446. Zacharias wrongly judged, in his annotations to chapter 8 of Cano’s De Locis Theologicis (also extant in Migne, volume 5, column 942), that the question concerning the visibility of the Church is a question of name and not of reality. Indeed, as will immediately be clear, this question can be regarded as the head of all the controversies between us and the Innovators; and this is commonly admitted not only by Catholic theologians, but also by Protestants. (1) (1) Hence we read in The British and Foreign Evangelical Review, June 1855, no. 13, page 295: “Everything depends upon the answer to the question, What is the Church? If it is an external society of professors of the true religion, then it is visible as an earthly kingdom; if that society is destroyed, the Church is destroyed; and everything that is true of the Church is true of that society. Then, in short, Romanism must be admitted as a logical necessity.”
447. Therefore it is certain, first of all, that several of the ancient heretics logically arrived at the error concerning an invisible Church; for once the principle had been established that the Church is “the assembly of the just,” or “the assembly of the perfect,” or “the assembly of the predestined,” as in number 404, since all these are not seen, it was consequent to say that the Church is invisible.
448. The same error was certainly taught by several among the Protestants, and especially by their leaders. Luther, in his book On the Abrogation of the Private Mass, part 1, says: “Who will show us the Church, since it is hidden in the spirit and is only believed, as it is said: I believe the holy Church?” Calvin, moreover, in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 1, number 7, says: “Sacred Scripture speaks of the Church in two ways; for sometimes, when it names the Church, it understands that which truly exists before God.” And below: “It is necessary for us to believe the Church invisible to us, visible only to the eyes of God.” And in number 3: “Moreover, in order to embrace the unity of the Church in that way, there is no need to see the Church itself with the eyes, or to touch it with the hands.” Bossuet reports several similar confessions concerning the invisible Church in his History of the Variations, book 15, numbers 16 and following; and so do the Walemburch brothers, book 1, On the Unity of the Church, chapter 5, and tract 3, On the Church.
449. The true origin of this error among the Innovators is this: when Catholics asked them where the Church of the Reformed had been before Luther’s and Calvin’s separation from the Roman Church, and when they could not in any way extricate themselves from this question, which was very troublesome to them, they fell, by a certain necessity, into the profession of an invisible Church. Palmer himself acknowledges this origin of the error. (1)
450. But since the doctrine concerning an invisible Church, considered both according to the nature of the thing and according to Christ’s positive institution, as it is read in the Gospels, (1) Thus he writes, part 1, chapter 3, volume 1, page 26: “In fact, the Reformed seem generally to have taught the doctrine of the visibility of the church, until some of them deemed it necessary, in consequence of their controversy with the Romanists [Catholics], who asked them where their Church existed before Luther, to maintain that the Church might sometimes be invisible.” Jurieu frankly admits the same, as cited by Bossuet in Variations, book 15, number 17. seems much too plainly absurd, not a few among Protestants indignantly reject that error, and its assigned origin, as a calumny. Thus, among others, Field, book 1, chapter 10; Gerhard, chapter 7; and Chillingworth, chapter 5, number 13.
