Francis de Sales: Missionary to the Calvinists?

Over the years I've come across various versions of the following:

"Little by little, Francis gained himself a hearing among the Calvinists and eventually converted them by the thousands. His success was so great that he was later elevated to the post of Bishop of Geneva." [source]

"His defense of the Faith was so clear and thorough that at the end of four years nearly the entire population of 72,000 had returned to the Catholic Faith." [source]

"People read his writings and soon 40,000 had converted back to Christianity, perhaps showing us all, for the first time, the 'power of the pen.'" [source]

"Shortly after his ordination to the priesthood, St. Francis was elected provost of the Diocese of Geneva, meaning he was second in charge to the Bishop. This was the era of the Reformation, and Geneva was the headquarters of the Calvinists. In other words, it wasn’t a very friendly place for Catholics, especially Catholic priests. But St. Francis was undeterred. In fact, he decided to convert the some 60,000 Calvinists in the area back to the Catholic faith." [source]

"Through his work in this region over the course of four years (from 1594 to 1598), 72,000 Calvinists were brought back into the Catholic Church." [source]

"St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) is one of the most well-rounded Saints in Church history, and he played a major role in returning tens of thousands of Calvinists to the Catholic Church." [source]



de Sales: Converting Calvinists?
While going through a bibliography I came across a book entitled, Saint François de Sales and the Protestants by Ruth Kleinman. I don't recall ever coming across a full-length historical treatment of de Sales and his interactions with Protestants, so I tried to track this book down. While I found a few French copies, I could not locate an English copy for sale (yet).

An interesting review of Kleinman's book can be found here.  The reviewer states in part:

Now, I know a bit from my Luther studies that a review of book that attempts to paint a historical picture isn't a proper source to form a conclusion, nor is it prudent to use only one historical source (like Kleinman) to form an historical conclusion. The sentiment expressed here though would be an interesting explanation within the realm of possibility for some of the success of de Sales.

I did find an article by Ruth Kleinman entitled, The Ecumenism of St. Francis de Sales (Salesian Studies 5/2 (Spring 1968): 42-49). This article states:

The form of the Reformation Francis de Sales knew best was Calvinism, as he met it in Geneva and the surrounding provinces of France and Savoy. With Lutheranism he seems to have had little if any personal acquaintance, nor did he have anything to say about the Anglican Church. The differences between the Protestant denominations did not concern him greatly. He tended to lump them together, as when he wrote, “We speak indifferently of Luther and Calvin, because we do not believe that their teachings are widely divergent.” As far as he was concerned,Protestantism was heresy, and heresy was rebellion against God, the Church, and usually also the lawful authority of princes. His position on Catholic doctrine was equally uncompromising. He accepted the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent as final, never entertaining the thought that the articles of belief or discipline should be changed in any way to make it easier for Protestants to return. If they returned, as he hoped they would do, it must be on Catholic terms. Moreover, insofar as the existence of Protestantism involved the authority and interests of Catholic princes, he believed it proper that they should intervene to hasten the progress of conversions by any means of pressure short of physical violence.

-snip-

He himself was far from satisfied with the results of two years’ work, and attributed the continuing resistance of the majority as much to political and secular considerations as to stubborn religious conviction. The status of Chaplais remained uncertain until the Peace of Vervins in 1598, when it was finally recognized as the possession of Savoy. Meanwhile the inhabitants hesitated to commit themselves, claiming to fear reprisals for conversion if the province should again fall into the hands of the Swiss. Francis de Sales accordingly recommended to Charles-Emmanuel various actions designed to weight the choice of religion on the Catholic side: grants of pensions or tax relief to converts, deprivation of judicial or public office for persistent Calvinists, removal of the Calvinist minister and schoolmaster from Thonon, the capital of Chablais, and eventually exile for all those who refused to submit to Catholic instruction.

The duke attended the ceremonies concluding the mission, in October 1598, and on that occasion issued a series of edicts in line with Francis de Sales’ requests. Only in the matter of monetary benefits was the duke niggardly, because his treasury was empty and military expenditures had first call. Several thousand people appeared to make their abjuration, though whether they were moved by conscience, fear, interest, or a combination of the three, no one can say. Not all the inhabitants were as yet converted. As late as 1601, Francis de Sales complained to the duke that Calvinists still existed who had not gone on from Catholic instruction to profession. As far as he saw, “ No other way remains to have done with them, unless Your Highness, by a peaceable edict commands all his subjects to make profession of the Catholic faith and take oath on it within two months, in the hands of those who shall be deputed, or to leave the state, with permission to sell their goods.” Just as the mission to Chablais had originated in a mixture of religious and political motives, so its success rested on the cooperation of church and state. Francis de Sales indeed never considered the use of physical violence; there were no dragonnades in Chablais. But political and economic pressures were legitimate weapons, not to force consciences, but to open them to receive what he firmly believed was the only truth.

I commend the reading of the entire article. I do not want to be understood as arguing (via Kleinman) that I think de Sales converted people to Roman Catholicism by forceful means only, or at all.  The article goes on to point out that de Sales "was said to have a special gift for the conversion of individual souls," and that his book, Introduction to the Devout Life, played a role in converting Protestants. It wouldn't surprise me though to discover that Kleinman is onto something in regard to the overall success of de Sales, particularly since the conversion of an entire region still had political dimensions during the time period in which de Sales lived.

