422. We seem to embrace two questions together, as is clear from the title of the article; yet they are joined together by so intimate a bond that not only is each satisfied by the same moments of reasons, but one is almost confused with the other. This will become evident from their very exposition.
423. Among those who deny that the Church was instituted by Christ, the mythical rationalists hold the first place. For them Christ is nothing but a mere man, although pious and wise, who therefore is rightly held as a type of the perfection toward which human nature ought to strive. This perfection is exhibited in the doctrine which Christ announced; nor is the Church referred to Christ as author except through the doctrine which she professes and which is from Christ. How therefore could the followers of Christ have grown together into one assembly and constituted the Church? Always pursuing the doctrine of Christ, accustomed to philosophical speculations, and increased in number, with an easy step they passed from the ideal Christ, or from His doctrine, to asserting a society instituted by Him. The things which had been foretold to Abraham and Jacob concerning the temporal glory of the Jewish nation they transferred to the Church, just as from the Synagogue they accepted ideas concerning rites, government, and priesthood. But when the number and authority of this new Church had grown sufficiently, Christians rose up against the Synagogue itself and occupied its place. Therefore in this hypothesis, only as the second century was waning could the Church of Christ exist and flourish; just as the writing of the Gospels itself is referred to this time (Strauss, The Life of Jesus, translated by F. Littre, Paris, 1839, tome 1, part 1, page 85).
424. From principles a little different the Socinians came to the same conclusion (Library of the Polish Brethren, tome 1). Following the Waldenses of the twelfth century, and rejecting the authority of the Apostles and of their successors in the Church, they defined the Church as the assembly of men united to God through faith. From this it was easy to infer that the Church was not instituted by Christ except insofar as Christ proposed the doctrine to be held, and by His redemption merited faith and justification for all. Protestants gladly received this doctrine. For they, having established the principle that the Church is the assembly of the faithful immediately adhering to God through faith, and therefore invisible, deny that Christ instituted some separate assembly distinct from the synagogue. In reality, they say, Christ attended the synagogues and there, as elsewhere, announced His doctrine; those who followed Him also came together there. After Christ, the Apostles by no means separated themselves from the assemblies of the Jews, but frequented the synagogue and temple, and there preached the doctrine of Christ; until, once persecution was stirred up by the synagogue, and the number of converts from the Gentiles, who rejected the yoke of the Mosaic law, had increased, it was necessary that the assembly of the faithful be separated from the Jews. Only then, they say, did the Apostles, having received the norm not from Christ, but from the synagogue, institute those things which recalled the assembly of the faithful to a true and distinct society (Boehmer, Ancient Ecclesiastical Law, dissertation 8, chapter 2; Grotius, On the Power of the Supreme Authorities, chapter 11). Hence it is that Salvador asserted that Christ brought nothing new to the world and instituted nothing properly which He did not take from the Hebrew nation.
425. From this concise indication of errors everyone sees that three things must be asserted here in order to vindicate the true doctrine adequately: 1) Christ Himself immediately instituted the Church; 2) He instituted her in the form of a true society; 3) and indeed of a society distinct from the synagogue. A few things must be noted concerning each before we establish the thesis.
426. With regard to the first, in order that Christ be called the founder of the Church, it is necessary that He placed her foundations, prescribed laws, proposed the end and the means for attaining it, and joined the diverse members together by some bond, so that by His authority He gave strength and power to her. “He institutes something,” says St. Thomas (3 p., question 64, article 2), “who gives strength and power to it, as is clear concerning institutions of laws.” But Christ is called the immediate author of the Church if by Himself, and not by the mediation of other persons, He as it were applied His hand to the institution of the Church; just as by this reasoning He Himself is said immediately to have chosen the twelve Apostles, Himself immediately to have been baptized by John, etc. But it should be noted that for this it is required only that He Himself suitably constitute the essential principles, fittingly dispose them mutually, and imprint force and efficacy upon the Church so constituted, so that by the development of the essential principles she may acquire due amplitude and faculty. But it is not necessary that such development happen immediately from the beginning. For, according to the ordinary course of things, this cannot be instantaneous; nor, if it were required, could any human society now be said to be legitimately instituted, or could anyone be thought a founder in the true sense of the name. Therefore one must reason similarly concerning Christ and the Church. For Christ Himself formed from the beginning all things which pertained to the perfect and essential constitution of the Church, so that the Church from the beginning had this whole and absolute constitution; but these same things, with the original constitution neither increased nor changed, had to be developed in the course of time.
