485. As the title of the article makes manifest, we touch here upon two questions: one concerns the legality of Christian society, or the Church; the other concerns its ethical necessity, or the moral obligation of entering it. Each needs to be illustrated in a few words before it is resolved.
486. I. In general that society is called legal which is according to law. But here we must consider three kinds of law: namely, natural law; positive-divine law; and positive-human law. We presuppose, however, that no positive law is just if it conflicts with the natural law. See what was said in numbers 26 and following.
487. Now, that the Church is a divine-positive society, or instituted by divine-positive right, no one denies among those who profess Christianity in some way, nor can it be denied after the things which we have demonstrated concerning the divine origin of the Christian religion and concerning the institution of the Church made immediately by Christ. For since Christ, the founder of the Church, is true God, the Church is a divine society; and by a like reason, since a supernatural end was proposed to the Church, and therefore it itself is a supernatural society, no natural law could have prescribed its institution. Therefore its institution and existence must be attributed to positive right. Once this is granted, it is scarcely worthwhile to propose the question concerning the legality of the Church with respect to the very right by which it exists; for it was instituted by Christ the Lord, who is God, and who therefore has the right both of instituting the Church and of instituting it in whatever way he pleases.
488. But with respect to the natural law, properly speaking, the most that could be asked is whether the institution of the Church is honorable and licit; but not whether it is legal. Yet: 1. it must be judged honorable and licit if it has nothing that conflicts with the natural law. But it is evident that an institution of divine right can contain nothing that conflicts with the natural law, since the Author of each right or law is one, God. 2. If absolute natural right is considered, namely that which exists independently from a hypothesis arising from some free determination, it can prescribe nothing positively with respect to the Church, which is a society of positive institution, beyond every exigency of nature. 3. But if hypothetical natural right is considered, namely that which exists once the hypothesis of the free institution of the Church by God has been made, it is certain that by the very law of nature, which dictates that a legitimate superior must be obeyed, we are obliged to embrace the Church, and indeed in that form and with those rights which it received from its founder. Compare what we said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, number 1030.
489. Therefore the question concerning the legal existence and propagation of the Church properly regards positive human right. That is, since the Church of Christ from the beginning began to be propagated among the Jews, then among the Gentiles, and now also is announced among societies of unbelievers, Protestants, and Mohammedans, the question is therefore whether, according to the laws and customs of these societies, the Church could and can be legitimately propagated among them. Now this question presents no difficulty if once we consider what truly is on the side of reality. For no human law can have force against divine right. But the Church was instituted by divine right so that it might be propagated among all nations; it alone is the true religion, which surely all are bound to embrace and profess. Therefore there can be no law, among any society, justly impeding the institution and propagation of the Church. Thus, in order to place the legal propagation and existence of the Church in fuller light, we shall consider it in relation to the principles, laws, and customs by which the aforesaid societies are governed, and among which the Church was and is propagated.
490. II. Thus far concerning the legitimacy, or legal existence, of the Church. Now certain things must be declared concerning its necessity. And first of all we note that necessary societies are called those from which it is not permitted to abstain without fault; voluntary societies are those to which there is no obligation of enrolling oneself. Hence it is clear that the Church of Christ is a necessary society; for although someone must freely receive faith and baptism, if the discussion is about adults, and enter the Church, nevertheless, since there exists an antecedent necessity or obligation of receiving faith and baptism and of entering the Church, the Church is truly called and is a necessary society. This truth the Church itself has constantly asserted. For according to the prescription of the Fourth Council of Carthage, in the year 398, before consecration a bishop had to be asked “whether outside the Church no one is saved”; the Fourth Lateran Council says: “There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside which absolutely no one is saved”; and in the profession of faith proposed to the Waldensians: “We believe with the heart and confess with the mouth one Church, not of heretics, but the holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe no one is saved.” There are many other things, but let these suffice.