I certainly am open to seeing contrary evidence to the picture of de Sales presented by Kleinman or any later arguments that her historical portrayal of de sales is inaccurate. I'm still in search of Kleinman's book to see her full compilation of the evidence. Till then, it would probably be the responsibility of the defenders of de Sales that make claims like those that began this entry to historically verify those claims.

Where Are Luther's Miracles?

To the left: "The "Incombustible Luther" of 1689. A number of printed images of Luther were thought to be impervious to destruction by fire. This one was found in the house where Luther had been born after it was badly damaged by fire in 1689. The earliest examples of the belief in incombustible Luther images date back to the earliest years of the Reformation. They are testimony both to the profound influence of the Reformation on the image culture of the late Middle Ages and to the persistence of pre-Reformation beliefs and religious practices in Protestant lands (source)."

Where are the Miracles of Luther?
Over on the Catholic Answers forums someone asked this about Luther, "Where are his miracles? Where are the miracles of any person who set up a Church against the True Church?”

This is an argument that has been used by the defenders of Rome for quite a long time (I've tackled it before: Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God). The argument is old. For example, Francis de Sales made the argument in The Catholic Controversy. A 1622 pamphlet Lutheri Manes, das ist D. Martin Luthers abgeleibter Geist Amno raised the issue to confront the 1617 celebration of Luther. Here's an interesting excerpt from the late 1800's:

At the time of Martin Luther, a certain man, named William, was drowned. Luther was requested to raise him again to life as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. He commanded him repeatedly to rise from the dead. It was all in vain. (Bredenbach, L. vii., c. 1.) Calvin wished to prove the truth of his doctrine by a miracle. So he begged a man to feign death and have himself carried as a corpse to the church, and then rise at his bidding, so that the people might believe he had been raised again to life by the prayer of Calvin, as a proof of the truth of his doctrine. That man complied with Calvin's request. He was carried to the church, apparently dead. Calvin approached the coffin and said in a loud voice: I command you to rise in the name of Christ, whose Gospel I preach. But alas! the man never arose again. He was dead. God had punished him, and by the sudden death of this deceiver God manifested his detestation of Calvin's heresies, and the truth of the Catholic religion. (Franc-Torrianus, L. i. De Dogmatibus.) Thus Almighty God has never permitted, and will never permit, a real miracle in confirmation of an heretical doctrine; should he bestow the gift of miracles even on an impious man, yet he will never permit him to use this gift in confirmation of a false doctrine. Were god to perform a real miracle in support of an heretical doctrine he would thereby lead the people into error, and become guilty of the sin of wilful lying and deception.

In more recent times, one can find things like this traditionalist website that goes into great detail with this argument (using deSales): ProtestantErrors.com.  And finally, here's a modern example from pop-Roman defender Taylor Marshall:

You can start with Martin Luther. Did Luther perform any miracles? Did he make prophecies that came to pass. No, not at all. Yet at the same time period, the miracle of Our Lady of Guadalupe (a public miracle) did occur to St Juan Diego and millions of Aztecs. Also during this time period, the Catholic missionary Saint Francis Xavier was miraculously preaching to the people of India, Indonesia, etc. in their native tongues without study.


The Miracles of Luther?
Interestingly, there is actually a tradition of alleged miracles and prophecies attributed to Luther. For an intriguing study of this, see: R.W. Scribner, Popular Culture and Popular Movements in Reformation Germany (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987). Chapter 15 is entitled, "Incombustible Luther: the Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany" (Much of this chapter is available via a free preview, but reading the chapter in its entirety is well worth it).

Scribner points out that the quality of incombustibility is rooted in the Roman cult of the saints myths (Scribner, 328). The notion of the incombustible Luther comes from 18th century stories of multiple fires in the 17th Century in which paintings of Luther were found in the ashes intact and unharmed. The actual genesis of Luther and fire appears to go back to a pamphlet from 1521 (Scribner, 324), and it picked up various other Luther miracles as the years progressed.  Scribner mentions that in 1583 Antonius Probus made the very argument our friend from Catholic Answers is making, that "God did not send great prophets and doctors of the church unless miracles accompanied them" (Scribner, 336), and then Scribner documents a number of 17th Century miraculous Luther stories (Scribner, 336-338).  Scribner also mentions that seven years before Probus, Johann Lapaeus produced a list of Luther's prophecies and miracles (Scribner, 349).

No, I don't believe the miracles attributed to Luther are true, but it is a fascinating, if not funny study. There are guidelines set up as to how to become a saint in Romanism, so perhaps if someone wanted to play with Rome's rules, you could make a case for Luther. Rome's defenders have a seemingly countless number of official and unofficial miracles, so someone with creativity could argue for the beatification of Saint Luther. The flaw though in going in this direction is that it assumes Rome's worldview is true.

I'm always a bit surprised when this argument is raised because based on the criteria of miracle = "sent by God", there are a fair amount of Pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. Then also there's the problem that those who substantiate their message with an alleged miracle include non-Christian religions. Let us never forget the sobering words of  Matthew 7:21-23:

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.