427. But if someone asks when Christ founded the Church, we can answer by distinguishing three times. The first is before the death of Christ, in which the Church was already, as it were, conceived, since the principal sacraments, namely baptism and Eucharist, sacrifice likewise and priesthood, had already been instituted; likewise the Apostles had been chosen, and very many laws promulgated. Yet she had not yet been born, because the sacraments generally were not yet to be administered, nor the sacrifice celebrated, nor had the Apostles obtained the authority of ruling the people, and therefore the Synagogue still flourished. The second is in the death of Christ: then the Synagogue expired with Him, and as a sign of this matter, according to the Fathers, the veil of the temple was torn into two parts. Yet she was not deadly according to the opinion of St. Augustine against Jerome, but plainly dead; but the Church was then properly brought into the light, or was truly founded. The third is on the day of Pentecost, on which the Church, already indeed born, but not yet promulgated nor in some way made of public right, obtained this on that day, and became legal and obligatory. By this observation the cavils of M. A. de Dominis (On the Christian Commonwealth, book 1, chapter 1, n. 23) are refuted, by which he contends to establish that “the Church of Christ was in reality built by the Apostles after the ascension of Christ.”
428. With regard to the second, it must be noted that several of the arguments by which it is shown that Christ the Lord immediately instituted the Church at the same time prove that He instituted her as a society. Therefore, lest we be forced to repeat the same things, we embrace these two things together. Moreover, as is clear from what was just said, what the adversaries chiefly deny is that Christ founded a society; and this plainly coheres with the principle of the Innovators concerning an invisible Church. For an invisible society among men cannot exist. Hence Boehmer (Protestant Ecclesiastical Law, preliminary dissertation) teaches that the external or visible Church is of ecclesiastical institution, insofar as it draws its origin not from Christ, but from the Apostles; but that the true Church, founded by Christ, grows together from all those who are joined to Christ by faith and spirit. From this invisible union of hearts, he says, visible union and congregation easily arises.
429. But for understanding the matter it is useful briefly to recall here the idea of society. Society is “the conjunction of several persons conspiring by their acts toward some common end,” or “a multitude of men, for the matter concerns society among men, coming together in such a way that by joined forces they employ means to attain a certain and common end.”
430. From this definition, for our matter, it is permitted to infer: 1) a society can grow together only from beings endowed with reason or intelligence. For these alone apprehend an end, especially insofar as it is common, and direct their actions toward obtaining it together with others with whom they are associated; these things indeed cannot have place in living beings destitute of reason. For although these sometimes come together into one, and therefore are held by some material joining, they by no means perceive a common good of which the members are made participants. 2) The elements of any society are four: a multitude of men; their moral conjunction; the end toward which they conspire; the means for attaining the end. Of these, the multitude of men exhibits as it were the matter of the society, but the others the form, yet in such a way that the End is the principal element, by reason of which both the means and the conjunction of the associates are desired. 3) Especially note the necessity of moral conjunction. For if men exist together somewhere, and individuals perhaps procure the same good, nevertheless they by no means constitute a society. For this it is required that they intend that good insofar as it is common, and that they work for it, insofar as it ought to redound to all, by mutual conspiring. Compare Taparelli (Essay, etc., nn. 301 ff., edition 1855, which we always use). 4) Hence it follows that authority is necessary for constituting a society. For the members of a society, who grow together toward the same end to be procured through many means, are endowed with intellect and will. Hence each for his own part could choose diverse means for attaining the end. But once this diversity of means and dispositions is posited, the social conspiring in which the essence of society resides could easily fail. Therefore some intelligent principle is necessary to society, prescribing the same mode of operation to the intelligences of those conspiring, and able to bind their wills to observing it. But that principle possessing the power of binding free wills is called authority. Therefore authority is required by the very essence of society. Compare Taparelli (work cited, nn. 421 ff.).
