Prologue of Fra Girolamo Savonarola of Ferrara, of the Order of Preachers, to the Apology of the Friars of the Congregation of S. Marco of the same Order

"If my enemy speaks ill of me, I must bear it"; but when this redounds to the contempt of God and the ruin of souls, as is now happening through the unjust contempt shown our ministry, to remain silent is a wicked and impious thing. I am therefore compelled to publicly reject the slanders of our adversaries. For their malice has reached the point not only of inciting the Supreme Pontiff against us, but of alienating the hearts of simple people, gossiping everywhere in the piazzas and at the street corners. Nevertheless, for the dignity of the Apostolic See and for the sake of justice, I hope that the Supreme Pontiff will at last embrace our cause, once the truth is known; for nothing has been left undone to demonstrate our innocence, which is well known to God and to this whole city. But meanwhile necessity compels me to answer the clamor and the insults, lest, through an excess of tolerance, I allow the scandal to spread through the whole world, and so on the day of judgment be accused of neglecting the truth and the public good.

Therefore, having called God and the Saints to witness, I will not cease to proclaim the truth everywhere, for which no one will be able to hold me in hatred, except one who wishes to declare himself openly against it.

Our adversaries bring three charges against us. The first, that I taught false doctrines; the second, that I refused to go to Rome to justify myself against the accusations; the third, that I refused to obey the command of the Supreme Pontiff to unite our Congregation with the new reformed Tuscan Congregation. As for the first two charges, which concern me directly, I have justified myself so many times, and this is so well known to all, that there is no need to insist upon it. As for the charge that I was not summoned to Rome, I will say that it barely concerns me at all.

Indeed, regarding the first charge, namely my supposed teaching of perverse doctrines, its falsity is evident from our publications and from the sermons preached by my own mouth and faithfully and promptly set down in writing; for in all these our statements, which we have always submitted to the correction of the holy Roman Church, no error has so far been found; and the matter can be judged with even greater clarity from our book On the Triumph of the Cross, whose publication is imminent at the booksellers. Far be it from our Order to harbor any suspicion of false doctrine, since it has always been the fiercest enemy of heresies and errors, and the chief defender of the Catholic faith.

As for the summons addressed to me to go and justify myself, matters stand differently, as can be verified from the apostolic letters themselves, from which it is clear that I was not called to justify myself, but rather invited to a benevolent conversation with the Supreme Pontiff; a conversation which would have been, or would still be, most welcome to me, had this been possible for me. But it is well known that this has not been done and cannot be done, without putting my life at risk, on account of the conspiracies of powerful enemies who hate the truth; since I can scarcely save myself from their snares even within my own household walls and even at the altars of the church. Now, there is no student so crude and untutored who does not know that I am not bound to go where I am not permitted to arrive without evident danger to my life.

Now, then, the third charge must be discussed, though it concerns me only in the smallest part; for it depends not on my own decision, but on that of about two hundred and fifty friars, many of whom are noble and venerable for their religious devotion, prudence, and learning. Among them I am a foreigner, who cannot dispose of them by command, being at their service with humble charity. Now, these men, in a letter addressed to the Pontiff, have unanimously protested, declaring that they would rather suffer the gravest things than consent to this union, which is contrary to their profession. I therefore neither know how, nor am able, to advise against so honest and holy a resolve.

This is why here we can do nothing other than set forth the reasons they have put forward, even though we know this will displease not a few religious. But these must lay the blame on themselves, for having forced us against our will to do such a thing; whereas until now, as far as has been possible for us, we have kept silent and have kept this matter hidden. Now, however, since they persist stubbornly to the detriment of truth, it is no longer permissible to keep silent. For if, in order to disturb our peace, they spare neither God nor religion, still less should we, who are committed to fighting for the worship of God and for justice, tolerate them. Therefore let us now set forth the reasons of our brothers.

Apology of the Friars of the Congregation of San Marco of Florence

To the Congregation of S. Marco of Florence, of the Order of the Friars Preachers, recently reformed for the better by the grace of God, the Superiors command that it be united with the other convents of Tuscany of the same Order, which have fallen into a laxer way of life; they further command that a Vicar General be instituted over all these convents joined together, charged with reforming the other Tuscan convents by means of the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco, without altering that congregation in any way. This, according to the promoters and supporters of the said union, would be an easy thing to accomplish.

