 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
The termchurch (Anglo-Saxon,cirice, circe; Modern German,Kirche; Swedish,Kyrka) is the name employed in the Teutonic languages to render the Greekekklesia (ecclesia), the term by which theNew Testament writers denote thesociety founded byOur Lord Jesus Christ. The derivation of the word has been much debated. It is now agreed that it is derived from the Greekkyriakon (cyriacon), i.e. the Lord's house, a term which from the third century was used, as well asekklesia, to signify aChristian place of worship. This, though the less usual expression, had apparently obtained currency among theTeutonic races. The Northern tribes had been accustomed to pillage theChristian churches of the empire, long before their ownconversion. Hence, even prior to the arrival of the Saxons inBritain, their language had acquired words to designate some of the externals of theChristian religion.
The present article is arranged as follows:
In order to understand the precise force of this word, something must first be said as to its employment by theSeptuagint translators of theOld Testament. Although in one or two places (Psalm 25:5;Judith 6:21; etc.) the word is used without religious signification, merely in the sense of "an assembly", this is not usually the case. Ordinarily it is employed as the Greek equivalent of theHebrewqahal, i.e., the entire community of thechildren of Israel viewed in their religious aspect. Two Hebrew words are employed in theOld Testament to signify the congregation ofIsrael, viz.qahal'êdah. In theSeptuagint these are rendered, respectively,ekklesia andsynagoge. Thus inProverbs 5:14, where the words occur together, "in the midst of the church and the congregation", the Greek rendering isen meso ekklesias kai synagoges. The distinction is indeed not rigidly observed — thus in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, both words are regularly represented bysynagoge — but it is adhered to in the great majority of cases, and may be regarded as an established rule. In the writings of theNew Testament the words are sharply distinguished. With themecclesia denotes the Church of Christ;synagoga, theJews still adhering to the worship of the Old Covenant. Occasionally, it istrue,ecclesia is employed in its general significance of "assembly" (Acts 19:32;1 Corinthians 14:19); andsynagoga occurs once in reference to a gathering ofChristians, though apparently of a non-religious character (James 2:2) Butecclesia is never used by theApostles to denote theJewish Church. The word as a technical expression had been transferred to the community ofChristian believers.
It has been frequently disputed whether there is any difference in the signification of the two words.St. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 77) distinguishes them on the ground thatecclesia is indicative of the calling together ofmen,synagoga of the forcible herding together of irrational creatures: "congregatio magis pecorum convocatio magis hominum intelligi solet". But it may bedoubted whether there is any foundation for this view. It would appear, however, that the termqahal, was used with the special meaning of "those called byGod toeternal life", while'êdah, denoted merely "the actually existingJewish community" (Schürer, Hist. Jewish People, II, 59). Though the evidence for this distinction is drawn from the Mishna, and thus belongs to a somewhat later date, yet the difference in meaning probably existed at the time ofChrist's ministry. But however this may have been, Hisintention in employing the term, hitherto used of the Hebrew people viewed as a church, to denote thesociety He Himself was establishing cannot be mistaken. It implied the claim that thissociety now constituted thetrue people ofGod, that the Old Covenant was passing away, and that He, the promisedMessias, was inaugurating a New Covenant with a New Israel.
As signifying the Church, the wordEcclesia is used byChristian writers, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted sense.
Hebrewprophecy relates in almost equal proportions to theperson and to the work of theMessias. This work was conceived as consisting of the establishment of akingdom, in which he was to reign over a regeneratedIsrael. The prophetic writings describe for us with precision many of the characteristics which were to distinguish thatkingdom. Christ during His ministry affirmed not only that theprophecies relating to theMessias were fulfilled in His ownperson, but also that the expectedMessianic kingdom was none other than His Church. A consideration of the features of thekingdom as depicted by theProphets, must therefore greatly assist us in understandingChrist'sintentions in the institution of the Church. Indeed many of the expressions employed by Him in relation to thesociety He was establishing are only intelligible in the Light of theseprophecies and of the consequent expectations of theJewish people. It will moreover appear that we have a weighty argument for thesupernatural character of theChristianrevelation in the precise fulfillment of the sacred oracles.
A characteristic feature of theMessianic kingdom, as predicted, is its universal extent. Not merely thetwelve tribes, but theGentiles are to yield allegiance to theSon of David. All kings are to serve andobey him; his dominion is to extend to the ends of the earth (Psalm 21:28 sq.;2:7-12;116:1;Zechariah 9:10). Another series of remarkable passages declares that the subject nations will possess the unity conferred by a commonfaith and a common worship — a feature represented under the striking image of the concourse of all peoples and nations to worship atJerusalem. "It shall come to pass in the last days (i.e. in theMessianic Era] . . . that many nations shall say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of theGod ofJacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths; for thelaw shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out ofJerusalem" (Micah 4:1-2; cf.Isaiah 2:2;Zechariah 8:3). This unity of worship is to be the fruit of aDivine revelation common to all the inhabitants of the earth (Zechariah 14:8).
