THEOLOGICAL

VOLUME VIII

1947

Publishtd by tht ‘I’htolofitai Uandfa!
*>f the Society oj Jtitu in the United StnUt

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

615

Cardinal John Torquemada (Turrecremata) (1388-1468)/ a contem­
porary of the Carmelite Thomas Netter, draws a line of demarcation
between those who constitute the Church in its empirical form and
those who constitute the Mystical Body of Christ. The reason for this
STANISLAUS J. GRABOWSKI, S.T J)., S.T.M.
distinction is precisely sinners, for sinners adhering to the Church are
Catholic University of America
in the Church and, so far as they can, constitute the Church. They
'hroughout the Christian centuries historical studies of the concept
participate in the same rites and sacraments; they confess the one faith;
of the Church, or more specifically the extent of the membership in
they belong to one and the same religious society with the faithful who
the Church, have revealed that very frequently sinners have been
are just in a theological sense.6 But these sinners, Cardinal Torqueexcluded from the Church in general, or in particular from the Church
mada asserts, are not truly members of the Body of Christ;7 in fact,
considered as the Mystical Body of Christ. It was the preponderant
:dng dead members, they are not, in a full and true sense, even
teaching among the early Scholastics that sin—of course, mortal sinmembers of the Church considered as an empirical society.8 Hence
separated from the Mystical Body of Christ the individual committing
the distinction which the Cardinal makes between those belonging to
it, although he remained in the unity of the juridical body of the
the unity of the Church and those participating in the unity of the body
Church.1 St. Bonaventure is a good representative of the golden per­
of the Church or Christ.9
iod of Scholasticism; not infrequently he excludes sinners from the
The same distinction, under divers phraseologies, prevails in the
Church viewed principally as the Mystical Body of Christ?
writings of the ecclesiologists of the sixteenth century. A few examples
In the later Scholastic period Thomas (Waldensis) Netter (1375of the more influential names will suflice. Stapleton asserts a twofold
1430)3 distinguishes a twofold Church: the one is invisible, for it is
unity of the Church or a twofold society in the Church: the one formed
composed only of the just and predestined, and constitutes the Mysti­
of the just exclusively, the other composed of the just and sinners com­
cal Body of Christ; the other is visible, for it is formed of the universi
bined.10 The same antinomy is reflected in Cardinal Hosius’ dis­
body of men, even sinners, adhering visibly to the Church.4 Agair.,
tinction between being a membrum Chrisli, i.e., through faith and
1 Cf. A. Landgraf, “Siinde und Trennung von der Kirche in der Frühschoiistà,*
charity, and being in Christi Corpore Ecclesia, which is equivalent to

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST
ACCORDING TO ST. AUGUSTINE

T

Scholostik, V (1930), 246.
* Thus, St Bonaventure denies sinners a place in the corpus Christi or membership witi
Christ; e.g., II Sent., 32, 1, 1, fund. 4 {Opera Omnia, ed. Ad Claras Aquas. II,
760): “Membrum Christi quis esse potest, quamdiu manet in peccato mortali?” ΟIV Sent., 12, 2, 1, 2, fund. 1 (IV, 291); IV Sent., 9, 1, 2, arg. 1 and ad bn (IV, 203); III
Sent., 28, un., 3 ad 4m (III, 628); If Sent., 9, 2, 1, conci. (IV, 207). At other times the
same Bonaventure excludes them from the Church without specifying under which ascwt
he considers the Church; thus, IV Sent., 45, 2, 2, arg. pro neg. 4 (IV, 945): “Iste peccator
non est membrum Ecclesiae.” Evidently he means in this case the visible, juridol
Church, for elsewhere he admits that sinners are in the Church; e.g., IISent., 29, dub. ΠΙ
(H, 709); “Et nos videamus [Deum] peccatores sustinere intra Ecrleslam.” Cf. D
Culhane, De Corpore Mystico Doctrina Serapkici (Mundelein, 1934), pp. 36 S.
* Cf. H. Hurter, Nomendator laterarius (3 ed.; Oeniponte, 1906), H, 817-18; Zimmerman, Monumenta Histor. Carmel. (Lerins, 1907), I, 442.
* Doctrinale Antiquitatum Fidei Ecdesiae Catholicae, Lib. H, art. 2, cc. XU, XXVIII.
This distinction of Thomas Netter was refuted by Antonius de Corduba (f!578) as un­
orthodox and as savoring of the Lutheran doctrine on a visible and invisible Charri
Opera in V Libros Digesta (Venedis, 1569—Toledo, 1570), Lib. IV, foL 255-56.

614

‘ G. H. Hurter, ep. nt., Π, 880-84.
• Summa de Ecdesia (yeneûis, 1561), Lib. 1, fol. 7 (fac. 2)-fd. 8 (fac. 1).
'IHd., c. 8, fol. 10 (fac. 2).
'liid., c. 57, fol. 69 (fac. 1): “Homines fideles peccatores pertinent aliqoomodo ad
aitatem Ecclesiae inquantum continuantur ei per fidem, quae est unitas miterulis. non
Uæn possunt dici membra proprie, sicut nec membrum mortuum nisi aequi voce.” Cf.
riso ibid., foL 68 (fac. 2), foL 69 (fac. 1). In this he follows the distinction of St. Thomas.
5m. Tkeol., HI, q. 8, a. 3 ad 2m. Gregorius de Valentia, in his Commentaria Thetdogica,
IH (Ingolstadii, 1603), disp. 1, q, 1, cot 166, calls this teaching of St Thomas ■‘recepta
theologorum sententia.”
*Ibid., c. 57, foL 69 (fac. 1): “Ad unionem corporis mystici sive ecclesiae numquam
proprie pertinent e-ristenta»* in peccato mortali, tamen refert dicere unitatem ecdesiae et
corporis ecdesiae. In unitate enim ecdesiae sunt boni et mali, dummodo habeant rectam
idem.... Unitas vero corporis non est nisi per fidem formatam charitate. Secundum erga
propriam rationem corporis mali non sunt de corpore Ecclesiae, quamvis sint de ecclesia. '
M Prindpiarum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstrate Methodica .Parisiis, 1582), Castror.
1, fi>. I, C 8, P- H

616

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

metnbrum Ecclesiae and is predicated of sinners.11 The greatest apol­
ogist of this century, St. Robert Bellarmine, in his well-known classi­
fication of those who belong to the corpus Ecclesiae and those who
belong to the anima Ecclesiae, gives expression to the indusion anc
exclusion of sinners from one and the same Church under different
aspects.11
It is not maintained that precisely the enumerated authors of the
sixteenth century denied inherence to sinners in the Mystical Body of
Christ. There have been such writers in this period. But the
examples have been adduced to indicate the problem and the varica
attempts at solving it.13
This antinomy of the inclusion and exclusion of sinners from one and
the same Church has its roots deeply and copiously implanted in the
voluminous works of St. Augustine.14 This great African bishop his
profoundly influenced the ecclesiology of the Fathers, the Scholastic,
and the theologians of the sixteenth century who had to cope with the
same problems he faced when he wrote against the Donatist separati
in Africa. St. Augustine merited not only the appellation of De·.;·»
gratiae but also the title of Doctor Ecclesiae. Modem treatises on the
Church are founded, to a great extent, on the matter and terminologies
which he developed and contributed to the fund of religious knowiec;
11 Cf. Confessio Catholicae Fidei Christiana, c. 20 (Opera Omnia [Coloniae, 1584 j . I
Confutatio, Lib. ΙΠ (ibid., I, 537). Cf. G. M. Grabka, Cardinalis Hosii Doctrine u
Corpore Christi Mystico (Washington, D. C., 1945), pp. 253 ff.; L. Bemacki, La dxtrmr ;
TÉglise chez le Cardinal Hosius (Paris, 1936), pp. 120 ff.; J. Smoczyfiski. fiktewi-pi
Stanislava Hozjusza (Pelplin, 1937), p. 86.
“ De Controversiis Christianae Fidei, ΓΠ, 2 (Opera Omnia [Neapoli, 1857]), Π.
Cf. J. de la Servière, La théologie de Bellarmin (Paris, 1909), p. 170.
u That this was a problem of the sixteenth century is indicated by the fact that Bar­
tholomeus Medina was able to classify the opinions of authors of this century into tiset
categories: “In hac quaestione explicanda video variare Doctores Quidam in hac or··..-: «
existant, peccatores charitate vacuos licet fidelium formam retineant, non esse Ecdestt.
aut Christi membra, bene autem possunt dici partes Ecclesiae. In hac sententia fet
Turrecremata ... et Doctissimus Cano,... quam sententiam, ut audio, sequuntur riti
docti nostrae tempestatis. Alii vero dicunt peccatores charitate vacuos esse tnecxi
Christi in potentia, et secundum quid, quorum sententiae videtur hoc in loco D. Thossss
favere. Sunt qui dicant, quod peccatores et mali sunt membra corporis Christi betesgenea, id est alterius rationis ac spiritus, quam boni.__ ” (Expositio in Tertiem ?Thomae Partem, quaest, 8, art. 3 [Veneriis, 1590], p. 143).
14 Cf. J. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes (4e éd.; Paris, 1912), pp. 387-388; P. Batur»
Le catholicisme de saint Augustin (4e éd.; Paris, 1929), p. 256-66.

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

617

Now, in the matter at hand, it is evident that the writings of St.
Augustine abound in a twofold series of statements about the relation
of sinners to the Church. If words alone and their apparent meaning
were taken into consideration without a more thorough examination,
we would be inclined to judge them contradictory. For one chain of
testimonies, strong in each link, includes sinners in the Church; the
other chain, consisting of no less emphatic and repeated assertions,
excludes them from the Church. What is still more remarkable, how­
ever, is the fact that the links of these chains have been forged and
welded as arguments to fetter the same foe. The fray with the Donadsts gave St. Augustine occasion for both. Is it not natural, therefore,
that any mind having some sense for the genius of St. Augustine would
expect to be able to conciliate or coordinate into a systematic presenta­
tion these seemingly discrepant claims?
The More Obvious Meaning of Church

Before embarking upon an investigation of this ecclesiological
problem, it will be well to bear in mind St. Augustine’s concept of the
Church and his meaning of sin and sinner. The Church of St. Augus­
tine has a twofold aspect :
1) It is a Church of sacramental rites, a hierarchical order, and a
social structure. The Catholica is portrayed in its historical, geo­
graphical, visible form characterized by various manifest traits through
which the true assembly of God may be recognized and discerned from
false religious congregations. External elements as visible bonds are
essential to the concept of the Church. In fact, St. Augustine main­
tains that no religion, true or false, is possible without external rites and
visible observances.
2) It is a Church of the Holy Ghost and of grace; it is a Church of
faith, hope, and charity; it is a Church of internal, spiritual life. St.
Augustine, the Fathers, and the Scholastics called this aspect of the
Church primarily the Body of Christ or the Mystical Body of Christ.
This spiritual life of the individual member in the Body of Christ or of
all the members corporately taken was as real an entity to St. Augus­
tine as the life of the human body animated by the soul.1*
» Cf. S. J. Grabowski. MSt. Augustine and the Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ '
Tkkujogical Stvdies, VII (1946), 72 ff.

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

It must be borne in mind that these two views of the Church are but
two aspects of a single but complex and elastic idea of one and the
same Church. In other words, the extension of the Church considered
as an empirical society is identical and coincidental with the Church
viewed as the Mystical Body of Christ. The members that are in the
empirical society are also in the Mystical Body, although their manner
of inherence vastly differs. There is no justification for ascribing to
St. Augustine a division into a visible and invisible Church as two, at
least partially separable and distinct entities.
Division of Sin

St. Augustine distinguishes clearly enough between sin and sin. The
basic division of sins is between those that deprive man of, or separate
him from, the kingdom of God and those that do not. St. Augustine
accepts and expounds the sins enumerated by St. Paul as depriving
man of God’s kingdom. These sins divest the soul of its spiritual life
and at the same time of its living membership in the corporate life oi
the Body of Christ.16 In opposition to this death-bringing category of
sins there are the many and more frequent transgressions which are
called by the Bishop of Hippo the lesser, venial, or daily sins. These
are said to creep into the soul because of human frailty and are remedia­
ble through fasting, almsgiving, and prayer.17 We cannot be free from
these sins ; they do not extinguish the spiritual life of the soul, nor do
they deprive us of life everlasting.18 Such is the nature and effect oi
light and grievous sins relative to the Church as the Mystical Body of
Christ in the doctrine of St. Augustine.1·
We shall consider St. Augustine’s doctrine on sinners in the Church
under the following headings: (1) the relation of sinners to the juridical
u Such death-bringing sins are called graviora peccata (Sermo 83, 10 [PL XXXMT.
512J), magna, majora scelera (Sermo 9, 11, 18 [PL XXXVIII, 88]).
17 Such sins are called by St. Augustine venialia, minuta, modica, quotidiana·.
quar
delectationes saeculi subrepunt in animam; exercete vos in misericordia, exercete ros ia
eleemosynis, in jejuniis, in orationibus. His enim purgantur quotidian* perrat?, quae occ
possunt nisi subrepere in animam, propter fragilitatem humanam Noli illa contemnet.
quia minora sunt; sed time, quia plura sunt” (ibid., 17).
13 De spir. et lit., 28, 48 (PL XLTV, 230): “Sicut enim non impediunt a vita aetas»
justum quaedam peccata venialia, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur....”
** Cf. S. J. Grabowski, ‘‘The Holy Ghost in the Mystical Body of Christ according te
St. Augustine,” Theological Studies, VI (1945), 66-67.

619

Church; (2) the exclusion of sinners from the Body of Christ; (3) the
inclusion of sinners in the Body of Christ; (4) the exclusion of sinner.·
irom the celestial Body of Christ or from the celestial Church.
I. RELATION OF SINNERS TO THE JURIDICAL CHURCH

When the Church is considered under the aspect of a society, sinners
are defended strenuously as being in it and consequently in a way con­
stituting a part of it. This becomes apparent from the often repeated
uguments and the direct and peremptory phraseology employed in the
whole controversy with the Donatists. For it was with them that the
-hole problem of the existence of sin and sinners in the Church was
vehemently disputed.20
The Donatists, fellow countrymen of St. Augustine, separated them­
selves from the Catholic Church under the pretext that “on account of
the crimes (crimina) of Cecilian, the Church of Christ perished ... it
remained in the African faction of Donatus, but in other parts of the
world became extinct, as it were, through contagion of communion.”21
The sin with which Cecilian, Bishop of Carthage, was charged was the
ϊό-called crimen traditionis, the real perpetration of which would have
rendered him a grievous delinquent in the eyes of the primitive
Church.22 St. Augustine defends the person of the bishop, vindicating
him from the accusation ; more than this, even if the supposed crime
were true, he denies the conclusion drawn by the Donatists that it
would have corrupted and extinguished the Church of Christ.
The imputation of this personal and single sin of the Catholic Bishop
of Carthage to the whole Church was the hinge of the entire contro­
versy. Yet, it was not merely an individual case; it involved a far-

■Cf. P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de ΓAfrique du nord (Paris, 1900-1923), VH
(1923), S. Augustin et le donatisme; Battifol. op. cit., pp. 125-348; Tireront, .·?/. cil., Π,
334 S.
* De haer. 69 (PL XLH, 43); see also Ep. 93, 10, 37 (PL ΧΧΧΙΠ. 339; CSEL 34, IL
4*1-82); Ep. 105, 1,2 (PL XXXIII, 396; CSEL 34. Il, 596).
2 The Donatist schism originated in Africa during the persecution oi Diadetan in the
:-tar 311. A party of fanatical Christians led by a certain Donatus, bishop of Numedia,
refused to acknowledge Cecilian. the lawfully consecrated bishop of Carthage, under the
pretext ? Hat the latter received his episcopal order from the hands of “traditores.'’ Le.,
shops who betrayed the sacred books into the hands of pagan persecutors. In place of
Cedlian, Donatus consecrated a certain Majorinus, and later succeeded him By his
■ratoricai powers, Donatus contributed most to the establishment and expansion of the
îrhuŒ. so that be has given his name to the faction.