But if someone really wanted to turn the tables on Rome's argument, place the argument in a Protestant, Biblical, and sola scriptura worldview. Yes, miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the magisterial reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), did not believe they were receiving new revelation from God. Rather, they believed they were testifying to what was in the Bible. If you were to ask them "where are your miracles to prove your message?" A good way for them to respond would be to say: "Between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21."

Luther's Test
What's interesting to me about all this is Luther and the early magisterial Reformers faced a very similar problem with a dissident group of people they called the Schwärmer. These were the radicals that were made up of the peasants, Anabaptists, spiritualists, and all the others that couldn't be classified as papists or Lutherans. Early in the 1520's, Luther and the Wittenbergers came into conflict with some men claiming to be modern-day prophets, known as the Zwickau Prophets. What characterized these men was that the authority of Scripture was second to their private revelations from the Holy Spirit. Their subjective experience trumped the testimony of the scriptures, and it was no wonder to Luther that their ideas led to societal and political unrest and rebellion.

There was a difference between the Reformers and those like the  Zwickau Prophets- the Reformers found their doctrines in the Scriptures, relying on exegesis and devout study. The modern-day prophets came with a message not from the Scriptures, but from the inner revelation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, when Luther discussed these prophets via correspondence with Melanchthon, he asked the same question about their miracles... did they have them to establish their new revelation? He also wanted to know that if they really were prophets in the Biblical sense, did they demonstrate the fear and suffering similar to what the Biblical prophets experienced?:

Now let me deal with the “prophets.” Before I say anything else, I do not approve of your timidity, since you are stronger in spirit and learning than I. First of all, since they bear witness to themselves, one need not immediately accept them; according to John’s counsel, the spirits are to be tested. If you cannot test them, then you have the advice of Gamaliel that you postpone judgment. Thus far I hear of nothing said or done by them that Satan could not also do or imitate. Yet find out for me whether they can prove [that they are called by God], for God has never sent anyone, not even the Son himself, unless he was called through men or attested by signs. In the old days the prophets had their authority from the Law and the prophetic order, as we now receive authority through men. I definitely do not want the “prophets” to be accepted if they state that they were called by mere revelation, since God did not even wish to speak to Samuel except through the authority and knowledge of Eli. This is the first thing that belongs to teaching in public.

In order to explore their individual spirit, too, you should inquire whether they have experienced spiritual distress and the divine birth, death, and hell. If you should hear that all [their experiences] are pleasant, quiet, devout (as they say), and spiritual, then don’t approve of them, even if they should say that they were caught up to the third heaven. The sign of the Son of Man is then missing, which is the only touchstone of Christians and a certain differentiator between the spirits. Do you want to know the place, time, and manner of [true] conversations with God? Listen: “Like a lion has he broken all my bones”; “I am cast out from before your eyes”: “My soul is filled with grief, and my life has approached hell.” The [Divine] Majesty (as they call it) does not speak in such a direct way to man that man could [actually] see it; but rather, “Man shall not see me and live.” [Our] nature cannot bear even a small glimmer of God’s [direct] speaking. As a result God speaks through men [indirectly], because not all can endure his speaking. The angel frightened even the Virgin, and also Daniel. And Jeremiah pleads, “Correct me [O Lord] but in just measure,” and, “Be not a terror to me.” Why should I say more? As if the [Divine] Majesty could speak familiarly with the Old Adam without first killing him and drying him out so that his horrible stench would not be so foul, since God is a consuming fire! The dreams and visions of the saints are horrifying, too, at least after they are understood. Therefore examine [them] and do not even listen if they speak of the glorified Jesus, unless you have first heard of the crucified Jesus. (LW 48:365-367)

A few years later writing to Duke John of Saxony Luther stated,

Now it is an especial joy that our followers did not begin this heresy, as the sectaries themselves boast that they did not learn it from us, but directly from Heaven, and that they hear God speak to them immediately as to the angels. It is a simple fact that at Wittenberg only faith, love, and the Cross of Christ are taught. God's voice, they say, you must hear yourself, and suffer and feel God's work in you to know your own weight; aye, they make nothing of the Scripture, which they call "Bible-bubble-Babel." To judge by what they say their cross and passion is greater than Christ's and more to be prized. . . .

Secondly, their boasting about the spirit counts for nothing, for we have the saying of St. John, bidding us "prove the spirits, whether they be of God." Now this spirit has not yet been proved, and goes about with turbulence and makes a disturbance according to his own sweet will. If he were a good spirit he would first humbly submit to be proved and Judged, as does the Spirit of Christ. It would be a fine fruit of the spirit, by which he could be proved, if he did not creep into the corners and flee the light, but would stand out publicly before his enemies and opponents and make his confession and give his answers. But the spirit of Allstedt shuns that sort of thing as the devil shuns the Cross, and yet in his own nest he speaks the most unterrified language, as though he were full of three Holy Ghosts, and this unseemly boasting is a fine proof of who this spirit is. For in his book he offers to make answer in the presence of a harmless assembly, and to stake life and soul upon it, but not in a corner, but in the presence of two or three persons. Tell me, who is this bold and confident Holy Spirit who sets himself such narrow limits and will not appear except before a "harmless assembly," and will not make answer in a corner before two or three persons? What kind of a spirit is that who is afraid of two or three people and cannot endure an assembly that may do him harm? I shall tell you. He smells the roast; he has been with me once or twice in my cloister at Wittenberg and has had his nose punched; so he does not like the soup and will not appear except where his own followers are present who will say Yes to his swelling words. If I, who have no spirit and hear no heavenly voices, had used such words against my papists, how they would have shouted Victory, and stopped my mouth!