451. Hence others among the Protestants themselves, moderating the opinion concerning the absolute invisibility of the Church, taught that the Church is visible by divine ordinance; but they denied that it is essentially and indefectibly visible, in such a way that for no space of time, however slight, it could either in some degree, or even altogether, be obscured. Hence they contend that the very faith of the Church can be so corrupted, and that this corruption can be so diffused and propagated for a time, that the true Church does not appear. Calvin himself above all insinuated this error, who says in the preface to the Institutes: “They roar unless the Church is always pointed out with the finger… Rather let us permit God, since he alone knows who are his, sometimes even to remove the external knowledge of his Church from the sight of men.” The Gallican Calvinist confession, article 31, singing in harmony with these words, says: “Sometimes, as also in our times, when the state of the Church had been interrupted, it was necessary that certain men be raised up outside the ordinary order, who would restore the ruins of the collapsed Church.” The same must also be held by logical necessity by as many as have dared to say that the Roman Pontiff is Antichrist, or that the Catholic Church for some centuries before the heresy of Luther indulged in idolatry and superstition, since at that time their Church did not yet exist. (1)
452. But to still others it seems hard to concede that the Church has wholly failed even for a time; and therefore they establish the theory of a twofold Church, invisible and visible, attributing indefectibility and the other promises of Christ only to the first, (1) Hence the author of the book titled The Church in the Middle Ages, page 3, writes: “In full agreement, then, with the authorized teaching of the Church of England, in her Articles and Homilies; and with the views of all her leading divines from the Reformation downward… Jewel, Hooker, Hall, Ussher, Downame, Mede, Chandler, Halifax, Newton, More, Hurd, Lowth, Van Mildert, Davison, etc.,… we regard the history of the Middle Ages as the history of the Papal Apostacy; and in seeking for the Church of Christ in those ages, we look to find it in conformity with the predictions of Daniel and St. John, ‘warred with,’ ‘prevailed against,’ ‘worn out,’ ‘overcome;’ but still always visibly existing; to suffer these things for an allotted period, and in the end to revive and triumph.” which they therefore call the Church of the promises. Luther himself taught this error, as we said in number 405; and not a few more recent writers adhere to it, among whom is Litton, whose words we reported in number 406, note. Suarez also reports the same in Defense, book 1, chapter 7, number 1, saying: “With this distinction [of a twofold Church, visible and invisible] presupposed, they [many of the ancient Protestants] answer that the invisible Church is the true and Catholic Church of Christ, to which it was promised that it would never fail, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But the other Church, apparent and visible, although it perseveres in this external appearance, they say can fail in the truth of faith, and thereafter in the subsistence of the true Church, and has already failed in the Roman Church, whose form and appearance they depict in this way.” Therefore Gerhard, in On the Church, chapter 7, number 70, undeservedly accuses Bellarmine of perverse interpretation because he attributes to Protestants the doctrine of a twofold Church.
453. Finally, to others all these things seem too absurd, and therefore they admit that the Church is visible, “yet in such a way,” Bellarmine notes in book 3, chapter 11, concerning ancient heretics, and the same fits the more recent ones, “that it would be visible in name, but invisible in reality.” (1) We have brought these things forward so that it may become known how many divergent opinions concerning the visibility or invisibility of the Church prevail among Protestants; and this at last they themselves admit. (2) (1) Let Palmer be an example, who writes in part 1, chapter 3: “By the visibility of the Church is meant the manifest, public, known existence of congregations or Churches professing Christianity, and joining in external acts of Christian worship. The point which I am about to establish is, that there were always to exist such societies, according to the Divine appointment; and that Christianity was never to be reduced at any time to obscurity; or to be a secret profession, held by a few scattered individuals, living and uniting externally in the profession of a false religion.” (2) Thus Browne, Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, article 19, writes: “It is, however, certain that the Article confines itself to the consideration of the visible Church, and gives us no authoritative statement concerning the invisible Church. And indeed the Reformers themselves vary considerably in their statements on the subject, though the sad corruptions in the visible Church in their days led them naturally to apply some of the promises in Scripture to a secret body, and not to the universal Church.” Compare Murray, On the Church, disputation 5, section 4.
454. As regards us, lest we be forced to pursue each aberration individually, we shall try first of all to establish the true concept of the Church’s visibility, and then to strengthen it with firm arguments; from this all contrary errors will collapse, as if by their own weight. And, to begin from the first point, when the visibility of the Church is treated, the question is certainly not whether it is materially visible, as they say, that is, with respect to the members of which it is composed, the rites by which they are associated, the ministry by which they are governed, and so forth; for it is evident that all these things must be visible so long as the question concerns an assembly of men. What is brought into question, therefore, is whether the Church is visible also formally, namely as the true Church, so that the Church instituted by Christ, the Church which they call the Church of the promises, is certainly discerned from other assemblies which are not that true Church of Christ. Compare Suarez, On Faith, disputation 9, section 8, number 1.