620

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

recourse to the itemized catalogue of St. Paul containing sins which
reaching principle, a momentous doctrine whereby every sin which
exclude
from the kingdom of God is sufficient evidence of St. Augus­
could be classed in the same category of grievousness would be incom­
tine’s consciousness of the enormous difference between a “daily” and
patible with the Church of Christ. It was primarily a question oi
a
“lethal” sin.
membership in the Church, but at bottom the very nature of the
Church was involved in the controversy.
Scriptural Testimonies
According to the Donatists, the holiness of the Church of Christ
Sacred Scripture furnishes St. Augustine with his most potent argu­
brooks no admixture of sin; the sinner as bad leaven is the cause of the
ments
against the Donatists to show that sinners remain a part of the
contamination of the whole mass.23 St. Augustine, on the other hand,
Church.
Accordingly, he asserts that “there come to mind from the
professes and defends, with emphasis and vehemence, the doctrine that
Scriptures those likenesses, divine presages and most certain examples,
no sin excludes the transgressor from the Church or compels his expul­
by which it has been proved and foretold that the wicked would be
sion. This he does, basing himself on exhaustive scriptural and tradi­
mixed in the Church with the good until the end of the world and to
tional evidence, with a perspicacity and thoroughness which are indica­
the time of judgement.”26 The allusion is to texts from both the Old
tive of his brilliant apologetic powers and of his zeal in defense of the
and the New Testament.
Church. It lies, I believe, on the surface of the matter that, in this
In the Old Testament are found some striking images which he
dispute about whether sinners belong to the Church or not, the notion,
or rather the aspect of the Church which comes to the foreground is
adopts as arguments for the contemporaneous existence of the good and
that of the Church which is visible and social.24
the evil in the same Church. The ark of Noe, which was an image of
A word may be added here about the sort of sin involved in the
the future Church, contained clean and unclean animals,27 from that
Donatist disputes. If the nature of the sin is determined, then so is
same ark a raven was sent forth, and also a dove. In these animals of
the kind of sinner, for these are correlative. Sin was involved in the
two different classes and in these two types of birds St. Augustine sees
controversies of two great heretical factions against whom St. Augus­
an indication of the existence of two diverse classes of men, the good
tine wrote many of his works. Not much is necessary', however, to
and the bad, in the Church. Another type of the Church is represented
persuade us that the sin of the Pelagian is not the sin of the Donatist.
by Rebecca,28 who carried two dissenting sons in her womb, one of
when the inclusion or exclusion of a member is involved on account of
whom merited to be loved, the other to be rejected. The Church is
that sin. The sin spoken of in the controversy with the former group
also now in a state of travail, carrying within her such as will be loved
is the sin to which even the just man is subject without passing to the
and such as will be despised when the time will come to be born to the
state of the unjust upon its commission.25 The sin involved in the
celestial Church and to separate the wicked from the good. From the
controversy with the Donatists is usually called a crimen, a sin. that is.
Canticle of Canticles29 there is the simile of the lily and the thorns.
of a lethal nature. This is easily deduced from the history of the con­
The lily is typical of that portion of the Church which consists of the
troversy as well as from the arguments employed. His frequent
good; the thorns typify the wicked. The latter are called daughters
α Ci. P. Battifol, op. cit., pp. 260-61.
because they belong to the people of God, that is. to the Church, and
24 F. Hünnermann, Die Busslekre des hl. Augustinus (Forschungen zur christiichea
are called thorns on account of their sinful unworthiness.
Literatur und Dogmengeschichte. XII, 1 [Paderborn, 1914]), p. 5: “Augustin geht ωώί
In the New Testament the arguments are taken especially from the
so weit wie die Donatisten, welche den Sunder auch von der aüsseren Kirchengen^insdii/t
getrennt ’.vissen wollten.”
s De pecc. mer., II, 13, 18 (PL XLIV, 162; CSEL 60, 92) ; Contra duos epist. Pd, HL
5, 15 (PL XLIV, 599; CSEL 60, 503-4); De perf. just, hominis, 15, 35 (PL XLIV, 310
CSEL 42, 36). Ci. E. J. Carney, The Doctrine of St. Augustine on Sanctity (Wzshingwc.
1945), pp. 43-45.

• Defide et oper., 5,7 (PL XL, 201 ; CSEL 41, ed. J. Zycha, 42).
^Gen. 8^-9; Ci. St. Augustine, Ep. 108, 7, 10 (PL XXXHI, 417; CSEL 34,
Π. 633-34).
"Gen. 2522-23.
» 22; CL St. Augustine, Ep. 93, 9, 28 (PL ΧΧΧΙΠ, 335; CSEL 34, Π, 472-73).

622

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

623

contents of the parables and figures used by Jesus Christ. Many of
Church’s fields the conversion from cockle into wheat is possible, a
these are prophetical of the coexistence of the bad and the good in the
thing not feasible in the type.33 Therefore, just as it is prohibited to
Church until the end of its temporal existence. The purpose of the
eradicate the tares from the field before harvest time, so also it is not
predictions in the parables was to warn and comfort us, so that the
■jermitted to cast the sinner out of the Church because he has more
existence of wicked men in the true Church of Christ might not be a
favorable chances for conversion if he remains in the unity of the
stumbling-block to the good and to those that seek the truth. The
Church’s sacraments. For the Holy Ghost, who remits sins in the
figures most frequently appealed to by St. Augustine, under which this
saaament of penance, is confined to the Church as the soul of the
truth is portrayed, are the following:
Mystical Body of Christ. Hence to the Church alone is confided the
a) Wheat and chaff.30—The grain is significative of the good; there
remission of sins.
is an analogy between sinners and straw. The Church is the field oo
c) The fish-net and the double draught of fishes.u—St. Augustine
which both of these grow. A part of the chaff is carried off the fiek
compares the present state of the Church in this world and its future
by gusts of wind; the rest remains on the held until the end, when it is
condition in the world to come to two fishing episodes described in
gleaned from the held by servants. St. Augustine’s interpretation is ’
detail in the Gospels. In the first, all kinds of fish were caught. In
this: Part of the wicked leave the Church to betake themselves to
fact, the load was so great that the strings of the net gave way, so that
heretical and schismatical factions; such quit the unity of the Churd
a part of the prey was able to free itself from the net, whilst all the rest,
and in consequence are no longer members of the Church. The other
good fish and bad, were drawn to the shore. Here Augustine sees an
part of the wicked persevere in the unity of the Church until the a·:
image of the present condition of the Church.” That portion which
of their lives; such are reputed members of the Church as long as thy
frees itself from the draw-net is representative of heretics and schismat­
remain in its unity. There is one difference, however, between these
ics who separate themselves from the unity of the Church; the good
two helds to which our attention is called; namely, in the earthlyfide
and the bad fish that remain in the one net are representative of the
any kind of conversion from chaff into grain is impossible, whereas :r.
good and the bad in the one Church, where they shall remain until the
the field of the Church, during its temporal existence, that whidi was
leparation
takes place on the shores of eternity.* In the second fish­
wheat may turn into chaff, and that which was chaff may becocx
ing,
which
took
place after the resurrection, only good and large fishes
wheat.
were
caught
by
the
Apostles. They were told to cast their net to the
b) The wheat and the cockle.31—This parable is similar in content
right, signifying thereby a draught only of good fish. Similarly, after
to the former one. The cockle, that is, wicked men, is permitted to
the
resurrection of all men, only the good will form the Church.37
grow until the harvest, that is, until the time for God’s judgment
These
biblical narratives are not to be separated from the parable of
Then only shall the separation take place; then only shall the Church
the
fishing-net,
to which they are so similar in subject and object.*·
be constituted of the good alone. “Other is the condition of the field
and other the peace of the barn.And, as has been noted regarding
« Mt., 12, 4 (PL XXXV, 1371); Sermo (Caillas et Saint Yves, 2,5'·, Morin.
4nf. Ser., p. 250.
the previous comparison, so here there is this consolation that in tot
* Mt 3:12; Cf. St. Augustine, Contra lilt. Petii., II, 78, 174 (PL XLIH, 312; CSEL 52
108); Contra Cresco*., HI, 35, 39 (PL XLIH, 517; CSEL 52, 447); De bapi. emtm Dm*.
L 17, 26 (PL XLIH, 123); ibid., VH, 99 (PL ΧΤ.ΙΠ, 241; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petscbtr..
370-71).
* Mt 13:24 S.; Cf. St. Augustine, De bapt. contra Donat., IV. 9, 13 (PL XLIH :v
CSEL 51, 237).
" Semto 47, 5, 6 (PL XXXVIII, 298).

*L 5:1-10; J 21:1-12; Cf., for example, Ep. 93, 9, 34 (PL ΧΧΧΠΙ. 338, CSEL 34.
0,480).
•I» Io. Es. tr. 122, 7 (PL XXXV, 1962). Cf. Marie Comeau. Saint Angesstin ert^'U
in quatrième Ésangüe (Paris, 1930), p. 154.
M Sermo 252, 4, 4 (PL XXXXTHL, 1174) : ‘Omnes mali {haeretici et schismata ) exeunt.
Soc quidem exeunt, nisi mali: remanent autem et boni et mali. Nam unde perdodtur ad
stes cum pisdbus et bonis et malis, de qua in parabola locutus est Dotænus?”
" In Io Eo. fr. 122, 7(PL XXXV, 1962).
• Mt 13:47-50; cf. De anuauu enaetg., IV, 9,10 (CSEL 43, I, 410).

624

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

d) The sheep and the goats.™—There are good and bad spiritual
pastors administering to the dock of faithful in the Church; but also
mixed among the dock of sheep are goats.40 Sheep typify the good,
whereas goats symbolize the sinners in the Church. Just as goats graze
on common pastures and are led by the same pastors as the sheep, so
the wicked in the Church enjoy the same ministry as the good and per­
tain to the same unity. In due time, however, the goats will be sepa­
rated from the dock; that is, the sinners from the Church of Christ.
The goats will be cast to the left for damnation, while the sheep will find
their place to the right to form the Church in eternity.41
e) The two cities.—Augustine portrays all mankind as being divided
into two spiritually distinct camps or diverse societies. He designates
them as the two cities. The name “city” is applied to an aggregation
of men united by their love and the possession of a common object
The object that is loved, or the kind of love which is determined by the
cherished object, determines the kind of people, or the kind of city. To
use St. Augustine’s words: “To determine the nature of a people, see
what things it loves.”42 But that which is pursued or loved by a
society is the common end, for the attaining of which the members of
that society have banded themselves together. The end which is
sought by every society, whatever be its nature, is peace.
Now, peace in an individual as well as in a society, is dependent upon,
and is the result of, order.43 So far as a society is concerned, it is necr>
” Mt 2552; CL St. Augustine, Sermo 47, 5, 6 (PL XXXVIH, 298).
40 £p. 208, 3 (PL ΧΧΧΙΠ, 951; CSEL 57, ed. Al. Goldbacher, IV, 344) : “Sicut autos
sunt pastores boni et mali, sic etiam in ipsis gregibus sunt et boni et mali ”
° Sermo 47, 5, 6 (PL XXXVIH, 298): “Quid hic faciunt hirci in grege Dei? In asdec
pascuis, in eisdem fontibus, et hirci tamen sinistrae destinati dextris miscentur et prias
tolerantur qui separabuntur; et hic exercetur ovium patientia ad similitudinem padecuae
Dei.”
42 De civ. Dei, XIX, 24 (PL NILI, 655) : “Populus est coetus multitudinis rarioaxhs
rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus: profecto ut videatur qualis quisca:
populus sit, illa sunt intuenda quae diligit. Quaecumque tamen diligat, si coetus est
multitudinis, non pecorum, sed rationalium creaturarum, et eorum quae diligit cnocona
communione sociatus est, non absurde populus nuncupatur; tanto utique melior, quarioia
melioribus; tantoque deterior, quanto est in deterioribus concors.” Cf. E. Gilson, hunduction d Vétude de saint Augustin (2e éd.; Paris, 1943), p. 228.
” Cf. S. Brass, “Idea Pokoju u Sw. Augustyna i jej Wplyw na ^redniowiecze,” in
Auguslyn (Poznan, 1930), p. 12; H. X. Arquillière, “Observations sur l’Augustmsse
politique,” Pente de philosophic, I (1930), 545.

625

saiy in the pursuance of a common end by many that each member
assume his own place in that society and perform his part in the manner
in which it is to be accomplished. There must be harmony and coordi­
nation; there must be those who order and those who obey. The peace
of the Christian city, therefore, is the fellowship of perfect order and
true harmony in the enj’oyment of God and of one another in God.44
The body’s peace therefore is an orderly disposal of the parts thereof; the
unreasonable soul’s, an ordered control of the appetites thereof; the reasonable
soul’s, a true harmony between knowledge and performance; that of body and
soul alike, a temperate and undiseased habit of nature in the whole creature.
The peace of mortal man with immortal God is an orderly obedience unto His
eternal law performed in faith. Peace of man and man is a mutual concord;
peace of a family, an orderly rule and subjection amongst the parts thereof; peace
of a dty, an orderly command and obedience amongst the citizens; peace of God’s
city, a most orderly coherence in God and fruition of God; peace of all things is
a well disposed order.45

Since there are two orders relative to man as an individual and as a
social being—the one referring to the body, the other to grace—there
are two types of peace. There are, consequently, two societies, two
universal cities, each striving for its proper peace. Fundamentally,
each order is differentiated and manifested by the love which reaches
out for, or the will which follows up, its particular object. The old
man, the carnal man, the terrestrial man desires, seeks, loves the tem­
poral; all men having the same obj'ect are banded together by the ter­
restrial love of it. They form the society of the earthly, the crrilas
terrena. The new man, regenerated by grace, the spiritual man, the
heavenly man having God as his object and his fellowman in God is
bound by that love into a society of the good, a civitas Dei. The kind
of love, therefore, is the ultimate principle of the division into two
societies-4·

** De cis. Dei, XIX, 13,1, (PL XLI, 640; ed. Dombart-Kalb, Π, 376-77 : “ftx d vitaris :
ordinata imperandi atque obediendi concordia avium. Pax coelestis dvitatis, ordi-

tranquillitas ordinis. Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sua cuique tribuens
dispositio.”
« 2^, cd.· quotation from J. Healey’s translation of the City of God (London, 1945 i,
Π, 249.
* De Gen. ad lit., XI. 15, 20 (PL XXXIV, 437); Enar. iu Pt. 64, 2 (PL XXXVI, 773
D, ds. Dei, XV, 1, 1 (PL XLI, 437).

626

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

627

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

In a pejorative sense, under the image of two universal common­
wealths Augustine portrays two camps of men constituting by their
divergent loves and lives two distinct societies, of which the one wiü
the good pertains to Christ, the other with the wicked, to the devil.
All humanity is but one society and should be one so far as its fini
destination and the means of attaining it are concerned; there is
a supreme order and a veritable peace requiring God, without which
every other order and peace is futile.47 The civitas sanctorum and the
civitas iniquorum, however, are not yet separated in such a manner that
those who will in due time, or ought to, pertain to the one or the other
city are already visible members of the one or other society. For the
present they are and will remain intermingled until the segregation
takes place on the day of judgment.48

Sinners in the Juridical Church
The question of the existence of sinners in the Church is determined
for St. Augustine by the authority of the Scriptures, in which the
doctrine is forcefully and unequivocally taught by Jesus Christ. It is
also a matter of practical tradition accepted by the universal Church
that sinners are within her fold. But St. Augustine abounds in pro­
nouncements of his own, in which he asserts the coexistence of the
wicked with the good in the Church. These statements are often con­
nected with an explanation of the manner in which these sinners adhere
to the Church, or at least tend to qualify that adherence. It will suffice
to cite only a few of the expressions with which he asserts the fact of the
inherence of sinners in the Church. He maintains that ‘“in the
47 De ctv. Dei, XIX, 23, 5 (PL XLI, 655) : “Quapropter ubi non est ista justitia, at
secundum suam gratiam civitati obedienti Deus imperet unus et summus, ne citiqwn
sacrificet, nisi tantum sibi; et per hoc in omnibus hominibus ad eamdem dvttatBS
pertinentibus atque obedientibus Deo, animus etiam corpori, atque ratio vitiis, oraine
vivat ex fide, quae operatur per dilectionem, qua homo diligit Deum, sicut diligendus est
Deus, et proximum sicut semetipsum: ubi ergo non est ista justitia profecto non estcorts
hominum juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus. Quod si non est, utique popuius
non est, si vera est haec populi definitio. Ergo nec respublica est, quia res populi non est,
ubi ipse populus non est.”
,e De caieck. rudib., 19, 31 (PL XL, 333) : “duae itaque civitates, una iniquorum, altera
sanctorum, ab initio generis humani usque in hnem saeculi perducuntur, nunc pemïrti
corporibus, sed voluntatibus separatae, in die judicii etiam corpore separandae ” Cf. A
Gex. adliL, XI, 15, 20 (PL XXXIV, 437).

