393. “The name Church,” says Bellarmine (tome 2, book 3, chapter 1), “is Greek, and is derived from the verb ekkaleo, which is to call forth. Therefore Church is a calling forth, or the assembly of those called. But the people of God are called an assembly of those called because no one joins himself to this people by himself and by his own proper impulse, but all, as many as come, are preceded by the calling of God. For calling is the first benefit which the saints receive from God. ‘Whom He called,’ says the Apostle (Romans 8), ‘these He justified; whom He justified, these He also glorified’; and (Acts 2): ‘Whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.’ Hence so often the Apostle calls Christians ‘called,’ in almost all his epistles.”
394. Sometimes the name Church is transferred from the thing contained to the container, and therefore is taken for the place in which assemblies are held. Thus (Judith 6.21): “All the people were called together, and through the whole night they prayed within the church”; and (1 Corinthians 11.22): “Do you not have houses for eating and drinking? Or do you despise the Church of God?…” “Yet when it is used for an assembly of men,” the same Bellarmine notes (same place), “the name Church, with some added term, can be taken both in a good and in an evil sense; for it is said, ‘the church of the malignant,’ Psalm 25, and ‘the Church of the Saints,’ Psalm 88. But when this name is put absolutely, it is not understood except of the Church of Christ, with the exception of one place, Acts 19, where it is said of a people of Gentiles: ‘The assembly was confused.’ Here by the name Church we signify the assembly of called men, or of the faithful.”
395. But even according to this proper acceptation, the word Church is sometimes taken in a very broad sense; and it designates all the faithful, both wayfarers, those being purified, and comprehensors, even angels. Hence the Apostle says of Christ (Ephesians 1.22): “He gave Him as head over the whole Church”; where he deliberately said “over the whole Church,” so that it may be understood that Christ is not head only of the Church which is on earth, or in purgatory, or in heaven, but of the whole Church, whether militant, purgative, or triumphant. But in the triumphant Church even angels are comprehended; hence St. Augustine (on Psalm 36) writes: “From all the faithful and angels there is made one city under one king.” And St. Thomas (3 p., question 8, article 4) says: “The mystical body of the Church consists not only of men, but also of angels. But Christ is the head of this whole multitude, because He has Himself more closely to God, and participates more perfectly in His gifts, not only than men, but also than angels; and from His influence not only men receive, but also angels.” Moreover, in this treatise we speak of the militant Church.
396. According to this acceptation, the word Church can still signify the collection of all the faithful on earth, from the beginning of the world until its end. In this way St. Gregory the Great (homily 19 on the Gospels) says: “The universal Church begins from righteous Abel even to the last elect one who is to be born at the end of the world.” Hence a threefold state of the Church can be considered in this life: the state of the law of nature, the state of the written law, and the state of the law of grace. In the state of the law of nature she properly had no determined form, although some things were successively added by God through revelation. Thus of Enos it is read (Genesis 4.26): “He began to invoke the name of the Lord,” namely by some external and public sign. In the state of the written law the form of the Church was determined for a time with regard to the Hebrew people; but the nations were not bound to it. Therefore with regard to them the Church was as in the law of nature. But in the state of the law of grace the Church received a new and perfect form from Christ; and all peoples are bound to adhere to her.
397. But St. Augustine observes, with the ancient author of the commentary on Proverbs (chapter 5, in St. Jerome), that the name Church is more excellent than Synagogue, which is a congregation; for only rational creatures are called, while even cattle are said to be congregated. Hence although in the Old Testament the people of God among the Israelites were sometimes called Church, nevertheless the Church of Christ, or the people of the New Testament, was never called Synagogue. Therefore here we take the name Church not in a strict sense insofar as it means convocation, or the assembly of the faithful wayfarers in the New Testament.