Corresponding to the triple office of theMessias aspriest,prophet, and king, it will be noted that in relation to thekingdom theSacred Writings lay stress on three points:
In regard to the first of these points, thepriesthood of theMessias Himself is explicitly stated (Psalm 109:4); while it is further taught that the worship which He is to inaugurate shall supersede thesacrifices of theOld Dispensation. This is implied, as theApostle tells us, in the very title, "apriest after the order ofMelchisedech"; and the sametruth is contained in the prediction that a newpriesthood is to be formed, drawn from other peoples besides theIsraelites (Isaiah 66:18), and in the words of theProphet Malachias which foretell the institution of a new sacrifice to be offered "from the rising of the sun even to the going down" (Malachi 1:11). Thesacrificesoffered by thepriesthood of theMessianic kingdom are to endure as long as day and night shall last (Jeremiah 33:20).
Therevelation of theDivine truth under the New Dispensation attested byJeremias: "Behold the days shall come saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with thehouse of Israel and with the house ofJuda . . . and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, saying: Know the Lord: for all shallknow me from the least of them even to the greatest" (Jeremiah 31:31, 34), whileZacharias assures us that in those daysJerusalem shall be known as the city oftruth. (Zechariah 8:3).
The passages which foretell that theKingdom will possess a peculiar principle of authority in the personal rule of theMessias are numerous (e.g. Psalms2 and71;Isaiah 9:6 sq.); but in relation toChrist's own words, it is of interest to observe that in some of these passages the prediction is expressed under the metaphor of a shepherd guiding and governing his flock (Ezekiel 34:23;37:24-28). It is noteworthy, moreover, that just as theprophecies in regard to thepriestly office foretell the appointment of apriesthood subordinate to theMessias, so those which relate to the office of government indicate that theMessias will associate with Himself other "shepherds", and will exercise His authority over the nations through rulersdelegated to govern in His name (Jeremiah 18:6;Psalm 44:17; cf.St. Augustine,Enarration on Psalm 44, no. 32). Another feature of thekingdom is to be thesanctity of its members. The way to it is to be called "theholy way: theunclean shall not pass over it". Theuncircumcised andunclean are not to enter into the renewedJerusalem (Isaiah 35:8;52:1).
The later uninspired apocalyptic literature of theJews shows us how profoundly these predictions had influenced their national hopes, and explains for us the intense expectation among the populace described in the Gospel narratives. In these works as in theinspiredprophecies the traits of theMessianic kingdom present two very different aspects. On the one hand, theMessias is aDavidic king who gathers together thedispersed of Israel, and establishes on this earth akingdom of purity and sinlessness (Psalms of Solomon, xvii). The foreign foe is to be subdued (Assumpt. Moses, c. x) and the wicked are to be judged in the valley of the son of Hinnon (Enoch, xxv, xxvii, xc). On the other hand, thekingdom is described ineschatological characters. TheMessias is pre-existent and Divine (Enoch, Simil., xlviii, 3); thekingdom He establishes is to be aheavenly kingdom inaugurated by a great world-catastrophe, which separates this world (aion outos), from the world to come (mellon). This catastrophe is to be accompanied by a judgment both ofangels and ofmen (Jubilees, x, 8; v, 10; Assumpt. Moses, x, 1). The dead will rise (Psalms of Solomon, 3.11) and all the members of theMessianic kingdom will become like to theMessias (Enoch, Simil., xc, 37). This twofold aspect of theJewish hopes in regard to the comingMessias must be borne in mind, ifChrist's use of the expression"Kingdom of God" is to be understood. Not infrequently, it istrue, He employs it in aneschatological sense. But far more commonly He uses it of thekingdom set up on this earth — of His Church. These are indeed, not two kingdoms, but one. TheKingdom of God to be established at the last day is the Church in her final triumph.
TheBaptist proclaimed the near approach of theKingdom of God, and of theMessianic Era. He bade all who would share itsblessings prepare themselves by penance. His own mission, he said, was to prepare the way of theMessias. To hisdisciples he indicatedJesus of Nazareth as theMessias whose advent he had declared (John 1:29-31). From the very commencement of His ministry Christ laid claim in an explicit way to theMessianic dignity. In thesynagogue atNazareth (Luke 4:21) He asserts that theprophecies are fulfilled in Hisperson; He declares that He is greater thanSolomon (Luke 11:31), more venerable than theTemple (Matthew 12:6), Lord of theSabbath (Luke 6:5). John, He says, isElias, the promised forerunner (Matthew 17:12); and to John's messengers He vouchsafes theproofs of HisMessianic dignity which they request (Luke 7:22). He demands implicitfaith on the ground of His Divine legation (John 6:29). His public entry intoJerusalem was the acceptance by the whole people of a claim again and again reiterated before them. The theme of His preaching throughout is theKingdom of God which He has come to establish.St. Mark, describing the beginning of His ministry, says that He came intoGalilee saying, "Thetime is accomplished, and theKingdom of God is at hand". For thekingdom which He was even then establishing in their midst, the Law and theProphets had been, He said, but a preparation (Luke 16:16; cf.Matthew 4:23;9:35;13:17;21:43;24:14;Mark 1:14;Luke 4:43;8:1;9:2, 60;18:17).