Catholic Church itself there are evil living men,”49 that such “are
wicked Christians, the more injurious as (they are) internal enemies,”50
and that they are believers who are called but are not chosen.51
These assertions lead us to the particular aspect of the Church which
the great Doctor has in mind when he pronounces his teaching on the
place of sinners in the Church. The very terms or expressions
employed by him when speaking of sinners and their relation to the
Cnurch bring out with perfect clarity the aspect under which he views
the Church in such instances. He maintains sinners to be in gremio
Ecclesiae,52 to be contained iisdent conventiculis,a to be mingled with the
good in ipsa intus Ecclesiae,*4 to be in one and the same congregatione.55
These and similar expressions leave no doubt that it is the unity of the
ecdesiastical, social communion56 or of the Catholic, visible com­
munion57 that is meant.
In the use of these and similar expressions, whenever St. Augustine
defends the membership of sinners in the Church, it can almost
instinctively be felt how he avoids and recoils from pronouncements
and phraseology which would bring them into relationship with the
Body of Christ. It is patent that the mind of St. Augustine consist­
ently has a sense of a definite distinction between the two separate
concepts, or better, aspects of the nature of the Church. .As regards
sinners, it is the Church in its sacramental and visible organization that
he envisages as comprehending them, and the nature of which he
unfolds in this connection. However, this does not mean that sinners
are so attached to the external Church as to be excluded altogether
from the Body of Christ; for the present, only this much is maintained
that the idea of a sinner belonging to the Church evokes primarily and
rightly in the mind of the Bishop of Hippo the social and visible aspect
of the Church.
'

«ZJe Miech. rudib., 37, 55 (PL XL, 347).
M De fide rerum quae xttx videntur, S, H (PL XL, 180}.
« Sermo 223,1 (PL ΧΧΧΛΤΠ. 1092).
«Exar. 3 ■» Ps. 103 (PL XXXVH, 1362).
« Exar i» Ps. 6,10 (PL XXXVI, 95).
« Exar. ix Ps. 138. 8 (PL XXXVH. 1693).

" Exar ix Pt 54, 8 (PL XXXVI, 633).
«
5, 1 (PL XXXVIII, 53).

628

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

The Manner of their Inherence

If a further inquiry is made to ascertain what it is precisely that
makes sinners members of the visible Church, the answer may easily
be had from the clear statement made by St. Augustine himself that
sinners “per sacramentorum communionem unitatisque Ecclesiae
videntur Ecclesiae copulati.”88 There are, therefore, two factors
accounting for membership in the Church conceived as a visible organ­
ization: first, the voluntary adherence to Catholic unity and faith, and
thereby schismatics and heretics are excluded from the Churdi;
secondly, an actual participation in the sacraments of the Church, for
it would be futile and ludicrous to assert membership in a society but
no communion with it.
Communion with the Church, then, is effected through a participa­
tion in what St. Augustine calls the sacraments. Although the term
“sacrament ” is to be understood in a more generic or broader sense1
than the technical term which is applied strictly to certain rites in
modem usage, it is to be specifically understood of these also In fact,
the meaning of a sacrament is narrowed down to the sense of Scholastic
and modern Catholic theologians more in the writings of St. Augustine
than in the works of his predecessors.60 The Augustinian sacrament
encompasses those rites by which a person ostensibly enters into the
society of the Church, that is, baptism and all other external rites by
which the social and religious intercommunion of membership is maniia Ep. 149, 3 (PL xxxm, 631; CSEL 44, ed. Al. Goldbacher, HI, 350).
59 Cf. J. de Ghellinck, Pour Phistoire du mot “sacramentum” (Paris, 1924), p. 16, where
he says that the word ‘‘sacrament” in St. Augustine’s works “revêt une incroyable diversité
de sens.”
WH. M. Féret, “ ‘Sacramentum-Res’ dans la langue théologique de saint Augustin,"
Rev. des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, XXII (1940), 226: “Plus souvent que chez
ses prédécesseurs le terme sacramentum exprime chez-lui une action mystérieuse. ou un
rite culturel mystérieux; le symbolisme formant de plus en plus l’elément essentiel de ce
mystère en action.” M. Pontet, L’exégèse de s. Augustin prédicateur (Paris, 1915.
p. 264: “Bref, la réalité, non seulement du sacramental actuel (eau bénite, cendres,
récitation du Pater), mais du sacrement catholique, nettement défini par condles de
Lateran et de Trente, prend de plus en plus corps à travers les sens dispersés que sacrementum revêt dans sa prose. Vraiment l’expression se concentre, lorsqu’il parle du
‘sacrement de la source,’ le baptême, du ‘sacrement de l’autel,’ du ‘sacrement de la table
du Seigneur,’ l’Eucharistie, lorsqu’il définit aut chrétiens leur Église comme le lieu où ils
accomplissent les ‘choses divines’ où ils reçoivent les sacrements.”

629

fested.61 The hierarchical nature of the Church is manifested by the
rites of order. The great sacrament of unity and church life is the
Holy Eucharist. It is in relation to this sacrament that the position
of sinners in regard to the sacramental life of the Church is manifested.
Augustine says that sinners approach Christ’s altar62—which signifies
the reception of the Eucharistic sacrament—and that they receive the
Body of Christ and call it a sacrament. The participation of the good,
however, is quite different from that of the wicked.63 It may be said,
therefore, that participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist is a sign
of external adherence to the Church as a society, but not always of that
real internal inherence proper to the living members of the Body of
Christ.64
IVe may then say that the presence of a sinner in the Church is an
external, sacramental (in the sense just explained) attachment to the
Church, whilst the interior man seems to be untouched. He is in it
according to body but not according to spirit.66 He does not allow
himself to be reached internally.66 He is intermingled among the true

" Enar. 2 (sermo 3) in Ps. 30,3 (PL XXXVI, 249) : “Confusio enim quaedam putatur,
cum omnes christiani dicuntur, et qui bene vivunt, et qui male vivunt, omnes uno cha­
ractere signantur, omnes ad unum altare accedunt, omnes eodem baptismo abluuntur,
omnes eandem orationem dominicam proferunt, omnes iisdem mysteriis celebrandis
intersunt.”
■£p. 87, 3 (PL ΧΧΧΠΙ, 298; CSEL 34, ed. Al. Goldbacher, II, 399): “si tam multi
iniqui in uno populo Dei eos, qui eos contestabantur, non fecerunt tales, quales ipsi erant,
si multitudo illa falsorum fratrum Apostolum Paulum in una cum eis Ecclesia constitutum,
non fecit sua quaerentem, non quae Jesu Christi; manifestum est non hoc effici hominem,
quod est malus quisquam, cum quo ad altare Christi acceditur, etiamsi non sit incognitus,
si tantum non approbetur, et a bona conscientia displicendo separetur.”
"Sermo 354, 2 (PL XXXIX, 1563): “Corporis ejus sacramentum multi accipiunt;
sed non omnes qui accipiunt sacramentum, habituri sunt apud eum etiam locum promissum
membris ejus. Pene q uidem sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt, quia omnes in pascuis
ejus simul pascunt: sed venturus est qui dividat, et alios ponat ad dextram, alios ad

WF. Hünnennan, Die Busslehre des kl. Augustinus (Paderborn, 1914), p. 5, remarks:
“Mît riem Ausschluss von der Eucharistie, dem Zeichen der Gemeinschaft und inneren
Zugehôrigkat zur Kirche, ist auf engste die innere Trennung von der Kirche ais dem
irdischen Gottesreiche verbunden.” This passage can be judged according to what has
said above: the Eucharist is a sign of membership in the Church, but it cannot always
be a sign of internal union with it.
• De bapi. contra Donat., Π, 17, 26 (PL XLIII, 123).
"In Io. Er. tr. 57, 4 (PL XXXV, 1791): “Sed portantur (peccatores) in crinibus, id
est, in sacramentis visibilibus tolerantur: nequaquam interiora sensus attingunt.”

630

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

and spiritual members of the Church, to whom, however, by lack oi
disposition he does not pertain, and by whom he is only tolerated*
He seems to be side by side with the others, the good members, butin
reality is far away from them.68 Such a union, therefore, with the
other members is called by the Bishop of Hippo a corporal, externa?
or apparent union.
While there is a sacramental union or communion between the good
and the wicked, the good are in many respects distant from those who
seem close to them and one with them. For the good hold themselves
separate from the wicked by their will,69 by a difference of life,79 by the
dissent of heart,71 by a holy desire and affection of the heart,77 by the
heart itself.79 In a word, this separation is characterized as a spiritual
separation,74 in contradistinction to a corporal separation.75
The relation between the good and the bad in the Church, which has
just been described in its character of corporal unity and spiritual sepa­
ration, is well summarized in what St. Augustine says of Judas and the
latter’s relation to the other Apostles. He and they were one body
and yet they were not one body.
“Annot. in Job, 38 (PL XXXIV, 873; CSEL 28, ed. J. Zycha, Π, 603); Emt. m A
99, 12 (PL XXXVII, 1278).
α Enar in Ps. 25, 2 (PL XXXVI, 189) : “Aliquando quem irridebas adorantem lapides,
convertitur, et adorat Deum, fortasse religiosius quam tu, qui eum paulo antea irridebu
Sunt ergo proximi nostri latentes in his hominibus, qui nondum sunt in Errlesia et suet
longe a nobis latentes in Ecclesia.”
ta De cotech. rudib., 19, 31 (PL XXXVtil, 333): “Duae itaque dvitates, una invpwnn,
altera sanctorum, ab initio .. . nunc permixta corporibus sed voluntatibus separatae, io ύί
vero judicii etiam corpore separandae. ”
n Ep. 108, 3,10 (PL XXXIII, 410; CSEL 34, ed. AI. Goldbacher, Π 622) : “nec taos
ab eis (peccatoribus) corporali segregatione sed vitae dissimilitudine fuisse disjunctum.''
71 Enar. in Ps. 24, 21 (PL XXXVI, 187): “innocentes et recti corde non praesentia
corporali miscentur tantum, sicut mali, sed consensione cordis in ipsa innocentia et rectitu­
dine adhaerent mihi. .. .”
71 Enar in Ps. 64, 2 (PL XXXVI, 774): “Etsi adhuc corpore permixti sunt, deadens
tamen sancto discernuntur; et propter permixtionem corporalem nondum eriermt:
propter affectum cordis exire coeperunt.”
77 De quot. vir. ckor. (PL XLVII, 1128): “Tolerat bonus mala et donec in âne etiaa
corpore separantur, intus manens, corde non corpore separantur.” Cf. Senao 88, 22
25 (PL XXXVm, 553).
n Sermo 88, 18 (PL XXXVTH, 549): “Veniet ventilator, qui dividet malos a bonis.
Erit etiam corporalis separatio, quam modo spiritualis praecedit.
disjungimini; ad tempus caute corpore copulamini.”
73 De bapt. contra Donat., II, 17, 26 (PL XUH, 123).

631

One of you, in number not merit: in appearance, not in virtue; in corporal
zion, not in spiritual bonds; one by a union of flesh, not a oneness of heart
zerefore not one associate who is of us, but one who is to go out from us
icnxding to one consideration he is of us, according to another he is not of us
icoording to the communion of sacraments, he is of us; according to his own sins,
he is not of us.7S

The nature of a purely corporal union, i.e., one which involves a
iointuzl separation, must be interpreted in the light of St. Augustine’s
diole system of supernatural life and his more intimate conception of
the Church as the Body of Christ. Corporal union bespeaks, of itself,
and in the light of the texts in which it is found, an opposition to an
internal, spiritual union. This internal life is a life by faith, hope, and
cnanty. It is the internal life of j ustice and grace, a life far superior to
the natural life of the body, for it is a participation of the divine life
which is infused into the soul by the Holy Ghost. All the individuals
gifted with this life form in the Church of Christ a corporate body
having a corporate life and the Holy Ghost as its soul.77
Let us now revert for one moment to the notion of the spiritual sepa­
ration of the just and the holy in the Church from sinners in the same
Church. From the study and analysis of the texts in connection with
which this topic has been treated, it is evident that it is a separation
of mind and heart, desires and affections from the ways and the persons
of the wicked. From the tenor of the words it may seem that these
nsinuate but a moral or ethical separation—a separation that is con­
fined to interior sentiment and exterior practice. It must
re­
membered, however, that, according to St. Augustine, behavior and
practice usually correspond to the state of the soul. Hence sinful com­
portment indicates that the soul is actually not in vital union with God
and Christ or is effecting a dissolution of such a union. fer this reason

Dobts, secundum suorum proprietatem criminum, non ex nobis.’’

632

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

633

elusion and the exclusion of sinners are propounded against two differ­
ent tenets of the Donatists. Different viewpoints are coherently de­
veloped without entailing any contradiction. Nor is there any trace
Π. THE EXCLUSION OF SINNERS FROM THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST
on the part of the Donatists of accusing their adversary of any inconsist­
In what has already been said of the relation of sinners to the Church,
ency or fallacy in his procedure, though a remonstrance on their part
the latter has been viewed as a social organization, while the sinners
would certainly have followed in the wake of such a flagrant contra­
have been considered as members constituting a portion of the Church,
diction as the one here suggested.
for they are united to it externally by certain visible bonds. At
There were two different Donatist tenets which gave rise to his state­
present a study will be made of the relation of sinners to the Church as
ments on the inclusion of sinners in the Church on the one hand and to
the Mystical Body of Christ. For the sake of clarity the study will
his exclusion of sinners on the other.
be divided into two separate sections: in the first (the present one) the
1) The occasion for dealing with, and enlarging upon, the external
exclusion of sinners from the Mystical Body will be considered; in the
and social aspect of the Church was, as has already been noted, the
second (the following section) the problem of their inclusion will be
accusation that the Catholic Church was a church of proditores infected
considered.
wholly by the contagion of a proditor bishop. This Catholic bishop,
It has already been remarked as something strangely incongruous
allegedly a sinner, was permitted to remain in the unity of the Catholic
that this genial Father of the Church should have propounded against
Church, whereas, according to the Donatists, not even his corporal
the same heretical and schismatical faction a seemingly contradictory
presence should have been suffered in the Church. This historical
teaching. He defended the inherence of sinners in the Church; but
event was inflamed into a doctrinal dispute involving all, or at least
then also he excluded them just as emphatically. Let us be mindfd
public and manifest, sinners. Hence the universal character of the
that the doctrine of St. Augustine was brought to external expression
arguments advanced by the Bishop of Hippo to include all sinners in
by the erroneous teaching of various schismatical or heretical factions.
the external constitution of the Church.
Even against the one Donatist faction there were several works written
2) For other reasons, against the same Donatists, the attention of
over a longer period of years, and touching upon one or another prob­
St. Augustine was drawn to the internal and spiritual nature of the
lem or objection at a time. Later other problems arose and were dis­
Church. It was their erroneous teaching on baptism and the minister
puted. As a result certain doctrines have been disproportionately
of baptism, (which subject, however, was closely connected with their
accentuated and brought to the foreground. In consequence, too, the
tenets on the constitution of the Church), that gave rise to a whole
manifestation and development of his doctrine begin and progress
series of assertions bearing on the Church as the Body of Christ. The
piecemeal; when one part or aspect of a doctrine is misrepresented or
schismatic faction maintained that baptism was valid only then when it
assailed, Augustine asserts and exposes whatever orthodoxy exacts,
was administered by a true member of the Church. Such a member
without giving to the doctrine its full and circumspect expression, or
was a holy and just man, but not the sinner. Outside of the true
systematically unfolding it in its totality.78
Church, the sacrament was invalid. First, therefore, just as they ex­
This is particularly applicable to the present instance. The included the sinner from the Church, they excluded him also from the
n De civ. Dei, XVI, 2 (PL XLI, 477; ed. Dombart-Kalb, Π, 122): “Multa quippe ad
valid administration of the sacrament; secondly, since the Church of
Udem catholicam pertinentia, dum haereticorum calida inquietudine exagitantur, ut
which St. Augustine was a part was contaminated and no longer the
adversus eos defendi possint, et considerantur diligentium et intelliguntur darius, et in­
Church of Christ, no member of that Church could validly administer
stantius praedicantur: et ab adversario mota quaestio, discendi eristit occasio.” Ci.
De civ. Dei, XVLH, 51, 1 (PL XLI, 613; ed. Dombart-Kalb, II, 335); Conf, 7, 19 (PL
the sacrament of regeneration. In conformity with this view they bap­
XXXII, 746).
tized or rather rebaptized all those who had been recipients of the sacrathere is a spiritual separation between the sinner and Christ, just as
there is between the said sinner and the just members.