491. But in order that the matter may be well understood: 1. a twofold necessity must be distinguished, one which is called of means, the other of precept. We explained the nature of each more fully in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, numbers 851 and following, which passage you should by all means consult; here it is enough to recall that something is said to be necessary by necessity of means when, even if it is inculpably omitted, salvation cannot be obtained; but something is necessary by necessity of precept when it is required for salvation because it has been commanded, yet if it is inculpably omitted, salvation can still be obtained. Therefore when it is said that the Church is a necessary society, it can be asked whether it is such by necessity of means or of precept. 2. Again, the Church, as we saw in numbers 410 and following, consists of soul and body; and just as its soul is constituted chiefly by sanctifying grace, faith, hope, and charity, so its body, for the preservation of unity, chiefly requires a visible government, from which one who is separated is by that very fact severed from the body of the Church. Therefore when it is said, “the Church is a necessary society,” or “outside the Church there is no salvation,” is this to be understood of the soul of the Church or of the body?
492. These things having been noted, it is certain: 1. that it is necessary by necessity of means to belong to the soul of the Church. This is clear from those arguments by which it is shown that supernatural faith, both by reason of its principle and by reason of its motive, and therefore faith founded on the authority of God revealing, and indeed not only in desire but in reality, is necessary by necessity of means for salvation. Therefore let what we said in the treatise On the Virtues, numbers 861 and following, be recalled. The same must be said of grace and charity. It is certain: 2. that in Catholic doctrine it is indeed necessary by necessity of means to belong at least in desire to the body of the Church, just as baptism is necessary, by which we are joined to the Church; but it is not always necessary by necessity of means to belong in reality to the body of the Church. Thus one who inculpably was outside the body of the Church would not, on that account, be assigned to eternal punishments. Hence St. Augustine, in letter 43, otherwise 162, with whom the other Fathers agree, says: “Those who defend their opinion, although false and perverse, with no stubborn animosity, especially an opinion which they did not bring forth by the audacity of their own presumption, but received from parents seduced and fallen into error, while they seek the truth with cautious solicitude and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are by no means to be reckoned among heretics.” To this also pertains proposition 68 condemned in Baius: “Purely negative unbelief in those to whom Christ has not been preached is a sin.”
493. Therefore when we teach that it is necessary for someone to belong in reality to the body of the Church, this is to be understood of necessity of precept. From this it immediately follows that everything which excuses from the obligation of fulfilling a precept also excuses from this necessity of actual conjunction with the body of the Church. Hence: 1. inability excuses. Thus, for example, a catechumen who, before receiving baptism, through which alone one becomes a member of the body of the Church, when it has been delayed without his fault, is overtaken by sudden death, if he already has true faith and charity, will without doubt be saved. Hence Innocent III, in book 3 of the Decretals, title 42, chapter 2, says: “To your inquiry we respond in this way: the priest whom you indicated to have closed his last day without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we assert without hesitation to have been freed from original sin and to have obtained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” 2. Invincible ignorance excuses. “Nevertheless, those who labor under invincible ignorance concerning Christ and his Church are not, on account of this ignorance, to be damned with eternal punishments, since before the eyes of the Lord they are bound by no fault in this matter… but no one will obtain this [justification and eternal life] who departs this life culpably separated from the unity of faith or from the communion of the Church. If anyone has not been in this ark, he will perish when the flood reigns.” Now what ignorance must be called invincible is established from moral theology. Here we note only that it can occur in the present matter in manifold ways. For: a. Christian revelation, and therefore also the Church, may be invincibly unknown; this can happen among negative unbelievers. b. Or someone has Christian faith with respect to the things necessary by necessity of means, but still invincibly does not know the existence of the Church. c. Or he knows in some way that the Church exists, but invincibly does not know the obligation of entering it. d. Or finally he knows the obligation of entering the true Church of Christ, but by an invincible error thinks that his own sect is the true Church of Christ.
494. In all these cases, everyone sees that the salvation of those who in reality are outside the body of the Church is possible; since on the one hand inability or invincible ignorance excuses them from the necessity of the precept of entering the Church, and on the other hand it is possible that they have the things which are necessary by necessity of means for salvation. How this can happen to one who exteriorly seems to be numbered among unbelievers is clear from the matters disputed in the treatise On Grace, disputation 4, article 5.