When it is asked what is thiskingdom of which Christ spoke, there can be but one answer. It is His Church, thesociety of those who accept His Divine legation, and admit Hisright to the obedience offaith which He claimed. His whole activity is directed to the establishment of such asociety: He organizes it and appoints rulers over it, establishesrites andceremonies in it, transfers to it the name which had hitherto designated theJewish Church, and solemnly warns theJews that thekingdom was no longer theirs, but had been taken from them and given to another people. The several steps taken byChrist in organizing the Church are traced by theEvangelists. He is represented as gathering numerousdisciples, but as selecting twelve from their number to be His companions in an especial manner. These share His life. To them Hereveals the more hidden parts of Hisdoctrine (Matthew 13:11). He sends them as His deputies to preach thekingdom, and bestows on them thepower to work miracles. All are bound to accept their message; and those who refuse to listen to them shall meet afate more terrible than that ofSodom and Gomorrha (Matthew 10:1-15). The Sacred Writers speak of these twelve chosendisciples in a manner indicating that they are regarded as forming a corporate body. In several passages they are still termed "the twelve" even when the number, understood literally, would be inexact. The name is applied to them when they have been reduced to eleven by the defection ofJudas, on an occasion when only ten of them were present, and again after the appointment ofSt. Paul has increased their number to thirteen (Luke 24:33;John 20:24;1 Corinthians 15:5;Revelation 21:14).
In this constitution of theApostolate Christ lays the foundation of His Church. But it is not till the action of officialJudaism had rendered it manifestly impossible to hope theJewish Church would admit His claim, that He prescribes for the Church as a body independent of thesynagogue and possessed of an administration of her own. After the breach had become definite, He calls theApostles together and speaks to them of the judicial action of the Church, distinguishing, in an unmistakable manner, between the privateindividual who undertakes the work offraternal correction, and the ecclesiastical authority empowered to pronounce a judicialsentence (Matthew 18:15-17). To thejurisdiction thus conferred He attached a Divine sanction. A sentence thus pronounced, He assured theApostles, should be ratified inheaven. A further step was the appointment of St. Peter to be the chief of theTwelve. For this position he had already been designated (Matthew 16:15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: atCæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter. To him, moreover, were to be given thekeys of theKingdom of Heaven — an expression signifying thegift of plenary authority (Isaiah 22:22). The promise thus made was fulfilled after theResurrection, on the occasion narrated inJohn 21. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church — that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, "Feed my sheep", constituted Peter thecommon shepherd of the whole collective flock. (For a further consideration of the Petrine texts see articlePRIMACY.) To the twelve Christ committed the charge of spreading thekingdom among all nations, appointing therite of baptism as the one means of admission to a participation in itsprivileges (Matthew 28:19).
In the course of this article detailed consideration will be given to the principal characteristics of the Church.Christ's teaching on this point may be briefly summarized here. It is to be akingdom ruled in His absence bymen (Matthew 18:18;John 21:17). It is therefore a visibletheocracy; and it will be substituted for theJewishtheocracy that has rejected Him (Matthew 21:43). In it, until theday of judgment, thebad will be mingled with the good (Matthew 13:41). Its extent will be universal (Matthew 28:19), and its duration to the end oftime (Matthew 13:49); all powers that oppose it shall be crushed (Matthew 21:44). Moreover, it will be asupernaturalkingdom oftruth, in the world, though not of it (John 18:36). It will be one and undivided, and this unity shall be a witness to allmen that its founder came fromGod (John 17:21).
It is to be noticed that certain recent critics contest the positions maintained in the preceding paragraphs. They deny alike that Christ claimed to be theMessias, and that thekingdom of which He spoke was His Church. Thus, as regardsChrist's claim toMessianic dignity, they say that Christ does not declare Himself to be theMessias in His preaching: that He bids the possessed who proclaimed Him theSon of God be silent: that the people did not suspect HisMessiahship, but formed various extravagant hypotheses as to hispersonality. It is manifestly impossible within the limits of this article to enter on a detailed discussion of these points. But, in the light of the testimony of the passages above cited, it will be seen that the position is entirely untenable. In reference to theKingdom of God, many of the critics hold that the currentJewish conception was whollyeschatological, and thatChrist's references to it must one and all be thus interpreted. This view renders inexplicable the numerous passages in which Christ speaks of thekingdom as present, and further involves a misconception as to the nature ofJewish expectations, which, as has been seen, together witheschatological traits, contained others of a different character. Harnack (What is Christianity? p. 62) holds that in its inner meaning thekingdom as conceived by Christ is "a purely religious blessing, the inner link of thesoul with the livingGod". Such an interpretation can in no possible way be reconciled withChrist's utterances on the subject. The whole tenor of his expressions is to lay stress on the concept of atheocraticsociety.