455. But since the true Church of Christ consists of soul and body, as in numbers 410 and following, if only the body is seen and the soul in no way, the true Church of Christ, which certainly is not a dead body, is not properly seen. Likewise, certain properties belong to the true Church of Christ, as to any being; unless these properties are visible in some way, the Church cannot be said to be visible as the true Church of Christ. But from this a difficulty arises: in what way, they say, can interior faith, sanctifying grace, and the other gifts which constitute the soul of the Church, be seen? How can certain properties, for example unity and sanctity, be seen with respect to all their parts? To explain this difficulty, it must be noted that something can be visible either through itself, or through another thing, which they call accidentally, in which and through which it is manifested. Thus in man the body is visible through itself; but the rational soul informing it, although it is not visible through itself, is nevertheless manifested through external signs, for example through speech. Unless someone is visible as a rational animal, he is not visible formally, or as a man. Therefore the Church, with respect to its body, is visible through itself; with respect to its soul, it is visible through signs by which it manifests itself; with respect to its properties, it is visible partly through itself and partly through another. And therefore it is formally visible, or visible as the true Church of Christ. To be sure, internal faith, internal justice or sanctity, and so forth, which are like the soul of the body of the Church, do not appear and are not manifest through themselves; but neither does the soul of a man appear through itself. Nevertheless, just as the soul itself shines forth, as it were, through the body which it informs and vivifies, and through which it acts, so that a true man is seen; so the soul of the Church, informing, moving, and vivifying the body, is manifested through it, so that the true Church of Christ is visible. Compare Suarez, in the cited place, number 6. Therefore the visibility of the Church is “a certain manifestation of the true Church of Christ,” which determines this certain judgment: “this is the true Church of Christ.”
456. These things sufficiently make clear the concept of visibility which we vindicate for the Church. We need only add that this same visibility, in Catholic doctrine, pertains to the very essence of the Church, and therefore can at no time be absent from it. For just as, if the soul, or the body, or the union between soul and body were lacking, man would no longer exist, since all these pertain to his essence; so, if visibility were lacking, the Church itself would fail. Yet for this reason we do not here assert the perpetual indefectibility of the Church, which is to be proved below in its own place; rather, we say that the Church is visible for as long as it endures.
457. From what has been said, anyone easily sees that the Church is visible, or certainly knowable, as a truly divine fact. For the Church is formally visible, or visible as the true Church of Christ; but the true Church of Christ is a divine institution, a divine work. Therefore the Church is visible, or certainly knowable, as a divine work. Hence the Vatican Council, in the constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, says: “God, through his only-begotten Son, instituted the Church, and furnished it with manifest notes of his institution, so that it could be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. For to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and wonderful things which have been divinely arranged for the evident credibility of the Christian faith. Indeed, the Church by itself, because of its admirable propagation, outstanding sanctity, and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things, because of its catholic unity and unconquered stability, is a certain great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable testimony of its divine mission. Thus it happens that, like a sign lifted up among the nations, it both invites to itself those who have not yet believed, and makes its own children more certain that the faith which they profess rests upon the firmest foundation.”
458. But you will object: that the Church exists is an article of faith, since in the Creed we say, “I believe the holy Church”; but what is an article of faith is not seen, but believed. Therefore the Church is not formally visible.