495. Hence it also follows that no one can assert with certainty concerning one who dies outside the body of the Church that he is damned; for he could have labored under invincible ignorance, and God could otherwise supply to him the means necessary for salvation. Nevertheless Croix, speaking of purely material heretics, rightly notes in On Faith, number 94: “This is to be pitied in their case: if they have fallen into another mortal sin [namely, besides the sin of heresy, of which they are supposed not to be guilty], which is altogether easy for such men, they are deprived of the grace of the principal sacraments and are commonly to be damned, not from a defect of faith [for I suppose that they believe the things necessary by necessity of means], but because of other sins which they have committed and from which they are not cleansed, neither by the sacrament of penance, which does not exist among them, nor by contrition or perfect love. Besides the fact that it is very difficult for such men to attain this, they nevertheless do not attend to it, nor commonly care for it, nor strive to elicit it, thinking that they are justified by faith alone and confidence in Christ; by this damnable confidence they perish most miserably.”
496. It is better to confirm all these things by the doctrine of the Holy Father Pius IX, in the allocution Singulari Quadam, December 9, 1854, all the more because some seem not to grasp its sense rightly. Therefore: 1. the Holy Father teaches: “for it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that this is the sole ark of salvation, and that whoever has not entered it will perish in the flood.” Hence there are the propositions condemned in the Syllabus, number 16: “Men can find the way of eternal salvation in the worship of any religion whatsoever and can obtain eternal salvation”; and number 17: “At least good hope is to be had concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ.” 2. But he immediately explains how this is to be understood, saying: “But nevertheless it must likewise be held as certain that those who labor under ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible, are bound by no fault of this matter before the eyes of the Lord. But now who would arrogate so much to himself as to be able to designate the limits of this sort of ignorance according to the character and variety of peoples, regions, minds, and so many other things? For indeed when, released from these bodily chains, we shall see God as he is, we shall certainly understand by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are joined; but so long as we live on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which dulls the soul, let us hold most firmly from Catholic doctrine that there is one God, one faith, one baptism; to advance further by inquiry is unlawful.” 3. Yet undeservedly would it be inferred from these things that someone outside the body of the Church can be saved by broad faith. For this plainly conflicts with those words, “one faith, one baptism”; and besides, it contradicts the things which precede: “Strive to call them back from so great a perversity of mind, explaining namely that nothing more excellent has been granted to men by the providence of God than the authority of divine faith; that this is for us, as it were, a torch in darkness; this the guide whom we follow unto life; this is altogether necessary for salvation, since ‘without faith it is impossible to please God, and he who does not believe shall be condemned.’” But the Apostle speaks of faith strictly taken, as we explained and demonstrated in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, number 859 and following. But whoever desires more concerning the providence of God regarding the salvation of unbelievers should compare what was said in number 130 and following, and the places cited there from the treatise On the Grace of Christ.
497. These things, therefore, having been carefully set beforehand: Section II The Proposed Question Is Resolved Proposition XXI. 1. Just as the Church, even with regard either to the constitution of the Jewish people or to the state of Gentile societies, was legitimately instituted, so 2. now it has the right of propagating itself among all nations; 3. indeed, from Christ’s institution, the necessity of adhering to it so lies upon all that for those culpably remaining outside it there is no hope of salvation. Therefore the Church is a society both legal and also ethically necessary.
498. The first part is proved. I. With regard to the constitution of the Jewish people. For that society is legitimately constituted in relation to the constitution of the Jewish people which, according to its own fundamental law, was to be constituted. But according to the fundamental law of the Jewish constitution, the Church was to be constituted by Christ. Therefore. The minor is proved. 1. The fundamental law of the Jewish Church was that it should be in the state of way, not of end; of promise, not of fulfillment; of a figure awaiting the thing figured. Hence the Apostle says in Galatians 3.23 and following: “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto that faith which was to be revealed. Therefore the law was our pedagogue unto Christ… But when faith came, we are no longer under a pedagogue.” But a promise, if it is true, must be fulfilled; a figure must cease when the reality arrives; the imperfect of itself tends toward the perfect. Therefore the Jewish Church, from being promissory, had to become real; from being typical, substantial and true; from being imperfect, perfect. This indeed was done through Christ and his Church. Hence the Apostle says in Romans 10.4: “Christ is the end of the law unto justice for everyone who believes”; that is, the law was finally ordered to this, and had this office, that it should lead to Christ. 2. Hence the same Apostle, to omit other things, in Hebrews 7 shows the imperfection of the old covenant before the new; and in verses 18 and following he pronounces: “There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness; for the law brought nothing to perfection,” etc. Then, in chapter 8, he shows the necessity that the ancient covenant be abolished when the new one supervenes. He confirms this again in chapter 10, by revealing the typical nature of all the rites and of the Jewish Church itself; and finally, in chapter 11, by a perfect induction he demonstrates that the principal saints of the Old Testament could follow the way of salvation, and come to it, only through faith in Christ. All these principles, gathered together and understood according to the mind of Paul, evidently make clear that the old law and Synagogue were nothing but a preparation for the Christian Church, and that, once this was instituted, the former had to cease. But on these matters see Becanus, Analogy of the Old and New Testaments.
