the New Testament, 161 f.; an intrinsically
supernatural revelation, 23 f,; as mediate revelation, 32; defense of, 2 ff.;
definition of, 2; immutability of, 2; necessity for teaching of, 435 f.;
necessity of, 435 f.; origin of, to; rational acceptability of, 2 f.;
supernatural obtainal of, 171f.
Donovan, John, S.J., x 12 (note)
Dorsch, Aemilius, S.J., 24, 50 (note), 98 (note), 454
Drey, 450
Driedo, John, 449
Driscoll, John T., 455
Duplessey, Canon Eugene, 95 (note), 454
Ecclesiology, and apologetics, 9 (note) Eck, John, 449
Egger, Franz, 451
Ehrle, Cardinal, S.J., 223 (note) Ephraem, its
Epictetus, 266, 294 ff.
Esser, Gerhard, 454
Estus, William, 449
Eusebius, 78 (note), 103 (note), 105
(note), II6 ff., 120 (note), 234
(note), 246 (note), 379 f., 446 f. Eusebius of Caesarea, I, 115
Faith, and reason, 27 ff.; certitude in judgment of, 87 f.; intrinsically
supernatural, 26 f.; motive of, 99 ff.; nature of, 431, obligation of, 43o if.;
relation to natural reason, 27 ff.; ultimate resolution of, go ff.
Gardeil, Rev., 0.P., 9 (note), 95, 99, 454
Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald, 0.P., 25 E. (note), 30 (note), 31 (note), 37
(note), 39 (note), 43 (note), 50 (note), 69 f., go, 95, 98 (note), 163 (note),
288, 454
Garvie, Alfred E., 8o (note)
Gazzaniga, Peter, 0.P., 450
Gerbert, Martin, 450
Glenn, Paul, 455
God, accurate natural concept of, based on proofs of existence, 12; center of
the intrinsically supernatural order, 25 f.; fatherhood of, in Jewish teaching,
rgo f.; known in the natural light of human reason, 120.; natural knowledge
about, 12 ti.; proofs for the existence of, 12 if.
Gorman, Robert, 455 (note)
Gospels, antilogies of, 122; eschatological explanation of, 126; genuineness of,
I15 ff.; patristic testimony on, 155 ff.; veracity of, 121 ff.
Gotti, Cardinal Vincent, 450
Grace, requisite for faith, 6 f.
Guilday, Msgr. Peter, 455 (note)
Hadrian, letter to Caius Minucius Fundamus, 103 f.
Hegesippus, 379 f.
Hettinger, 451
Hierocles, 446
Hieronymus, Sancta Fide, 448
Holy Ghost, in teaching of Christ, 209 0. Hort, 124 (note)
Hort and Westcott, 124 (note)
Huby, J., ST, is, (note)
Huet, Daniel, 450
Hugueny, C., 0.P., 163 (note)
Hurter, Hugo, S.J., 451
ranssens-Morandi, ii, ff. Ignatius of Antioch, St., 271 f.
Trenaeus, St., 1, 78 (note), 115, II& f., 444
Isidore of Seville, St., 448
James, Montague Rhodes, 109 (note) James, St., letter of, I12
Jesus Christ, see Christ
John, St., gospel of, iii f., letters of, 112 John Damascene, St., 182, 447
John of St. Thomas, O.F., 449
Josephus, Flavius, 104 ff. Judas of Galilee, 360 Jude, St., letter of, I 12
Julian the Apostate, 447 Jungmann, I3ernard, 451 Justin Martyr, St., I, 54
(note), ror
(note), 103 f., 117, 349, 441 f.
Kant, Emmanuel, 450
Kellison, Matthew, 455
Kenrick, F. P., 451, 455
Kenyon, Sir Frederick, 509 (note), itS (note), 123 f. (note)
Kidd, B. J., roo (note), io, ff.
Kingdom of God, consummation of, 232 ff.; membership in, 226; rejection of, 228
ff.; reward of, 231 f.; rulers Iii, 236 ff.; value of, 226; watchfulness in,
234 ff.