459. Since theologians have answered this difficulty in various ways, it will help to note these things briefly. 1. Some answered that in the Church one thing is seen and another is believed: that the assembly of men which is the Church is seen; but that that assembly of men is the true Church of Christ is not seen, but believed. Thus, they say, baptism, insofar as it is an exterior washing, is discerned; but insofar as it is a sacrament, is believed; and in this way we say in the Creed: I believe one baptism. 2. But this answer, which perhaps could be tolerated at some stage of the controversy, considering the nature of the adversaries, absolutely cannot be approved. For from it there would follow that the Church is not formally visible; and therefore that we could not, through the notes of the true Church, as we shall accomplish below, demonstrate that that visible assembly of men who profess the faith of Christ under the Roman Pontiff is the true Church of Christ, but that this is had only through faith; and certainly no Catholic can admit this. 3. From this, however, it is clear that those theologians, if they gave this sort of answer absolutely, at most do not cohere with themselves; yet they are by no means to be judged contrary to the doctrine concerning the visibility of the Church, as it has been explained by us. For all admit that the Church is visible through certain notes, as the true Church of Christ; and all, by applying those notes, show that the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ. 4. Many of those theologians seem to have used the aforesaid answer for this reason, that, in their opinion, what is evidently known or clearly seen cannot be the object of faith. But we by no means embraced this opinion in the treatise On the Virtues; and therefore, according to the things which we handed down there, the answer to the proposed difficulty is easy for us. For we distinguish the minor proposition: “what is an article of faith is not seen, but believed.” Distinguish: it is not seen formally as it is believed, or on account of the very motive on account of which it is believed: granted; it is not seen materially, or on account of another motive: denied. Therefore, just as we can believe the unity of God, evidently known, insofar as we assent to it on account of the authority of God revealing alone, without attending to the intrinsic reasons by which it is evident; so we can believe the Church, formally visible from its notes, insofar as, prescinding from the arguments by which it is rendered visible and credible, we hold it on account of the authority of God revealing alone. But see what we said in the treatise On the Virtues, disputation 2, article 8, and disputation 3, article 4.
460. With these points, therefore, having been set forth: Section II The Proposed Question Is Resolved Proposition XIX. The Christian Church is formally visible, or visible as the true Church, as the Church which they call the Church of divine promises, in such a way that, from Christ’s institution, visibility pertains to its very essence. Therefore the Church, considered according to its nature, must be called not merely a divine or human society, but indivisibly a divine-human society.
461. Proof I. It is established in the preceding thesis that Christ instituted the Church in such a way that, although it is spiritual and divine under many heads, it was nevertheless a society of men and among men. But visibility belongs to the essence of a true society of men and among men. Therefore. The minor is proved. “Men cannot be bound together with one another into some social union without mutual external conjunction; without sensible signs by which they communicate among themselves and advance themselves toward the common end established for the society; without visible means and a visible principle of authority, which preserves the unity of the society.” Therefore.
462. II. That which is necessarily connected with the proper end for which Christ instituted the Church must be said to pertain to its essence. But formal visibility is necessarily connected with the end for which the Church was instituted by Christ. Therefore. The minor is proved. As will be demonstrated a little below: 1. “Christ intended in the Church and through the Church to make his mission on earth perpetual, and continually to render present his oral magisterium. But Christ’s mission and his magisterium were visible; nor likewise could the Church satisfy that office unless it were a visible society.” Therefore. 2. “Christ intended in the Church and through the Church to open the ark of salvation to men, and in it and through it to supply all the exclusive means of salvation. But unless the Church were conspicuous, neither would such means of salvation exist, nor could the same Church administer them, nor could men recognize and approach it, so that they might be advanced to salvation by suitable means.” Therefore. Compare Cercia, section 2, book 2, who develops these arguments at greater length.