431. With regard to the third, it is common doctrine among the Fathers and Doctors that the Church of Christ in some way existed from the very beginning of the world. St. Augustine (Sermon 4, otherwise 44, On Jacob and Isaac) writes: “Take the Church not in those saints alone who began to be after the coming and birth of the Lord; but as many as were saints pertain to that same Church.” And St. Thomas (3 p., question 8, article 3) teaches: “This is the difference between the natural body of man and the mystical body of the Church, that the members of the natural body are all together; but the members of the mystical body are not all together, neither as to the being of nature, because the body of the Church is constituted from men who existed from the beginning of the world until its end,” etc.
432. This indeed must be understood with regard to the generic essence of the Church, as they say. For just as the Church of God, or religious society, is the assembly of men rightly worshiping the true God, so a society existing because of the merits of Christ, and having faith in Christ, in some true sense is called the Christian Church. Hence the Church of Christ is said to be the same as that which existed before Christ, insofar as she has the same end, namely interior sanctity in this life and eternal life in the future life; she has the same internal principle, namely faith in Christ and grace through Christ; and therefore she has the same invisible head, namely Christ Himself. Hence St. Augustine (letter 190, otherwise 157, to Optatus, chapter 2, n. 8) says: “Certainly what is written, that there is no other name under heaven in which we must be saved, has power for saving the human race from that time from which the human race was corrupted in Adam. ‘For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.’ For just as in the kingdom of death no one is without Adam, so in the kingdom of life no one is without Christ.” And (letter 102, otherwise 49, n. 12) he says: “Just as we believe in Him [Christ] both remaining with the Father and having now come in the flesh, so the ancients believed in Him both remaining with the Father and going to come in the flesh. Nor because, according to the variety of times, what was then foretold as future is now announced as done, for this reason is the faith itself varied, or salvation diverse.” Compare Bergier (article “Revelation”), where you will find several testimonies of the Fathers.
433. Hence the opinion of certain Theologians, Tournely, Legrand, etc., does not commend itself to us, who think that the Church begins from Abel, and not from Adam, to whom (Genesis 3.15) the first promise was made concerning the reparation of man through Christ. But we subscribe to Suarez (On Faith, disputation 9, section 2, n. 3), who says: “The Church began to be produced with Adam; and, once Eve had been formed, it could properly be said that the Church existed. And to that extent it seems certain that the Church was in each of them, at least after the fall, before the generation of Cain and Abel. This is now the common opinion.” Then he reports many Theologians who are in the same opinion.
434. Nor is it an obstacle: 1) that Abel is read as the first of all to have offered sacrifices, as they say. For from this it by no means follows that he was truly the first to exhibit that service to God. Scripture especially commends the sacrifices of Abel because they were the occasion of his bloody death; but truly Cain also is said in the Sacred Letters to have been accustomed to offer sacrifices to God; and therefore that custom was not uniquely proper to Abel, but was antecedently proposed to all in common. But who could and ought to have proposed it except Adam, the parent and teacher of all, who had received the first revelation of the repairer and of salvation? Nor are certain sayings of the Fathers obstacles, 2) by which they seem to assert that the Church has her beginning from Abel, just as the evil city from Cain. For in the places which are objected, the Fathers without doubt by those formulas of speaking by no means intend to exclude the first parents, since often, as we saw, they refer them to the Church; nor do they there turn upon that question, namely what the beginning of the Church is. Having pressed into silence those beginnings of the Church which were more obscure, they mention as if first of all him who is both more often praised in the Scriptures and more clearly expressed Christ by his innocence and bloody death.
435. Yet the more the fullness of time approached, the more explicit also the primitive Church was made. Hence (Genesis 17) circumcision, which had not existed before, was commanded to Abraham and to his posterity. But this, according to the Apostle (Romans 4), had among other things this end and effect: that it would designate the people of God adhering to Him by faith and charity; that it would join more closely with one another those who pertained to that people; finally that it would be an indelible memory impressed in the flesh, and a public and solemn protestation, of their faith and messianic expectation.