Klee, 450
Kleutgen, Joseph, S.J., 451
Knoll, Albertus a Bulsano, O.M.Cap., 32 (note), 50 (note), 98 (note), 451 Kuhn,
450
La Berthonniere, 453 Lactantius, 446
Lagrange, M. J., OP., 292
Lahousse, Gustavus, S.J., 451
Lambrecht, Henry, 451
Langan, John T., S.J., 32 (note), 455 Latomus, James, 449
Lavergne, C., O.P., 110 (note), 163
(note)
Le Breton, Jules, S.J., 191 (note)
Le Roy, 453
Liberalism, and Christianity, 436 F. Liebermann, Bruno F., 451
Lietzmann, Hans, 541 (note)
Life of Christ, see Christ Logic, 7°8
Lomer, Georg, 254 Longinque Oceani, fio Lottini, John, 451
Luke, St., gospel of, III
Lumen glories, 25
MacGuiness, John, CM., 454
McCown, Chester C., 16o, 189, 254 McNabb, Vincent, OP., 59 (note) Maisonneuve,
95 (note), 440 (note) Man, supernatural end of, 53 f. Manning, Cardinal, 455
Marcus Aurelius, 266, 284, 286
Mann, Negueruela, Nicolas, 454
Mark, Sr., gospel of, II
Martin, Gregory, 455
Martin, Raymond, 448
Martyrs, testimony of, 417 f.
Masure, Eugene, 454
Materialism, 46 F.
Matthew, St., gospel of, ito F.
Matthews, W. R., 160 (note)
Maurus, Sylvester, S.J., 223 (note) Mausbach, Joseph, 454
Mazella, Cardinal Camillus, S.J., 451 Melito of Sordis, St., 443
Mendive, Joseph, S.L, 451
Messianic character, Christ's recognized
by the Apostles from the outset, 146 Messianic dignity, claim of made at
beginning of Christ's public life, 144 f- Messianic Kingdom, 218 ff.; growth of,
225
Messianic prophecies, cited by Christ, 145 f.
Messias, and the times and peoples, 371 f.; as a divine messenger, 136 f.;
betrayal of, predicted, 381 ff.; crucifixion of, - as prophesied, 392 F.;
erroneous teachings about, combated by Christ, 143 f.; eschatological concept
of, 14 g.; precursor of, predicted, 395 f.; predicted as a triumphant King, 372
f.; predicted as descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 377 ff.; predicted as
Son of David, 374 ff.; prediction Of precursor for, 366 f f.; prophetical office
of, 136 f.; prophetical office of, claimed by Jesus, r52 f.; ' rabbinical
concept of, i35 f.; rabbinical concept of, repudiated by Christ, 139 ff.;
rejection of, 373 f.; royal office of, I37; royalty of, claimed by Jesus, 148
f.; sacerdotal office of, 135 F.
Micklem, Nathaniel, 159
Migne, J. P., 454
INDEX 461
Milner, John, 455
Minges, Parthenius, 0.F.M., 451 Minucius, Felix, 443
Miracles, and order in the universe, 75 f.; as divine marks, 74 f.; as 'natives
of credibility, 71 f.; demonstrative force of individual, 310 f.;
discernibility of, 73 f.; in the primitive Church, 410 if.; of the moral and
social order, 84 f.; of the social order, 404 f.; on the Sabbath, 297 E.;
possibility of, 76 f.; purpose of, 79 f.; testimony of, 291-319; true and
counterfeit, 77 E.; types of, 72 if.; witnesses of, 299
Miracles of Jesus, see Christ, Miracles of Modernism, 86
Modernists, 453
Moore, George F., ;61, 166 (note), 215 (note)
Moran, John, S.J., 455
Morice, Henri, 454
Morrison, Charles C., 16o
Mosaic dispensation, and the teaching of Christ, 163 f.
Mosaic ritual, 164 f.
Muratorian fragment, 157
Murray, Patrick, 451
Mysteries, kinds of, 30 f,
Mysteries of faith, intrinsically supernatural, 26 f.
Nausea, 449
Necessity, hypothetical and absolute, 49 N&loncelle and Brillant, rro (note)
Nero, and first Roman persecution of
the Christians, tot f.
New Testament, and Catholic dogma,
161 E.; and lectionaries, 123; authen‑
ticity of texts, 123 f.; manuscripts of,
123; veracity of writers, 121 If.; see
also Gospels
Newman, Cardinal John, 452, 455 Nicholas of Cusa, 449
Nock, A. D., 359f.