Now the question arises whether this precept, together with the union it entails, is reasonable — that is, whether it amounts to a reform, or rather to the ruin of religious life. The promoters and supporters of such a union, as far as we have been able to gather from their words and correspondence, argue as follows in favor of their scheme:

1) "That which has a good end is itself also good." Now, the end of this union is nothing other than the reform of religious life, which is good. Therefore the union itself is fitting and good.

2) It is a praiseworthy and necessary thing, according to the Constitutions of the Order of Preachers, that each province have its own Vicar; and this is what this union brings about. Therefore such a union is praiseworthy and necessary.

3) By this union many drawbacks are eliminated; for in this way the Tuscan friars who wish to live well are no longer forced to move to another province. Hence a not insignificant advantage results from the said union.

4) It is reprehensible that any one part should refuse to conform to the whole to which it corresponds. If, then, all Tuscany wishes to return to its original observance, it is reprehensible that the Congregation of S. Marco should refuse to join the other convents.

5) The commands of superiors must always be obeyed in all things; now, since they command this union, it is reasonable and necessary that they be obeyed.

6) Whoever can benefit others without harm to himself is bound to do so, as charity commands, above all in matters concerning his own religious order. Now, the friars of S. Marco can benefit the other convents of Tuscany without harm to themselves. Therefore they are bound to do so. — And that they can benefit the others without harm to themselves is proven: for they can suffer no harm in offering their help and cooperation toward such a reform. Indeed, for those who have voluntarily renounced everything, when they are determined not to change their good customs on account of this new aggregation, there is no danger of falling back; for wherever we go we find the same God, the same religious life, and the same merit.

With such arguments do these men defend their thesis.

*  *  *

But against this position the other side responds: "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." Now, if the Tuscan convents are of a lax and corrupted life, as those who wish to reform them claim, they are not a little leaven, but a great deal. Hence they would corrupt the whole Congregation of S. Marco, and thus, without doubt, we would have not reform but the deformation of religious life. Therefore such a union is neither reasonable nor good.

This is why we shall answer in the following terms. — As Aristotle says, "it belongs to the sensible man to seek, in every subject and matter, that degree of certainty which the nature of the thing allows"; therefore, if in confirming our arguments we adduce reasons on which the wise and spiritual men commonly agree, we should consider them entirely satisfactory. Now, the principles by which the proposed problem is to be resolved must be sought chiefly not in the knowledge of certain universal statements, but in all those good and bad things which in fact occur in our own time in the convents, both those already reformed and those still to be reformed; for "each man can judge well of the things he knows well."

Moreover, the solution to the present question depends on the meaning of the term "reform." For, as the Philosopher says, "the meaning of a name is the definition of a thing. And the definition itself is the starting point for the knowledge of anything."

Now, "reform" seems to mean nothing other than the reiteration of form. But the form of the Christian religion is the grace of God and charity, that is, faith formed by charity. And the form of the religion of S. Dominic is the grace of God and charity, together with the three vows and with the norms of life which tend toward perfection according to the rule and constitutions of the Friars Preachers. Therefore the reform of the Order of S. Dominic does not consist so much in outward things as, principally and essentially, in interior dispositions; for the form from which each thing receives its species is intrinsic and not extrinsic. Hence no one is capable of judging rightly of reform unless he knows exactly what its form is. And since this form is spiritual and supernatural, no one can know it perfectly unless he possesses it perfectly. This follows from the words of the Apocalypse: "No one knows it, except him who receives it." This is why the Apostle affirms: "The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God; to him they are foolishness, and he cannot grasp them, because they are only judged spiritually. But the spiritual man judges all things, and he himself is judged by no one."

Now, since we ourselves for many years have had a hand in both the internal and the external affairs concerning the Congregation of S. Marco, we have also become quite well acquainted with nearly all the matters concerning the unreformed convents of Tuscany that have arisen in our own time. Well then, toward the solution of the aforesaid problem, with the support of divine grace, we say frankly, and we shall show effectively, that this union and this reform which these men wish to promote is not only unreasonable and harmful to religion, but is in fact impossible, according to the natural order of human affairs and of second causes, though it would not be so with respect to the First Cause.