In the same letter Luther states that these prophets should submit in a proper manner, even if it's to "the papists":

I have said these things to your Graces, so that your Graces may not be afraid of this spirit or delay action, but enjoin them strictly to refrain from violence and stop their destroying of monasteries and churches and their burning of saints, commanding them, if they wish to prove their spirit, to do so in a proper manner, and first submit to investigation, either by us or by the papists, for, thank God! they consider us worse enemies than the papists.

I'm not going to speculate too much on this comment, other than saying that I think Luther realized these prophets wouldn't submit to anybody's scrutiny, and even if they did get scrutinized by "the papists" they would fail their test as well.

Hey Reformers: Got Miracles? If Not, You Were Not Called By God

... So said Roman Catholic writer Francis de Sales (August 21, 1567 – December 28, 1622).

I  came across this de Sales argument while listening to a CTC podcast of, you guessed it, a conversion story. In this conversion story, a former Mid-America Reformed Seminary alumni recounted his journey across the Tiber. I happen to know a little bit about this seminary. I'm fairly sure this convert was provided with a good Reformed education, including solid material against Rome's claims. That's why I find it odd he was persuaded this particular argument from de Sales had merit.

During the interview both he and his wife mentioned de Sales book a number of times. This short mp3 clip highlights their basic point. The basic thrust of what they said was that de Sales asked who sent the Reformers?  Where did their authority come from? If God really raised up the Reformers, where are their miracles to prove they were sent from God? Here's what de Sales says:

First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinary mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius — could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?

Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grace of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. If then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.

The mission of S. John Baptist, though it was not altogether extraordinary, — was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity, and even by that miraculous life of his, to which our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles, — who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils: by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xix. V.); and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4). How then shall those who in our age would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more. If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is there that these new ministers should be believed on their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: — As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); My doctrine is not mine, hut of him that sent me (ibid. vii. 1 6); You doth know me, and you know thence I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But also, to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor. Now it is a fact that neither the first nor the last ministers have worked a single miracle: therefore they have no extraordinary mission.

1. I'm a bit surprised this particular argument had so much weight for these recent Roman Catholic converts. Based on the criteria of miracle = "sent by God", there are a fair amount of Pentecostal folks that are more than willing to claim they have the credentials required. I would be curious as to why these recent converts didn't join up with the people in this video. But the choice of who can substantiate their message with an alleged miracle doesn't begin and end with Pentecostals because even non-Christian religions claim miracles, so these recent converts could've picked a non-Christian faith to join. The speculative response I can hear in reply is such are not either real miracles or are miracles worked by Satan. Well, how would someone, based on de Sales criteria, determine that? Well, I guess an official guide would need to determine which are are (or not) real and God-sent messages accompanied by miracles.   Guess who claims to be able to pick which miracles are real miracles? Why that would be the Roman Catholic Church.  Even if the Reformers had miracles to accompany their message, the Roman church would have to officially say such was the case. In other words, one has to assume the truth of Rome previous to evaluating any sort of "miracle" offered.

2. Here's an ironic point. Here is the Bull of Canonization of St. Francis de Sales (Rerum Omnium Perturbationem) Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Promulgated on January 26, 1923. Guess who, according to the Roman Catholic Church, was sent by God? Why, it was none other than Francis de Sales:

The solemn commemoration last year of the third centenary of the canonization of five great saints--Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier, Philip Neri, Teresa of Jesus, and Isidore the Farmer-- helped greatly, Venerable Brothers, toward reawakening among the faithful a love for the Christian life. We are now happily called upon to celebrate the Third Centenary of the entrance into heaven of another great saint, one who was remarkable not only for the sublime holiness of life which he achieved but also for the wisdom with which he directed souls in the ways of sanctity. This saint was no less a person than Francis de Sales, Bishop of Geneva and Doctor of the Universal Church. Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind. What is more, it appears that Francis de Sales was given to the Church by God for a very special mission.

Now if you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're wondering exactly what miracle accompanied de Sales to prove he was especially sent by God for his special mission.  Well, if you skim through the Bull of Canonization, you'll find all sorts of tidbits about his life and ministry, but nothing all that extraordinary like healing a leper or raising the dead. In other words, there weren't any extraordinary miracles that prove he was sent especially by God of a very special mission. He sort of did stuff like... the early Reformers (he wrote books, ministered, and talked to people, sometimes at great peril). The only thing that proves he was sent especially by God for a very special mission is... the Roman Catholic Church.

3. I certainly can appreciate that the above quoted excerpt from de Sales relied heavily on Scripture. Here's another writer speaking about miracles from the scripture based on an exposition of Matthew 7:22-23 (On that day many will say to Me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.”)