i

634

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

635

ment in the Catholic communion or elsewhere and afterwards had gone
lament; yet it is not the conclusion of a syllogism but a premise taken
over to their faction. It is evident that this particular teaching on
jver from the Donatists but which, St. Augustine also admits, shows
baptism and the minister of baptism was not an independent item io
that their doctrine on the character of the minister of a sacrament is
their theology, but was a sequel of their doctrine on the members and
^compatible with it.
the constitution of the Church.79
With this general preparation for the purpose of obtaining a better
L ltimately, therefore, the question of the administration of baptism
—derstanding of what follows, we are now ready to examine the argu­
resolves itself into an ecclesiological question; viz., who is a member of
ments and images under which the Saint excludes sinners from the
the Church. But why is it that St. Augustine assails them in this
Church in its aspect as the Body of Christ.
matter from a different standpoint relative to the Church? For in the
Donatist issue concerning the minister of a sacrament, when he treats
From Anti-Donatist Works
of the Church, Augustine enters into, and lays stress on, that notion
The DaceP—According to St. Augustine the characteristics of
of the Church which presents her as the Body of Christ. The Dona­
ihe
dove
are simplicity,82 goodness,83 love.84 These qualities, associ­
tists’ requirement of sanctity in the member administering baptism is
ated
strongly
with the attributes of the Holy Ghost, make this bird
precisely what makes the Bishop of Hippo bring the Church’s sanctity
symbolic
of
the
Holy Spirit. St. Cyprian85 and St. Augustine8* identify
into consideration. The sanctity of the Church, however, resolves
the
scriptural
dove
with the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, that same
itself ultimately into Christ, whose Body the Church is, and into the
dove, according to the text of the Canticle of Canticles, is representa­
Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Mystical Body.
tive of the Church and symbolic of its unity.87
It seems that the Donatists implied that the state of justincation
Likewise the perfection and unity of the members forming the Body
consequent upon baptism was to some degree a certain emanation or
of Christ on account of their purity and sanctity are called by the
transition from the minister of the sacrament to the recipient of it. In
Doctor of Grace a dove.88 Sinners, however, cannot be members of
any case, St. Augustine’s mode of procedure against them ran be
the
Church which is symbolized by the dove.·· In this connection St.
digested in this wise: as a matter of fact there are many sinners, known
Augustine distinguishes well between the Church which he terms “a
or unknown, in your schismatical assembly as well as in the true
Church; these sinners, devoid of holiness, certainly do not participate
society and communion of the dove,” and the Church which he desig·
in the sanctity of Christ; having no supernatural life, they do not form
" Cast. 6:8; J 133. Cf. Marie Comeau, Saini A ugvsim extfiit du quatrième Évategila
the Body of Christ; they are not in the Church according to the internal
(2e
Paris, 1930), pp. 156 ff.
and spiritual life which is hers. Hence, St. Augustine argues, when
■Za Io. Ex. tr.5,11 (PL XXXV, 1419).
nItt Io. Eo. tr. 6, 3 (PL XXXV, 1426); Λ Io. Ep. tr.7,11 (PL XXXV, 2015).
these sinners baptize according to your Donatist tenet, they baptize
** Iu Io. Ex. tr. 6, 2 (PL XXXV, 1425).
outside of the Church. Proinde et ipsi extra Ecclesiam baptizant.9
■ De cat. eccl. unit., 9 (CSEL 3, 217).
The pernicious consequence of such a tenet would be that many would
"Iu Io. Ex. tr. 5, 10 (PL XXXV, 1419): “Spiritus sanctus ia specie cohnnbae
-escendit.”
be thus baptized invalidly without their knowing it.
9 ht Io. Es. tr. 6, 3 (PL XXXV, 1427); ibid., 6, 6 (1428!;
6,3 (1426);
5, il
Such is St. Augustine’s mode of reasoning. We do not always feel
1419); ibid., 5, 16 (1422).
it. The continual harping on the exclusion of the sinner from that
internal, spiritual, pure, and holy Church makes us lose track of this
reasoning. The incautious reader judges this exclusion to be the whole
n Cf. Tixeront, op. di., pp. 224-25; Battifol, op. di., pp. 260-61.
“ Cartira Crete., Π, 21, 26 (PL XLIII, 482; CSEL 52, ed. M. Petschemg, 385).

636

I

g
'r
§
g

i

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

637

nates as a mere participation of the sacraments.90 From the internal
:ure as the dove of purity and holiness. But neither the sinners that
union and intimate communion with the dove, i.e., the Mystical Body
ire in your schismatical faction nor the sinners that are in our Church
of Christ, he excludes sinners; from the empirical, sacramental Church
pertain to this dove of purity. Sinners cannot be supematurally living
he does not exclude them. This exclusion of sinners from a participa­
members of it. So if you maintain that only those possessed of
tion in the unity of the dove becomes more pronounced when he puts
sanctity, only the living members of the dove can baptize validly, it
them in the same class with heretics as not belonging to the dove.91 He
follows that all sinners pertaining to your schism as well as all sinners
assigns as the ultimate foundation for these assertions the fact that the
belonging to us could not baptize validly. To use your own words,
dove is represented in Sacred Scripture as standing in inseparable
they would baptize outside of the Church.
relation to the Holy Ghost.92 Sinners have not the Holy Ghost; con­
He concedes, then, that the sinner does not belong to the Church, but
sequently they cannot belong to the dove.
he means that Church which is the dove. On this he insists throughout
According to the tenets of the Donatists, only those have the power
the whole argumentation, denying to sinners a place in the Body of
to administer validly the sacrament of baptism, and by implication all
Christ.93 He solves the Donatist difficulty on the administration of
other sacraments, who belong to the real and undefiled Church of
baptism in an altogether different manner: whether a sinner or a holy
Christ. Such a Church is at the same time the pure and holy Mystical
person baptizes, it is Christ tèât baptizes, so that in every case the
Body of Christ, which they admit by the very force of their arguments.
intended effect of the baptism is attainedSt. Augustine interprets these same notions by saying that these
b) The Spouse*—Another frequent simfJe occurring in these antimembers are those that are united as living members to the dove.
Donatist writings is that of the spouse wirFout spot ω(ί without
Only such, both he and they maintain, can be holy members and trans­
crinkle. It is a scriptural figure which was râà.^ 35 an objection
mit, as it were, to others from that fountain of grace to which they
gainst St. Augustine by the Donatists in favor of their theory of a pure
adhere. Life can come only from the living. The principle here in
( burcb. This same figure came into the dispute with‘C^e Pelagians,
play is: A emo dal quod non habet. The Donatists seemed to admit and
but with them it was a question of such sanctity and purity 33 excluded
defend a certain external justification and sanctity implied in this that
even the possibility of venial sins in the members of the CKurc^· $*·
one was already' holy by the fact that he belonged to their supposedly
■Augustine’s solution of the scriptural difficulty lies in pointing ou^ a
incorrupt portion of the Church. St. Augustine, however, enters into
twofold condition of the Church: here on earth it cannot be
the very foundations of holiness and examines the very' elements by
imperfections,
venial transgressions of its members; there in heaven the
which a person is rendered holy and by which man is bound to the dove.
Mystical
Body
of Christ will be in its full glory and perfection without
St. Augustine’s argument containing the biblical image of the dove
a
spot
or
a
wrinkle.
In the controversies with the Donatists the said
runs thus: You Donatists claim that the Church is holy; I also admit
image
denotes
the
exclusion
of veritable grievous transgressors.
and teach this with you, for the Church is represented in Sacred ScripWhat is the more exact description of sinners in reference to the
*> De bapt. contra Donat., VII, 47, 93 (PL ΧΙΛΗ, 239; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petscbenig.
367): “Communicationem, credo, eam dicit, quae pertinet ad columbar societatem- nam
in participationem sacramentorum procul dubio commun ira bant eis, neminem judicantes,
nec a jure communionis aliquem, si diversum sentiret, amoventes.”
« De bapt. contra Donat., V, 13, 15 (PL XLHI, 157; CSEL 51, 275): “in corpore antea
unicae columbae, incorruptae, sanctae, pudicae, non habentis maculam aut rugam, nec
ille [haereticus] nec ille [peccator] invenitur.”
"De bapt. contra Donat., V, 11, 13 (PL XLHI, 184; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petscbenig,
274); and V, 13, 15 (PL XLHI, 185; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petscbenig, 276).

n Contra Cresc., Π, 21, 26 (PL XLHI, 482; CSEL 52, ed. M. Petscbenig, 385)

au monstra absit omnino ut in membris illius columbae unicae cooputeatur: absit ut
intrare possint limites horti conclusi, cujus ille custos est, qui non potest falli. Qw tamen
si confitentur et corriguntur, tunc intrant, tunc mundantur, tunc in arboribus horti conh

Eph. 527.

638

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

□aies frequent allusion to the faithful as becoming the temples of God
spouse? All those in the Church who are wicked “seem to be within'
mdof the Holy Ghost. Under this figure the Church is considered
(videntur esse intus), but in reality they cannot belong to that spouse
not
so much in its aggregate whole as in each individual member,
which is without spot and wrinkle.95 They are said to seem to be
ûh
just soul is a temple which the Holy Spirit inhabits, diffusing
within. What can this mean? Sinners are visibly connected with the
rithin it the riches of His spiritual gifts, especially charity’. Sinners
Church considered in its empirical character. Since the visible Church
rio
are intent upon remaining in their sin are not and cannot become
is also the Body of Christ, it would be natural to conclude that they
&
temples
of the Holy Ghost.99 Those who are temples have the
are also the members of the Body of Christ. In reality sinners attain
oigdom
of
God
within themselves. Here again it is evident that the
and participate in the external life of the Church but fail to reach down
member is being considered in that relation because of which he is or
to its inner life of faith, hope, and charity. Hence, since sinners really
not connected internally with the Body of Christ.
do not attain the end on account of which the external constitution of
d) Tke House of God.100—So far as the image of the temple presents
the Church exists and of which it is demonstrative, they are said only
ie relation of the individual to the Church precisely as it is the Body
to seem to be in the Church.96
at
Christ, the figure of the house is complementary to it, portraying
The image in question, then, pertains to the Church iriits internal
and spiritual character. The holiness of the spouse does not come
. “marily the relation of each individual to the whole Church generally
from the members but from a union with Christ and through sanrtiticaconsidered, be it as the empirical society or as the Body of Christ. St.
tion from the Spirit of Christ; the Holy Spirit animates the Body of
-l-gustine gives us in this image three types of men in their relations to
Christ. The members of the spouse are just members, whereas those
’âe Church, describing the three possible way’s in which men may dwell
that are not memh^PS of the spouse are said to be unjust.97 Those,
s the Church of God.
therefore, who arrm the Church in such a manner as to be intimately
first, there are those who not only are in the house of God but who
and spiritual! / <Æhated with the spouse, that is, those who are united
the same time enter into the very structure of the house, making of
to Christ bv^race and charity, are “truly”in the Church, in opposition
nemselves, as it were, the spiritual and living material of which the
to sinners/who only “seem to be within. "
or on account of the
-ouse is constructed ; that is, there are such members who are not only
wicked -who seem to be within, are the good to be forsaken who
corporally in the Church, but who by a spiritual union with Christ
Afe-ftfilly within
■orm his Mystical Body here on earth. Such are the holy and good
c) The Temple of God.—St. Augustine, following the lead of St. Paul,
members of the Church. They are the Church, they are the Mystical
^ody of Christ.
* De bapt. contra Donat., V, 24, 35 (PL XLIII, 195; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig,
Secondly, there are those who are in the Church, but who do not con­
291): “Si propterea ‘filios Deo generare non potest haeresis per Christum, quia Christi
stitute the very structure of the Mystical Body. To this class pertain
sponsa non est [words of the Donatist adversary ]; nec turba illa malorum intus constitu­
torum potest, quia et ipsa Christi sponsa non est. Designatur enim Christi sponsa sine
all those who have already' been considered as adhering only corporally
macula et sine ruga (Eph. 5, 27). Ergo aut non omnes baptizati filii sunt Dei, aut potest et
to the social organization or those who participate externally in the
non sponsa generare filios Dei.”
communion of the sacraments. Such are the sinners who. whilst spirit­
” De bapt. contra Donat., IV, 3, 4 (PL XLIII, 155; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig. 224):
ually separated from the Mystical Body of Christ, remain however in
“qui videntur esse intus, et contra Christum vivunt, id est contra Christi mandata faciunt:
nec omnino ad illam Ecclesiam pertinere judicandi sunt, quam sic ipse mundat lavacro
the unity of the Church. To use St. Augustine’s words: “they

aquae in verbo, ut exhibeat sibi gloriosam Ecclesiam, non habentem maculam aut rugam
aut aliquid hujusmodi.”
97De bapt. contra Donat., VII, 10, 19 (PL XLIII, 229; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig,
350).
M Contra Cresc., Π, 33, 42 (PL XLIII, 492; CSEL 52, ed. M. Petschenig, 402).

640

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

641

[sinners] are in the house through the communion of sacraments in such
The second type:
a manner as to be outside of the house by the diversity of their
I say that others are in the house in such a manner as not to belong to the
deeds.”101
structure of the house, nor to the society of fruitful and peaceful justice; but as
Thirdly and finally, there are those who once were inside of this house
cuff is said to be in the wheat: for we cannot deny that they also are in the house,
of God but have left it, and now are outside of its walls. Such are those
the Apostle saying, Tn a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of
dver, but also of wood and of earth ; and some indeed unto honor, but some unto
that have separated themselves from the Catholic Church; they are
dishonor.’104
the heretics and schismatics.
The passage containing this synthesis as to the manner in which
The third type:
sinners are present in the Church is so illustrative of St. Augustine's
From this innumerable number, not only the crowd within pressing the heart
mind on the entire subject that the entire text may be usefully quoted
if a few holy ones in comparison with such a multitude, but also heresies and
as a summary and a recapitulation of much that has been treated thus
diisms, having disrupted the nets, exist among them, of whom now it is rather
far. It serves as a key to understanding better and interpreting more
to be said ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us.’ The already cor­
securely the many other images under which he portrays the Church
porally segregated are more separated than those who live carnally or animalfike within, and are spiritually separated.106
and the manner of coexistence of saints and sinners in the Church. It
was frequently adduced by the ecclesiologists of the sixteenth century
e) The Devil’s Part in the Church.—St. Augustine in his apologies
to solve their problem concerning sinners in the Church.l“ The
against the Donatists makes use also of such expressions as brand the
passage runs thus:
As to the first type:
Wdlatur (Cant. 6, 8), quae sponsa pulchra sine macula et ruga (Eph. 5, 27), et hortus
I believe that I speak not rashly [when I say] that some are in the house of God
in such a manner that they themselves are the same house of God, which is said
to be built upon the rock—which is called the one dove—which fis] the beautiful
spouse without spot or wrinkle, the enclosed garden, a fountain sealed up, a well
of living water, a paradise with the fruits of the orchard: which house also re­
ceived the keys, and the power of binding and loosing. .. .This house is also called
the wheat bringing thirty, sixty and a hundred [fold] fruit with patience. This
house is in golden and silver vessels, and in precious stones and in [indestructible
? ] wood. To this house is said, ‘Supporting one another in charity. Careful to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace'; and ‘For the temple of God is
holy, which you are.' This [house] indeed is in the good faithful and in the holy­
servants of God dispersed everywhere and bound by spiritual unity in the same
communion of the sacraments, whether they know themselves by face, or whether
they do not know themselves.103

IW De bapt. contra Donat., VU, 52, 100 (PL XLHI, 242; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petxbemg.
371): “qui sic sunt in domo per communionem sacramentorum, ut extra domum sint per
diversitatem morum”
iaa E.g., Th. Stapleton, Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio Meiiodica
(Parisiis, 1582), contr. 1, lib. 1, rnp 8. p. 10—12.
ia*De bapt. contra Donat., VU, 51, 99 (PL XLIII, 241; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petscher.ig.
371): “Puto me non temere dicere, alios ita esse in domo Dei, ut ipsi etiam sint eadem
domus Dei, quae dicitur aedincari supra petram (3ft. 16, 18), quae unica columba

Λ BJi

à

cocdusus, fons signatus, puteus aquae vivae, paradisus cum fructu pomorum (Cant.
12, 13): quae domus etiam claves accepit, ac potestatem ligandi et solvendi (Mt. 16,
19).... Haec domus etiam triticum didtur, sive tricenum, sive sexagenum, rive centum
•ructmn afferens cum tolerantia (Mt. 13, 23, et Lc. 8,15). Haec domus est in vasis aureis
ft argenteis (II Tim. 2, 20), et lapidibus pretiosis, et lignis imputribilibus. Huic domui
tritor, ‘Sufferentes invicem in dilectione, studentes servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo
P«ds’ (Eph. 4, 2-3); et ‘Templum enim Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos* (I Cor. 3, 17).
H«ec quippe in bonis fidelibus est, et sanctis Dei servis ubique dispersis et spirituali unitate
devinctis in eadem communione sacramentorum, sive se facie noverint, rive non noverint."
θπτ attention should be particularly directed towards all the images under which St.
Augustine presents the Church as the Body of Christ. He has crowded them all into this
passage. Moreover, in this passage he leaves no room for doubt as to what kind of œmbers belong to the Church in such a manner as to constitute the Body of Christ.
nec ad societatem fructiferae pacificaeque justitiae; sed sicut esse palea dicitur in frumentis

non solum aurea vasa sunt vel argentea, sed et lignea et fictilia; et alia quidem sunt ia
hr.rmvrn, aii.t vero in contumeliam (Π Tim. 2,20).” Concer
Retrod., Π, 18 (PL XXXII, 638; CSEL 36, ed. Knôll, 152-53).