Thedoctrine of the Church as set forth by theApostles after theAscension is in all respects identical with the teaching of Christ just described. St. Peter, in his firstsermon, delivered on the day of Pentecost, declares thatJesus of Nazareth is theMessianic king (Acts 2:36). The means ofsalvation which he indicates isbaptism; and bybaptism hisconverts are aggregated to thesociety ofdisciples (Acts 2:41). Though in these days theChristians still availed themselves of theTemple services, yet from the first the brotherhood of Christ formed asociety essentially distinct from thesynagogue. The reason why St. Peter bids his hearers acceptbaptism is none other than that they may "save themselves from this unbelieving generation". Within thesociety of believers not only were the members united by commonrites, but the tie of unity was so close as to bring about in the Church ofJerusalem thatcondition of things in which thedisciples had all things common (2:44).
Christ had declared that Hiskingdom should be spread among all nations, and had committed the execution of the work to the twelve (Matthew 28:19). Yet the universal mission of the Church revealed itself but gradually. St. Peter indeed makes mention of it from the first (Acts 2:39). But in the earliest years theApostolic activity is confined to Jerusalem alone. Indeed an oldtradition (Apollonius, cited byEusebiusChurch History V.17, andClement of Alexandria,Stromata VI.5) asserts thatChrist had bidden theApostles wait twelve years inJerusalem before dispersing to carry their message elsewhere. The first notable advance occurs consequent on thepersecution which arose after the death of Stephen, A.D. 37. This was the occasion of the preaching of the Gospel to theSamaritans, a people excluded from theprivileges ofIsrael, though acknowledging theMosaic Law (Acts 8:5). A still further expansion resulted from therevelation directing St. Peter to admit tobaptismCornelius, a devoutGentile, i.e. one associated to theJewish religion but notcircumcised. From this time forwardcircumcision and the observance of the Law were not acondition requisite for incorporation into the Church. But the final step of admitting thoseGentiles who hadknown no previous connection with thereligion of Israel, and whose life had been spent inpaganism, was not taken till more than fifteen years afterChrist's Ascension; it did not occur, it would seem, before the day described inActs 13:46, when, atAntioch in Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas announced that since theJews accounted themselves unworthy ofeternal life they would "turn to theGentiles".
In theApostolic teaching the termChurch, from the very first, takes the place of the expressionKingdom of God (Acts 5:11). Where others than theJews were concerned, the greater suitability of the former name is evident; forKingdom of God had special reference toJewishbeliefs. But the change of title only emphasizes the social unity of the members. They are the new congregation ofIsrael — thetheocratic polity: they are the people (laos) ofGod (Acts 15:14;Romans 9:25;2 Corinthians 6:16;1 Peter 2:9 sq.;Hebrews 8:10;Revelation 18:4;21:3). By their admission to the Church, theGentiles have been grafted in and form part ofGod's fruitful olive-tree, whileapostateIsrael has been broken off (Romans 11:24).St. Paul, writing to hisGentileconverts atCorinth, terms the ancient Hebrew Church "our fathers" (1 Corinthians 10:1). Indeed from time to time the previous phraseology is employed, and the Gospel message is termed the preaching of theKingdom of God (Acts 20:25;28:31).
Within the Church theApostles exercised that regulative power with whichChrist had endowed them. It was no chaotic mob, but atruesociety possessed of a corporate life, and organized in various orders. The evidence shows the twelve to have possessed (a) apower of jurisdiction, in virtue of which they wielded a legislative and judicial authority, and (b) amagisterial office to teach theDivine revelation entrusted to them. Thus (a) we findSt. Paul authoritatively prescribing for the order anddiscipline of the churches. He does not advise; he directs (1 Corinthians 11:34;16:1;Titus 1:5). He pronounces judicialsentence (1 Corinthians 5:5;2 Corinthians 2:10), and hissentences, like those of otherApostles, receive at times thesolemn sanction ofmiraculous punishment (1 Timothy 1:20;Acts 5:1-10). In like manner he bids his delegateTimothy hear the causes even ofpriests, and rebuke, in the sight of all, those whosin (1 Timothy 5:19 sq.). (b) With no less definiteness does he assert that theApostolate carries with it adoctrinal authority, which all are bound to recognize.God has sent them, heaffirms, to claim "the obedience offaith" (Romans 1:5;15:18). Further, hissolemnly expressed desire, that even if anangel fromheaven were to preach anotherdoctrine to theGalatians than that which he had delivered to them, he should beanathema (Galatians 1:8), involves a claim toinfallibility in the teaching ofrevealedtruth.
While the wholeApostolic College enjoyed this power in the Church, St. Peter always appears in that position ofprimacy which Christ assigned to him. It is Peter who receives into the Church the firstconverts, alike fromJudaism and fromheathenism (Acts 2:41;10:5 sq.), who works the firstmiracle (Acts 3:1 sqq.), who inflicts the first ecclesiastical penalty (Acts 5:1 sqq.). It is Peter who casts out of the Church the firstheretic,Simon Magus (Acts 8:21), who makes the firstApostolic visitation of the churches (Acts 9:32), and who pronounces the firstdogmatic decision (Acts 15:7). (See Schanz, III, p. 460.) So indisputable was his position that whenSt. Paul was about to undertake the work of preaching to theheathen the Gospel whichChrist had revealed to him, he regarded it asnecessary to obtain recognition from Peter (Galatians 1:18). More than this was not needful: for theapprobation of Peter was definitive.