436. But through Moses the Church was preformed still more perfectly. For faith, through more frequent and more open prophecies concerning Christ, was continually confirmed and increased. Sacraments, sacrifices, expiations, anointings, initiations were instituted, by which both that faith itself would be more abundantly nourished and men would be more efficaciously contained in the profession of the same. Likewise the Aaronic priesthood was inaugurated (Exodus 28.1 ff.), consisting of the high priest, ordinary priests, and Levites. By this institution surely a hierarchy in the true sense of the name was raised up, to which was attributed the administration of worship, the interpretation of laws, and the custody of sacred dogmas.
437. But although these things are true, nevertheless if we consider the state and form of the Church after Christ, she must certainly be said to have been founded by Christ; and therefore He rightly said: “I will build My Church.” For, to recall the principal points: 1) with regard to faith itself, not only was it previously in Christ who was to come, but now in Christ who has already come; but with the passage of time, until the completion of Christian revelation, it both became more explicit and received true increase, as we set forth in the treatise On the Infused Virtues (nn. 497 ff.). 2) With regard to the force and efficacy of sanctifying, the old law conferred only legal justice. But if among the Jews there were saints with interior and true sanctity, this was by no means conferred upon them by the force of the law, but by the force of the covenant entered into with Christ, mediator and head of men. Hence certain persons among the nations also obtained the same sanctity, although the Mosaic law did not pertain to them. Therefore the sacraments of the old law were “weak and needy elements,” as the Apostle speaks (Galatians 4), which indeed were a sign and pledge of grace to be obtained through the merits of Christ, but did not confer it. But the Church of Christ has the power of sanctifying, or of bestowing true and internal sanctity; and for this she received from her divine author sacraments which truly are the cause of grace and produce it from the work worked. 3) With regard to government, considered in its origin, form, and power, that which flourishes in the Church of Christ is altogether different from that which obtained in the old Synagogue. For the immediate author of the Synagogue was Moses, the servant of God (Hebrews 3.5); but Christ the Lord Himself immediately instituted the apostolic government. Therefore the Apostles, founding Churches, by no means borrowed the norm of government from the Synagogue, but followed the norm which they had received from Christ. Hence they set a Bishop over each Church, with the power of jurisdiction conferred upon him, to whom all would be subject; and they recalled all particular Churches to the unity of rule, by subjecting them to one Supreme Head, according to the institution of Christ, so that from all the particular Churches one kingdom of Christ would be constituted on earth. 4) With regard to privileges and prerogatives, there is a great discrepancy between the old Church and the Church instituted by Christ. For the former was type and shadow, the latter the antitype, as the Apostle teaches (Hebrews 10); hence the former, according to the oracles of the Prophets, was to perish, but the latter is to endure even to the consummation of the age. The Synagogue was instituted for the Jewish people alone, who therefore alone were subject to its rulers; the Church was instituted for all nations, so that outside it there is no salvation. Hence, for the office of teaching all nations throughout the whole world until the consummation of the age, it has been furnished with the charism of infallibility, by which it can never fail; and thus the Christian Church will always be the pillar and ground of truth.
438. These points are indeed sufficient for the present matter, in order to indicate the distinction between the Church before and after Christ; for from them it is sufficiently understood what is properly meant by saying that Christ is the author of the Church, according to the form and state which it now has. Section II The Proposed Question Is Resolved Proposition XVIII. Although in some true sense the Christian Church has existed from the beginning of the world: 1. nevertheless, with regard to its present state and form, it must be said to have had Christ as its immediate Author. 2. But since Christ, who is God, founded and instituted it in the form of a true society, it plainly follows that the Church, considered with respect to its immediate origin, is a divine society.