463. III. The same thing can be confirmed directly from the Scriptures. We take this argument from Bellarmine, On the Church Militant, book 3, chapter 12 and following, who explains it excellently. And: 1. Wherever the name Church is found in the Scriptures, by it a visible congregation is always signified; and Calvin could not produce, nor did he produce, even one place where this name was attributed to an invisible congregation. Certainly when it is said in Numbers 20, “Why have you brought out the Church of the Lord into the wilderness?” that very well-known people Israel, which had gone out of Egypt, is called the Church. Likewise in 1 Kings 8 Scripture manifestly speaks of the Church, saying: “And the king turned his face and blessed the whole Church of Israel. For the whole Church of Israel was standing.” Similarly, in Matthew 16 Christ said: “Upon this rock I will build my Church.” Now whether by the name of rock you understand Christ or the confession of faith, as the heretics wish, or Peter, as we believe, the foundation of the Church is always something sensible, as is evident, and therefore the Church itself is sensible, or visible. And in Matthew 18: “Tell the Church; if he will not hear the Church,” etc.; certainly neither could be observed if the Church were invisible. And in Acts 20.28: “Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to rule the Church of God.” How could they rule a Church which they did not know? Likewise in Acts 15: “They indeed, being brought on their way by the Church, passed through Phoenicia”; and in the same place: “When they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the Church”; and in chapter 18: “Paul went up and greeted the Church.” How do these things fit an invisible Church? Finally, in 1 Timothy 3 the Apostle says: “These things I write to you, son Timothy, that you may know how you ought to behave in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God,” etc. But surely he could not behave in it unless he knew which one it was. Therefore either it must be said that no Church was founded by Christ, or that he founded a visible Church. 2. The same is clear from the very origin and progress of the Church. For, to omit the state of the Old Testament, in which the Church was so visible that it bore in its very flesh the visible sign of circumcision, in the New Testament without doubt the whole Christian Church was at the beginning in the Apostles and disciples of Christ, who were so visible that the Holy Spirit visibly descended upon them on the day of Pentecost. Then on one day men up to about three thousand, and again up to five thousand, were visibly added to them through confession of faith and baptism, as is reported in Acts 1 and following; and thereafter all those, and only those, were always held to be the Church of Christ who joined themselves to those first ones through baptism and confession of faith. Moehler develops this argument excellently in Symbolism, chapter 5, section 48. 3. There are added the parables by which, with everyone’s agreement, the Church is signified. For the threshing floor on which there are grains and chaff; the net in which there are good and bad fish; the field in which there are wheat and tares; the banquet at which good and bad recline; the sheepfold in which there are sheep and goats, signify a visible Church, as even the heretics admit. For the invisible Church does not have bad and good, but only good, according to their opinion. But the same parables teach that this visible Church will never perish until the day of judgment; for in Matthew 3 it is said: “He shall thoroughly cleanse his floor, and gather his wheat into his barn; but the chaff he shall burn with unquenchable fire.” This without doubt will not happen before the day of judgment. And in Matthew 13 it is said: “Let both grow until the harvest”; and below: “But the harvest is the consummation of the age”; and below: “So shall it be at the consummation of the age; the angels shall go out and separate the wicked from among the just.” Therefore the Church of the promises is the visible Church. 4. This is confirmed from the names Kingdom, City, House, Sheepfold, and Body, which, as we saw in number 440, are attributed to the Church. All these plainly show that the Church is by its nature visible, and indeed formally visible. For it is called the Kingdom of God, the holy City, the House or Tabernacle of the Holy Spirit, the Body of Christ, which certainly is not a dead body, and so forth. Hence especially Christ says of the Church in Matthew 5.14: “A city set upon a mountain cannot be hidden.” Weighing these words, St. Augustine says in letter 52, number 1, to Severinus the Donatist: “It is easy for you to attend and see the city established upon a mountain, concerning which the Lord says in the Gospel that it cannot be hidden. For it is the Catholic Church itself; whence it is called katholike in Greek, because it is diffused throughout the whole earth. No one is permitted to be ignorant of it; therefore, according to the word of our Lord Jesus Christ, it cannot be hidden.”