Few subjects have been so much debated during the past half-century as the organization of the primitive Church. The present article cannot deal with the whole of this wide subject. Its scope is limited to a single point. An endeavour will be made to estimate the existing information regarding theApostolic Age itself. Further light is thrown on the matter by a consideration of the organization that is found to have existed in the period immediately subsequent to the death of the lastApostle. (SeeBISHOP.) The independent evidence derived from the consideration of each of these periods will, in the opinion of the present writer, be found, when fairly weighed, to yield similar results. Thus the conclusions here advanced, over and above their intrinsic value, derive support from the independentwitness of another series of authorities tending in allessentials to confirm their accuracy. The question at issue is, whether theApostles did, or did not, establish in theChristian communities ahierarchical organization. AllCatholic scholars, together with some fewProtestants, hold that they did so. The opposite view is maintained by therationalist critics, together with the greater number ofProtestants.
In considering the evidence of theNew Testament on the subject, it appears at once that there is a marked difference between the state of things revealed in the laterNew Testament writings, and that which appears in those of an earlier date. In the earlier writings we find but little mention of an official organization. Such official positions as may have existed would seem to have been of minor importance in the presence of themiraculouscharismata of theHoly Spirit conferred uponindividuals, and fitting them toact as organs of the community in various grades.St. Paul in his earlierEpistles has no messages for thebishops ordeacons, although the circumstances dealt with in theEpistles to the Corinthians and in that to theGalatians would seem to suggest a reference to the local rulers of the Church. When he enumerates the various functions to whichGod has called various members of the Church, he does not give us a list of Church offices. "God", he says, "hath set some in the church, firstapostles, secondlyprophets, thirdlydoctors [didaskaloi]; after thatmiracles; then thegraces of healings, helps, governments, kinds oftongues" (1 Corinthians 12:28). This is not a list of official designations. It is a list of "charismata" bestowed by theHoly Spirit, enabling the recipient to fulfill some special function. The only term which forms an exception to this is that ofapostle. Here the word is doubtless used in the sense in which it signifies the twelve andSt. Paul only. As thus applied theApostolate was a distinct office, involving a personal mission received from the Risen Lord Himself (1 Corinthians 1:1;Galatians 1:1). Such a position was of altogether too special acharacter for its recipients to be placed in any other category. The term could indeed be used in a wider reference. It is used of Barnabas (Acts 14:13) and of Andronicus and Junias,St. Paul's kinsmen (Romans 16:7). In this extended signification it is apparently equivalent toevangelist (Ephesians 4:11;2 Timothy 4:5) and denotes those "apostolic men", who, like theApostles, went from place to place labouring in new fields, but who had received their commission from them, and not from Christ in person. (SeeAPOSTLES.)
The "prophets", the second class mentioned, were men to whom it was given to speak from time to time under the direct influence of theHoly Spirit as the recipients ofsupernaturalinspiration (Acts 13:2;15:23;21:11; etc.). By the nature of the case the exercise of such a function could be occasional only. The "charisma" of the "doctors" (or teachers) differed from that of theprophets, in that it could be used continuously. They had received thegift of intelligent insight intorevealedtruth, and the power to impart it to others. It is manifest that those who possessed such a power must have exercised a function of vital moment to the Church in those first days, when theChristian communities consisted to so large an extent of newconverts. The other "charismata" mentioned do not call for special notice. But theprophets and teachers would appear to have possessed an importance as organs of the community, eclipsing that of the local ministry. Thus inActs 13:1, it is simply related that there were in the Church which was at Antiochprophets anddoctors. There is no mention ofbishops ordeacons. And in theDidache — a work as it would seem of the first century, written before the lastApostle had passed away — the author enjoins respect for thebishops anddeacons, on the ground that they have a claim similar to that of theprophets anddoctors. "Appoint for yourselves", he writes, "bishops anddeacons, worthy of the Lord,men who are meek, and not lovers of money, andtrue and approved; for unto you they also perform the service [leitourgousi ten leitourgian] of theprophets anddoctors. Therefore despise them not: for they are your honourable men along with theprophets and teachers" (Acts 15).