642

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

643

ire apparently not eligible for the first Church, it seems that two, at
uast in part, separate Churches are portrayed. The one Church,
which is the Body of Christ, would be composed only of such as are
pod and united to Christ by the bonds of internal life; the other
Church, of a visible and social character, would contain—besides, of
course, the good forming the Body of Christ—a vast multitude of men
~ho are characterized as wicked and who seem to be denied any part
with Christ. The one Church indeed constitutes the inner circle of the
?ther Church, and so far they are the same; yet the whole bulk of the
second Church would not pertain to the first, so that they would not
coincide with each other. If so, would this position not imply two, if
not altogether separate, then at least distinct Churches, measured by
-he extent and kind of members they comprehend?
In the light of the images and the oft-repeated assertions of the great
African Doctor one is apt to form the judgment in favor of the existence
irf such a double-natured or twofold Church. The prima facie
^pression of a superficial study or reading in the works of St. Augus­
tine
would be that of the existence of a visible and invisible Church by
The Value and the Mea ning of the Foregoing Statements
æason of external or internal membership in the Church. It is no
A series of statements and biblical images was gathered from
vender,
therefore, that precisely these affirmations of St. Augustine on
St. Augustine relative to the position of sinners in the Church. If we
the
exclusion
of sinners from the Church as the Body' of Christ have
could unhesitatingly accept the interpretation which lies on the surface
given
rise
to
opinions
which would allow sinners a place in the Church
of these assertions, the matter regarding the membership of sinners
a
visible
society,
but
would yet deny that they belong to the Body
would be already decided. The outcome would be that we should be
of
Christ.
obliged to assume a sort of twofold Church, the one differing from the
Notwithstanding their frequency, determinateness, and peremptori­
other by reason of a wider or more restricted comprehension of
ness, these statements envisaging two distinct Churches are contra­
members. For if one Church is composed of certain members who are
dicted by other assertions of the prolific St. Augustine. Hi» whole
possessed of certain qualifications, and if the other Church is able to
position discountenances any interpretation of a twofold Church. In
encompass a wider circle of membership, embracing many more who
such a case the Church, the Body of Christ, and the Church of the
De bapt. contra Donat., VI, 29, 56 (PL XLIII, 216; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig,
sacraments could no longer be identical and coincident- The Church
327).
which he so passionately defends against schism would no longer be one.
in De bapt. contra Donat., IV, 9, 13 (PL XLHI, 162; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig. 237
1MDe bapt. contra Donat., IV, 10, 16 (PL XLIII, 162; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petarhmig.
The Church which he constantly holds out for heretics and schismatics
239—40) : “Τ', une ergo quaeritur, quomodo poterant homines ex parte diaboli pertinere ad
to discern and recognize as the true Church of Christ would no longer
Ecclesiam. non habentem maculam aut rugam, de qua etiam dictum est, ‘Una est columba
be visible.
mea.' Quod si non possunt, manifestum est eam inter alienos gemere, et intrinsecxxs
insidiantes, et extrinsecus oblatrantes. ... Si enim homines ex parte diaboli, et ideo nequa­
The proper way of interpreting these many images and assertions of
quam ad columbam unicam pertinentes, possunt tamen accipere et habere et dare baptisai
St. Augustine has been already pointed out by way of anticipation in
sanctitatem.. ■
the words on the exclusion of sinners from the Body of Qtrât. In his
wicked with being members of the devil. In other works this recurs
still oftener. “The wicked are the children of the devil/'1" he writes.
And so “whence are they in the unity of Christ, who are of the devil’s
portion?”107 Yet, when he speaks of membership in the body of the
devil, it must not be presumed that the image presented is a parallel to
that of the Body of Christ. For whilst this latter Body has the spirit­
ual life emanating from its head, and the members forming that Body
are united into one by real spiritual bonds, there is no indication of any
likeness by vivification and bonds of union in the body of the devil.
The wicked are said to constitute the devil's body in the sense that
they follow his example, share in his iniquity, are the result of his insidious temptations, and will share the same end. Wherefore, it is not
contradictory to be in the Body of Christ as a putrid member worthy
of amputation, and to be classed as a member of Satan. In fact, such
members are said to be in the unity of the Church, but in such a manner
that those who constitute the Body of Christ are described as weeping
and sighing amidst these sinners awaiting the hour of liberation.1**

1

644

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

645

This notion and term of spiritual death occurs when speaking of grace,
disputes with the Donatists St. Augustine makes the whole question of
charity,
and justification. The Bishop of Hippo calls those dead who
the relation of sinner to Church, the Body of Christ, hinge about one
have
not
the life of justice.114 He maintains in his anti-Donatist works
axis, namely, that of sanctity. But sanctity is union with Christ, the
that there are in the Church living and dead members, but that only
head of the Mystical Body, by incorporation in the sacrament of bap­
the living form the Body of Christ.115 And it is only the living
tism, and by faith, hope, and charity.109 The sinner, however, is not
members who, as part of a living organism, grow with the Body
united to Christ by all of these internal bonds. The Body of Christ is
oi
Christ and contribute to its increase.116
corporately vivified by the Holy Ghost as its soul. But the sinner who
The description of the spiritual Body of Christ formed of living
is personally devoid of the Holy Ghost on account of his sin does not
participate in the corporate possession of the Holy Ghost animating the
members corresponds to a description that could be given also of its
whole Mystical Body.110 In regard to spiritual life and internal union
analogue, the human body and its members. Of course, here and there
with Christ and the Church the sinner is in the same category as the
St. Augustine applies even to a dead member the designation
heretic; the latter as well as the former is deficient in genuine faith,
'member, yet he does not seem to allow such a member a place in the
hope, and charity.111 Yet St. Augustine contends that on account of
living and spiritual Body of Christ. The heretical teaching on the
corporal unity with the Church the sinner is in a more fortunate posi­
qualities necessary in the minister of the sacrament accounts for this
tion than the heretic;112 for he who is within can be more easily con­
particular emphasis on the supernatural vitality of the Mystical Body
verted than he who is outside of the true fold of Christ. Hence the
of Christ and of its genuine members. Sinners have not sanctity and
condition of the sinner who becomes a schismatic or a heretic deterio­
life; hence they cannot, according to the premises assumed by the here­
rates because he severs the last bond by which he was united to the
tics, impart it to others in the sacrament of baptism.
source of spiritual life and salvation.11’
That the aforementioned membership in the Mystical Body of Christ
This interpretation is further corroborated when a study is made of
is a question of a living or dead member, but nevertheless a member of
those whom St. Augustine considers as being without life or whom he
that Body, is further illustrated by a longer passage which is annexed
simply calls dead. The notion of death or the dead taken from the
in conclusion ‘to his mode of argumentation pursued in anti-Donatist
order of nature he applies also to the spiritual or supernatural sphere.
vorks relevant to the matterat hand:
109 Cf. E. J. Carney, The Doctrine of St. A ugustine on Sanctity (Washington, D. C-,
1945), pp. 72 S. and 89 ff.
uo De bapt. contra Donat., VI, 3, 5 (PL XLIH, 199; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig. 301):
“. .. illa autem columba unica, pudica et casta, sponsa sine macula et ruga, hortus con­
clusus, fons signatus, paradisus cum fructu pomorum, et caetera quae de illa similiter
dicta sunt: quod non intelligitur nisi in bonis et sanctis et justis, id est, non tantum se­
cundum operationes munerum Dei bonis malisque communes, sed etiam secundum
intimam et supereminentem charitatem Spiritum sanctum habentibus.. ..”
De bapt. contra Donal., IV, 20, 27 (PL XLH, 172; CSEL 51, ed. M Petschemg,
254): "quamvis contra fidem non uterque [malus catholicus ei haereticus} disputet et tamen
contra fidem uterque vivat, et spe vana uterque fallatur, et a chart tate spiritali uterque
dissentiat, et ob hoc uterque ab illius unicae columbae corpore alienus sit.”
m De bapt. contra Donat., IV, 10, 14 (PL XLIH, 163; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig.
239: “interiores mali facilius possunt boni fieri.”
°* De bapt. contra Donat., VI, 5, 7 (PL XLIH, 200; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschemg, 302):
“Quapropter omnes mali spiritualiter a bonis sejuncti sunt: si autem etiam corporaliter
aperta dissentione separantur, pejores fiunt.

Wherefore he117 himself warns us most abundantly that many dead in their
misdeeds and sins, although they do not belong to the society of Christ and to
Members of that one innocent and simple dove (which if she alone baptized, they,
“* De bapt. contra Donal., VI, 8,12 (PL XLIH, 203; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petscben^. 307):
■'et mortui, quia carent vita justitiae.”
m Contra Cresc., LU, 35, 39 (PL XLIH, 517; CSEL 51, ed- M. Petschemg, 446): "In

corde mortuos detestabor: nequaquam tamen a vivis in ejusdem Ecdcsiae sancta imitate
manentibus propter mortuos alienabor.”
™ Contra liti. Petii., Π, 108, 247 (PL XLH, 345; CSEL 51, ed. M Petschenig, 159):

trartan ribtxt et sumendbus ad majus judicium valebunt.

Ipti autem bob suit in ilia

646

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

of course, would not baptize), are seen nevertheless within to be baptized and to
baptize. And [he admonishes us] that in them although dead the baptism lives
of Him who does not die and over whom death does not rule. Since, therefore,
both within are the dead, nor [are they] latent (nor would Cyprian have said so
much about these) who either do not pertain to this living dove, or who do not as
yet belong to it; and outside are the dead who more manifestly either do not
pertain to her or not yet; it is true ‘that one cannot be vivified by him who him­
self does not live’; it is manifest that those who are baptized within [the Church]
by such, if they [who are to be baptized] approach with a true conversion of the
heart, they will be vivified by Him whose sacrament it is. If, however, they
renounce the world by words and not by deeds, the kind that Cyprian attests are
within : nor are such vivified unless they convert, and nevertheless they have the
true baptism, although they do not convert. Wherefore it is similarly manifest
that also the outside dead, although ‘they neither live, nor vivify,’have never­
theless the living sacrament, which will benefit them unto life then, when they
are converted to peace.118

The Same Teaching according to Other Works
Although the exclusion of sinners from the Body of Christ manifests
itself most imposingly in the anti-Donatist works just examined, still
it cannot be said that the same teaching is confined exclusively to them.
Clothed in the same images and steeped in the same expressions as well
as in various other forms, it appears throughout many other writings of
St. Augustine. It would be an illusion, therefore, to suppose it to be
the result of a one-sided apologetic exaggeration evoked in the heat of
discussion. And yet, on the other hand, it would be just as inexact to
consider the other statements and figures, under which this doctrine is
U8 Ik bafii. contra Donat., V, 18, 24 (PL ΧΙΛΠ, 189; CSEL 51, ed. M. Petschenig, 283):
“Unde nos idem ipse copiosissime admonet, multos in delictis suis et peccatis mortuos,
quamvis ad Christi societatem et ad illius columbae unicae innocentis et simplicis membra
non pertinentes (quae si sola baptizaret, illi utique non baptizarent), spede tamen intus
videri et baptizari et baptizare. Et in eis quamvis mortuis, illius tamen baptismum
vivere, qui non moritur, et mors illi non ultra dominabitur. Cum ergo et intus sint
mortui, neque latentes (nam non de illis tanta diceret Cyprianus), qui vel non pertineant
ad illam vivam columbam, vel nondum pertineant; et foris sint mortui, qui manifestius
ad eam vel non pertineant, vel nondum pertineant; verumque sit ‘non posse ab eo vivi­
ficari alterum, qui ipse non vivit’: manifestum est eos qui intus a talibus baptizantur, s
vera conversione cordis accedunt, ab eo vivificari cujus est baptismus. Si autem saecaio
verbis et non factis renuntiant, quales Cyprianus et intus esse testatur; nec ipsos vivificari
nisi convertantur, et tamen verum habere baptismum, etiamsi non mortuos. quamvis
‘neque vivant, neque vivificent,* habere tamen baptismum vivum, qui eis tunc prosit ad
vitam, si convertantur ad pacem, similiter manifestum est." The quoted words are
from St. Augustine’s adversary.

647

presented in the other works of St. Augustine, as independent and
uninfluenced by the Donatist strife. In fact, in many of his sermons
and exegetical works he has the Donatists directly before his mind,
whilst he cautions and instructs the faithful against the errors of those
with whom they are in daily contact.
In these other works of St. Augustine, less dependent for their origin
and existence on heresies, the same separation or distinction among the
members of the one Church is found. On the one hand, St. Augustine
segregates those into a separate class whom he calls “the sons of the
kingdom of heaven, the offspring of the resurrection in eternity, the
Body of Christ, the members of Christ, the temple of God”; whereas,
on the other hand, there are those whom he calls “foreign sons, waters
of contradiction, the wicked sword. ”u* The coexistence of such dispa­
rate elements in one Church causes, as it were, two distinct bodies or
two moral persons to be formed within the same Church. The good
are presented as constituting one distinct body, namely, that of
Christ,1-0 which is, as it were, surrounded by, or in the midst of, the
wicked. The Body of Christ under the pressure of the sinful portion
of the Church is said to suffer, weep, and sigh until the time of its
delivery. The nature of this division becomes more patent when we
realize that within the Church a conversion is possible from the com­
pany of the wicked into the Body of Christ; or, vice versa, a member
of the Body of Christ may slip from the good portion into the evil
one.1-’1

If Christ [is] the head, Christ is the head of some body. The body of this head
is the holy Church, among whose members we are, if we love our head. Let
us hear therefore the voices of the Body of Christ, that is our voices if we are m
the Body of Christ; for whoever should not be there, will be in those among whom
that body weeps. Wherefore either you are in that body, so that you weep amonx

^Emot. in Ps. 143, 18 (PL XXXVII, 1867).
™Sermo 137, 2 (PL XXXVIII, 755): “Jam in corio est .Christus . et hx hbomt.

ristram.'

diabolus.