464. Therefore, to gather all these things briefly and complete this argument, we say: the people of the Church is conceived through the preaching and hearing of faith, which certainly are something sensible; it is born through baptism, which is a sign most visible; it is nourished through the sacraments, which likewise are sensible signs of interior grace; its pastors, just as they are assumed through certain and visible signs, so, once assumed, govern through external and manifest laws. Hence the Church by its nature is an assembly of visible men, entering it visibly, and living in it under pastors visibly assumed, by manifold visible sign. Therefore if Christ had wished to institute a visible Church, as in reality, according to Catholics, he instituted it, and Protestants deny, let them say what more he ought to have done. For if, as the matter really stands, it is not understood in what clearer way he could have constituted it visible, either it must be said that the visibility of the Church is impossible even to God, which is absurd; or it must be admitted that the Church is truly visible. Again: from what has been said, it cannot be denied that several elements of the Church are visible. These, moreover, certainly pertain to the essence of the Church, both because Christ instituted the Church only by instituting these things, and because they are altogether necessary for the proper end of the Church. Therefore it is impossible that there be a true Church of Christ which is invisible; for in that case some essential element would already be lacking, and with that element lacking, the same Church cannot subsist. Finally, the elements of the Church which are invisible through themselves are manifested through another, as we have said; nor can that manifestation be doubtful for the whole assembly. For it can happen that the profession of faith in one or another member is mendacious, just as likewise the external signs of sanctity in one or another are hypocrisy; but apart from the special providence by which the Church is governed, the moral law itself by which the human race is governed prevents hypocrisy and falsehood from existing in the whole multitude.
465. IV. The Church, instituted by Christ as visible, had already been foretold by the Prophets as going to exist visibly. For in Isaiah 2 it is read: “And in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow to it. And many peoples shall go and say: Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths,” etc. And in Micah 4, in almost the same words, the same prophecy is found: “In the last of the days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains, and high above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. And many nations shall hasten and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us concerning his ways, and we will go in his paths,” etc. Hence, in these testimonies the discourse is certainly about the Church. This is clear from those “last days,” which designate the final economy; from the appellation “house of God,” which is very often attributed to the Church, as in number 440; from the words “he will teach his ways,” which express the proper office of the Church, and so forth. But in those same testimonies the Church is represented as formally visible, since it is called a Mountain, the mountain of the Lord, to which all nations come, so that they may learn the ways of the Lord, so that they may walk in his paths, that is, so that they may believe rightly and live holily. Therefore. This interpretation can be confirmed from the consensus of the Fathers. For, setting aside certain mystical interpretations, which do not exclude the proper interpretation but rather presuppose it, the Fathers unanimously understand the cited testimonies as concerning the Church; and if any say that Christ is the Mountain, they say this of Christ as Head of the Church and as manifesting himself through it. St. Optatus of Milevis, in On the Schism of the Donatists, book 3, number 2, says: “It is written in Isaiah the Prophet: ‘From Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’ (2.3). Therefore in that mountain Zion Isaiah does not see a valley, but the holy mountain, which is the Church, which throughout the whole Roman world has raised its head under the whole heaven… Therefore the Church is the spiritual Zion, in which Christ has been appointed king by God the Father; which is in the whole earth, in which there is one Catholic Church.” St. Basil, on Isaiah, number 66: “For how then will the mountain of the Lord (Isaiah 2.3) become conspicuous? In what way likewise will the house of God be placed on the summits of the mountains? For carnal Israel is not expecting the rising of another mountain; nor is it waiting for the construction of a second house to be superimposed upon other summits. But Mount Zion and the temple were also seen in the time of Isaiah when he was prophesying… The house of God, situated on the summits of the mountains, is the Church,” etc. St. John Chrysostom, on Isaiah chapter 2, number 2, on those words, “In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest,” says: “Manifest. This needs no further interpretation. If the very nature of the things sends forth a voice clearer than a trumpet, showing the splendor of the Church. For neither is the sun so splendid, nor is its light so clear, as are the things pertaining to the Church. For ‘the house of God is above the summit of the mountains.’” St. Augustine, tractate 1 on John, number 13: “When men wish to see the new moon, they say: behold the moon, behold where it is; and if there are some there who cannot direct their gaze and say, Where? a finger is pointed for them, so that they may see. Sometimes, while they blush lest they be thought blind, they say that they have seen what they have not seen. Do we show the Church in this way, my brothers? Is it not open? Is it not manifest? Has it not held all nations?