It would appear, then, indisputable that in the earliest years of theChristian Church ecclesiastical functions were in a large measure fulfilled by men who had been specially endowed for this purpose with "charismata" of theHoly Spirit, and that as long as thesegifts endured, the localministry occupied a position of less importance and influence. Yet, though this be the case, there would seem to be ample ground for holding that the localministry was ofApostolic institution: and, further, that towards the later part of theApostolic Age the abundant "charismata" were ceasing, and that theApostles themselves took measures to determine the position of the officialhierarchy as the directive authority of the Church. The evidence for the existence of such a localministry is plentiful in the laterEpistles ofSt. Paul (Philippians,1 and2 Timothy, andTitus). TheEpistle to the Philippians opens with a special greeting to thebishops anddeacons. Those who hold these official positions are recognized as the representatives in some sort of the Church. Throughout the letter there is no mention of the "charismata", which figure so largely in the earlierEpistles. It is indeed urged by Hort (Christian Ecclesia, p. 211) that even here these terms are not official titles. But in view of their employment as titles in documents so nearly contemporary, as theEpistle of Clement 4 and theDidache, such a contention seems devoid of all probability.
In thePastoral Epistles the new situation appears even more clearly. The purpose of these writings was to instruct Timothy and Titus regarding the manner in which they were to organize the local Churches. The total absence of all reference to the spiritual gifts can scarcely be otherwise explained than by supposing that they no longer existed in the communities, or that they were at most exceptional phenomena. Instead, we find the Churches governed by ahierarchical organization ofbishops, sometimes also termedpresbyters, anddeacons. That the termsbishop andpresbyter are synonymous is evident fromTitus 1:5-7: "I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest . . .ordainpriests in every city . . . For abishop must be without crime." Thesepresbyters form a corporate body (1 Timothy 4:14), and they are entrusted with the twofold charge of governing the Church (1 Timothy 3:5) and of teaching (1 Timothy 3:2;Titus 1:9). The selection of those who are to fill this post does not depend on the possession ofsupernatural gifts. It is required that they should not be unprovedneophytes, that they should be under no charge, should have displayedmoral fitness for the work, and should be capable of teaching. (1 Timothy 3:2-7;Titus 1:5-9) The appointment to this office was by asolemnlaying on of hands (1 Timothy 5:22). Some words addressed bySt. Paul toTimothy, in reference to theceremony as it had taken place in Timothy's case, throw light upon its nature. "I admonish thee", he writes, "that thou stir up the grace (charisma) ofGod, which is in thee by thelaying on of my hands" (2 Timothy 1:6). Therite is here declared to be the means by which a charismatic gift is conferred; and, further, thegift in question, like thebaptismalcharacter, is permanent in its effects. The recipient needs but to "waken into life" [anazopyrein] the grace he thus possesses in order to avail himself of it. It is an abiding endowment. There can be no reason for asserting that theimposition of hands, by which Timothy was instructed to appoint thepresbyters to their office, was arite of a differentcharacter, a mere formality without practical import.
With the evidence before us, certain other notices in theNew Testament writings, pointing to the existence of this local ministry, may be considered. There is mention ofpresbyters atJerusalem at a date apparently immediately subsequent to thedispersion of the Apostles (Acts 11:30; cf.15:2;16:4;21:18). Again, we are told that Paul and Barnabas, as they retraced their steps on their first missionary journey, appointedpresbyters in every Church (Acts 14:22). So too the injunction to theThessalonians (1 Thessalonians 5:12) to have regard to those who are over them in the Lord (proistamenoi; cf.Romans 12:6) would seem to imply that there alsoSt. Paul had invested certain members of the community with apastoral charge. Still more explicit is the evidence contained in the account ofSt. Paul's interview with the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:17-23). It is told that, sending fromMiletus to Ephesus, he summoned "thepresbyters of the Church", and in the course of his charge addressed them as follows: "Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein theHoly Ghost has placed youbishops to tend [poimainein] the Church of God" (20:28). St. Peter employs similar language: "Thepresbyters that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also apresbyter . . . tend [poimainein] the flock ofGod which is among you." These expressions leave nodoubt as to the office designated bySt. Paul, when inEphesians 4:11, he enumerates thegifts of theAscended Lord as follows: "He gave someapostles, and someprophets, and other some evangelists, and other somepastors anddoctors [tous de poimenas kai didaskalous]. TheEpistle of St. James provides us with yet another reference to this office, where the sick man is bidden send for thepresbyters of the Church, that he may receive at their hands therite of unction (James 5:14).
The termpresbyter was of common use in theJewish Church, as denoting the "rulers" of thesynagogue (cf.Luke 13:14). Hence it has been argued by some non-Catholic writers that in thebishops anddeacons of theNew Testament there is simply thesynagogal organization familiar to the firstconverts, and introduced by them into theChristian communities.St. Paul's concept of the Church, it is urged, is essentially opposed to any rigid governmental system; yet this familiar form of organization was gradually established even in the Churches he had founded. In regard to this view it appears enough to say that the resemblance between theJewish "rulers of thesynagogue" and theChristianpresbyter-episcopus goes no farther than the name. TheJewish official was purely civil and held office for a time only. TheChristian presbyterate was for life, and its functions were spiritual. There is perhaps more ground for the view advocated by some (cf. de Smedt, Revue des quest. hist., vols. XLIV, L), thatpresbyter andepiscopus may not in all cases be perfectly synonymous. The termpresbyter is undoubtedly an honorific title, while that ofepiscopus primarily indicates the function performed. It is possible that the former title may have had a wider significance than the latter. The designationpresbyter, it is suggested, may have been given to all those who were recognized as having a claim to some voice in directing the affairs of the community, whether this were based on official status, or social rank, or benefactions to the local Church, or on some other ground; while thosepresbyters who had received thelaying on of hands would be known, not simply as "presbyters", but as "presiding [proistamenoi —1 Thessalonians 5:12)presbyters", "presbyter-bishops", "presbyter-rulers" (hegoumenoi —Hebrews 13:17).