439. The first part is proved. An ancient, perpetual, universal testimony, which Christian society, or the Church, gives concerning its origin and concerning its Author, and which is also strengthened by the agreement of outsiders, must certainly be admitted. But Christian society, or the Church, constantly and universally asserts, and has asserted, that it had Christ as its immediate Author; and its testimony is also strengthened by the agreement of outsiders. Therefore. The major is proved. 1. If, once such testimony is granted, the institution of the Church by Christ could not be inferred, then the foundation and origin of no society could be established by a similar method. But all agree that the institution and origin of other societies are legitimately supported by that method, and they perpetually make use of it. 2. In reality, no fuller and more constant testimony is given concerning any human fact. Wherefore, if nevertheless this testimony could be rejected, then no testimony, no history, could appear unavoidable; and thus historical faith would plainly collapse, and we would fall altogether into foul skepticism. The minor is proved. 1. With regard to the present time: a. there presents itself, of its own accord, a certain large existing society spread throughout the whole world, which calls itself Christian and founded by Christ as author, and which is honored with the name of the Catholic Church. In it, individual faithful obey their own bishops; these, however, together with their flocks, obey the supreme high priest, that is, the Roman Pontiff, by whom they are also appointed in their own office, and whom they revere as the center, so to speak, of their whole communion. b. There exist other sects, which disagree both mutually among themselves and from the Catholic society in very many matters; nevertheless, all agree with one another in this, namely, that Christ instituted some Church. This is sacred and unavoidable for all of them; indeed, by the very fact that they dispute among themselves as to where the true Church of Christ is found, they most openly testify that they hold as certain the institution of his Church originally accomplished by Christ. 2. If from the present time we rise to preceding centuries, yet nearer to us, the matter is most manifest. For all histories speak, as do churches, altars, icons, successions of bishops and of Roman Pontiffs; the very character and form of civil laws and of kingdoms, insofar as in these a manifest relation is perceived to some existing Christian society; the sacred expeditions; and six hundred things of this kind. 3. Thus we can rise further to a more ancient age, say to the first three centuries after Christ. And: a. the writings of the apologists of the Christian religion pertain to this, in which Christian society is continually attested; and it is designated as the true Church of Christ, and distinguished from the sects of heretics. Several writers of these works belong partly to the third century from Christ, partly to the second. But from the very age of the Apostles there were not lacking those who said that not the assembly of others dissenting from them, but their own assembly, as their own Church, had been founded by Christ. On the other hand, those who were reckoned by the name of Catholics did not deny that Christ founded the Church; rather, they reproved them because they represented their own body as the true Church of Christ. Therefore there was agreement on both sides concerning the origin and institution of the Church; for the heretics, by attacking the body of Catholics, show forth its existence down to that age; and likewise the Catholics, by repelling the efforts of their adversaries and affirming that the Church of Christ subsists among themselves, evidently demonstrate the existence of their own body. b. The testimony of the sects has greater force if we observe that they had been torn away from the predominant Church; and thus in some way they were compelled to justify their defection from it. They could indeed easily have turned away from themselves the mark of rebellion by saying that Christ announced his Gospel to men, but did not undertake the foundation of any Church. Yet this, though it was the most ready expedient, they never attempted; rather, they preferred to maintain that the true Church existed among themselves. Plainly, the fact of the Church instituted by Christ was so evident that it could be called into doubt by no one. c. There could be added the writings, whether historical or of any other kind, of profane writers, even the most ancient, such as Celsus, Porphyry, Pliny, Ammianus Marcellinus, Suetonius, Josephus Flavius, and others. All these writers would be inexplicable in many respects unless the existence of the Christian Church were presupposed. Therefore, as is clear, there could be brought forward here the things which we handed down in the preceding disputation concerning the authenticity of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. But what we have indicated thus far is sufficient; for this part of the thesis will be confirmed from what is soon to be said concerning the other part. Meanwhile, compare Cercia, On the Church of Christ, lectures 3-4.