Non-Catholic doctrine, claims for, 437 f. Norbertus a Tux, 0.M.Cap., 451
Oath against modernism, 3 (note), It, 67 f., 86 (note)
Old Testament, moral teaching of, in new law, 165 ff.
Orange, Second Council of, 88 f.
Origen, 1, 78 (note), '05 (note), 107
(note), tog (note), 1,6, 119 f., 288, 444 f‑
Ottiger, Ignatius, S.J., 451
Oxyrhynchus papyri, 509 (note) Ozanam, Frederick, 450
Palmieri, Dominic, ST, 451 •
Pantaenus, 116 8.
Pantheism, 37 8., 46 f.
Papias, 115 f.
Papyrus, Rylands, 123 (note), 457 Parable of the Evil Husbandrnen, 195 Parable
of the sower, 225
Parables, nature of, 222 8.; reason for use of, by Jesus, 223 8.; use of, by
Christ, 368 ff.
Pascal, Blaise, 449 f.
Passaglia, Carlo, 451
Paul, St., letters of, 112; on the teaching of Christ, 246 ff.; witness of the
resurrection, 302 f.
Paul of Burgos, 448
Paulus, Gottlieb, 125
Pedro de la Cavallerio, 448
Perrone, Joseph, S.J., 451
Pesch, • Christian, S.J., 454
Petanius, Dionysius, S.J., 287
Peter, St., divinity of Christ, 192 f.; letters of, 112
Peter Damian, St,, 448
Peter the Lombard, 288
Peter the Venerable, 448
Pichler, Vitus, S.J., 450
Pighlus, Albert, 449
Pirot, L., I I 2 (note), r13 (note)
Plato, 222 ("like), 284 ff.; on religion and morality, 58 f.
Pliny the Younger, tor f.
Polemics, and apologetics, 3
Polycarp, 116
Porphyry, 284
Pothinus, St., ITS
Pratt, Ferdinand, S.J., 112 (note) Preternatural, meaning of, 24 Progressive
method, 98
Prophecies, appealed to by Christ, 361 8.; as a motive of credibility, Si f.; as
to birthplace of Christ, 393 f.; by Jesus, 399 fr.; Christ's, 401 ff.;
concerning Christ, 394 ff.; concerning servant of God, 388 ff.; demonstrative
power of Christ's, 401 ff.; messianic and apostolic preaching, 393; messianic
and the second coming, 398 f.; messianic,
462 INDEX
existence of, 359 ff.; messianic in primitive Christian teaching, 385 ff.;
messianic in the message of Christ, 357-404, 384 f.; messianic relative to the
second coming, 398 f.; messianic use of, in Catholic apologetics, 358 f.; place
of, in Catholic apologetics, 357 f.; true and counterfeit, 82 ff.
Quadratus, 78 (note), 303
Rabanus Maurus, 448
Ramussen, Emil, 254 •
Reason, and dogma, 27 ff.; and faith,
27 ff.
Reragnitiones aementis, 54 Reformation, Catholic controversialists during, 449
Regnicr, Claude, S.S., 450
Regressive method, 98 f.
Reirnarus, 125
Reinach, 209 (note)
Reinerding, 451
Reinhold, 451
Religion, concepts of, 433 ff.; obligation of, 4321.
Renan, Ernest, 125
Resurrection of Christ, a motive of credibility, 319; appearances of Christ, 331
ff.; deception theory to account for, 348 f.; gospel accounts of, 319— 33 o ; 10
apostolic preaching, 336 ff.; in the apocryphal "Gospel of Peter," 341 E.; in
the catechesis of St. Paul, 340 1.; properties of risen Christ, 352 f.;
prophesied, 353 ti.; swoon theory to account for, 351 f.; testimony of His
enemies to, 343 ff.; vision theory to account for, 348 1f.