It remains to consider whether the so-called "monarchical"episcopate was instituted by theApostles. Besides establishing a college of presbyter-bishops, did they further place one man in a position of supremacy, entrusting the government of the Church to him, and endowing him withApostolic authority over theChristian community? Even if we take into account theScriptural evidence alone, there are sufficient grounds for answering this question in the affirmative. From thetime of thedispersion of the Apostles,St. James appears in an episcopal relation to the Church ofJerusalem (Acts 12:17;15:13;Galatians 2:12). In the otherChristian communities the institution of "monarchical"bishops was a somewhat later development. At first theApostles themselves fulfilled, it would seem, all theduties of supreme oversight. They established the office when the growing needs of the Church demanded it. ThePastoral Epistles leave no room todoubt that Timothy and Titus were sent asbishops to Ephesus and to Crete respectively. To Timothy fullApostolic powers are conceded. Notwithstanding his youth he holds authority over bothclergy andlaity. To him is confided theduty of guarding the purity of the Church'sfaith, of ordainingpriests, of exercisingjurisdiction. Moreover,St. Paul's exhortation to him, "to keep thecommandment without spot, blameless, unto the coming of ourLord Jesus Christ" shows that this was no transitory mission. A charge so worded includes in its sweep, not Timothy alone, but hissuccessors in an office which is to last until theSecond Advent. Localtradition unhesitatingly reckoned him among the occupants of theepiscopal see. At theCouncil of Chalcedon, the Church of Ephesus counted asuccession of twenty-sevenbishops commencing with Timothy (Mansi, VII, 293; cf.Eusebius,Church History III.4-5).
These are not the sole evidences which theNew Testament affords of the monarchicalepiscopate. In theApocalypse the"angels" to whom the letters to the seven Churches are addressed are almost certainly thebishops of the respective communities. Somecommentators, indeed, have held them to be personifications of the communities themselves. But this explanation can hardly stand. St. John, throughout, addresses theangel as being responsible for the community precisely as he would address its ruler. Moreover, in the symbolism ofchapter 1, the two are represented under different figures: theangels are the stars in the right hand of theSon of Man; the sevencandlesticks are the image which figures the communities. The very termangel, it should be noticed, is practically synonymous withapostle, and thus is aptly chosen to designate the episcopal office. Again the messages to Archippus (Colossians 4:17;Philemon 2) imply that he held a position of special dignity, superior to that of the otherpresbyters. The mention of him in a letter entirely concerned with a private matter, as is that toPhilemon, is hardly explicable unless he were the official head of the Colossian Church. We have therefore four important indications of the existence of an office in the local Churches, held by a singleperson, and carrying with itApostolical authority. Nor can any difficulty be occasioned by the fact that as yet no special title distinguishes thesesuccessors of theApostles from the ordinarypresbyters. It is in thenature of things that the office shouldexist before a title is assigned to it. The name ofapostle, we have seen, was not confined to theTwelve. St. Peter (1 Peter 5:1) and St. John (2 and3 John 1:1) both speak of themselves aspresbyters".St. Paul speaks of theApostolate as adiakonia. A parallel case in laterecclesiastical history is afforded by the wordpope. This title was not appropriated to the exclusive use of theHoly See till the eleventh century. Yet no one maintains that the supreme pontificate of the Romanbishop was not recognized till then. It should cause no surprise that a precise terminology, distinguishingbishops, in the full sense, from the presbyter-bishops, is not found in theNew Testament.
The conclusion reached is put beyond all reasonabledoubt by the testimony of the sub-Apostolic Age. This is so important in regard to the question of theepiscopate that it is impossible entirely to pass it over. It will be enough, however, to refer to the evidence contained in theepistles of St. Ignatius,Bishop ofAntioch, himself adisciple of theApostles. In these epistles (about A.D. 107) he again and again asserts that the supremacy of thebishop is of Divine institution and belongs to theApostolic constitution of the Church. He goes so far as to affirm that thebishop stands in the place ofChrist Himself. "When ye areobedient to thebishop as toJesus Christ," he writes to the Trallians, "it is evident to me that ye are living not aftermen, but afterJesus Christ. . . be yeobedient also to thepresbytery as to theApostles ofJesus Christ" (Letter to the Trallians 2). He also incidentally tells us thatbishops are found in the Church, even in "the farthest parts of the earth" (Letter to the Ephesians 3) It is out of the question that one who lived at a period so little removed from the actualApostolic Age could have proclaimed thisdoctrine in terms such as he employs, had not theepiscopate been universally recognized as of Divine appointment. It has been seen that Christ not only established theepiscopate in thepersons of theTwelve but, further,created in St. Peter the office of supremepastor of the Church. EarlyChristian history tells us that before his death, he fixed his residence atRome, and ruled the Church there as itsbishop. It is fromRome that he dates hisfirst Epistle, speaking of the city under the name of Babylon, a designation which St. John also gives it in theApocalypse (c. xviii). AtRome, too, he sufferedmartyrdom in company withSt. Paul, A.D. 67. The list of hissuccessors in thesee isknown, fromLinus,Anacletus, and Clement, who were the first to follow him, down to the reigning pontiff. The Church has ever seen in the occupant of theSee of Rome thesuccessor of Peter in the supreme pastorate. (SeePOPE.)