440. The second part is proved. We proved above, in numbers 260 and following, the historical authority of the Gospels; from them, therefore, considered in this way, we rightly draw arguments. These arguments, moreover, obtain greater force against Protestants, who together with us acknowledge the divine authority of the Gospels. Hence it is proved that Christ instituted the Church in the form of a true society. I. From the names which are attributed to the Church in the Scriptures. For: 1. The Church founded by Christ is very often called a Kingdom in the Scriptures. But a kingdom presents the idea of a society. Therefore. The major is proved: a. from the Old Testament. For it is read in Isaiah 9.6 and following: “A little child… is born to us, and a son is given to us…” “His dominion shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace; he shall sit upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, that he may establish it and strengthen it in judgment and justice, from now and even forever.” And in Jeremiah 23.5: “Behold the days come, says the Lord, and I will raise up to David a just branch, and a king shall reign, and he shall be wise, and shall execute judgment and justice in the land; in those days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell securely; and this is the name by which they shall call him: The Lord our just one.” And in Daniel 2.44: “The God of heaven shall raise up a kingdom which shall not be destroyed forever, and its kingdom shall not be delivered to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it itself shall stand forever.” b. From the New Testament. For in Matthew 25.1 it is said: “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins”; and in Matthew 21.43: “The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth its fruits”; and in Colossians 1.13: “Who [God the Father] has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” Hence, from these and many other similar testimonies, it is evident that Christ is called king, and a true king, to whom it is attributed that he sits upon a throne, exercises justice, and possesses dominion. But the question is of Christ’s kingdom on earth, or among mortal men: this Jeremiah both expressly affirms, and it is clear from the duties to be discharged by a king. The question is also of a spiritual and supernatural kingdom, whereby worship is offered to God, justice and peace reign, and men are saved through Christ. Finally, the question is not of that dominion which belongs to God over all creatures; but, with that presupposed, the discourse concerns the dominion of Christ, whose foundation is redemption. Now either there is no such kingdom of Christ on earth, contrary to the plain oracles of the Scriptures; or that kingdom is the Church, which Christ founded, whose Head he himself is, and in which all obey him. 2. The Church is called a City; but a city presents the idea of a united and ordered multitude. Therefore. In reality it is said in Psalm 86: “Its foundations are in the holy mountains; the Lord loves the gates of Zion above all the tabernacles of Jacob. Glorious things are said of you, city of God. I will be mindful of Rahab and Babylon, knowing me. Behold, foreigners, and Tyre, and the people of the Ethiopians, these were there. Shall Zion not say: This man and that man was born in her; and the Most High himself founded her?” And in Isaiah 60: “For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you shall perish… and the sons of those who humbled you shall come to you bowed down, and all who slandered you shall adore the footsteps of your feet, and they shall call you the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel.” And in Matthew 5.14: “A city set upon a mountain cannot be hidden.” 3. The Church is called the House of God. Thus in 1 Timothy 3.15: “That you may know how you ought to behave in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God.” And in Hebrews 3.6: “But Christ as a son in his own house, which house we are”; and in Hebrews 10.21: “A great priest [namely Christ] over the house of God.” And in 1 Peter 4.17: “The time has come that judgment should begin from the house of God.” But a house, if you consider the material building itself, presents the union of several things, since it is joined together from many stones; but if you consider the inhabitants, it is one family composed of many members under the rule of one. Therefore. 4. The Church is called a Sheepfold: thus in John 10.16: “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.” It is called a Flock, to which appointed shepherds must attend; thus in Acts 20.28: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God.” But these expressions put forward a multitude reduced to unity, and indeed by authority; and thus they signify a society. 5. The Church is called a Body, or the Body of Christ, as above in numbers 412-419 and following. Now, as Cornelius a Lapide beautifully observes on Romans 12.4: “As in a body there are four things. First, the unity of the body. Second, the diversity of the members. Third, the diversity of offices in the several members. Fourth, the aptitude and endowment of each member for carrying out its office: so entirely and in every respect is the matter found in the Church and in its several members, namely the Christian faithful.” (1)
441. II. Christ instituted the Church in the form of a true society if, in its institution, he placed those elements which constitute the essence of society. (1) Robinson, as cited by Murray, notes that the primary meaning of body gives rise to the idea of some whole organically composed of diverse parts and members, “as an organized whole made up of parts and members.” Hence such expressions as “legislative body,” “political body,” “body of soldiers,” and “the whole body of the republic.” From this also is derived the English word “corporation”; Webster says: “Corporation, a body politic or corporate formed and authorized by law to act as a single individual.” But in the institution of the Church made by Christ all such elements are found. Therefore. The minor is proved. 1. That a multitude and a certain union are found is most evident. For this, first of all, is what the very name Church says. Then Christ sent the Apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations and to confer baptism, by which they would be enrolled in the Church (Mark 16). Moreover, he willed that the faithful should be joined mutually among themselves and with the pastors of the Church also by participation in the other Sacraments; that they should obey them as they would obey himself; and he solemnly begged the Father that they should be one with them and with one another (John 15.12; 17.20 ff.). 2. He constituted the principle of this unity in the multitude, namely authority. For from the beginning of his preaching he chose the twelve Apostles (Matthew 10.1); he set Peter over the rest of the Apostles and over all who would believe in Christ (Matthew 16.18); to him and to the others, according to their degree, he subjected the remaining common body of the faithful (ibid. and Luke 10.16); he granted to them the power of binding and loosing; from them also he constituted the tribunal of the Church, to which all would have to be subject, as many as wished to persevere in the number of the faithful (Matthew 18.17); and he added other disciples also, who were to be helpers to the Apostles in the office of gathering the new Church (Luke 10.1). 3. He established the proper end of the Church. For in Ephesians 4 it is read: “He who descended is the same also who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some indeed as apostles, and some as prophets, and others as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers, for the consummation of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ.” These matters will become clearer in the following article.