398. Yet even in this sense, the word Church does not have one signification. For: 1) it imports the assembly of Pastors, or the teaching Church. Thus (Matthew 18.17), Christ, speaking of fraternal correction, says: “But if he will not hear, tell the Church; but if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican.” Here St. Chrysostom (on Matthew) observes: “‘Tell the Church,’ that is, the prelates and superiors.” St. Cyprian, Augustine, and others teach the same. In reality, “the circumstance of the place manifestly demonstrates,” says Stapleton (Controversies, book 5, On Ecclesiastical Power, chapter 7), “that that saying of Christ must be referred to the superiors of the Church. For immediately there follows: ‘Amen I say to you: whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.’ But who would deny that this pertains to superiors alone?” 2) The same name designates the people of the faithful, or the learning Church, insofar as it is distinguished from the superiors. Thus in Acts (20.28): “The Holy Spirit,” says the Apostle, “has placed you as bishops to rule the Church of God”; and (15.4): “But when,” says the sacred author, “they had come to Jerusalem (Paul and Barnabas), they were received by the Church and by the Apostles and elders”; and (ibid., 22): “It pleased the Apostles and elders with the whole Church to choose men from among them.” Hence also the fathers of the Synod of Antioch (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 30) inscribed their synodical letter against Paul of Samosata: “To the Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and Churches of God.” 3) Most frequently, and in the Creed itself, the same name Church is applied to the whole assembly growing together from pastors and all the faithful, insofar as it is separated from the gatherings of unbelievers, heretics, and schismatics. This threefold acceptation pertains to the present treatment; but which one obtains in individual questions must be seen there.
399. Yet the name Church accepted in this way can still signify a particular Church, or the universal Church. Certainly it is used for the aggregation of the faithful residing in the same house or family (Romans 16.3-5), where Paul greets Prisca and Aquila, and “their domestic church.” It is taken for the assembly of the faithful living in one city or province (Romans 16.16), where it is read: “The Churches of Christ greet you.” Indeed, everywhere the Apostle mentions “the church of the Corinthians,” “of the Thessalonians,” etc. But often the universal Church is expressed: thus (1 Timothy 3.15) it is said, “That you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God.” Here we treat of the universal Church.
400. These things, then, concern the word Church, or its nominal definition. But before we come to the real definition, it will be helpful first to observe that it is not our intention here to hand down such a definition as must be admitted equally by Catholics and non-Catholics. For since in the real definition of the Church lie hidden the seeds of all the disputations which exist between us and the Innovators, only after these have been completed do we propose our definition of the Church. Rather, we intend to place before the eyes the true Catholic definition, so that from the beginning the subject of the disputation may be known, and we shall prove its individual parts in their own place. It must likewise be observed that there is some difference between definitions of the Church handed down by Catholic doctors before and after the Council of Trent; yet Launoy wrongly rejects the more recent ones (Letter 13) as new and erroneous. For: 1) certain older writers defined the Church according to her generic essence, prescinding from the state and form which she has after Christ; while the definition usually handed down after the Council of Trent regards the present state and form of the Church. Thus, for example, St. Thomas (3 p., question 8, article 4) says: “The Church, according to the state of the way, is the congregation of the faithful.” And Melchior Canus (On Theological Places, book 4, chapter 2) says: “And although the society of angels and men is sometimes called Church, and sometimes the kingdom of heaven, which is composed of men who are comprehensors and wayfarers, nevertheless in the present matter we do not have the intention of discussing anything except the militant Church, that is, the assembly of faithful wayfarers.” But he immediately observes (same place) that this definition comprehends all the faithful “both in the people of the Jews under the law of Moses, and in pious men formerly under the law of nature. In this sense catechumens are most truly members of the Church. For she is not separated by the sacrament of baptism, but by faith, which in every time has distinguished the people of God from the assemblies of unbelievers.” Therefore, when Canus himself wished to define the Church in such a way that he would distinguish her both from the state of nature and from the Synagogue under the written law, he said that she is “the congregation of the baptized.” For Baptism, he says (ibid.), “is the sacrament of faith which properly makes members and parts of the Church, and distinguishes the Church of Christ from the synagogue.” 2) But if someone seeks a definition of the Church which distinguishes her also from the sects of heretics who are baptized, Pope Nicholas had already handed it down by saying that the Church is “the collection of Catholics.” If this definition expresses less explicitly the things which are brought out in the common definition now, nevertheless it fully agrees with it. In reality, the universal or Catholic Church, as St. Cyprian says (Letter 69 to Pupianus), “has not been torn nor divided, but is certainly connected, and joined by the glue of priests mutually cohering with one another.” Therefore when the Church is called “the collection of Catholics,” it is sufficiently expressed that she is one also with exterior unity, insofar as she is ruled by one visible head. Hence it is that the less explicit definitions which formerly used to be handed down were easily understood by all in the same sense in which the later ones are now understood, and the character of new errors itself urged that these later ones be proposed more explicitly.