499. II. Considering the state of Gentile societies, the Church was legitimately instituted. For: 1. any society has the right and duty of preserving itself and of promoting its own proper perfection. But it can in no way effect this without religion, as we demonstrated in numbers 36 and following. Therefore any society has the right and duty of embracing and professing religion. Now: a. the only true religion is the Christian religion, which in the concrete is the Church itself, as was demonstrated. b. Moreover, in the civil society of the Gentiles at the time of Christ’s coming, either the principal dogmas of natural religion had been obscured or they had been entirely extinguished, as is clear from what was said in numbers 128 and following; and on the other side, the Church promulgated and confirmed those truths again. Therefore at least under this title the civil society of the pagans had to admit the Church. 2. A society which, either according to its laws or according to its customs, admits any worship and any religion whatever, if it then excludes some religion, acts against its own laws or customs. But the civil society of the Gentiles, among whom the Church was first propagated, admitted any worship whatever, even the most absurd. Therefore. The first Apologists often used this argument; and St. Leo, in sermon 1 on the Holy Apostles, makes open mention of that condition, writing: “Here the opinions of philosophy had to be trampled down; here the vanities of earthly wisdom had to be dissolved; here the worship of demons had to be confuted; here the impiety of all sacrileges had to be destroyed, where, with the most diligent superstition, whatever anywhere had been instituted by vain errors was held gathered together. To this City, therefore, you, most blessed Apostle Peter, do not fear to come; and while the Apostle Paul, the partner of your glory, was still occupied with the ordering of other Churches, you enter this forest of roaring beasts and ocean of most turbulent depth, more constant than when you walked upon the sea.” And in the sermon on the birthday of the Apostles Peter and Paul: “But this city [Rome], ignorant of the author of its own advancement, although it ruled over almost all nations, served the errors of all nations; and it seemed to itself to have assumed a great religion because it rejected no falsehood. Hence, the more tenaciously it had been bound by the devil, the more wonderfully it was set free by Christ.” But see Taparelli, Essay, numbers 1412 and following.
500. The second part is proved. Here we first presuppose the observation proposed in number 489; nor is there need to discuss Catholic governments or nations, for with regard to them the matter is most clear. Compare Taparelli, Essay, numbers 1449 and following. Therefore let us examine the matter.
501. I. With regard to Protestant nations. Certainly: 1. Protestants, as such, acknowledge the Christian religion as uniquely true; they only understand it in their own way, and therefore pervert it. Nevertheless the fundamental principle common to all of them is the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, which alone, according to them, presents the Christian religion, by private judgment. Therefore they must grant the same right to the Catholic Church, namely, that it understand Christian revelation in its own way, and consequently profess the Christian religion in its own way. If they deny this to the Catholic Church alone, they contradict themselves and openly violate the fundamental dogma of their religious profession. 2. In several nations now devoted to Protestantism, the Catholic Church was already flourishing when Protestantism invaded them. Therefore it was already in legitimate possession, from which it could be disturbed only unjustly. This is all the more so because the rights of the Church of Christ are of such a nature that they can be subject to no prescription; because Protestantism could prove by no signs its new mission, whether ordinary or extraordinary; and because indeed it was finally forced to admit that in the Catholic Church, from which it was being separated, the means of salvation are not lacking. Therefore, since among those nations the Catholic Church was deprived of its rights only by injury, it vindicates its right if it strives to establish itself among the same nations.