The chief interpretation here is that He is talking about false prophecies and miracles, as He speaks in Matthew 24:24: “False Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:9, 10 St. Paul says that the Antichrist will come “with all sorts of pretended powers and signs and wonders and with all wicked deception for unrighteousness, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” So it is certain that false signs will happen in Christendom and that the false Christians will look upon them as true and genuine signs. This has really been happening in the papacy, though in Turkey, too, there are many such priests and special saints. You can read about this in the books and legends, especially in what the monks have written. They are all crawling with miracles, though they were really nothing but lies and rascalities. How they have made fools of the people nowadays with all those pilgrimages to the Grym Valley, to the Oak, or to Trier! I myself have seen some monks who were abominable rascals and reckless men, but who expelled the devil and played with him as if he were a child.
Who could recount all the rascality and devilish sorcery they have been practicing under the holy name of Christ, Mary, the holy cross, or St. Cyprian? The monks have been practicing all this mightily, and the whole world has fallen for it, so that no one even dares to peep against it. No pope or bishop ever preached against it, but they all helped it along. If anyone opposed it, he was violently beaten down and crushed. A short time ago Bishop Ernest of Saxony tore down one of these devil’s chapels. But the evil outcome was that it made him ill, and he was only too happy to rebuild it. This sorcery has helped to introduce and confirm things like purgatory, Masses for the dead, the worship of all the saints, pilgrimages, monasteries, churches, and chapels. Many have even prophesied about the future, like Lichtenberg and others. All this has happened through the devil: to substantiate his abominations and his lies, to cast a spell over the people, and to hold them captive in error so that none of them could run away from him.
It is a minor matter for the devil to let himself be expelled even by an evil fellow, if he chooses, and yet to remain unexpelled. By this abominable deception he possesses and traps the people even more completely. Being a clever and experienced spirit, he can also guess at future events. Usually he makes fools of the people with his prophecies, by juggling them in such a way that they can be interpreted to mean various things; whichever way it comes out, he has hit it right. He used to do this long ago through his heathen priests. Then the people go crazy with excitement: “Surely God is dwelling here! You can see and touch the miracles and signs!” They cannot figure out that the devil is doing it to deceive and seduce the people. The fools do not remember that Christ clearly foretold all this and faithfully warned us against it, personally and through His apostles. But this had to be the outcome, and it serves us right for despising the Word of God and for not being concerned about losing Christ and accepting the signs of the devil. For the devil it was a lot of fun, by which he had the complete control over Christendom that he sought.
Once we have seen this and experienced all too often what great damage the devil has done through these lying spirits and false signs, it should bring us to our senses. We should not imitate our predecessors in neglecting Christ’s Word and letting it be spoken in vain, so that we do not end up the way they did. This sermon or prophecy was written as a warning. Unfortunately it comes too late for our predecessors, but early enough for us if we heed it. Then we will not let ourselves be diverted by their claims of the signs and wonders that Mary and other saints have done, nor by the skillful way they throw dust into our eyes to lead us away from the Word. Since we hear this warning that these false signs have to happen, we shall be smart enough not to believe in any mere sign.
When He discussed these miracles in Matthew 24, He warned them faithfully and seriously (Matt. 24:25): “Lo, I have told you beforehand”; as if He wanted to say: “Beware, and cling to My warning, for otherwise you will certainly be seduced. You have My Word, so that you know what the will of My Father is. Contrast these two. Here you have My teaching, which tells you how to live and act. There you see the signs that contradict this teaching.” He wants you to draw this conclusion: “Since I see such wonderful signs over there, while over here I have the teaching as well as the warning, I shall first examine the implication of the signs. I shall test them where they ought to be tested, as to whether they serve to strengthen my faith in the Word: that Christ died for me; that through Him I may obtain piety and salvation in the sight of God; and that I should carry out my station and pay faithful attention to it. I may discover the contrary, that by this they want to strengthen and confirm their own stuff and teach me to run to this or that saint who does so many signs and miracles every day, or to crawl into a hood because this is such a holy order. This would mean being led away from Christ, from my church, pulpit, Baptism, and the Sacrament, and from my station and the works demanded of me—all things with which I should remain. Therefore I refuse to listen or to know any of this though an angel were to come from heaven (Gal. 1:8) and raise the dead before my very eyes. Christ has taught and warned me: ‘Hold on to My Word, pulpit, and Sacrament. Where these are there you will find Me. Stay there, for you do not need to go running or looking any farther. I will never come any nearer to you than where My Gospel, Baptism, and ministry are; through them I come into your heart and talk to you.’ He also says: ‘Be a father or a mother, a prince or a subject, a master or a servant. Remain in your station, where you hear Me speak, where I Myself am present. You silly men, why go running to wood and stone, where no Word of God is preached? Why stare with your eyes wide open at the devil’s signs, as if Christ were somewhere where His Word is not?’ ”
You see, this is the way to beat back the papists, who come crowding around with their “customs, fathers, councils, and so many signs and miracles,” by which they try to substantiate their cause. Just to give them a short answer: “All right, let us contrast the two. Here I have Christ’s Word; of this I am certain, and it has been powerfully substantiated throughout the world. You are showing me, by contrast, your teaching and your signs, which point me to rosaries, pilgrimages, the worship of saints, Masses, monkery, and other special and self-chosen works. There is nothing here about Christ, or about faith, Baptism, and the Sacrament, or about obedience and the good works which Christ teaches me to practice within my station, in my relations with my neighbor. Instead, there is the exact opposite. Hence these cannot be genuine signs, but both the teaching and the signs are the devil’s deception.” This way we could easily recognize and judge all false signs and say: “Let the signs come and go, I do not care, even if you raised the dead before my very eyes. All of this can deceive me, but the Word of God does not deceive me.” The devil can make fools of people and cast a spell over them, so that he makes a man seem dead for a while and then brings him back to consciousness, as if he were raised from the dead. Or he can damage your eye or some other part of your body and then restore it to health, so that you imagine that it was done by a miracle. So God decrees that even genuine miracles happen as a punishment for those who do not pay attention to the truth, as St. Paul says (2 Thess. 2:9–12), and as a warning for the others. People are going to such extremes in their ingratitude and contempt for His Word that wrath is not a sufficient punishment. If the world stands much longer, this will happen to us, too, for sinning so gravely that it has to deteriorate into all sorts of errors and signs.