401. Behold, then, the real definition of the Church which Theologians, after Bellarmine (same place, chapter 2), now commonly hand down: “The Church is the assembly of wayfaring men, united by profession of one and the same Christian faith and by communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and especially of the Roman Pontiff.” The same Bellarmine immediately illustrates this definition thus: “From this definition,” he says, “it can easily be gathered which men pertain to the Church and which do not pertain to her. For there are three parts of this definition: profession of the true faith, communion of the Sacraments, and subjection to the legitimate pastor, the Roman Pontiff. By reason of the first part all unbelievers are excluded, both those who never were in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, and those who were and withdrew, such as heretics and apostates. By reason of the second, catechumens and the excommunicated are excluded, because the former have not been admitted to the communion of the Sacraments, and the latter have been dismissed. By reason of the third, schismatics are excluded, who have faith and Sacraments, but are not subject to the legitimate pastor, and therefore profess the faith and receive the Sacraments outside. But all others are included, even if they are reprobate, wicked, and impious.”
402. The Innovators, and especially Melanchthon (Apology of the Augsburg Confession), fiercely attacked this definition; for he said that that definition of the Church is defective and imperfect in which no mention is made of the just, of interior faith, of hope, and of charity, in which nevertheless the principal part of the Church is situated.
403. But let it be noted: 1) Theologians in their definition of the Church especially consider her insofar as she is a visible and external society. For since the Church under that respect, or insofar as she is visible, is shown by us to be the mistress of truth, by the given definition we attack the errors of the Protestants more directly. For they distinguish a twofold Church, one internal and invisible, another external and visible; of which the former alone, not the latter, enjoys the privileges granted to the Church which are narrated in the Scriptures. 2) By the name Church taken absolutely, the true Church must be understood, which is external and visible. The most illustrious Bossuet demonstrates this from the Scriptures, from confessions of faith, and from books of discipline of the Protestants themselves in the book entitled Conference with the Minister Claude. 3) Once the true visible Church has been discovered, immediately her soul is had, which is inseparable from her body; and therefore faith, hope, charity, etc., are necessarily found in that society which, with the profession of the true faith and the communion of the sacraments, is subject to the legitimate succession of pastors and acknowledges the Roman Pontiff as visible head. 4) Wherefore by these words, “under the rule of legitimate pastors,” just as by the others, “united by profession of one and the same true faith and by communion of the same sacraments,” it is certainly sufficiently expressed that the true doctrine of Christ is announced in the Church, and that the true sacraments instituted by Christ are rightly administered. But from this it is rightly inferred that internal faith, grace, and charity are found in her; since the preaching of the true doctrine of Christ, the right use of His sacraments, and the ministry instituted by Christ are born to bring forth abundant fruits.
404. As we have said, this is not the place to establish and defend the Catholic definition of the Church; so neither is it the place to attack the false definitions of heretics. Yet it is useful, so that the difference of doctrine may immediately appear, to recall here the principal ones. And first, among the heretics who preceded the Protestants: 1) The Donatists, with St. Augustine as witness (Heresy 70), “turned schism into heresy, as though the Church of Christ, on account of the crimes of Caecilian, whether true or, as appeared more to the judges, false, had perished from the whole world, where she was promised to be, and had remained in the African part of Donatus, as though extinguished in other parts of the earth by the contagion of communion.” Hence they defined the Church as “the assembly of the faithful whose faith never fails,” or “the congregation of the just.” 2) The Pelagians “advance even to this,” St. Augustine said (Heresy 88), “that they say that the life of the just in this age has absolutely no sin, and that from these the Church of Christ is perfected in this mortality, so that she is wholly without spot and wrinkle, as though that were not the Church of Christ which throughout the whole world cries to God: forgive us our debts.” Hence they defined the Church as “the congregation of those who have no sin.” 3) In the fifteenth century John Wyclif and John Hus disseminated their errors into several parts of Germany, especially into Bohemia. In their opinion the Church is the congregation of the predestined.