648

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

619

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

the wicked; or you are not in that body, and you are in those among whom the
body weeps, .. . either [you are] a member of Christ, or an enemy of the Body of
Christ. Nor are those enemies and adversaries of the Body of Christ understood
in one way, nor do they act in one way. It is the werewolf who reigns in them,
and who uses them as his vessels. Moreover, many are freed from him and pass
into the Body of Christ; and who are, and how many shall be, He knows who
redeemed those not knowing [it] by His blood. Many indeed shall remain in
their malice, not belonging to the Body of Christ; and they are known to Him, to
whom nothing is unknown.122

With regard to the inward nature of this separation of members of
the one Church and its fundamental causes nothing new can be added
to what has already been indicated above. The same principles of
explanation recur throughout. The Doctor of Grace is coherent and
steadfast in his explanation of the internal elements of sanctification
and unity. The sinner is not a real and living member of the Body of
Christ because he has not the inhabiting Holy Ghost, whose indwelling
is not compatible with the state of sin.123 He who is not in the state of
grace cannot pertain to the communion of saints.124 Already in his
works against the Manicheans the young Augustine laid down a basic
principle for the formation of internal spiritual life: the all-important
ingredients of supernatural life are faith, hope, and charity. He who
believes otherwise than the Body of Christ, hopes and loves otherwise.
112 Enar. in Ps. 139, 2 {PL X.AX.VTI, 1803): “Si caput Christus, et alicujus corporis
caput est Cbnstus. Corpus illius capitis sancta Ecclesia est, in cujus nos membris sumus,
si caput nostrum diligimus. Audiamus ergo voces corporis Christi, hoc est voces nostras,
si sumus in Christi corpore; quia quisquis ibi non fuerit, in eis erit inter quos illud corpus
gemit. Proinde aut in illo corpore eris, ut gemas inter malos; aut non eris in illo corpore,
et in eis eris inter quos malos gemit corpus, quod gemit inter malos: aut membrum Christi,
aut hostis corporis Christi. Nec isti inimici et adversarii corporis Christi uno modo
intelliguntur, aut uno modo agunt. Versipellis est enim qui in eis regnat, et qui eis utitur
tamquam vasis suis. Caeterum multi ab illo liberantur, et in corpus Christi transeunt;
et qui sint, et quot futuri sint, novit ille qui illos redemit sanguine suo nescientes Stmt
autem quidem perseveraturi in malitia sua, ad Christi corpus non pertinentes; et ipsi noti
ei utique, cui nihil ignotum est.”
112 In Io. Ep. tr. 6, 11 {PL XXXV, 2026): “Ipse est Spiritus Dei, quem non possunt
habere haeretici, et quicimque se ab Ecclesia praecidunt. Et quicunque non aperte
praecidunt, sed per iniquitatem praecisi sunt, et intus tamquam paleae volvuntur, «
grana non sunt, non habent ipsum Spiritum.”
Sermo 149. 3 {PL XXXV111, 801): “Hoc ergo quod praeceptum est Judaeis, sig­
nificat quod ad Ecclesiam, id est, ad corpus Christi, ad gratiam sociététemqne sanctorum
non pertinent illi, qui aut négligentes auditores sunt, aut malos mores habent, aut ia
utroque vitio reprehenduntur.”

must also necessarily live otherwise.125 Above all, St. Augustine lays
stress on charity as the unitive bond of the member with God, and of
member with member. One cannot participate in a union of charity
if he himself has not the charity diffused by the Holy Ghost, whereby
the recipient of it is united to Christ and to the saints. Since, however,
all these denote an inward state of the soul, such a sinner not partici­
pating in the union with Christ is not always recognizable or dis­
tinguishable from the living members except in external circumstances
and causes.126
Figures of Comparison

Let us now pass over to the images under which St. Augustine pre­
sents the Mystical Body of Christ or its opposite and the relation of
their respective members to them. The sources out of which the
material will be drawn are other than anti-Donatist works. Some fig­
ures of comparison used against the Donatists, however, do recur; they
became a part of Augustine’s theological fund. By means of these fig­
ures one feels keenly the detachment of a sinful member from the Body
of Christ, or his attachment to some body which stands as a competitor
or opponent to the Body of Christ. Membership in such a body seems
to be incompatible with any further continuation in the Body of Christ.
a) Exclusion from the members of the dove.—In his most renowned
exegetical work on the Gospel of St. John, composed in the year 416,
there are allusions and expositions about the sanctity of the dove and
its members similar to those that were already studied from the work
De Baptismo contra Donatistas, coming from the year 400. The tone
and contents of these passages remind us of the Donatist struggles, and,
no doubt, Augustine after so many years is still in the wake of the fray,
wielding the same arguments.
The dove is the Body of Christ. The evil portion in the Church,

ia Contra Eaust., 17, 6 (PL XLH, 344; CSEL 25,1, 566) : “maneantque ad f nmrdans
vitam ôdelium tria haec: fides, spes, charitas; unde fieri potest, ut pares cum aliquo toons
habeat, qui haec tria cum iHo paria non habet? qui enim aliud credit, aliud sperat, aliud
amat necesse est, ut aliter vivat.” Cf. E. J. Carney, of. cit., p. 12.
» Enor, in Ps. 149, 2 (PL XXXVH, 1949): “Cum ergo essent illi qui se a aoœpagr
Chriari charitatis et sodetate sanctae Ecclesiae separaverunt, tnafi intus apud se, non
noverat nisi Deus. Venit tentatio; separavit illos. et patefecit hceranxbu» quad aovarat

Deus.”

650

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

651

No doubt, these words are primarily intended to encompass sins of
amidst whom the dove grieves and must recoil, are simply excluded
adulteiy and fornication and all other transgressions against purity.
from partnership with her.127 Under the image of the dove the Church
Against these specific sins they are applied according to the letter as
is brought in relation to the Holy Ghost more directly than under other
they are found in St. Paul. Yet St. Augustine gives these sins a wider
figures. Sinners do not pertain to the dove because they have not the
scope,
according to the scriptural text in which it is said: “Perdidisti
Holy Ghost. If the dove is symbolic of the Church in her innocence
omnem qui fornicatur abs te.”131 Among the sins of fornication, there­
and purity, according to the Donatist faction, because the sinner is out­
fore,
may be included all those sins that St. Paul names as excluding
side of the membership of the pure dove, he is consequently outside of
those that commit them from the kingdom of heaven.132 They also
the Church.128
exclude him who is guilty of them from a living participation in Christ s
The conclusion at which St. Augustine arrives in this instance is one
Body, the Church.
which can by no means be his own. The Donatists set the premises.
The proper intention and good will of changing a sinful life to a vir­
Theirs is the premise concerning the absolute purity of the Church;
tuous one must be joined in the adult to the sacrament of baptism in
St. Augustine, their antagonist, draws the conclusion. Yet how far
this conclusion is from his teaching on the presence and inherence of
order to effect a union with Christ. A person who through sin is a
sinners in the Church must follow from this that he cannot concede in
membrum meretricis cannot even begin to be a member of Christ as long
in its entirety one of their premises; viz., that sinners are not in
as he remains in undisturbed possession of, and complacent attachment
the Church. He admits that they have not supernatural life and con­
to, his sins. Nor can the other means of sanctification in the Church
sequently are not living members of the Body of Christ and of the dove.
be of any use to him. Although such an unchanged member is in the
b) The members of Christ and the members of a prostitute.—It was the
unity of the Church and even receives the Eucharist, which is a symbol
erroneous persuasion of some that even those who lived in impurity
of unity in the Body of Christ, nevertheless such pertinence to the
before baptism and remained in that same state after the reception of
Church and such reception of the Eucharist in the Church is futile so
the sacrament of baptism, and hence with life and intention unchanged,
fas as spiritual welfare is concerned. For neither the Church nor the
could be numbered among the members of Christ.12* This St. Augus­
Eucharist serves the one so attached to his former sinful life toward
tine categorically denies. Accordingly, he admonishes and exhorts the
that for which the Church and the Eucharist were provided and toward
competentes standing before the threshold of baptism in these words:
which they advance those who are really inserted in the Body of Christ.
“So therefore become ye the members of Christ, that you may not take
Such rather have need of penance and reconciliation with the Church;
them and make them the members of a prostitute.”1’0
then they are inserted or redintegrated into the Body of Christ.!U
Here, more perhaps than in other figures and comparisons, the nature
1X7 In Io. Ex. tr. 6, 12 (PL XXXV, 1433): “Quid ergo mail, qui non pertinent ad co­
lumbam, Ait tibi columba: Et mali inter quos gemo, qui non pertinent ad membra mea, et
necesse est ut inter illos gemam, nonne habent quod te habere gloriaris?”
1X8 In Io. Ex. tr. 6, 12 (PL XXXV, 1430): “quaero utrum ad hujus columbae membra
pertineant avari, raptores, subdoli ebriosi, flagitiosi: membra sunt columbae hujus?...
Non enim malus ille columba est, aut ad membra columbae pertinet: nec hic potest dici
in Catholica, nec apud illos, si illi dicunt, columbam esse Ecclesiam suam.”
139 De fid. et opere, I, 1 (PL XL, 197; CSEL 41, ed. J. Zycha, 35) : The error of some is
cedat, et time veniat ad baptismum, sed etiam cum ea manens mansurumque se con­
fidens, seu etiam profitens, admittatur et baptizetur, nec impediatur fieri membrum
Christi, etiamsi membrum meretricis esse perstiterit (I Cor. 6, 15).
Sermo 216, 5, 5 (PL XXXVHI, 1097).

10 Ps. 72:27, so in Retract., I, 19, 6 (PL XXXII, 616); V’ulg. ‘omnes’ and ‘fornicantur ’
De cis. Dei, XXL 25, 4 (PL XU, 742; ed. Dombart-Kalb, Π. 538): “Per vitae
immunditias riagitiorum, quas nec apostolus ezprinxre voluit, in mo corpore perpetrando,
sive turpitudine luxuriae diffluendo, âve aliquid aliud eorum agendo de quibus ait Qooniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt.
De cis. Dei, XXI, 25, 4 (PL XLI, 742; ed. Dombart-Kilb, Π. 558.)

652

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

sin in its effects comes into its proper light. Sin causes a change in
allegiance. One cannot choose sin and be God’s. Sin draws the
delinquent to the creature or, as will be seen in the following compari­
son, to the evil spirit, towards which the creature turns, whilst it
despoils him of God and of the veritable union with Christ.134 When
a sinner, however, is said to become a member of a prostitute, it is not
in the same sense in which a sinner is a member of Christ. In the
former it is membership by imitation; in the latter it is membership by
real internal, spiritual bonds.
c) The members of Christ and the members of the deoil.—Tichonius, an
African countryman of St. Augustine and a semi-Donatist, formed a
set of rules to serve as a guide for a better interpretation of the
Scriptures.135 The seventh rule deals with the division of men into the
members of Christ and the members of the devil.136 This last rule is
quoted by St. Augustine and favorably accepted by him. The purpose
of it is to show how the communicatio idiomatum is verified in the body
of the devil. In the case of Christ and His Body there are attributes
which are proper to Christ the Head, whilst others are proper to the
members forming His Mystical Body; yet oftentimes that which is,
properly speaking, true only of Christ is predicated in the Scriptures
of His Body and, vice versa, that which is, properly speaking, true of
the Body is predicated of the Head. Rule seven of Tichonius makes
the same law applicable to the devil and his members. The Bishop of
Hippo comments on this rule in the following manner:
The seventh and the last rule of Tichonius is 'concerning the devil and his
body.’ He also is the head of the wicked who are in a certain way his body,and
who will go with him into the punishment of eternal fire: as Christ is the Head of

ltt This comparison of St. Augustine and the explanation which accompanies it is
employed by authors of a much later period; they are used as arguments for denying
membership to sinners in the Body of Christ; e.g.: “Item quaeritur, an ecclesia habeat
putrida membra. Quod constat. Numquid ilia sunt membra Christi? Non, secundum
illud: tolles membra Christi et facies ilia membra merefriris” (Manuscript from the
British Museum, London, Ms Royal 9 E NTT fol. 239 quoted by A. Landgraf, ‘‘Sonde und
Trennung von der Kirche in der Friihscholastik,” Scholastik, V [1930], 243).
135 De dcdr. christ., Ill, 30, 42 (PL XXXIV, 81).
1X F. C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tichonius (Texts and Studies vol ΙΠ, η. I; Cam­
bridge, 1894), according to which the rule which concerns us presently reads thus: “De
Diabolo et Corpore ejus. Diaboli et corporis ejus ratio breviter videri potest, si id quod
de Domino et ejus corpore dictum est in hoc quoque observetur. Transitus namque a
capite ad corpus eadem ratione dignoscitur, sicut per Isaiam de rege Babykmis:...

4ML

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

653

ie Church, which is His Body, and will be with Him in the kingdom and in
eternal glory. Just as, therefore, in the first rule, which he calls ‘concerning the
Lord and His Body,’ it must be taken care in order to understand, when Scripture
speaks about one and the same person what belongs to the head, and what to the
body; so in this last rule, sometimes something is said about the devil which can
be recognized not in him but in his body, which he has not only in them who most
manifestly are outside, but also in them who since they belong to him, neverthe­
less are mixed for a time in the Church until each one departs from this life, or
the chaff is separated from the wheat by the last winnowing-fork.137

This idea of the body of the devil and men constituting its members
is not confined to this one passage, where the Bishop of Hippo borrows
the image and adds, as it were, his own special commentary. The dual
comparison occurs in other passages scattered through several works.
In many instances, however, the devil’s body is identified with those
multitudes who are engulfed in paganism, or at least who are beyond
the confines of the Church. For such through faith are delivered from
the power of the devil and membership with him and are transplanted
into the fold of Christ and membership with Christ.138 Also they who
depart through apostasy from the Church are classified by St. Augus­
tine as pertaining to the body of the devil.139
07 De doctr. christ., Ill, 37, 55 (PL XXXTV, 88) : “Septima Tichonii regula est, eadem*
qce postrema, De diabolo et ejus corpore. Est et ipse caput impiorum. qui sunt ejus
quodammodo corpus, ituri cum illo in supplicium ignis aeterni (Mt. 25,41): «icut Chnstua
caput est Ecclesiae, quod est corpus ejus, futurum cum illo in regno et gloria sempiterna
(Eph. 1, 22). Sicut ergo in prima regula, quam vocat de Domino et ejus corpire, velan­
dum est ut intelligatur, cum de una eademque persona scriptura loquitur, quid conveniat
capiti, quid corpori; sic et in ista novissima, aliquando in diabolum dicitur quod non ia
tpso, sed potius in ejus corpore possit agnosci, quod habet non solum in cis qui manifes­
tissime foris sunt, sed in eis etiam qui cum ad ipsum pertineant, tamen ad tempus mis­
centur Ecclesiae donec unusquisque de hac vita exeat, vel a frumento palea ventilabro
ultimo separetur (Lc. 3, 17).” Cf. also De Gen. ad HL, Π, 24, 31 PL XXXIV, 442;
CSEL 28, ed. J. Zycha, 356-57).
χ Enor. in Ps. 58, 6 (PL XXXVI, 695): “Erant omnes iniqui vasa diaboli, qui cre­
dentes facti sunt vasa Christi.” So also: Enor. in Ps. 3, 7 (PL XXXVI, 75); Ener in
Ps. 78, 16 (PL XXXVI, 938); in Io. Es. tr. 7, 5 (PL XXXV, 144); m Io. Ee
52, 6
(PL XXXV, 1771).
» De Gen. ad iit., Π, 24, 31 (PL XXXIV, 442; CSEL 28, ed. 1. Zvcha, 356-57 “Et

654

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

tion, but also of the domain of theology. Moreover, viewed in its
spiritual reality as a body, this doctrine admits of internal theological
bonds, which unite the members into a real, integral, and organized
body. Whereas the second body, the body of the devil, has no such
internal uniting factors. Satan does not impart any of bis own life.
Membership is obtained in this body by following the wicked example
of Satan. The union of members with the devil, therefore—in oppo­
sition to that which is proper to the Body of Christ and which is real
with the reality of the spiritual and supernatural—may be called a
moral one.142
d) Temple, house, city.—It has already been stated that the Church
Tas designated as a house and a temple; further, that there were such
members in the house and in the temple who at the same time were its
constitutive parts. Others again were only present within the house
and the temple; that is, they did not enter as constituents into the very
structure of the Church. All this in Augustinian language means that
one group is merely in the external and visible society of the Church,
and in consequence the members adhere to Christ as dead members;
the other group is in the Ch urch in such a manner as to be true members
of it because they are in a living and spiritual union with Christ, and
thus form His Body. In this last sense, whereby men are the “temple
of God, the Body of Christ, the congregation of the faithful, ”,u the
terms “house’ and “temple” can be conveniently applied either to
individual members forming the Body of Christ or to the entire aggre­
gation of the faithful considered as a corporate entity.144
These designations, “house” and “temple,” are to be identified, at
least in substance, with still another term frequently occurring in the
works of St. Augustine, namely the city of God. In fact, it is the topic
of one of the most pretentious of his works bearing that designatioa as
its very title, De Civitate Dei.lii The paramount question is, what has

The association, however, with the devil, of those who are completely
external to the Church does not directly interest us. But detaching
those that are in the Church from Christ, and what is worse, incorpo­
rating them into the body of the devil, seems to be unintelligible when
we consider that the Church (with all those, of course, who are in the
Church) is the Body of Christ. An irreconcilable dualism of bodies is
set up within one and the same Church. This teaching of St. Augus­
tine becomes still more striking when the circumstance is considered
that the doctrine is proposed not only casually, as for example in the
preceding commentary on the passage of Tichonius, but with frequency
and sufficient study and deliberation.
Yet the presentation of the good and the wicked within the Church
under the realistic figures of the Body of Christ and the body of the
devil is in harmony with the many other images employed for the same
purpose. The distinguishing factor is charity: those who possess it
form the Body of Christ, whereas those who do not possess it belong to
the body of the devil. More than that, charity is the unitive virtue of
all members into the Body of Christ.140
Love therefore alone distinguishes between the sons of God and the sons of
the devil. Let them all sign themselves with the sign of the cross of Christ; let
them all answer, Amen; let them all sing, Alleluia; let them all be baptized, let
them enter churches; let them build the walls of the basilicas: the sons of God
are not distinguished from the sons of Satan—except by charity. Those who
have charity are bom of God: those who have not, are not born of God.141

The two bodies, therefore, to which St. Augustine makes reference
are not to be understood as constituted in the same manner. For. the
first body, the Body of Christ, constitutes a universally recognized
scriptural doctrine, which is at the same time deeply imbedded in eccle­
siastical tradition; it is an integral part not only of Scripture and tradi144 For the meaning and functions of chanty, cf. K. Mazurkieivicz. “Uzywanie dôbr
éwiata w pojçdu $w. Augustyna,” in 5w. Augustyn (ed. S. Bross; Poznan, 1930), pp. 166161; E. Gilson, Introduction à V étude de saint Augustin (2e éd.; Paris, 1943). p. 225 ft.;
J. Burnaby, A mor Dei: A Study in the Religion of Si. Augustine (London, 1947). p. 100 S.
141 In Io. Ep. tr. 5, 3, 7 (PL XXXV, 2016): “Dilectio ergo sola discernit into· okas
Dei et filios diaboli. Signent se omnes .signo crucis Christi; respondeant omnes, Amm;
cantent omnes, Alleluia; baptizentur omnes, intrent Ecclesias, facient parietes basilicarum
non discernuntur filii Dei a filiis diaboli, nisi rharitat-e. Qui habent charitatem nati sunt
ex Deo: qui non habent non sunt nati ex Deo.”