Because the world simply refuses to listen and wants to despise the Word, yearning for something different, He will send it enough to seduce it into the abyss of all error. This is what happened when nothing else was being preached and taught in all the churches, monasteries, and schools, and all the books were smeared up with these lying signs. The only reason for this was the fact that these signs had taken place—as though it had not been proclaimed often enough that this was going to happen and that the people would be seduced by it, so that even the elect would scarcely be rescued from the error (Matt. 24:24). It serves those people right for so wantonly letting themselves be seduced and refusing to heed this warning. He gave the Word on how people should believe and live, and in addition He confirmed it with plenty of signs. He intends this to be enough, to let it go at that, and to do nothing else. Yet they insist on setting up a different and new teaching and better stations, contrary to the Word of God and the genuine miracles.
Therefore Christ says now: “I will not heed them though they boast: ‘Lord, did we not do many mighty works in Your name?’ I will pronounce a sentence upon them which reads: ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you evildoers.’ ” “How so, dear Lord? After all, the signs and wonders are there, and no one can deny it!” He will say: “Yes, but why have you neglected My Word, which was confirmed by My miracles, setting up something else about which I know nothing, governing the world according to your own ideas, and following these? Since you have despised My Word and have not done My Father’s will, I refuse to know you or to have any grace for you.” They do not pay attention to this on earth nowadays, and they suppose that they will be right next to God. They will find out, and all too suddenly!
So the right interpretation of this text is that He is talking about the miracles which the false teachers perform to confirm their teaching. These He refuses to recognize, on the basis either of their signs or of their prophesying. In this connection, there is a more subtle argument—I do not know whether it belongs here—that God occasionally lets genuine signs take place through wicked people and that God is acting through them. So Caiaphas, the high priest, prophesied (John 11:50). And Balaam delivered a most beautiful sermon about Christ; Moses himself says that the Holy Spirit entered into him (Num. 24:2) and that he had to prophesy against his will, as Caiaphas did also. Nor can it be denied that as an apostle of Christ, Judas performed many signs, just as the other apostles and disciples did. What shall we say to this?
St. John himself gives the answer when he says about Caiaphas (John 11:51): “Being high priest that year, he prophesied.” It can happen that because such a person is in a public office or in the government, he prophesies or does miracles and accomplishes a great deal of good, bringing many people to God. Still he may not be a pious person himself but may be going to the devil. A preacher occupies a public station and is an official person; correctly considered, such a person performs the greatest works, signs, and wonders that take place on earth. Through his office, through the Word and the Sacrament that he administers to you, he brings you to faith, rescues you from the power of the devil and from eternal death, and leads you to eternal life in heaven. This far surpasses all outward signs and wonders. Nevertheless he himself may be an unbelieving and wicked man.
In this issue, therefore, you must always pay attention to the Word of God and guide yourself according to it, not according to the personality. You heard earlier about the signs that take place in order to substantiate something different from the Word of God; about these there is nothing in Scripture. But there are signs which apply to something that God has spoken and substantiated. So the prophecy of the high priest Caiaphas announced that with His death Christ would redeem the world. This was a genuine and precious prophecy, though his motive was venomous and wicked. Although the prophet Balaam was a villain, he prophesied truly as a prophet about the people of God and about Christ; God was speaking through him. Now, if a preacher correctly administers his office and performs signs by its power, he should be listened to. But if he would like to get off the track and go some different way, to establish something different and apart from his office, he would no longer be a genuine prophet but a false one. If the apostle Judas preached and did miracles—though he belonged to the devil, as Christ says (John 6:70)—he did so by the power of the apostolic office, to confirm Christ so that the people would believe in Him. On this basis you judge everyone who occupies an office in Christendom. Not all those who occupy an office and who preach are Christians, or pious people. God does not ask about that. The person may be anything he pleases; but the office is right and good nevertheless, since it does not belong to man but to God Himself. So Caiaphas prophesies, not as Caiaphas, a murderer and a scoundrel, but as a high priest. So the minister or preacher baptizes you and brings you to eternal life, not as Mr. John Pommer, but as a minister. God lets this happen in order to honor and establish the office. Since Judas is in the right public office, the one that Christ has ordained, it is the office that is being honored in him, not the person.
So it is in secular affairs, too, as Solomon says (Prov. 16:10): “Inspired decisions are on the lips of a king”; that is, everything that the government orders is right, and God confirms it. When it performs its office of judging criminals and punishing them, therefore, this is God’s judgment, which He speaks up in heaven and which He wants to be carried out—the same action that is forbidden otherwise, apart from the office. So Scripture makes everyone in the sacred office a prophet or a foreteller, though in his own person he may well be a villain or a tyrant. As Solomon says again (Prov. 8:15): “By Me kings reign”; that is: “Their law and judgment are My law and judgment, along with everything they do according to their office, if they rule properly.” Nevertheless the majority of them in the world are great villains underneath, who have no qualms about abusing the law and their own authority. But when they keep within the limits of their office and do what the law demands, this is all God’s business. Bringing this down to another level: It is as when a prince or a lord gives a command to a servant or sends out his representatives, you listen to them and honor them, though they may be rascals, not for their own sakes, but for the sake of their lord, whose office and command they bring along with them.