In a matter such as this, however, we must not consider what God could do, nor should we ask for miracles; but rather keep in mind what God is accustomed to accomplish, what we ourselves are able to do according to the writings of the saints, and what has in fact been accomplished in our own time in the various religious institutes. Well then, in this sense we affirm that such a reform is impossible, in the sense in which it is usually said to be impossible to bake bread for someone who has no flour. First, therefore, we shall show that such a reform is impossible; and afterward we shall see that it is also unreasonable and harmful.

*  *  *

1) And here is the first reason. — As we have said, reform is the reiteration of form, which consists chiefly in grace, in charity, and in living according to the Constitutions of the Order of Preachers, so as to tend toward the perfection of this same life. Therefore, either these men wish to reform religious life only superficially, confining themselves to outward things — which would be a useless and worthless thing, altogether unworthy of the name of reform, since in that case there would be no introduction or reiteration of the specific form, which is intrinsic and not extrinsic — or else we wish to reform religious life from within. And this cannot be achieved in the way our adversaries attempt to do it. It is impossible, I say, not indeed to almighty God, but according to the nature and manner of human affairs.

For such a reform cannot be brought about except through men of great authority and standing, thoroughly versed in the spiritual life and doctrine, men worthy of imitation and veneration, of fear and love among those who are to be their subjects. As can be verified everywhere from the documents of history, no reform has ever been made without such men. Yet such men are today so rare that the whole world can see how those words have come true: "Even the defenders failed, even those who remained perished."

Whence, then, could so vast a reform of so many convents possibly come? Unless one supposes that the greater part, or indeed all, of the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco are to be reckoned among great and perfect men — which is not credible. Therefore, one of two things: either they intend to mix the friars of S. Marco indiscriminately with the other friars of Tuscany, or else it will be decided that they remain separate, especially the young ones, as has been promised in words.

If they resolve to mix them, according to the opinion of the Saints whom we shall cite expressly below, as well as according to the teaching of the experience gathered so far among all men expert and practiced in the spiritual life, we shall have a certain and most grievous harm to religious life; for, as we have recalled above, "a little leaven corrupts the whole lump." The Lord moreover says: "No one sews a new patch on an old garment; for it tears away a larger piece from the garment, and the tear becomes worse. Nor does anyone put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the skins burst, the wine is spilled, and the skins are lost." Thus it would come about that the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco, especially the younger ones, would become less good, while the other Tuscan friars would undoubtedly not be reformed; for many of them, indeed nearly all, being deformed, can never be reformed, as we shall see below. Hence there would result not an extension of reform, but an increase of dissipation. Indeed, we have very often found that one man alone is more capable of destroying and deforming than ten are of building up and reforming.

If, on the other hand, the aforesaid promoters do not wish to mix the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco indiscriminately with the other friars of Tuscany, as they claim, but only to draw out priors and guides for the Tuscan convents, in order to reform them gradually and introduce them to the customs and manner of life of the Congregation of S. Marco, and afterward unite and mix them together — no one who knows our situation is unaware of how impossible this is. For at this moment the young in the Congregation of S. Marco are so numerous that, were we to separate their guides and elders from them, the greatest harm would follow for our Congregation, while in the convents of Tuscany, as we shall see, no benefit at all would follow. For, there being very few men fit to govern others, only a very small number will be prepared for such a task. And if, by the grace of God, some are found among us, they are so necessary to us that to remove them would amount to destroying our Congregation.

Should it be said that in the very convents needing reform some persons could be found fit to take charge of the others, this simply does not appear to be so, and is therefore quite doubtful. Either because otherwise they would not now be seeking so insistently to join with us; or because, had there truly been such men there, they would in no way have consented, given the difference in their conduct and behavior, to remain long in those lax convents without promoting their reform; or because, as the Lord says, "no one lights a lamp in order to put it in a hidden place." Were there indeed such persons, they could not remain hidden from us. Instead, we find among them no one fit for governance; indeed they suffer a great scarcity of such men. But let us grant that they have great religious men, most worthy of every office; why, then, do they come to disturb our peace? Let them keep such men and enjoy them peacefully in the Lord; but let no mention of us be made among them, and let them leave us to live in peace.