442. III. It is pleasing to confirm all these things from one special testimony. It is said in Matthew 16: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church… and to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose,” etc. By these words whatever pertains to the notion of a society is expressed. This testimony, which we shall use more often, we shall examine by an accurate analysis in the last disputation, as in its principal place; but now, presupposing the rest, we note that in it there is expressed: 1. a multitude or a definite people; for it is said, “I will build my Church.” But Church means a congregation, or a gathered people. 2. A moral union in that multitude is expressed; for it is said, “I will build my Church”: that is, I will aptly join diverse men, as so many stones, so that they become one spiritual building. Hence also in 1 Peter 2.5 it is said to the faithful: “Be you also, as living stones, built up, a spiritual house”; and likewise the faithful in 1 Corinthians 3.9 are called “God’s building.” 3. Authority is expressed, that is, the supreme visible Head of the Church; for it is said: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”: that is, you, who by the name received signify solidity, will confer that solidity upon the Church. The following words confirm this: “to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; “whatever you shall bind,” etc. Although express mention of the other rulers by no means occurs here, it is nevertheless found in other places; indeed, they are in some way indicated here. For just as every power is comprehended in the supreme power, so in the Supreme Monarch inferior magistrates are contained. 4. The proper end of this new society is expressed; for it is called “the kingdom of heaven.” In reality this appellation signifies holiness and eternal salvation to be obtained through this society; and for this reason this society can be called heavenly, or the kingdom of heaven, namely by reason of its end and means. Otherwise, in other respects, it is earthly, that is, composed of men living on earth. 5. Further, it is also expressed that the society to be founded by Christ is different from the Synagogue; for it is said “I will build” (the question is not of a building already existing, but of a future one), “my Church” (namely one set in contrast to the Synagogue, which alone the Apostles knew, and of which they could have understood Christ to be speaking).
443. Scholion. The things which we have disputed thus far show sufficiently and more than sufficiently that Christ the Lord founded his Church, wholly different from the Synagogue. Yet lest we seem altogether to neglect the objections of the adversaries, and especially of Salvador, as found in the cited work, books 2 and 3, and especially volume 1, page 154, Paris, 1838, it is better to examine them briefly.