405. From these the Protestants derived their errors. For: 1) The Lutherans, following Martin Luther (in the Augsburg Confession, article 7), taught that the Church is the congregation of saints who truly believe and obey Christ. Yet they add: in this life many evil men and hypocrites are mixed with this congregation until the final judgment. By these words they seem to imply a twofold Church: one true Church, to which belong the privileges expressed in the Scriptures, and which is the congregation of saints visible not to the eyes of the body, but of faith; another external Church, which is Church in name only, and which exists as a congregation of men agreeing in the doctrine of faith and the use of the sacraments. And in this they concede that good and evil are found. Calvin himself, although he tried to speak equivocally concerning this matter, did not in reality depart from that opinion. For first (Institutes, book 3, chapter 2, nn. 8-11) he teaches that faith is incapable of being lost; then (Institutes, book 4, chapter 1, n. 2) he hands down that the true Church can be known by God alone, and that her foundation is divine election, inasmuch as she consists only of the faithful, who for this reason belong to the roll of the elect; finally (same book and chapter, in the following sections) he establishes an external Church, in which good and evil are numbered. Compare Bellarmine (same place). 3) But among the more recent writers, behold how Pfaff defines the universal Church: “that which consists of all particular Christian churches professing the doctrine of Christ.” This definition, wholly arbitrary, recalls to mind what St. Augustine writes concerning the heresy of Rhetorius (Heresy 72): “It affirms that all heretics walk rightly and speak true things; which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me.” And the apostate Marcus Antonius de Dominis (On the Christian Commonwealth, book 7, chapter 10) writes: “We see the presumptive [Church]; we believe the truthful one. For we cannot indicate her except through conjectures. Reprobates, hidden heretics, and bad Catholics are in the presumptive Church; but only the predestined and upright are in the truthful Church.”
406. From these things it is clear that heretics chiefly have this at heart, that they establish an invisible Church; or if they admit some visible Church, they say that it is diverse from the invisible one, and they ascribe to the latter, not the former, the prerogatives conferred or promised by Christ. This truly fundamental error will be expressly refuted in its own place in the whole course of this treatment. Footnote 1. Litton, who belongs to the sect commonly called “The Evangelical School,” proposes the idea of the Church thus (in Murray): “The one true Church, that holy Catholic Church of which the [Apostles’] Creed speaks, is not a mixed body, embracing within itself both evil and good. It is the assembly of those who, wherever they may be, are joined by living union with Christ through faith and participate in the sanctifying influences of His Spirit. Properly speaking, besides those already on earth, it comprehends all who are to be saved. In a stricter signification, the name [Church] designates the body of those truly believing, existing in the world at any given time. “The true Church is invisible insofar as she is not yet manifested as a body; or, in other words, there is no society or visible body on earth of which it can be predicated that it is the mystical body of Christ. Hence it plainly follows that the Head of this body is not visible. “Particular Churches, otherwise separated, are one on account of their common relation to the one true Church, or mystical body of Christ, and their conjunction with her. The external notes of this conjunction, and therefore of a true visible Church, are the pure preaching of the word, in fundamentals at least, and the administration of the sacraments ‘with regard to those things which are necessarily required according to Christ’s institution.’ These are the two necessary notes of a true Church; to which the use of discipline can be added, although less necessary. “Although, according to the concept of Church, visible ‘congregations of saints,’ that is, of those truly sanctified, are visible and are to be held as such if they are to be called Churches, nevertheless they are never truly such. In fact they are always mixed assemblies, embracing hypocrites and Christians who are such only in name, as well as those truly believing; among whom perfect separation, in the present life, is impossible and is reserved to the second coming of Christ. Hence the collection of visible Christian Churches throughout the world is not accurately the same as the true Church, which, as has been said, consists only of the living members of Christ. “‘Succession of Bishops,’ ‘Antiquity,’ ‘Amplitude,’ ‘Name of Catholic,’ and notes of this sort do not by themselves prove that some society is a true Church of Christ. “To the one true Church, the body of Christ, properly belong the promises of perpetuity, of the perpetual presence of Christ, and of preservation from fundamental error. The same can be said of the attributes of the Church, Unity, Sanctity, etc. These, in their full and proper signification, could not be predicated except of that [mystical] body of Christ which is not yet fully manifested.”