*  *  *

2) Second reason. — We see that in the world of material beings, the smallest living things are born quickly from few progenitors, and when they fall ill they perish quickly; whereas the greater living things are produced and healed more slowly and through many causes acting together. The same thing is found in the realm of spiritual things: laypeople who have fallen into sin are converted easily and quickly, while religious who have once fallen from the state of perfection in which they formerly lived almost never turn to true penitence and return to spiritual fervor. This is the common judgment and unanimous conviction of the holy Fathers, expressed above all in the Fourth Conference of John Cassian, where, after much discussion on the matter, we find this conclusion:

"But why dwell at length on things which experience has proven only too well? We have often seen cold, carnal — that is, worldly or pagan — men become fervent and spiritual; but we have never seen anything of the sort happen among lukewarm and animal, or carnal, men. Indeed we read that the Lord, in the person of his prophet, so detested the lukewarm that he commanded spiritual men and his teachers to refrain from instructing and teaching them. For these would only scatter the seed of the word of life on sterile and untilled ground, all overgrown with thorns. It is therefore better to leave them be. It is preferable that these men cultivate, with doctrine and the sacred word, new ground — that is, the pagans and the worldly. For we read in Scripture: Thus says the Lord to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns."

So wrote Cassian. But even in our own time, daily experience teaches the same thing. None of us, however long-lived, has ever seen that, of the considerable number of those who have deserted religious life, anyone has returned to a life of fervor; on the contrary, they have fallen into ever worse vices. To attempt to reform such men is therefore an impossible undertaking, according to the words of Solomon: "Consider the works of God: for who can make that straight which he has despised?"

*  *  *

3) Third reason. — A religious institute is reformed and increased by the good and perfect life of those who are to reform it, and not merely by external changes and repairs; for "every agent produces effects like unto itself." This is why Chrysostom says: "The cause of the conversion of the world was the life of the Apostles, not their miracles." Therefore, since "the acts of agent causes are produced in a subject that is passive and disposed," every religious reform requires two things: perfect agent causes and well-disposed matter. Now, in this reform which they would wish to introduce, both are lacking. For the agent causes, that is, perfect men, are not sufficient in number, as we have already said; while the friars to be reformed — as we have shown — are ill-disposed matter. Such a reform therefore proves altogether impossible.

*  *  *

4) Fourth reason. — "It belongs to the wise man to set things in order." Now the principle of order is the end, which in our religious institute is the salvation of souls. Hence whoever wishes to reform it must direct the reform itself to the salvation of souls. But from the aforesaid union would follow precisely the opposite of the end desired. Therefore this union would bring, not a reform for our Order, but a grave deformation.

That the aforesaid end of our Order would be frustrated by this union can be shown chiefly by the following three reasons. First, because many, indeed almost all, of the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco are novices, or students only recently professed; so that both the young and the mature men — noble, prudent, and good, from whose character, life, and learning one might hope for the growth of the institute and the salvation of souls — might well return to their father's house, as some of them have already threatened, or might prefer to pass over to other religious institutes, or to the eremitic life. For they know well the life and customs of the friars who reside in the Tuscan convents designated for this reform; since many of them, being well furnished with experience, learning, and judgment, believe this to be a trap set to deceive them; nor is there any way to convince them that, once the aforesaid union were carried out, the promise that they would be allowed to live long separated from those religious would be honored. But even if they could endure this for a long time, they nonetheless wisely refuse to consent, for reasons we shall see below.

To the aforesaid reason may be added this further one: that beyond the hundred and more postulants who have already decided to enter religious life among us, coming from various cities, many others will probably be drawn to us by such examples, kindled by the same ideal, thereby bringing our Order considerable growth and renewal; but on account of this union, as I have been told quite frankly, they would change their minds. For they are well aware of who those are who walk the broader road.

