De locis theologicis

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD “CHURCH”

I shall proceed and do what I consider should be done at the beginning of every disputation, and especially this one: explain what the subject of the dispute is, so that the argument is not forced to wander and go astray because those who disagree do not understand the subject in the same way. “Church,” then, is a Greek word; if rendered word for word, it means in Latin “assembly,” either because it calls everyone to itself, as Julius and Rabanus thought, or because all who come together in it do so not through their own merits and righteousness, but through God's grace and calling. I hope readers will also approve this etymology of the name. For writing to the Church of Rome, Paul says, “To all who are in Rome, called saints.” And in priore ad Corinthios epistola he says, “To the Church of God which is in Corinth, called saints.” A little later he says, “God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ.” Since this fellowship is undoubtedly with Christ's Church, let those who arrogate that title to themselves consider whether they falsely claim, in the manner of heretics, that the Church exists among them. I will not linger over the origin of the name. Certainly “Church” means an assembly, whence “Ecclesiastes” means “preacher.” Although this word has sometimes been used generally for any assembly, whether of the wicked or the devout, unbelievers or believers, as far as I can recall an assembly of unbelievers is nowhere called “Church” in the New Testament. This usage has become so firmly established among Christians that no gathering is now recognized as a Church unless it has been formed by the faith and calling of Christ. “Church” also means both the place where a crowd gathers and the crowd itself in the proper sense. There are many examples of both meanings in the Sacred Scriptures. The holy writers observed this distinction between “Synagogue” and “Church”: the old people were called both Church and Synagogue, but neither Sacred Scripture nor any approved author has ever called the Christian people a Synagogue. This was either done to distinguish the two commonwealths, or because there is some difference between a gathering, which “Synagogue” denotes, and a calling together, which is what “Church” signifies.

For herds of cattle are accustomed to be gathered together, which is why we speak of flocks—not properly of human beings but of livestock or beasts; only human beings are customarily called together. So far does Christ's Church surpass the Synagogue. Although the fellowship of angels and human beings is sometimes called a Church, and the kingdom of heaven—which consists of the blessed in heaven and those journeying on earth—is sometimes called one, our present intention is to discuss only the Church militant, that is, the company of faithful wayfarers. There is no need to show these meanings of the word with examples, since they occur everywhere in the Sacred Scriptures and in the books of all the saints. Certainly, just as it conflicts not only with the truth but even with common sense to include unbelievers not yet baptized under the name of Christ's Church, so we must establish that heretics are not parts of the Church. This is common to all theologians, not only those who have written recently, but also those held in greatest esteem for their antiquity. Cyprian, Augustine, Gregory, and the Concilia Lateranense et Florentina testify to it. Pope Nicholas therefore rightly defines the Church as an assembly of Catholics. Those who define the Church more strictly do not hesitate to say that it is made up only of the faithful; those who are more lenient still do not dare call those members of the Church whom they do not see to be Catholics. For it is absurd to say that those who are not parts of the Catholic Church are parts of Christ's Church. Yet a pope who is a heretic, until he is deposed by the Church, will still retain his authority and therefore remain head of the Church; heretics, then, will be counted among the Church's members. The Apostle too, after saying that Hymenaeus and Philetus had departed from the truth and overturned the faith of some, adds that in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honor and others for dishonor. By these words, as Augustine says, Paul signifies that even those who have strayed from the faith are in the great house—not as vessels for honor, but as vessels for dishonor. He confirms this view altogether by Cyprian's testimony as well. But since we are hastening to fulfill what we promised, we do not intend to resolve every difficulty that arises along the way. Why should we weigh here whether a pope can be a heretic? Or whether, as soon as he falls into heresy, he ceases to be head of the Church? Yet it was necessary to explain both questions in answering the first argument. That is beyond the scope of this brief work and does not pertain to the subject we have undertaken. If anything must be said about these matters, it will be said more suitably elsewhere. We shall explain the first question in book 6; Cajetanus noster in libro de auctoritate Papae et concilii secundo latius tractavit. Lest we seem to turn our backs, deterred by the difficulty of this argument, we must understand that “Church” can be said in two senses. First, it means the congregation of all the faithful from the beginning of the world to its end, as St. Thomas speaks of the Church in 3, q. 8, a. 3, as do all who say that the Church now is the same Church that existed among the Jewish people under the Law of Moses and among devout people of old under the natural law. In this sense catechumens are most truly members of the Church. For this Church is distinguished not by the sacrament of baptism but by faith, which at all times distinguished God's people from gatherings of unbelievers. Second, “Church” also means the assembly formed in Christ's name through baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, properly makes people members and parts of the Church, and distinguishes Christ's Church from the Synagogue.