… Behold the mountain filling the whole face of the earth; behold the city concerning which it was said: A city set upon a mountain cannot be hidden. But they stumble against the mountain (1 John 2.11). And when it is said to them: Ascend; they say: it is not a mountain; and more easily do they strike their face against it than seek a dwelling there. Isaiah was read yesterday: whoever of you was keeping watch, not only with the eyes, but with the ear, nor with the ear of the body, but with the ear of the heart, noticed: ‘In the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be manifest, prepared on the summit of the mountains’ (Isaiah 2.2). What is so manifest as a mountain? But there are also unknown mountains, because they are placed in one part of the lands. Which of you knows Mount Olympus? Just as those who live there do not know our Gildaba. These mountains are in parts. But that mountain is not so, because it has filled the whole face of the earth, and concerning it it is said: Prepared on the summit of all mountains.” St. Cyril of Alexandria, on Isaiah, book 1, oration 2: “Hence, therefore, it could rightly be called the intelligible mountain of the house of God. And it is illustrious, as being raised above the hills. But concerning it someone could deservedly say that which was spoken by the voice of the Savior in the place of an illustrious example: ‘A city set upon a mountain cannot be hidden.’ There are indeed many other things which could very easily be collected, from which it is possible to see in the divinely inspired Scriptures that the summit of intelligible Jerusalem, that is, the height of the Church, is compared to hills and mountains.”
466. To these could be added testimonies of the more notable Protestant interpreters, whose names Murray reports. But compare what that distinguished author has in disputation 5, section 2, where he diligently unfolds and defends these and other proofs from the Old Testament.
467. Scholion. We shall briefly indicate the difficulties which directly attack the visibility of the Church, together with their solutions; directly, I say, for several tend toward establishing that only the just or only the predestined are members of the Church. We shall indicate these where the discussion will be about the members of the Church. Others are properly opposed to the indefectibility of the Church, which also must be treated below.
468. Therefore, I. From the Old Testament there is objected: 1. that passage of Jeremiah 31: “This shall be the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days… I will put my law in their inward parts, and I will write it in their heart”; where the old Church seems to be opposed to the new, insofar as the former is visible and the latter invisible. 2. That which he adds in verse 34: “A man shall no more teach his neighbor, and a man his brother, saying: Know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least of them even to the greatest, says the Lord”; by which words a visible magisterium seems to be excluded. 3. Similarly in Isaiah 54.13 it is said: “I will give all your children taught by the Lord.” It is answered to the first: the opposition is not between the visibility of the old Church and the invisibility of the new, as is already abundantly clear from the demonstration of the thesis given above; but between the greater abundance of grace which is conferred in the new law by its power, and the lesser grace which obtained in the old law, and which, as we said, was not conferred by the power of that covenant. Surely the Prophet here announces something excellent concerning the new Church before the old; but invisibility would not be of this kind, all the more because, according to the adversaries, the Church would become invisible precisely when it was corrupted. To the second: those words are certainly not said for the exclusion of an external magisterium; otherwise Isaiah would not have said in Isaiah 52.7: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who announces and preaches peace, of him who announces good, who preaches salvation,” etc.; and what would become of those words, “teach all nations,” “he who hears you hears me,” and innumerable testimonies of this kind? Therefore the objected words must be understood of a greater facility for attaining truth in the new law before the old; or of the knowledge of the true God, with idolatry removed; or the opposition is in this, that the Israelites had to teach only a brother and neighbor, that is, Israelites, whom alone that law regarded, whereas in the new law, which regards all, the mission is to teach all nations. Compare the interpreters. To the third: from the reasons just indicated, it is clear that the objected words cannot be taken so as to exclude an external and visible magisterium. Hence some, with Cyril, understand those words precisely of the doctrine of the Gospel; and the sense is that it is no longer to be preached through the Prophets, but through the Son of God himself, according to Hebrews 1.1: “God, who at sundry times spoke to the fathers in the prophets,” etc. Others, with St. Augustine, explain the same words of divine grace; and the sense is that God himself, certainly through grace now more abundant, will interiorly persuade what is proposed through the external magisterium, according to John 6.45: “It is written in the Prophets: And they shall all be teachable of God; everyone who has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me.”