Now, since God does this in the secular sphere, He will lay even more emphasis upon it in the spiritual sphere, to make His office and ministry productive and powerful. As we have said, when a minister preaches or baptizes, this is nothing but a miracle, inasmuch as he lets the Gospel and Baptism remain valid regardless of whether he is pious or wicked. And if, as a non-Christian, he does not have the treasure himself, still the one who accepts the Word and believes receives the treasure. Now, if such signs and miracles take place through the office of the ministry, redeeming souls from sin, death, and the devil, how much more can tiny, outward miracles that do not help the soul take place in the physical sphere!
It is necessary here to distinguish between the two things, the office and the person. Because one man is pious and twenty are wicked, you must not reject the office on account of the person, as usually happens. You should investigate whether the tendency and purpose of the office and the miracle is to praise and confirm the doctrine of faith in Christ and whether they harmonize with what He has spoken, commanded, and instituted. If you see that this is so, then you may say: “This sermon is right, though the person may be a good-for-nothing. I will accept the sign, but I will ask no questions about the person.” If it is not so, then you must not accept it or believe it, regardless of how great the sign may be or how saintly and precious the person may be. There are also many bishops, preachers, and others in office who imagine that this entitles them to God’s special favor personally. As I have said above, this is a mistake. It will not help on the Last Day for them to boast and say: “Lord, we did many mighty works in Your name.” God did not give them the power to do this on account of their person but on account of their office; He did not do these things for their sakes personally but for the sake of validating their office.
This applies to people in public office, through whom signs and wonders take place. Some of them are pious and some wicked, but this neither detracts from the office nor adds to it. But what do you say about those who do miracles and foretell the future though they are not in office? In Luke 9:49, 50 we read about some who did miracles though they were not Christ’s disciples. The apostles informed Christ of this and said: “Master, we saw a man casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow You.” But He answered: “Do not forbid him; for he who is not against us is for us.” He was an individual person, whom Christ had not installed into the office, and yet He says that they should not forbid him, adding the reason (Mark 9:39): “No one who does a mighty work in My name will be able soon after to preach evil about Me.”
Answer: It is true, as I have said, that God does not let any signs take place through wicked men unless they are in public office, since God does not grant signs for the sake of their person but of their office. But where genuine signs take place through an individual person, such a person must certainly be pious, as are those who have a special revelation through dreams or visions. But such signs must be aimed at praising Christ and advancing the Gospel. So you have two kinds of signs that are good and legitimate: first, those that are performed by pious persons who are Christians; secondly, those that are performed by evil persons who occupy an office and teach correctly. We should always be guided by this certain standard, which should be applied to every kind of person, whether pious or impious, in office or out of office: Do the signs aim at praising Christ and advancing your faith? If you notice that they are directing you somewhere else, to pilgrimages or to prayers to saints or to the deliverance of souls from purgatory, in other words, to a dependence on your own works and the creation of a righteousness of your own, then you must say: “If you did every possible miracle for me, so that I could see it and touch it, I still would not believe you. For Christ has given me adequate warning about that.”
God Himself set up this rule through Moses (Deut. 13:1–3): “If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder which he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, and ‘Let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams.” He also indicated the final cause by which you can recognize them and proceed correctly: If they try to make you institute a different worship, that is, to forsake the single pure doctrine and to start something different alongside it, then you should not believe, though it were snowing miracles. He Himself interprets it further and says (Deut. 13:3): “For the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.” It is as if He wanted to say: “He wants to try you out, to see how firmly you hold to the teaching that has already been established and is in force.”
In other words, the rule is this: Regardless of their size and number, no wonders or signs are to be accepted contrary to established teaching. We have God’s commandment; He has commanded from heaven (Matt. 17:5): “Listen to Him, Christ is the only one to whom you should listen.” In addition we have this warning, that false prophets will come and do great signs, but that they are all on the wrong track, away from Christ and toward something different. The only preventive is to have a good grasp of the doctrine and to keep it before your eyes continually. You can evaluate everything on this basis: Is this what the Gospel and the Creed teaches, which you pray every day, saying: “I believe in Christ alone, who died for me,” or is it something different? We have had adequate warning, if anyone is willing to heed it. But it does not make much of an impression on the great masses any more than it did before. I am convinced that if someone were to arise here today and perform just one sign, whole crowds would fall for it. That is how the crazy mob behaves. If someone pulls out something new in front of them and makes them stare, they forsake everything, the Word and the doctrine, and go gaping after that. And you can shout yourself to death against it. So they used to let such coarse and obvious lies and brazen fraud make fools of them and lead them around by the nose, following any rascal who arose with a lie about a new relic, new pilgrimages, and the like. The source of this is the shameful curiosity and boredom of our flesh and blood, as well as the devil himself, so that signs and wonders, especially the false ones, always get more of a following than the genuine ones. No one sees or cares that Christ and His apostles and others did miracles. But so soon as someone expels a demon, that beats all. All right, anyone who refuses to take a warning and wants to be seduced, dare not blame us.
Luther, M. (1999, c1956). Vol. 21: Luther's works, vol. 21 : The Sermon on the Mount and the Magnificat (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (21:271-280). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