502. II. With regard to schismatic nations. 1. They themselves, if they adhere to the doctrine common among their own authors, must acknowledge that the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ; indeed they admit that salvation can be obtained in it, and although they wrongly deny the primacy of jurisdiction in the successor of St. Peter, they nevertheless do not refuse to admit a primacy of honor. Now if the Roman Church is for them the true Church of Christ, they are forced to concede to it at least the same rights which they attribute to their own. Therefore, since they judge the existence of their own Church legal, they can impede the propagation and existence of the Catholic Church only by injury. 2. It is historically established that the schismatic Churches were separated from the Roman Church under Photius; and the very name of schism means separation or division. Therefore previously the Roman Church flourished with all its rights, and could not be deprived of them except by injury. Therefore it still retains those same rights. Accordingly, just as in those places where schism now dominates, Catholics formerly legitimately professed their religion, so also today the same right belongs to them of professing the same religion there.
503. III. With regard to Mohammedans and ethnic nations, among whom the true Gospel is now also announced, the preceding observations hold proportionately. Certainly in the places where Mohammedanism first began to be propagated, the Church was already in peaceful possession; it was not disturbed from it except by arms and tyranny. But violence, just as it confers no right, so it takes none away. The state of ethnic nations, with regard to those very things which belong to natural religion, is that which we mentioned above in number 499. Among some of them full liberty is granted to other religions or sects; no one can justly impede someone from undertaking the true religion, and so forth. One consideration could still be added, from the very great utility which the Church of Christ brings to any civil association whatever. The matter cannot here be developed according to its dignity; but it is better at least to report the most excellent words of the Holy Father Leo XIII, in the encyclical letter Arcanum, February 10, 1880: “Once the Christian order of things was established, it happily befell individual men that they learned and grew accustomed to rest in the fatherly providence of God, and to nourish a hope of heavenly helps, which does not confound. From these things follow fortitude, moderation, constancy, equability of peaceful mind, and finally many excellent virtues and outstanding deeds. But it is wonderful how much dignity, how much firmness and honor accrued to domestic and civil society. The authority of rulers was made more equitable and more holy; the obedience of peoples more inclined and easier; the conjunction of citizens closer; the rights of ownership safer. Altogether, Christian religion has cared and provided for all things which are held useful in the state, so indeed that, according to St. Augustine, it would seem that it could not have brought more importance for living well and blessedly if it had been born solely for preparing or increasing the advantages and utilities of mortal life.”
504. The third part is proved. I. By collecting certain things from what has been said. For: 1. faith is necessary, and indeed by necessity of means for salvation; but one who embraces faith already belongs, at least in desire, to the Church. For through that faith he is subject to God speaking, and consequently is implicitly subject to the magisterium of the Church, which Christ instituted. 2. Baptism is certainly necessary, and indeed by necessity of means for salvation; but one who receives baptism, or has the desire for it, is already implicitly subject to the Church, as in number 400. Therefore. From the preceding article it is established that Christ instituted the Church so that through it he might make his visible mission on earth perpetual; and therefore in it he placed all the means of salvation. Therefore one who knowingly was outside the Church would deprive himself of the means of salvation. But one who acts in this way cannot arrive at salvation. Therefore. This is confirmed. It is true that God can supply, by extraordinary providence, faith and the other things necessary by necessity of means for salvation; but at least the Church is the ordinary means of communicating them. Now extraordinary providence regards only those who cannot use the ordinary means; but those who are culpably outside the Church are, by that very fact, outside it because they do not wish to be within it, not because they cannot. Therefore they are excluded from extraordinary providence.