444. They say first that Christ the Lord kept the Mosaic rites sacredly; that he by no means separated himself from the Synagogue; that he professed in Matthew 15.24 that he had not been sent except to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel. But it is answered: 1. Christ the Lord promised that he would build his Church; but he did not build it until he entrusted the sheep to Peter to be fed. 2. He observed the Mosaic rites according to a certain economy of prudence and charity, but not so as to exclude the institution of a Church distinct from the Synagogue. That economy consisted in this: that first of all he would prove his divine mission by irrefutable arguments; from persuasion concerning this mission, as by necessity, the departure from the Synagogue would follow. For if Christ had wished from the beginning first to abolish the rites to which the Jews clung fiercely, there was danger that their mind would immediately be turned away from Christ’s preaching and faith. But that Christ the Lord did not exclude the foundation of his Church is sufficiently clear from the demonstration of the thesis. Yet he also disclosed more often what he himself thought concerning the Mosaic rites; for in Luke 21.5 ff. he foretold the overthrow of the city and temple that would soon happen; in Luke 22.20 he announced that a new testament was being brought in by himself; in Matthew 16 he declared that a new Church was to be founded by himself, which, of course, would succeed the Synagogue, its figure; and he also sufficiently hinted at the abolition of the Mosaic rites when he said in John 4.21: “the hour comes when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall you adore the Father,” etc. 3. It is certain that from the beginning the faithful, even those from the Jews, held assemblies separate from the Jews themselves. Hence, omitting other things, it is read in Acts 5.12 ff.: “By the hands of the Apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. But of the rest no one dared to join himself to them.” 4. Christ indeed professed that he was sent to save the sheep of the house of Israel, but not exclusively. For he himself declared in John 3.17 that he had been sent “that the world may be saved through him”; and he sent his Apostles into the whole world, to teach all nations, to preach the Gospel to every creature. It was only necessary to begin from the house of Israel.
445. They say second that the Apostles themselves observed the Mosaic rites, indeed that Peter favored circumcision; that he timidly approached the task of teaching the nations, as is read in Acts 10; whence he was reproved by the remaining disciples in Acts 11. Because of the persecutions, they say, stirred up by the Synagogue, Christ’s faithful then began to be separated; and finally Paul’s phase, as they say, prevailed, by which he introduced a new form, namely that of a universal Church accommodated to all nations. But it is answered: 1. Three stages, as it were, in the Mosaic ceremonies must be recalled. For until the preaching of the Messiah they existed as necessary for the Jews; then it was still permitted to use them, though their obligation did not press; finally, God himself signified in Acts 10 that the time had now come for abolishing them. Then the Mosaic rites became unlawful and harmful. 2. It is false that Peter favored circumcision, since in Acts 15.10 he says: “Now therefore why do you tempt God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” At most it could be said that Peter, if indeed he is the same one of whom Galatians 2 speaks, withdrew from table fellowship with the Gentiles when those who were of the circumcision arrived, out of fear; but this is by no means to be attributed to a patronage of circumcision. 3. Peter did indeed approach timidly the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles; but not because he doubted whether it was to be announced to them, but because he was uncertain about the time at which the preaching to the Gentiles was to begin. Surely Peter had heard from Christ that the Gospel was to be preached in the whole world, to all nations, to every creature; he had heard that saying in Matthew 10.18: “you shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles”; whence he himself said in Acts 2.39 that the promise belongs “to all who are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call”; and in Acts 10.43 he “announced remission of sins to all who believe in Christ.” 4. Peter is said to have been reproved not by the Apostles, but by those who were of the circumcision, and who, though converted to Christ, nevertheless clung stubbornly to the law of circumcision (Acts 11.2). Hence it is turned into a charge against him not that he had approached Gentiles, but that he had approached the uncircumcised (v. 3). But those Judaizing Christians themselves quickly laid aside their error; for, instructed by Peter, they answered in v. 18: “Therefore God has given also to the Gentiles repentance unto life.” 5. It is so far from being the case that Christians separated themselves on the occasion of the persecution stirred up by the Synagogue, that rather their separation was the cause of the persecution. This is indeed clear from that whole primitive history. 6. The things added concerning the new phase of the universal Church introduced by Paul are wholly false; for it is sufficiently established from what has been said that Christ himself instituted the universal Church. But in the Council of Jerusalem, rather the opinion of Peter prevailed, if it is permitted to speak thus. For when the Jews wished the nations converted to Christ to be circumcised, and Paul and Barnabas had referred the matter to the Apostles, “Peter rising up,” Acts 15.7 and following, “said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. And God, who knows hearts, bore witness, giving them the Holy Spirit as also to us. And he made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you tempt God, putting a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe that we shall be saved, in like manner as they.” Although this decree was directly issued for Gentiles, nevertheless it is clear that it holds for all, both because the discussion is generally about disciples, and because the Mosaic rites are treated as a matter already past (“we have been able to bear”), and finally because a general reason is given: “we believe that we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.”