A third argument: through this fusion the salvation of souls would be compromised, because in this way the fame and good name of this Congregation would be diminished and tarnished. Nor is this a negligible loss for the salvation of our neighbor, whether in preaching or in the hearing of confessions, in which it is found that public opinion and good repute are more effective than doctrine itself.

*  *  *

5) Fifth reason. — The servants of God must be more prudent in spiritual matters than the servants of the world are in temporal matters, lest we hear the Lord say to us: "The children of this world are wiser than you." Now, merchants who enjoy great reputation and trust in the world are in no way willing to establish trading relationships or form partnerships with those who have gone bankrupt, or who are unreliable, and who in common speech are called failures; for fear that from such a partnership they would gain nothing and lose a great deal instead. So too a father of a family who has several honest daughters will on no account place them together with those who have neither honesty of reputation nor of life, even if a superior of his were to command it. For in such a case he would not be bound at all to obey; rather, he ought humbly to refuse such commands. And if his prelate insisted, he ought to resist him to his face and ask him: "Why do you act this way?" — just as the apostle Paul did, who resisted Peter and rebuked him, "because he was to be blamed."

Still less, therefore, should those spiritual merchants who serve God associate with those who have gone bankrupt in the religious life, both before men and before God: both because their spiritual children, present and future, would thereby be exposed to the danger of eternal damnation, and because they would lose their good name. And by this they would destroy at the root that very fruit which is the salvation of souls.

*  *  *

6) Sixth reason. — "Contraries are always in conflict with one another, and each tries to destroy the other." Now, as St. Augustine asserts, "there are no better men than those religious who have made progress in the convents; and there are none worse than those who have instead become corrupted there." Therefore, since the best and the worst are contraries to one another, those who have progressed can never mix well with those who have become corrupted, as daily experience has taught until now. Thus, were this to be done, monastic peace would be destroyed — which is the ultimate end of every community, and which exists among us, by the grace of God, in excellent measure. Indeed, Cain always persecutes Abel, Ishmael persecutes Isaac, Esau persecutes Jacob, and the Pharisees persecute Christ together with his Apostles. From all these reasons it follows that a true union between them is impossible, and that a true reform cannot be established. It is therefore more than evident that from such a union a reform of religious life can in no way arise.

*  *  *

And now let us show that this union is also unreasonable and harmful.

1) First of all, because, even if it were somehow possible, no sensible person would attempt to unite to something intrinsically good an element that can be of no benefit to it whatsoever, while it could well be harmful to it, especially when the union cannot benefit the element that is being joined to it. Now, the Congregation of S. Marco is intrinsically good; whereas its union with the convents of Tuscany can be of no benefit to it at all, but would harm it a great deal. And on the other hand, as we have explained, it is not able to benefit the Tuscan friars who are in need of reform. Therefore it is not the act of a sensible person to bring about such a union.

2) In practical matters, experience is the teacher, so much so that good physicians follow experience more than their own theoretical knowledge. Now, it has been shown by the most certain experience that the Congregation of S. Marco, obtained in past years through separation from the Congregation of Lombardy — which is itself far better than this group of Tuscan convents in need of reform — has, thus divided, developed wonderfully and grown from day to day, both in merit and in numbers, and has produced great good for souls, both in the city of Florence and elsewhere. Therefore, whatever argument, however forceful, may be brought forward by our adversaries, it remains unreasonable to carry out such a union; for any argument must yield before experience.

3) The actions of the just are lessons in holy living and, as it were, living rules; indeed, "the virtuous man is the canon and measure of good works." Now our fathers, most holy men, reformers also of other religious families, separated themselves and their own flock from lukewarm and carnal religious. From this arose the distinction between "observant" and "conventual." So did that religious of holy memory, Giovanni Dominici; so did the Blessed Fra Antonino; so did the other predecessors of our Congregation. So, before all of them, did Christ himself, disputing every day against the Pharisees, having come to bring upon the earth not peace but the sword, and to separate the wheat from the chaff. So did the Apostles and the Prophets, so did all the saints, all the fathers, both of our own institute and of other religious orders — whose countless examples we omit for the sake of brevity. We are therefore bound to imitate them.