505. II. These same things can be confirmed from Scripture, by recalling a few points. For: 1. in Mark 16.15 Christ, addressing the Apostles, says: “Preach the Gospel to every creature; he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.” In this testimony the question is of every creature; therefore no one is excepted. But the Gospel is said to be preached to every creature, to be believed by all; all are said to be baptized, and he who does not believe is said to be condemned. Therefore faith, like baptism, is necessary for all; and consequently the Church is necessary. 2. It is read in Matthew 10.14-15: “Whoever will not receive you, nor hear your words, going forth from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that city.” These words do not pertain only to the Apostles, to whom they are immediately directed, but also to their successors, or to the teaching Church, even to the end of the world; for they are directed to the Apostles insofar as they must satisfy the office of teaching and ruling, which must endure until the consummation of the age. Therefore, just as it was necessary to receive the Apostles and to hear their words, so it is necessary to receive their successors and their magisterium; but this is the same as to be subject to the Church. 3. To this also pertain those testimonies in which the grave obligation incumbent upon each person of subjecting himself to the Church is declared, and the sin of refusing obedience to it is declared to be grave. Thus in Matthew 10.40: “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me”; and in the same Gospel, Matthew 18.17: “But if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican”; and in Luke 10.16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me; but he who despises me despises him who sent me.” But it is enough to have touched upon these things, since each is to be explained in its own place.
506. III. From the Fathers, who: 1. expressly assert this. Thus St. Ignatius Martyr, to the Philadelphians, number 3, writes: “For as many as are of God and Jesus Christ, these are with the Bishop; and as many as, led by repentance, return to the unity of the Church, these also will be of God, so that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brothers. If anyone follows one who makes schism, he does not obtain the inheritance of the divine kingdom.” St. Irenaeus, book 4, chapter 33, number 7: “But he will also judge those who work schisms, who are empty, not having the love of God, and considering their own utility rather than the unity of the Church; and because of slight and any causes whatsoever they cut apart and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and, as much as lies in them, kill it: speaking peace and working war; truly straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. For no correction so great can be made by them as is the destruction of schism. But he will also judge all those who are outside the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself will be judged by no one.” Origen, homily 4 on Joshua: “Therefore if anyone wishes to be saved, let him come into this house of her who was once a harlot… Therefore let no one persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved. For if anyone shall go outside, he himself becomes guilty of his own death.” 2. They confirm the same thing when they acknowledge that the Church was figured in the ark of Noah. Thus St. Cyprian, in On the Unity of the Church, says: “If anyone who was outside the ark of Noah could escape, then also one who has been outside the Church escapes. The Lord warns, saying: ‘he who is not with me is against me,’ and ‘he who does not gather with me scatters.’ He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ. He who gathers elsewhere besides the Church scatters the Church of Christ.” St. Gaudentius of Brescia, tract 8: “But it is established that in that flood all men of that time perished, except those who deserved to be found within the Ark, which bore the type of the Church. For similarly even now they will altogether be unable to be saved who have been alien from the Apostolic faith and from the Catholic Church. Therefore let each one of us strive with every effort to remain in the house of the Lord, exercising works fitting to the grace received.” St. Jerome, letter 14 to Damasus: “Whoever has eaten the lamb outside this house [the Church] is profane. If anyone has not been in the Ark of Noah, he will perish when the flood reigns.” St. Augustine, tractate 6 on John: “If you have baptism, be in the dove [that is, the Church], lest what you have not profit you. Come, then, to the dove, we say: not so that you may begin to have what you did not have, but so that what you had may begin to profit you. For outside you had baptism unto destruction; inside, if you have it, it begins to profit unto salvation… ‘I have it [baptism],’ he says to me. I admit it, you have it. Observe what you have; by the very fact that you have it, you will be condemned. Why? Because you have the thing of the dove apart from the dove. If you have the thing of the dove in the dove, you have it securely. Suppose you are a soldier: if you have the mark of your emperor within, you serve securely; if you have it outside, not only does that mark not profit you for military service, but you will even be punished as a deserter.” 