Revelation, 128; and civic honesty, 61 1.; and credibility, 4; and cultures, 56
f.; and democracy, 6o f.; and patriotism, 62 f.; as teaching, 22; beneficial
character of, 50 f., 57; characteristics of, 23-35; concept of, ro-23;
considered as an act, to; considered objectively, 111 criteria of, 64-92;
discernibility of, 64-92; freely granted by God, 47£; immediate, 32 f.;
intrinsically supernatural, 23 if.; mediate, 32; mediate, possibility of, 42 f.;
moral necessity of, 55; necessity of, for man, 49-63; nominal definition of, T;
possibility of, 35-48; private, 32;
proof for possibility of, 36 1.; public, 33 f.; public, possibility of, 42;
purpose of, 44 1.
Ricoldus a Monte Crucis, 448
Ritschl, Albrecht, 12.6
Robert and Tricot, iii (note)
Robert Bellarmine, St., 449
Rufinus, 103 (note)
Rylands Papyrus, 457, 123 (note)
Sanhedrin, recognized the reality of Jesus' miracles, 301 f.
Savonarola, 449
Schaezler, Constantine, 45!
Schanz, 451
Schell, 450
Schiffini, Santo, S.J., 451
Schouppe, Francis, S.J., 451
Schrader, Clemens, 8.J., 451
Schivetz, John, 451
Scrivener, Frederick, 124 (note)
Second coming, and messianic prophecies, 398 f.
Sheehan, Archbishop, 94 (note), 455 Sheen, Msgr. Fulton, 433, 455
Smith, Richard, 455
"Son of David," 154 f.
"Son of Man," 149 ff.
Spalding, Archbishop, 455
Spinoza, 289
Spiritual, distinct from supernatural, 31 f. Stadler, Joseph, 451
Stapleton, Thomas, 449, 455 Steinmueller, John E., 113 (note), 117 (note)
Stentrup, Ferdinand, S.J., 451
Strauss, David, 125
Stummer, Angelus, 0.M.Cap., 451 SuSrez, Francis, S.J., 289, 449
Suctonius, too (note), TOT (note)
Supernatural mysteries, and Catholic dogma, 4, 6; and human reason, 27 ff.;
distinct from spiritual, 31 1.; possibility of, 43
"Syllabus of Errors," 436 f.
Sylvius, Francis, 287, 289, 449 Synoptics,
Tacitus, TOT f.
Talmud, 106 f., 288
Tanquerey, Adolphe, SS., 94 (note), 451
Tapper, Ruard, 449 Tatian, 118, 442
INDEX 463
Tepe, Bernardus, S.J., 43 (note), 451 Tertullian, rot (note), 109 (note), 120,
493 1.
Theodoret, 447
Theologia Wirceburgensis, 98 (note) Theology, process of, 27 ff.
Theophilus of Antioch, 443
Theudas, 360
Thomas Aquinas, St., 8 (note), 27
(note), 33 (note), 36 (note), 38
(note), 50., 52, 56, 59, 287, 427 E.,
448
Thomas Netter Waldensis, 448 f.
Toledot Ieschu, t07
Tradition, and the teaching of Christ, 250 f.
Traditionalism, false, 12
Tricot, 123 (note)
Trojan, 102
Turrecremata, John, 449
Vacant, 47 (note), 50 (note)
Valsecchi, 450
Van Noort, G., 113 (note)
Van Walenburch, Adrian and Peter, 449
Varro, on the three theologies, 57 Vasquez, Gabriel, &J., 449
Vatican Council, and apologetics, 452 f.; on faith, 88; on God, 46f.; on
revelation, 46 f.
Vatican Council, Constitution Des Filius, 4, 10 ff., 23 f., 27 ff., 29, 50, 55,
67 ff., 84, 93, 96 f., 187, 250, 282, 405 1., 429 1f., 436 f.; definition of
Catholic dogma, 2
Vincent of Lerins, 97 (note)
Vitoria, Francis, 0.P., 289
Vogels, 192 (note)
Voste, 224
Walshe, T. J., 26 (note), 30 (note),
37 (note), 39 (note), 43 (note), 5o
(note), 70, 8I (note), 288, 955 Werner, Karl, 440
Westcott and Hort, 124 (note)
Wilmers, William, S.J., 451
Wiseman, Cardinal, 455
Zigliara, Cardinal Thomas, 0.P., 451 Zubizarreta, Vat, 0.C.D., 454
'The Vatican Council, Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 3 (Denzinger,
1792). See also Garrigou-Lagrange, 0.P., De Revelatione per Ecclesiam
Catholicam Proposita (Rome, 1929), 3rd edition of the complete work,
Vol. 7, pp. 183-185; Léonce de Grandmaison, S.J., Le Dogme Chrétien,
Sa Nature, Ses Formules, Son Dévélopment (Paris, 1927), PP- 275-329.