4. Oh by the way, for the convert that needs a miracle and looks for that sort of stuff: Here's Saint Luther's legacy of post-life miracles. See this article by Robert Scribner, Incombustible Luther: The Image of the Reformer in Early Modern Germany. Scribner documents the way that many turned Luther into a saint after his death. Stories circulated that paintings of Luther refused to burn (Luther's special saint miracle was his incombustibility. I'm more or less a functional cessationalist, so I tend to yawn at any alleged miracle.

Addendum
There certainly are more arguments against the "must have a miracle to prove you've been called by God" notion. The ones above were tapped out quickly. One thing though that I need to add, it certainly is true that miracles accompanied many of those in the Scripture that were given revelation from God.  I have in mind here the argumentation that Richard Gaffin uses in his book, Perspectives on Pentecost (which is probably one of the best books on the gifts and miracles). The miracles certainly proved the divine message of the Biblical authors. Keep in mind though, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.), were not receiving new revelation from God. They weren't adding books to the Bible. They were testifying to what was in the Bible. The bottom line is that de Sales argumentation assumes something the Reformers were not doing, and then says their work was not valid. This is a typical Roman Catholic type of argument that assumes their rules are the rules. 

Francis De Sales and his bad questions

Anonymous
June 4, 2012 8:16 AM

Over at Called to Communion a writer added a quote from St. Francis De Sales, that might, I repeat might help anyone who doesn't "get it" to see what Mr. Stellman was up against. There is no way sola scriptura was going to solve his dilemma. Please look to his paradigm and go easy.

"If then the Church can err, O Calvin, O Luther, to whom shall I have recourse in my difficulties? To the Scripture, say they. But what shall I, poor man, do, for it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies. I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scripture or not, for who knows not that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, is the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumerable and diverse and opposite on the same subject, and everybody takes his view, one this, another that, though out of all there is but one which is sound. Ah, who will give me to know the good among so many bad? Who will tell me the real verity through so many specious and masked vanities? Everybody would embark on the ship of the Holy Spirit; there is but one, and only that one shall reach the port, all the rest are on their way to shipwreck. Ah, Ah, what danger am I in of erring! All shout out their claims with equal assurance and thus deceive the greater part, for all boasts that theirs is the ship. Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way, says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, without giving us a skilful pilot able to use properly his compass and chart, says that the Savior is wanting in foresight. Whoever says that this good father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance. Who has ever heard of an academy in which everybody taught and nobody was a scholar? Such would be the Christian commonwealth if the Church can err. For if the Church herself err, who shall not err? And if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I betake myself for instruction? To Calvin? But why to him rather than to Luther, or Brentius, or Pacimontanus?"

Rhology
June 4, 2012 8:22 AM

But what shall I, poor man, do, for it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies.

Just wait until you discover that church councils have contradicted themselves, Popes other Popes, bishops other bishops...and the church hierarchy has over decades actively hid and sheltered pædophiles. Poor man indeed who refuses the counsel of Jesus Himself in Mark 7!


who will give me to know the good among so many bad?

Too bad de Sales was either too ignorant or too dishonest to ask the same question about church teachings.


Who will tell me the real verity through so many specious and masked vanities?

Nobody. This is a fake longing for an imaginary Final Authority besides what God has already put in place.
As James White likes to say: The infallible fuzzies.


Ah, Ah, what danger am I in of erring!

Which danger no Church can solve.


Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way

Strawman.


Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide

Strawman.


without giving us a skilful pilot able to use properly his compass and chart, says that the Savior is wanting in foresight

If only the Savior had thought ahead enough to send the Holy Spirit to His church! Alas!


Such would be the Christian commonwealth if the Church can err.

Unsupported conclusion.


For if the Church herself err, who shall not err?

The Holy Spirit and the Scripture. That's easily answered.


And if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I betake myself for instruction? To Calvin? But why to him rather than to Luther, or Brentius, or Pacimontanus?

I was thinking more like Jesus, the apostles, the prophets.