4) Often a single small spark has been enough to set a great forest ablaze, and a single rotten apple spoils the whole heap, if one does not think to remove it. Thus it was that Arius, like a tiny spark, set the whole world on fire. Now, once this union were carried out, a mutual familiarity would follow — however many rules might be made to restrain it — at least in reciprocal hospitality, and in more familiar and frequent conversation among the friars of the same Congregation. From this it would often happen that the weaker ones would let themselves be infected, and through these infected members the whole flock would easily be corrupted. We know very well from experience how harmful is the familiarity of lukewarm and wicked friars, according to the words of the Apostle: "Evil communications corrupt good manners."

5) All the good of a religious institute, and of any congregation whatsoever, depends on its governance. Therefore those convents in which good governance cannot be preserved must never be united to one another. But in this proposed union, good governance could not be preserved, on account of the hatreds existing among the various peoples. For the Sienese do not wish to hear even the Florentines named; and so too many others, above all the Pisans. It would therefore be necessary always to choose those friars who are welcome to the aforesaid peoples, and assign them to the convents of their own cities. We speak from experience: for we were unable to keep the Pisan convent; and we were unable to occupy that of Siena, even though we had been summoned by that very citizenry. Indeed, we were driven out with violence, with insults, injuries, and danger to our lives, by the townspeople and by the friars of the two cities just mentioned — cities whose reform, among others, is now being sought.

The same thing might perhaps have befallen us again, had we not, taught by the experience of the places just mentioned, desisted from trying at our own peril, with no advantage whatever for souls. Who, then, does not see that for this reason the governance of a religious institute would be utterly perverted? For many would thus be either joined to, or separated from, those with whom it is not fitting that they be either joined or separated. It would be necessary to assign teachers suited to their students, and students suited to their teachers; priors, moreover, would have to be appointed in harmony with their convents, and upon expiring their term could not be removed from office. There would follow, besides, countless other inconveniences that are wont to arise from day to day, as experienced men well know and openly admit.

6) Once this union were carried out, its Vicar would have to be either a man of perfect holiness, learning, and prudence, or a mediocre man, or a bad one. If he were bad, everything would go to ruin, for it is written: "As the governor of the city, so are its inhabitants." If he were to be mediocre, he would either not know, or at least not fully understand, what reform actually is. And, as appears and is seen every day in such mediocre men, he would try to please both parties — that is, both the reformed and the friars needing reform. And thus, under the appearance of good, he would throw everything into confusion. And then all the drawbacks denounced above would occur; indeed, there would be worse ones, and more of them. — If, on the other hand, he were a perfect man, he would certainly separate the reformed entirely from the friars in need of reform, for the reasons indicated above; especially because, instructed by the experience of the saints as well as by his own, he could not fail to know that deformed religious are no longer capable of reform, as we have said above. He would therefore establish a separate vicar for each of the two congregations. He would, moreover, forbid the lax convents from receiving novices, both so as not to raise and instruct them in that laxity, and so that this kind of religious would exhaust itself and become altogether extinct. He would, furthermore, favor the good and increase their number; and thus, making use of them, he would little by little restore and reform the convents of those who had reached the point of extinction. Otherwise he would not be a man of perfect holiness and prudence.

Therefore, since the reformed Congregation of S. Marco is at present separate from the other convents, it is altogether unreasonable to unite it with the aforesaid Congregation, from which a man of perfect holiness and prudence, were it united, would separate it again.

If, moreover, two Vicars were instituted — as some do not cease insidiously to propose — one as Vicar General and the other to govern the Congregation of S. Marco alone, though this latter would himself be subject to the aforesaid Vicar General, yet bound by this law: that he should create no difficulty for the Vicar of the Congregation of S. Marco subject to him, so that he might attend to reforming the convents of Tuscany with the help of his counsel, through the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco — from this various drawbacks would arise. First, this would contradict what was objected to us by our adversaries, for it would deny the very necessity they asserted, that each province should have but one vicar. For then, within this single province, there would in fact be two: we would have, that is, a Provincial and these two vicars besides. Moreover, as can easily be seen, this would not avoid those drawbacks which we have foreseen for the reasons indicated above.