"For the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, was not proposed as
a philosophical discovery, to be perfected by human genius, but rather
as a divine deposit, entrusted to the spouse of Christ to be guarded
faithfully and to be expressed infallibly. Hence also that meaning of
the sacred dogmas which the Church has once proclaimed is always to be
held, nor can we ever abandon that meaning under the pretense or name of
higher understanding." (The Vatican Council, Constitution, Dei Filius,
Ch. 4 (Denzinger, 1800). See also Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., pp.
185-790; Belgeri, Canoncs Tridentini et Faticani (Milan and Turin,
1895), pp. 567-577; Vacant, Etudes Théologiques sur les Constitutions du
Vatican —La Constitution “Dei Filius” (Paris and Lyon, 1895), Vol. 2,
pp. 287-319.
Some books and courses in apologetics broaden the scope of this science
so as to prove that Christ is God or that the Catholic Church is truly
the organization instituted by Christ. However, the first of these
statements belongs to the domain of faith since it is the mystery of the
incarnation. The second should properly be treated in Ecclesiology.
Confusion as to the central function of apologetics is hardly excusable
since the appearance of Father Gardeil's L Credibilite et l'Apologetique
(Paris, 1928), 3 ed.; and his article "Crédibilite" in the Dictionnaire
de Théologie Catholique (Vol. 3, Cols. 2201-2310).
Cf. J. J. Baierl, S.T.D., The Theory of Revelation
(Rochester, 1927), Vol. 1, PP. 34-36; John Brunsmann, S.V.D.,
A Handbook of Fundamental Theology (ed. Arthur Preuss) (St. Louis,
1929), Vol. 2, p. 16.
Mediate revelation comes to men through the agcncy of their
fellows. Cf. John T. Langan, S.J., Apologetica (Chicago,
1921), pp. 6-12; Albertus Knoll a Bulsano, O.M.Cap.,
lnstitutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae Generalis seu Fundamentalis
(Turin, 1868), p. 54.
Either nature or intelligence is the principle of efficient causality.
The nature of a thing has to produce an effect to which it is ordered
essentially and necessarily, v.g., the seal produces an impression in
wax. An intelligent cause, acting as such can plan freely the type of
result it wishes to produce, v.g., the artist paints a picture. Cf. St.
Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, 1a, q. 15, art. 1.
The division of positive motives of credibility is that of
Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, Vol. I, p. 556.
Dieckmann, De Revelatione Christiana, p. 255, following the
same pattern uses a different terminology.
Criteria:
-
Negative
-
Positive
o
Objective
§
Internal
§
External
o
Subjective
§
Objectivo-subjective
§
Merely subjective
The Agrapha or unwritten sayings of Jesus are those statements
attributed to Him in documents other than the canonical books of the New
Testament but not mentioned in the text of the New Testament itself.
Some of these are contained in the apocryphal gospels. Others are found
in the works of patristic writers, v.g., Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
and Tertultian. Still others are found written an recently discovered
papyri.
The reliability of the Scripture text now available is beautifully
explained by Kenyon: "It cannot be too strongly asserted that
in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this
the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the
New Testament, of early translations from it, and of
quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large
that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful
passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient
authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the
world. Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially
the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have
come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet
our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of
manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted
by hundreds and even thousands." (Our Bible and the Ancient
Manuscripts, p. 23)
Kenyon
makes his own the now classical statement of Hort, contained on
page 2 of the introduction to Westcott and Hort's edition of The New
Testament in the Original Greek, that the proportion of words about
which there is some doubt can be placed at about one eighth of the
entire text, and that by far the greater number of these are merely
differences in order or other unimportant variations. Thus "the amount
of what can in any sense be called substantial variation can hardly form
more than a thousandth part of the entire text."
'This was due to the profound influence exercised by the rabbinical
teaching.