à

655

Ie Cf. e.g., Sum. Theol., III. q. 8, aa. 7 and 8.
1βΕ«ατ. in Ps. 130, 3 (PL XXXVII, 1705).
Enar. in Ps. 130, 3 (PL XXXVII. 1233): “Videte crescentem ànanan, videte
aedificium ire per totum orbem ten ratum. Gaudete, quia intrastis in atria; gaudete, qui*
Wifiramini in templum Dei. Qui enim intrant, ips aedificantur, ipsi sunt dtxms Dd:
iDe est inhabitator, cui aedificatur domus toto orbe terrarum. et hoc p<»t captivitatem.'’
*· This terminology- and the underlying concept is of scriptural origin; e_g. P* 963;
Heb. 12:22. It is quite possible, however, that for the contrasted parafleSatn of cimier

Μ·

656

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

St. Augustine in mind when he speaks of the city of God. Does he
mean the Church in its social and hierarchical form, that is, the visible
Catholica? Or does he mean to designate thereby the corpus Christi
and thus intimate the invisible Church as it consists of the just and
holy, and preferably the predestined? Or does he finally mean by the
term “city of God” all that is good and virtuous in general, including
the Church as the inner kernel?
Each of these interpretations of the city of God has its followers
among the investigators of St. Augustine’s works on this particular
matter. Reuter,146 (who has influenced a whole series of authors who
follow his opinion), Seeberg,147 Troelsch,148 Hermelink,149*Buonaiuti,,M
Warfield,151* Ottley,162 Gilson,153 and Bourke154 maintain that by the
designation “city of God” St. Augustine intends to signify only the

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

657

good who are really united with Christ. Moreover, following up his
jaof the good, according to which those are good in reality and to the
JI extent who persevere in this state to the end, these authors make
the idea of the city of God embrace only the predestined. In conse..ence, they contend that such a notion of the Church has at least no
Accessary connection with the visible, hierarchical, and social constitu­
tion of the Church.
.bother group of investigators, concerned directly with the De
delate Dei, as for instance Scholz,155 Holl,156 Figgis,157 Cayré,158 Butti,159
as well as others, e.g., Cunningham160 and Simpson,161 who treat this
trie more generally, basing themselves upon all of St. Augustine’s
works), are of the opinion that the Augustinian city of God is to be
Jentified with the empirical Catholic Church.162 That the Catholic
Œurch is the city of God is the popular and traditional notion which
long obtained in the Church as an unquestionable fact.
The concept of the city of God is not to be identified, in eveiy respect,
rith that underlying the scriptural kingdom of God found in St. Augus•Te. He distinguishes between the kingdom of God as it is found here
dearth, containing in its fold the unjust, and the kingdom of God in
fleaven, composed only of the blessed.163 With many writers—
Robertson,164 McGiffert, 165 Gilson,166 Figgis,167 Sparrow Simpson *·’*- it

diaboli and civitas Dei St. Augustine was indebted to Tichonius; cf. T. Hahn, TydumiusSludiei. Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen und Dogmengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts (Tdpng,
1900), p. 115; H. Scholz. Glaube und Unglaube in der Wdtgeschichte (Leipzig, 1911), p. 78;
A. Pincherle, Sant’Agostino DTppona, Vescovo e Teologo (Bari, 1930), pp. 228-9; B. Geyer,
Die patristische und scholastische Philosophie, Vberwegs Grundriss der Geschichte der Philos­
ophie, zweiter Teil (Berlin, 1928), p. 114. Cf. P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de Γ.4friqtu
chrétienne, V (Paris, 1920), 202-204. The sketches of the two cities can further be traced
to St. Paul. Cf. E. Barker’s Introduction to J. Healey’s translation of De civitate Dei
(Everyman’s Library; London, 1945), I, p. riv.
l1tH. Reuter, Augustinische Studien (Gotha, 1887), pp. 106-152.
147 R- Seeberg, Dogmengeschichte, Π, 480 ff.
I4t E. Troelsch, A ugustin, die christliche A ntike und dos Alittdolter (München and Berlin,
44H. Scholz, Glaube und Unglaube in der Wdtgesckichie. Ein Kommentor su Angus1915), p. 8 f. in the note.
‘De civitate Dei' (Leipzig, 1911), pp. 109-19.
149 H. Hermelink, Die ‘civitas terrana' bei A ugustinus. Festgabe filr Adolph v. Hamacks
Holl, Augustins innere Entwicklung. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie
70 Geburtstag (Tübingen, 1921), p. 308.
Uissenschaften. Phil-hisL Klass. 4 (Berlin, 1922), p. 39 ff; cf. Gesammdte Aufsdbe
E. Buonaiuti, S. Agostino (Roma, 1923), p. 65: “Per intendere dd non dobbiamo
* Kirchengeschichte, III (1928), 54-116.
naturalmente contentera, dell' accezione volgare, secondo la quale Sant’ Agostino avrebbe
mJ. N. Figgis, The Political Aspects of St. Augustine's City of God (London, 1921),
fatto della Chiesa la città di Dio."
P 69.
141B. Warfield, “Augustine,” Hastings Encyclopedia of Rdigyon and Ethics, I, 221.
U*F. Cayré, “La Cité de Dieu,” Revue Thomiste, XXXV (1930), 489.
151 R. L. Ottley, Studies in the Confessions of St. Augustine (London, 1919), p. 106:
MP. C. Butti, La Mente di S. Agostino nella Città di Dio (Firenze, 1930), p. 203 ff.
Tn the De civitate we seem to find his ultimate view; a mystical conception of the Church
*W. Cunningham, 5. Augustine (London, 1886), p. 115.
half biblical, half philosophical: the City of God being regarded as the invisible congrega­
KW. J. Sparrow Simpson, Si. Augustine’s Episcopate (London, 1944 , p. 52: “St.
tion of saints—the numerus praedestinatorum—the true Church.”
Asgustine repeatedly declares that the City of God is the Church, and the Church is even
1M E. Gilson, Introduction à Vétude de saint Augustin (2e éd.; Paris, 1943), p. 238:
Bow and here the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.”
“... l’Êgiise n’est pas la Cité de Dieu, car cette dté est la sodeté de tous les élus passés,
'Λ For a brief exposition of the thought of some of the authors mentioned, cf. JL Müller,
présents ou futurs; or il y a manifestement eu des justes élus avant la constitution de
l’Egiise du Christ; il y a maintenant, hors de ['Église et peut-être jusque parmi ses persé­
der ilteren Kirche, XXXTL (1928), 202-11.
cuteurs, de futurs élus qui se soumettront à sa disdpline avant de mourir, enfin et surtout
il y a dans l’Église beaucoup d’hommes qui ne seront pas de nombre des élus.”
M V. J. Bourke, A ugustine's Quest of Wisdom (Milwaukee, 1945), p. 283.

658

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

659

pretation. This concession is made likewise by Karl Müller in his
is to be maintained that the notion “kingdom of God” is identifiable
review
of the authors writing precisely on this point, although he is in­
in every respect with the empirical and institutional Church; on the
dined
to
prefer the interpretation of those who identify the civitas Dei
other hand, against Gilson169 the Augustinian kingdom of God is to be
fith the spiritually good members living in union with Christ.172
upheld as including the concept proper to the city of God. In other
Finally, there are those who will not identify the city of God with
words, the notion proper to the “kingdom of God” denotes the Cath­
iny religious society either here on earth or in heaven, but believe it to
olica, i.e., the visible Church, but it also connotes the corpus Christi
be an ideal conception embracing all who are good and righteous,173
and the civitas Dei.
whether they be found in the Church or outside of it. Members
Nor is it surprising that there are even some who share both opinions.
already united in the Church, therefore, form but a part of this dty. Or
holding on the one hand, (as for instance Salin,170 against Holl) that the
they conceive it to be some spiritual power, according to which men
Augustinian city of God cannot be identified with the empirical
Catholic Church, and claiming, on the other hand, (Salin again, in favor
are classified as they are affected by it or not.174
of Holl) that this city of God can, and in reality in many instances does,
What is there to be said about these different opinions? Are they’
signify the visible Church as such. Pincherle admits that St. Augus­
as divergent as they seem? Are they entirely irreconcilable? The
tine explicity names the Church as the city of God, but asserts that in
weakness of the foregoing explanations lies in the fact that they do not
reality the city of God is composed only of the angels and the predes­
consider the full comprehension of the Augustinian notion of the
tined.171
Church. If we consider the Church in its full extension and in its
l’et this last opinion, it seems, is reconcilable to some degree with the
several aspects, and then make ourselves aware of the facihty with
opinions of the authors enumerated in the first two groups which oppose
which St. Augustine passes from one aspect to the other, there can
each other. For upon closer observation it must be remarked that
hardly be any serious difficulty in identifying all that he says concerning
although these latter defend their own opinion, they at the same time
die dty of God with the Church.
concede the existence of opposing texts, which they cannot so easily
It is evident from what has been previously said that St. Augustine
explain away and which leave room for the possibility of the other interpresents the Church at times under the aspect of its external and visible
tinian Church, Robertson makes the admission that the African bishop has identihed the
visible Catholic Church with the Kingdom of God.
lsi A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought (New York), Π, 110: “Moreover
the visible Church is identical with the kingdom of God and to it are to be applied all the
New Testamen t passages referring to the kingdom. To be sure as a rule Augustine spoke
of the kingdom of God as a future reality to be consummated in another world beyond the
grave. But this did not prevent him from identifying it with the church on earth, the
visible Catholic institution.” Cf. ibid., also pp. 116-17.
ieaOp. di., p. 238, note 2.
u7 Op. di., p. 69.
Op. di., p. 53: “And the Church is the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heat-

170 E. Salin, Citiias Dei (Tubingen, 1926), p. 242; also p. 179 f. in note.
171 A. Pincherle, Sant’ Agostino, Vescovo e Teologo (Bari, 1930), p. 230: "A vote,
indubbiamente, per dichiarazione esplidta di Agostino, essa è la Chiesa.” Then en p.
231: “La Città di Dio è dunque, in realtà costituita dagli angeli e dai prédestinât:: da
quali nessuno sa il numero.”

organization, and at times under the aspect of its internal and spiritual
constitution as the Body of Christ. Either of these aspects may be had
in mind individually and presented exclusively; but they may also con­
note each other, or one aspect may be more pronounced than the other
Unholy members are not allowed to participate by equal right and in
the same manner in the membership of the Church considered under
177 Op. cil., p. 211.
173 E. Barker, in his Introduction to J. Healy's translation of De Cmtiie Dei <ed. V G
Tasker; London, 1W5), I. p. xvii: “It is an invisible society; it cannot be idaüfxd with
any visible society.__ The earthly city, like the heavenly city, is an ideal cmcrotxmS
A Stohr, A ugustinus als Mensch and Denker (Ennkfurt a. Μ , M30), p. 60: “Ee dart

660

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

661

,tis to be maintained that the city of God in verity and full perfection
these two different aspects. Hence, ordinarily sinners are said toperwormed of those who are predestined to form the Body of Christ fortain simply to the Church, to the Catholica; or some similar tenn or
For such are in a perfect sense members of the Body of Christ
phrase is used whereby the social and empirical nature of the Church
rio. united in charity to Christ, persevere to the end, in opposition to
is placed in relief. On the other hand, the holy, the just, the good are
mentioned rather in connection with the Body of Christ.
iose who for some period of time are really united to Christ by
An important circumstance, not to be overlooked in this matter, is
eternal, spiritual ties, but who succumbing to death-bringing sins
that St. Augustine often stretches in one sense, and restricts in another,
'rieit their life-giving partnership with Him.
his comprehension of the Church under the aspect of the Body of
.Vo doubt St. Augustine’s presentation of the city of God primarily
Christ.175 Thus he extends the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ,
-^presses the aspect of the Body of Christ before that of the juridical
by retrogression, so as to comprehend in it all the just from the
empirical Church. We can thus fully agree with those authors
beginning of the world;176 he restricts it by anticipation, so as to include
ïbo point to St. Augustine as stressing this point most often and who
in the Body of Christ all those who through divine prescience and pre­
3 consequence make the avowal that he “principally” means to désig­
destination are to be saved. Only in those who attain eternal salvation
né the good, holy, just, and eventually predestined as constituting
is the purpose of the Church fulfilled, because these are to remain in the
::e dty pertaining to God, or as forming the members of one Body
Body of Christ for eternity.
-donging to Christ.180 This Church on earth is, as it were, in exile and
Just as the notion of the Church has a certain number of different
institutes but one Church with those who already stand in eternity.181
aspects and thus is to some extent elastic, so the concept of the dty
it would be far from his mind if we were to restrict his civitas Dei to
of God cannot be restricted to one strictly defined group of people but
ώβ above notion to such an extent as to exclude the connotation and
must be allowed a certain degree of elasticity. This elasticity is pro­
times the actual denotation of the juridical and visible Church.
portional to that of the notion of the Church. Both concepts cover
fius becomes more certain and clear when we visualize his Church in
the same ground; they coincide. With the authors, therefore, enu­
its several aspects, all of which may be predicated of the dty of God.
merated above, it is to be maintained that the Augustinian city of God
Üis Church of the sacraments and his Church as the Mystical Body of
is the visible, hierarchical, and social Church.177 Furthermore, still
Christ are not two separate entities, but two aspects of the same
more is it to be insisted with the opposing group that in a greater
Church. So also the city of God, whilst presenting the Church primameasure this city of God is that Church which is the Body of Christ
171F. Cayré, art. cit., p. 495: “La cité de Dieu sur terre est essentiellement h préparation
formed of the faithful possessed of, and united by, charity.178 Finally,

prédestinés à la vie du ciel, cité voyageuse à exil (dvitas peregrina), qui marche vers
I7S In this want of a strict and stereotyped definition of the Church St. Augustine does
--Uffiortelles destinées et y conduit ceux qui lui restent fidèles.” Cf. De bapt centra
not stand alone; before his time as well as centuries after him Fathers and even late
J^at-, V, 27, 38 (PL XLIII, 196): “ineffabili praescientia Dei, multi qui foris videatur
theologians restrict or expand the notion or comprehension of the Body of Christ in many
3tus sunt; et multi qui intus videntur foris sunt”
respects; ci. S. Tromp, Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia (Romae. 1937), pp. 97-150.
“•K. Mulier, op. cit., p. 211: “Mit dem allem will ich natiirlkh nicht sages dass
m Sermo 4, 11—12 (PL ΧΧΧ\ΤΠ, 39); Sermo 340, 9, 11 (PL XXXIX, 1499-1500 .
Enor. in Ps. 36, 3, 4 (PL XXXVI, 385).
177 F. Cayré, art. cit., p. 489: “L’Église, de son côté, est une cité, une société véritable,
solidement organisée et pour l’unité de laquelle l’évêque d’Hippone a lutté, sa vie entière,
contre les donatisfps dissidents.”
rsrtir sanctorum wilten als mitas Dei bezeichne.
178 M. del Rio, “El Cristo Mistico y la Communiôn de los Santos segùn San Agustin, ’
ia De <&>■
N, 7 (PL XU, 284; ed. Dumb
Religion y Cultura, XV (1931), 423: “Sentando como principio fundamental que Ia
tafni sumus una avitas Dei, cui dicitur in psalmo
Iglesia es el cuerpo del Cristo, que su unidad es perfecta y que es fruto de la caridad, Hamindola por esta razôn unitatis caritatem, la caridad de la unidad Augustin senala immprfiat»·
Pt 90 I
χχχνΊΙ’ Π59)·
naente la unidad de ista Iglesia, que es la Ciudad de Dios.”