3. They also draw this from the fact that one who denies the due honor to the Church as mother does not honor God, who is father. “Whoever,” says St. Cyprian in the cited place, “being separated from the Church is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church. Nor will he who leaves the Church of Christ arrive at the rewards of Christ. He is alien, he is profane, he is an enemy. He can no longer have God as father who does not have the Church as mother.” St. Augustine illustrates this most beautifully in sermon 2 on Psalm 88, number 14, saying: “Let us love the Lord our God, let us love his Church: him as father, her as mother… Let no one say: I do indeed go to idols, I consult those possessed by spirits and fortune-tellers, but nevertheless I do not leave the Church of God, I am Catholic. Holding the mother, you have offended the father. Another likewise says: far be it from me, I do not consult a fortune-teller, I do not seek one possessed by spirits, I do not seek sacrilegious divinations, I do not go to adore demons, I do not serve stones; but nevertheless I am in the party of Donatus. What does it profit you that the father is not offended, who avenges the offended mother? What does it profit if you confess the Lord, honor God, preach him, acknowledge his Son, confess him sitting at the Father’s right hand, and blaspheme his Church? … If you had some patron whom you attended daily… If you said one accusation concerning his wife, would you enter his house? Hold, therefore, dearly beloved, hold all unanimously to God as father and the Church as mother.” 4. They declare this from the fact that the Church is the body of Christ; and therefore one separated from the body can no longer receive the saving influence of the head. Among others, St. Augustine often uses this argument. Thus in sermon 269, number 4, he says: “See what you should beware, see what you should observe, see what you should fear. It happens that in a human body, indeed from the body, some member is cut off, a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow what has been cut off? When it was in the body, it lived; cut off, it loses life. So also a Christian man is Catholic while he lives in the body; cut off, he has been made a heretic; the spirit does not follow an amputated member.” And in tractate 10 on the Epistle of St. John, number 8: “I do not know who sets the boundaries of charity in Africa! Extend charity throughout the whole world if you wish to love Christ, because the members of Christ lie throughout the world. If you love a part, you are divided; if you are divided, you are not in the body; if you are not in the body, you are not under the head. What does it profit that you believe and blaspheme? You adore him in the head; you blaspheme him in the body. He loves his body. If you have cut yourself off from his body, the head has not cut itself off from its body. In vain you honor me, the head cries to you from above, in vain you honor me. Do not trample me. As if someone wished to kiss your head and trample your feet… Would you not, amid the words of one honoring you, cry out and say: What are you doing, man? You are trampling me. You would not say, You are trampling my head, because he was honoring the head; but the head would cry out more for the trampled members than for itself, because it was being honored. Does not the head itself cry: I do not want your honor; do not trample me? … Do you not see, foolish one, that what you wish to embrace reaches, through a certain joining of unity, to that which you trample?”
507. IV. From the confessions of the adversaries. For the Protestants themselves, so long as abstraction is made from the question which is the true Church of Christ, hand down the doctrine which we defend here. In reality Luther, in the Larger Catechism, part 2, on the Apostles’ Creed, article 3, says: “Outside this Christianity, where there is no place for this Gospel, there is no forgiveness of sins, just as there can be no sanctification.” Calvin, in the Institutes, book 4, chapter 2, writes: “But because the proposal is not to discuss the visible Church, let us learn, even from the one title of mother, how useful to us is knowledge of her, indeed how necessary; since there is no other entrance into life unless she herself conceives us in her womb, unless she gives birth, unless she nourishes us at her breasts, and finally protects us under her guardianship and governance, until, having put off mortal flesh, we shall be like the Angels.” And a little later: “Outside her bosom no forgiveness of sins is to be hoped for, no salvation.” Indeed Leibniz, writing to Pellisson in Acta Eruditorum, volume 11, 1692, not rightly understanding Catholic doctrine, complains of the laxity of their doctrine, especially that of the Jesuits, in this matter. (1)
508. Therefore let us conclude this question concerning the necessity of the Church with the words of the Holy Father, in the cited allocution: “Moreover, as the order of charity demands, let us pour forth constant prayers, that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ, and let us serve, according to our powers, the common salvation of men. For the hand of the Lord has not been shortened, and the gifts of heavenly grace will by no means be lacking to those who wish and ask with a sincere mind to be refreshed by this light. Truths of this sort must be fixed most deeply in the minds of the faithful, lest they be corrupted by false doctrines tending to this, that they foster indifference of religion, which we see creeping more widely and being strengthened unto the destruction of souls.” (1) The same things are read in the Helvetic confession, article 17; the Saxon, article 12; the Scottish, article 17; the Belgian, article 28; the Gallican, article 16; the Bohemian, article 8. But the Anglican Church not only still retains the Athanasian Creed, which excludes from salvation all those who deny the dogma of the Trinity and Incarnation, but in article 18 expressly has: “They also are to be accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect he professed, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law.” But see, if you wish, Bossuet, Variations, book 15, and the Walemburch brothers, On the Unity of the Church, book 1, chapter 17.