469. II. They object certain sayings of Christ the Lord himself. And: 1. that passage in Luke 17.20: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation. Neither shall they say: behold here, or behold there. For behold, the kingdom of God is within you”; by which words, they say, the Church is openly said to be unobservable. 2. That passage in John 4: “Woman, believe me, the hour comes when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem shall you adore the Father… But the hour comes, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and truth… God is spirit, and those who adore him must adore in spirit and truth.” But adoration in spirit is not visible. It is answered to the first: that phrase “without observation” is certainly not the same as “invisible,” just as the kingdom of God in the objected passage properly and directly signifies the Messiah, or his advent. For when the Jews were asking, “when does the kingdom of God come?” thinking that the Messiah would come with secular pomp and royal display, Christ answered that his advent is without observation, that is, without any display; and therefore it is not said, behold here or behold there, as would happen if admiration were excited by that pomp. In order to confirm this, Christ the Lord adds: the kingdom of God is within you, that is, the Messiah is in your company by his presence, in the midst of you. Others explain the matter thus: “the kingdom of God comes without observation,” that is, there is no need of subtle investigation in order to know it; for “it is within you,” that is, it is already present. To the second: evidently that phrase “in spirit and truth” is not the same as “invisible”; otherwise not only would a visible Church be excluded, but any external worship whatever, which even the adversaries do not contend for here. Therefore to adore in the objected passage, as is clear from the context, is the same as to offer sacrifice. Therefore the sacrifice of the new covenant is opposed to the sacrifices of Jews and Samaritans. Hence adoration is said to be “in spirit” against carnal sacrifices, by which, namely, carnal victims were immolated by the Jews; nor will there any longer be a determinate place for offering the new sacrifice, but it will be offered in every place. It is said to be “in truth” either by opposition to the typical sacrifices of the Jews, or also by opposition to the false worship of the Samaritans, who adored what they did not know.
470. III. They object certain sayings of the Apostles. And: 1. that passage in 1 Peter 2: “Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices.” But what is spiritual, they say, is invisible. 2. That passage in Hebrews 12: “For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched, to a burning fire, and whirlwind, and darkness, and storm… But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,” etc.; where, they say, the Church is called a mountain that may not be touched, that is, invisible. It is answered to the first: certainly by a spiritual house St. Peter does not understand an invisible Church; for both he writes as visible president to the visible Church, and he adds in chapter 5: “The elders who are among you I beseech, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ… feed the flock of God which is among you,” etc. Therefore he calls the Church a spiritual house not by opposition to visible, but either by opposition to a material house composed of wood and stone; or in order to express the prerogative of the new covenant, namely, that it is a covenant of grace, that the faithful by its power live the life of grace, and that they are a temple of the Holy Spirit. Hence they offer spiritual sacrifices, that is, not carnal and bloody ones. To the second: some, with Theophylact, Oecumenius, St. Thomas, and others, understand by Mount Zion the Church triumphant; and thus the text would be outside the matter. Others understand the Church in a certain more general acceptance, and then it is Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, and so forth insofar as it is triumphant, not insofar as it is militant. Certainly the Apostle’s aim is to extol the new covenant above the old; but for this it was not necessary to set forth all the elements of the Church or to hand down its definition. It was enough to commend the nobler things. He selects two things. The old law was given in an earthly and accessible place, because the covenant was situated in temporal goods; but the new covenant is spiritual, given from heaven, which Zion and Jerusalem signify tropologically, and through it communion is had with the Angels, and so forth. The old law was given with signs of fear; but the new covenant is one of mercy and love. But that the faithful in the new law are said to have come to “the assembly of many thousands of Angels,” etc., imports the communion which exists between the assembly of the faithful and the Angels, and the ordering of those faithful toward the beatitude to be possessed with them; but in no way does it import that the assembly of the faithful on earth, the Church militant, is invisible.