662

theological studies

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

663

rily as the Mystical Body of Christ, does not exclude the sacramental 3 Church are perfectly verified. Hence the Church is, in final attainsocial, and hierarchical Church, or even omit at times to portray it in □ent, a universal aggregation of all those who will constitute the
that light.
Mystical Body of Christ in all eternity; in other words, they are the
His dicta on the city of God as well as on the many other imases ■destined. In reality, however, he does not exclude from the Body
must be studied in the light of the end or purpose of the Church. The ï Christ those who actually constitute it but who in the future will
Church for St. Augustine is above all a salvation-bringing institution. •Iter and cease to be part of it. They continue to be the Mystical
He says that we enter the Church, not for any temporal good, but for xdy as long as they adhere to it in spiritual vitality. Of course, for
the eternal good of the soul. The promise of the eternal is already 'id, who foresees the future and already knows what will take place,
possessed by him who is in the Church in the proper manner, but the -c separation is already present. St. Augustine, who is ever cognizant
aim is the actual possession of the highest Good in which is man’s beati­ T the infinite degree of God’s perfections, sometimes views the Church
tude.132 Salvation is achieved within the Mystical Body of Christ.
’ m the angle of God’s infinite knowledge; consequently he asserts
Even those who preceded Christ—the saints of the Old Testament^at only those are the Church even now whom God foresees to be the
are said to have belonged to Christ’s Body because their salvation was lurch hereafter.
gained in view of Christ’s future merits. This is an extension of
Hie external Church of the sacraments and as a social organization
Christ’s Body to a time when neither Christ nor His Church existed.
- not distinct to the point of being a separate entity from the Church
Hence the nomenclature “Church” or “the Body of Christ” extended
- the Body of Christ. The Catholica is the Body of Christ. Within
to the men of this period is to be accepted in a broad sense—in tact,
e Church disparateness exists between the living members and the
broader than one would dare to use in our times without an explanation
'-&d members of the Church and the Mystical Body. A dead member
The Church and the Body of Christ properly commenced theti
3 a member of the Mystical Body by the very token that he is a
existence with their establishment by Christ. Salvation takes place
Be®ber of the juridical Church, but he is not a living member. And
through them. Not everyone, however, in the Church visible and
•hen a sinner is excluded from membership in the Mystical Body, it is
sacramental will attain salvation; for the membership of the Church if
æosely from the viewpoint of life that he is denied a place in it.
made up of sinners and holy men. A condition for salvation is appurte­
The words “temple,” “house,” and “dty” in substance and in ulti­
nance to the Church in such a manner as to form at the same time living
me analysis must therefore be referred to the same notion,1" namely,
membership in the Mystical Body of Christ. Moreover, for salvatioo
,ri the Church as constituting the Body of Christ.·* In such a notion
it is necessary to persevere in that union with Christ to the very end of
rabject of the Church, it is not the juridical, hierarchical, or empirical
life. Only such will constitute the Mystical Body of Christ in heaven
cement which comes to light, but the sanctity of the Church and the
for all eternity, and theirs will be the eternal fruition of the higher
holiness of each member. The material which enters into the walls of
Good. In such, too, will the purpose for which the Church was
tue dty and house, into the cells of the body is living materialit has
established here on earth be attained. This last class of men is com­
13Erur. in Ps. 126, 3 (PL ΧΧΧΛΤΙ. 1668): “Quae autem domus Dei. et ipaavitae.
posed of those who in view of God’s omniscience are predestined.
^otnus enim Dei, populus Dei; quia domus Dei, templum Dei.”
Now, St. Augustine, steeped in Platonic thoughts and expressions
^Enor. in Ps. 131, 3 (PL XXXVIi, 1717): “Cum autem carpus Christi est et teroat times limits the Church to those in whom the purpose and aims of
Pan, et domus, et civitas; et ille qui caput corporis est et habitator domus est, et sanctiiaa In Ισ. Εν. tr. V, 3 (PL XXXV, 2013): ‘‘Pu to enim, fratres, quia omnis homo sodcitus est pro anima sua, qui non sine causa intrat Ecclesiam, qui non temporalia quærî
in Ecclesia, qui non propterea intrat ut transigat negotia saecularia; sed ideo intrat, ut
aliquid sibi aeternum promissum teneat, quo perveniat.”

itator templi est, et rex civitatis est: quomodo Ecdesia omnia dia, sk Christus omsis
«a.”
t» Efiar. in Ps. 121, 4 (PL ΈΧΧ.ΝΙΙ. 1621): “Quare non civitas, sed ut civitas; eisi
qiaa ista structura parietum, quae erat in Jerusalem, visibilis civitas erat, neat prxrie
fUt-itnr ab omnibus civitas: illa autem aedificatur tamquam avitas. quia et iîfi <pn m eam
iotzant, tamquam vivi lapides sunt? Sicut illi ut lapides, noa lapides; sicut i£a at dvita·

664

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

665

the grace of regeneration and the life of charity, which hows through­
It is to be observed that St. Augustine shows a great predilection for
out the body and members from the Head.186 Charity unites all the
•adiantithetical images and comparisons whereby the contrast is made
members into one body, one temple, one house, and one city.197 God
Ͼpicuous between sin and virtue, the bad and the good, the assembly
abides in each member—but dwells as well in the whole body, temple,
f the Church and the opposing powers. As in the domain of philosohouse, or city.188 Of such is the city of God really formed. Whoso­
zbvand theology, so also in these literary religious presentations he has
ever is destitute of charity does not enter as a living unit into the veri­ .<t a pattern for many to imitate in the Church, which he has so copitable structure of the city or of the temple.189
yjsly endowed by his literary heritage.191
e) The antithesis of the two cities.—A frequent description and an anti­
Oo are the subjects of these two cities? To Babylon belong all the
thetical parallelism of two cities in the works of St. Augustine throw
rildren of evil and perdition : “all who prefer worldly happiness to God,
light upon the nature of the Church and the members constituting it.
ώ who seek their own, not that of Jesus Christ.”192 To the dty of
The one city derives its name from the pagan city of Babylon, and is
Jerusalem belong all those that are good, that is “all who savor of the
compared to it; the other is compared to the city of Jerusalem selected
rings that are above, who meditate heavenly things, who live in the
by God, from which also it takes its name. This latter city is identical
world with care not to offend God, who take heed not to sin and if they
with the city of God, just described, but it is again brought under a
i) sin, are not ashamed to confess—the humble, meek, holy, just,
separate title and further explained inasmuch as it comes to the fore­
sous.
in We can briefly describe these two cities, one as being the
ground in this contrast with the city of Babylon or of the devil.190
dty of cupidity and the other the city of charity.
Hie relation of the city of Jerusalem to the Church or the Body of
non civitas, quia dixit, aedificatur. Nomine quippe aedificii, structuram compagemque
corporum atque parietum voluit intelligi. Nam civitas proprie in hominibus habitantibus
Christ is already evident, if it is to be identified with the city of God.
intelligitur. Sed manifestavit nobis civitatem se urbem dixisse, quia dixit, aedihcatur.
Here also a certain degree of elasticity must be allowed, for both cities
Et quia aedifidum spirituale similitudinem quandam habet aedificii spiritual^ ideo
have
their origin with the beginning of mankind, the one from Cain,
aedihcatur ut civitas.” Cf. also Ep. 187, 10, 33 (PL ΧΧΧΠΙ, 845; CSEL 57, IV, 113)
188 Enor. in Ps. 10, 17 (PL XXXVI, 135): “‘Dominus in templo sancto suo.’..
the other from Abel. But also the Church as the Body of Christ or as
Templum Dei violat, qui violat unitatem: non enim tenet caput (Coloss. 2, 19), ex γΜ
the dty of God is explicitly endowed with this privilege as beginning
totum corpus connexum et compactum per omnem tactum subministrationis secundus
»ith the first just representatives of mankind. Those who in this
operationem in mensuram uniuscujusque partis incrementum corporis facit, in aedifici·
tionem sui in charitate (Eph. 4, 16). In hoc templo sancto suo Dominus est; quod constat
banner anticipated the Body of Christ St. Augustine compares to an
multis membris suis, sua quaeque officia gerentibus, in unam aedificationem charitate
Want’s hands preceding the body in the time of birth. Besides, the
constructis; quod violat, quisquis causa principatus sui a catholica societate disjungitur "
comprehension of these cities must also be extended to encompass those
Cf. S. J. Grabowski, “The Holy Ghost in the Mystical Body of Christ,” Tureunr.vu
Studies, VI (1945), 67 f.
that have departed: Jerusalem is composed of the good still living, of
187 Ep. 187, 5, 16 (PL ΧΧΧΠΙ, 838; CSEL 57, IV, 94); Ibid., 12, 35 (PL ΧΧΧΠΙ
the good deceased, and of the angels: Babylon is formed of all the

845-46; CSEL 57, IV, 113); Ibid., 10, 33 (PL ΧΧΧΠΙ, 845; CSEL 57, IV, 113).
188 E/uzr. in Ps. 98, 4 (PL XXXVH, 1261): “Manifestum est Sion dvitatem Da esse;
quae est civitas Dei, nisi sancta Ecclesia? Homines enim amantes se invicem, et amante*
Deum suum qui in illis habitat, fadunt dvitatem Deo. Quia lege quadam dvitas con­
tinetur; lex ipsa eorum charitas est; et ipsa charitas Deus est... .Qui ergo plenus est
charitate, plenus est Deo; et multi pleni charitate, civitatem fadunt Deo. Ista dvitas
Dei vocatur Sion; ergo Ecclesia est Sion. In illa est magnus Deus. In illa esto, et noc
erit praeter te Deus. Cum autem fuerit in te Deus, quia tu factus es de Sion, pertinens
ad societatem populi Dei; excelsus in te erit Deus. —”
189 Enor. in Ps. 126, 3 (PL XXXVH, 1669).
188Enor, in Ps. 61, 6 (PL XXXVI, 733): “Una dvitas et una dvitas, unus populus et

mus populus, rex et rex. Quid est, una dvitas et una dvitas? Babylonia una; Jerosaesi ima Quibuslibet aliis etiam mystids nominibus appelletur, una tamen dvitas et
ana avitas: illa rege diabolo; ista rege Christo.”
1,1 A good example of such opposing camps or cities is that presented by St Ignatius
Loyola under the “two standards”: “Exercitia Spiritualia Sancti Ignatii de Loyola”
in linumenia Igaotiana (Madrid, 1919), pp. 314-30. For other examples of this theme.
6* f.
us p^or. in Ps- 61, 6 (PL XXXVI, 733).
M * Pi. 61, 6 (PL XXXVI, 733).

Cf. also Emir

m

Ps. 26, 18 (PL XXXVI,

666

THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

SINNERS AND THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

667

wicked that ever lived, of the evil departed, and the devils. There­
Il we further inquire into the factors which cause the separation of
fore, on the one side we have the universality of the good and on the zankind into two enormous camps or cities—that of Jerusalem and
other the totality of the wicked. Although this is the specific coloring ht of Babylon—the result in the final analysis of our investigation
of the notion of the city of Jerusalem or of the city of God, this same rj prove to be the same as it was in the case of the city of God; or
extension is by no means foreign to the notion of the Church as the
better, the same as for the separation of any single member from
Body of Christ. Hence, it may be stated that the Augustinian “cities"
h Body of Christ. This is quite natural if the city of God coincides
of the good correspond to the notion of the Body of Christ.
rth the Corpus Christi.
A et it would be false to exclude from the concept of the city of Jerusa­
Sin is the banner of Babylon. Since each one of us has been bora a
lem the social and empirical elements of the Church. Because Augus­
:..d of sin, we were first subjects of Babylon, then only through baptine presents his Church under the historical image of Jerusalem or
ire became citizens of the new Jerusalem.199 Charity is the
under the form of the scriptural city of God or under the reality of the
t-dard of Jerusalem. Here is love of God; there is love of the
Body of Christ, and then has in mind principally the good, it does not
' -rld.:00 But where there is charity, there must also the Holy Ghost
follow that the juridical element does not constitute a factor in these
■*· He is the soul of Jerusalem.201 Babylon does not possess Him.
concepts. For, just as he calls the civitas Jerusalem or civitas Dei tie
He Augustinian cupiditas and charitas are the basic separators and
Body of Christ194 and that precisely in its most extensive compre­
aiders respectively of individuals and of societies.
hension, in which all the good and just from the beginning to the end ot
this world are to be included—so also he designates that same “city oi
justitia... .Et aliquando ipsa commixtio temporalis facit ut quidam pertinentes ad
•Utem Babyloniam, administrent res pertinentes ad Jerusalem; et rursum quidam
God as the “Church of God’’195 or the hominum societas,,9i whereby
ad Jerusalem, administrent res pertinentes ad Babyloniam.”
the risible and juridical character of the Church precisely comes to the
"Enor, in Ps. 61, 7 (PL XXXVI, 734): “Unusquisque ergo natus ex Ada»", nondum
foreground. Even sinners are in the city of God, while the future good
*?ûoet ad Jerusalem: portat enim secum traducem iniquitatis, poenamque peccati,
‘■Wttatus morti; et pertinet quodammodo ad veterem quandam civitatem. Sed ti
who through conversion are destined to pertain to the members oi
hum est in populo Dei, destrueter vetus, et aedificabitur novus.”
Christ are actually as evil men in the city of the devil. For the
”*bur. in Ps. 64, 2 (PL XXXVI, 773): “Babylon confusio interpretatur, Jerusalem
members of these cities are not yet separated, but are mixed: permixtae
•e» pads... .Unde dignosci possunt istae duae civitates? Numquid pomumus eu
sunt ambae civitates,19' That is to say, sinners, who in reality are the
odo separare ab invicem? Permixtae sunt, et ab ipso exordio generis humani permixtae
"Brunt usque in finem saeculi.. . .Duas istas civitates faciunt duo amores: Jerusalem
possession of the devil so as to form in consequence his body or his city,
*ύ amor Dei; Babyloniam facit amor saeculi Interroget ergo se quisque quid asset,
may be and actually are united to the juridical body of the Church
S inveniet unde sit civis.”
through a communion of the sacraments, as St. Augustine understands
* De coieck. rudib., 20, 36 (PL XL, 336): “Ibi Jerusalem condita est famoeissima
avitas Dei, serviens in signo liberae civitatis, quae coelestis Jerusalem dicitur (Gelat.
that term.198
194 Enor. Z in Ps. 90, 1 (PL XXXVII, 1150): “Dominus noster Jesus Christus. tarsquam totus perfectus vir, et caput, et corpus... .Corpus hujus capitis Ecclesia est. do·
quae hoc loco est, sed et quae hoc loco et per totum orbem terra mm- nec illa quae hoc
tempore, sed ab ipso Abel usque ad eos qui nascituri sunt usque in finem et credituri râ
Chnstum, totus populus sanctorum ad unam civitatem pertinentium; quae avitas curpcs
est Christi, cui caput Christus."
1W De cw. Dei, XIII, 16 (PL XLI, 387; ed. Dombart-Kalb, I, 574).
>9e De cw. Dei, XV, 18 (PL XLI, 461; ed. Dombart-Kalb, Π, 97).
197 De cw. Dei, XIX, 26 (PL XLI, 656; ed. Dombart-Kalb, Π, 402).
l9i Enor, in Ps. 6, 8 (PL XXXVI, 735): “Et sunt istae duae civitates permixue
interim, in fine separandae: adversus se invicem confligentes; una pro iniquitate, altera

ΠΓ 25, 26), quod verbum est hebraeum. et interpretatur Visio pads. Cujus cives sunt
S3 netificati homines qui fuerunt, et qui sunt, et qui futuri sun t; et causes ssactikafi' spiritus, etiam quicumque in excelsis coelorum partibus pia devotione obtempérant
Jto nec imitantur impiam diaboli superbiam et angelorum ejus. Hujus civitatis rex e*t
Dtcinus Jesus Christus, Verbum Dei quo reguntur summi Angefi, et Veroum bcœiaem