The catechumens are not parts of this Church, while all those who bear the character of Christ's baptism are its parts, unless after open heresy they have been cut off by a public judgment of the Church. For as long as someone serves as an official of a commonwealth and exercises its authority and power, he can and must be called part of it. In this sense, then, just as the Church—that is, the Christian commonwealth—is constituted not only by interior faith but also by the outward sacrament of baptism, so its parts are separated not only by interior unbelief but also by schism and division through an external judgment. Therefore, if in Nicholas's definition the Church is understood in this second sense, the term “faithful” must refer not to faith in Christ but to the sacrament of faith. But more on this in the final chapter of this book. I answer the later argument as follows. If the Apostle applied those words to Hymenaeus and Philetus, he did not refer to the time when they had already left the common household of the faithful for their own sect. Rather, he referred to the time when they were included in the great house through their profession of faith and baptism. This is Augustine's view in the very passages we cited. Yet because of Cyprian, whose authority he says is pressed against him, Augustine also admits that heretics are in a certain way in the great house because of the same sacraments, in whose administration they agree with the Church. But Augustine, as I said, added this reluctantly, for he gladly follows the earlier point. To speak as I truly think, I do not understand why Augustine took Cyprian's words in a sense so far from Cyprian's meaning as heaven is from the nature of earth. To pass over the fact that in the passages I cited just before, Cyprian himself plainly excludes heretics from the Church, certe in epistola ad Antonianum, whose testimony Augustine misuses, he does not depart from that view but confirms it more plainly, saying: “As for Novatian's person, you should know that we need not be inquisitive while he teaches outside. Whoever he may be, and whatever kind of man he may be, he is not a Christian if he is not in Christ's Church.” Cyprian had no other reason for denying the baptism of heretics than his constant and firm conviction that they were outside the Church and baptized outside it. In the words Augustine reports, Cyprian means nothing other than the arrogance and pride of the Novatians, who thought they could do what was not granted even to the Apostles: separate the weeds from the wheat, chaff from grain, and choose vessels of gold and silver after casting out those of wood and clay. By vessels of wood and clay Cyprian did not mean those whose speech had spread like a cancer, but precisely those whom he had called weeds and chaff—that is, the frail and weak, who are mistaken and always mixed in with the strong and perfect in the Church. Since the Novatians could not endure them, they forgot humility and leniency and tried to cast them out of the Church before the time. Yet to refer vessels of wood and clay only to the wicked, as Cyprian does, seems insufficiently justified not only to Augustine but to me as well. The Apostle's meaning, then, is clear. After saying that some had fallen away from the truth, lest everyone be thought frail and we consequently fear for the faith of the Church, he adds, “But God's firm foundation stands.” Since someone might ask why God has some strong and others weak in his Church, allowing these to stand and those to fall away, the Apostle answers: in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay. There is another interpretation of this apostolic testimony, which also refutes the Manicheans, Pelagians, Cathars, Donatists, Begards, and Beguines

—and the errors into which Hymenaeus and Philetus perhaps fell. For it is not plausible that they also fell into the claim that the resurrection of bodies had already taken place. Rather, infected with the false conviction that they were absolutely holy, they maintained that life in mortal flesh was like the life the just would have with the angels after the resurrection, wholly free from all frailty and imperfection. For that reason the Apostle, the vessel of election, says that they asserted the resurrection had already taken place. Paul refutes their vain and futile opinion in a few words: “But God's firm foundation stands.” If I am not mistaken, these words have this meaning. The election of the faithful is certain and unchangeable on God's part. He calls it a foundation because it is the first beginning of human salvation. “Those whom he predestined, he also called; those whom he called, he also justified; those whom he justified, he also glorified.” God's firm foundation therefore stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his.” Our election, obscure and unknown to us ourselves, is enclosed as though sealed with a signet in God's knowledge alone, so that it is uncertain and hidden from us but fixed and stable with God. Yet since our salvation also depends on our own choice, no one should promise himself certain and enduring righteousness on the basis of God's election; no one, puffed up by carnal understanding, should preach in mortal flesh the religion of angels; no one should claim perfect impeccability and virtue; and no one should disdain the company of other believers in whom he sees that something human still remains. This is what Paul adds: “Let him depart from iniquity.” He also says that each should first strive by good works to make his calling sure, and not trust so much in his own purity that he fails to fear that he could be stained and defiled by iniquity. Next, he should understand that in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for honor, others for dishonor. If he sees some vessels broken, let him repair and mend them as best he can, taking care that he too might not be broken. And if a vessel seems to him to be for honor, let him patiently bear with vessels for dishonor and not leave the great house in disgust at them. For these dishonored and inglorious vessels have been turned to dishonor by their free choice, and by that same freedom they can be turned to honor. From these points not only is that argument refuted, but also what is most sought in this definition is established: the Church is constituted by the assembly of all the faithful, the strong and the weak, the just and the wicked alike. If we establish this plainly and briefly, neither we nor the reader will regret our effort.