Moreover, many other and very grave drawbacks would arise. The first that could easily occur is this: the aforesaid Vicar General of Tuscany could very often be a man either malicious, or lacking in prudence, or deficient in learning. If he were malicious, it would certainly not do to entrust the flock to the wolf. If, on the other hand, he lacked prudence, caution, or learning, he could easily be led into error by some deceitful, malicious, or hypocritical person. For if in the apostolic college, formed under the Lord's own care, there was one wicked man, namely Judas the traitor, it must be believed all the more that there have been, and will be, wicked men in other communities as well, ready to sow discord and scandal. From this, divisions would arise among the friars, since some would follow one Vicar and others the other; and disputes would often arise between the Vicars themselves, with divisions between opposing factions. Finally, as we have said, and as experience daily shows in declining institutes, no peace, no concord would be possible, above all because of slanderous gossips and informers. Now, since peace is the bond of union and the highest good of every religious institute and of every congregation, once it is taken away, the whole institute will undoubtedly be struck by dissolution and ruin.

From these reasons, and from others like them, it appears clearer than daylight that this union, which some are attempting to bring about, is impossible, unreasonable, and useless — indeed, it is harmful to the whole Order, and would mean ruin and death for reform itself. It is therefore also evident that the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco cannot be compelled to carry it out by any precept or censure whatsoever. And not only are they not bound to it, but in no way should they obey such precepts, for that would amount to apostatizing from God. Indeed, the superiors of the Congregation should not only have no fear of any excommunication, but should rather expose their own lives to death than consent to such a union — which is poison, perdition, and damnation for the souls of their children. For "we must obey God rather than men."

*  *  *

Moreover, in this matter, they must make known to the prelates the reasons why they cannot obey; and if the prelates persist, the friars must first humbly correct them and try to convince them through reasoned argument — something we ourselves have observed, as appears from the letters we have written and from many other testimonies. Should the prelates, however, refuse to desist, the friars should behave toward them as St. Paul did, who openly resisted Peter before everyone; and, finally, as the Lord commands, they should lay down their lives for their brothers.

*  *  *

In support of what we have said so far, many other arguments could be adduced. But to avoid prolixity, we consider those already mentioned sufficient — especially since the easy solutions we shall give to the arguments of our opponents are enough to sustain our cause. For "the resolving of doubts constitutes no small knowledge of the truth."

I — To the first argument it must be answered that "good consists in the integrity of its causes, while evil arises from any single defect," as Dionysius says. And the Philosopher affirms: "Error occurs in many ways (for evil belongs, as it were, to the realm of the infinite, as the Pythagoreans thought, while good belongs to the finite); rightness, however, is found in only one way." Therefore, for a thing to be good in the full sense, it is not enough that the end be good, unless the other circumstances too are fitting and in accord with the good. Now, the Philosopher's statement in the Topics ["That which has a good end is itself also good"] rightly applies only where the other circumstances are not in conflict with it. For, to give alms is no reason that stealing becomes a good thing. This is why he affirms in the Ethics that "there are actions which can never be performed well."

This, however, is one of the objections of the lukewarm, who almost always deceive through hypocrisy and under the pretext of good. And in order to suggest to men, as though it were good, the evil they intend to do, they put forward true universal propositions, by which they easily stir the minds of their listeners against the good, who refuse to consent to their evil schemes. So did the Pharisees act against Our Lord Jesus Christ. When, for example, he healed the man born blind, they went about saying: "This man is not from God, because he does not keep the Sabbath." In just this way these men, puffing out their cheeks, fill men's air and ears with cunning, saying: "We want reform; but the friars of the Congregation of S. Marco oppose it, delaying and hindering so great a good." So that to the unwary and the naive they appear to be the ones who want the good, while we would be the ones unwilling to consent. But these frauds are well known to wise and spiritual persons, whose task it is to expose them to the whole people, so that simple folk are not deceived by such false claims and such words.

II — To the second argument we respond that, were that conclusion true, then the "conventuals" of all Tuscany ought likewise to be compelled into this union; otherwise we would not have, in each province, a single Provincial Prior, as our Constitutions require; and if, as some suggest, two Vicars are instituted, we would in some sense have as many as three Provincial Priors, and not just one, within the same province. It must therefore be answered that those friars of S. Dominic who do not keep the observances proper to the Order of Preachers — since their life is not in conformity with the Gospel, nor with the rule and Constitutions of the Friars Preachers, having established for themselves another manner of life — falsely usurp for themselves the name of Dominicans. For St. Dominic never had any wish to establish such an order and such a manner of life, nor did he ever so much as think of establishing it. Therefore these men are not friars of the preacher St. Dominic, but of some prevaricator or other. I would say, then, that, with all due respect to them, they ought to be called prevaricators and not preachers.

We have indeed learned from trustworthy persons — and the matter is common knowledge in Bologna — that before the reform and the observance were introduced there, the friars who then dwelt in the convent of S. Dominic, while singing at the sacred body of our holy Patriarch the responsory of his office, "Fulfill, O Father, what you have promised, aiding us with your prayers," heard this voice: "Neither am I your father, nor are you my children." Therefore only the truly reformed friars are children of S. Dominic. If, then, within a province they have their own Vicar, however or by whomever the others may be governed, there will be, in that province, but a single Provincial Prior of the Order of S. Dominic.

Should these men object that this amounts to dividing the Order, we would answer that it is they themselves who are dividing it, since today there are as many orders, in effect, as there are friars, since each lives according to his own judgment.

Here, then, is the true answer to their objections. And though to some it may seem harsh, it will certainly not offend the good friars. For we have spoken in general terms against the wicked, without naming any single friar or convent. If, then, anyone should take offense at this so reasonable a piece of writing, and burn with anger and hatred against us, such a man would thereby show and declare himself to be wicked, and altogether a stranger to the Order of S. Dominic. Without meaning to, such a man would render us blessed; for the Lord has said: "Blessed are you when men shall hate you." It would therefore be far more profitable for such men, after reading or hearing these words, to return within themselves and do penance for their past life.

III — The answer to the third argument is evident; for if this order is respected — namely that the reformed friars who live rightly, or resolve to do so with their whole heart, should have their own Vicar — it will not at all be necessary for them to pass to another Province, but the individual provinces will remain quite distinct.

IV — To the fourth argument we must answer as follows: since the friars who live disorderly lives, outside the rule, do not belong to the Order of S. Dominic, those who live well and according to the rule have no part with them.

There is, moreover, a further answer ready at hand: namely, that since such men have fallen so low, it is difficult, or indeed impossible, to reform them. It is therefore better to safeguard this part of ours which remains sound and uncorrupted, rather than contaminate it by exposing it to death together with the rest of a body that is altogether incurable.

V — To the fifth argument we must answer thus: we are not bound to obey our superiors always and in all things, but only in those things which they command in accordance with the Gospel, the Rule, and the Constitutions. As for those things which are contrary to these, there is no obligation at all, as all the Doctors and masters agree. Therefore, since it is beyond all doubt to us that their command regarding this union is contrary to truth, to charity, and to spiritual unity, and that from it arise not only the evils we have denounced, but scandals and harms to souls and bodies even more grave — which it is prudent and praiseworthy to pass over in silence — we must believe that it was not the intention or the will of our superiors to bind us to things which it would be sinful to do and observe. For one must follow the intention rather than the letter of those who make laws. Otherwise such men would not be shepherds, but wolves. For the Apostle affirms: we have been appointed "for building up, and not for destruction."

VI — To the last argument the answer is clear from what has already been said. For the friars of S. Marco, through this union, could be of no benefit to the friars in need of reform; on the contrary, they themselves could suffer great loss, were they to be so mixed together, incurring harm and ruin as a result.

From all that we have said, then, it can very easily be gathered how grave is the wickedness of those who, under the pretext of good, have devised and proposed this union. The architects of deceit, and the crafty men who suggest such things, are all the more to be avoided and worthy of hatred, the more cunning and persistent their attempt at deception. And God will bring them utterly to ruin through their own snares, if they do not repent.

To Him alone be honor and glory for ages without end. Amen!