The evidence thus far considered seems to demonstrate beyond all question that thehierarchical organization of the Church was, in itsessential elements, the work of theApostles themselves; and that to thishierarchy they handed on the charge entrusted to them by Christ of governing theKingdom of God, and of teaching the revealeddoctrine. These conclusions are far from being admitted byProtestant and other critics. They are unanimous in holding that theidea of a Church — an organizedsociety — is entirely foreign to the teaching of Christ. It is therefore, in their eyes, impossible thatCatholicism, if by that term we signify a worldwide institution, bound together by unity of constitution, ofdoctrine, and of worship, can have been established by the direct action of theApostles. In the course of the nineteenth century many theories were propounded to account for the transformation of the so-called "Apostolic Christianity" into theChristianity of the commencement of the third century, when beyond all dispute theCatholic system was firmly established from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. At the present day (1908) the theories advocated by the critics are of a less extravagant nature than those of F.C. Baur (1853) and theTübingen School, which had so great a vogue in the middle of the nineteenth century. Greater regard is shown for the claims of historical possibility and for the value of earlyChristian evidences. At the same time it is to be observed that the reconstructions suggested involve the rejection of thePastoral Epistles as being documents of the second century. It will be sufficient here to notice one or two salient points in the views which now find favour with the best known among non-Catholic writers.
M. Loisy's theory as to the organization of the Church has attracted so much attention in recent years as to call for a brief notice. In his work, "L'Evangile et l'Église", he accepts many of the views held by critics hostile toCatholicism, and endeavours by adoctrine of development to reconcile them with some form of adhesion to the Church. He urges that the Church is of thenature of an organism, whose animating principle is the message ofJesus Christ. This organism may experience many changes of externalform, as it develops itself in accordance with its inner needs, and with the requirements of its environment. Yet so long as these changes are such as are demanded in order that the vital principle may be preserved, they are unessential incharacter. So far indeed are they from being organic alterations, that we ought to reckon them as implicitly involved in the very being of the Church. The formation of thehierarchy he regards as a change of this kind. In fact, since he holds thatJesus Christ mistakenly anticipated the end of the world to be close at hand, and that His firstdisciples lived in expectation of His immediate return inglory, it follows that thehierarchy must have had some such origin as this. It is out of the question to attribute it to theApostles.Men whobelieved the end of the world to be impending would not have seen thenecessity of endowing asociety with aform of government intended to endure.
These revolutionary views constitute part of the theory known asModernism, whosephilosophical presuppositions involve the complete denial of themiraculous. The Church, according to this theory, is not asociety established byeternal Divine interposition. It is asociety expressing the religious experience of the collectivity ofconsciences, and owing its origin to two natural tendencies inmen, viz. the tendency of theindividual believer to communicate hisbeliefs to others, and the tendency of those who hold the samebeliefs to unite in asociety. TheModernist theories wereanalyzed and condemned as "the synthesis of all theheresies" in theEncyclical "Pascendi Dominici gregis" (18 September, 1907). The principal features of M. Loisy's theory of the Church had been already included among the condemned propositions contained in theDecree "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907). The fifty-third of the propositions there singled out for reprobation is the following: "The original constitution of the Church is not immutable; but theChristiansociety likehumansociety is subject to perpetual change."
The church, as has been seen, is asociety formed oflivingmen, not a meremystical union ofsouls. As such it resembles othersocieties. Like them, it has its code of rules, its executive officers, itsceremonial observances. Yet it differs from them more than it resembles them: for it is asupernaturalsociety. TheKingdom of God issupernatural alike in its origin, in the purpose at which it aims, and in the means at its disposal. Other kingdoms are natural in their origin; and their scope is limited to the temporal welfare of their citizens. Thesupernaturalcharacter of the Church is seen, when its relation to theredemptive work of Christ is considered. It is thesociety of those whom He hasredeemed from the world. The world, by which term are signifiedmen in so far as they have fallen fromGod, is ever set forth inScripture as the kingdom of theEvil One. It is the "world of darkness" (Ephesians 6:12), it is "seated in the wicked one" (1 John 5:19), ithates Christ (John 15:18). Tosave the world,God the Son becameman. Heoffered Himself as a propitiation for thesins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).God, Who desires that allmen should besaved, has offeredsalvation to all; but the greater part ofmankind rejects the profferedgift. The Church is thesociety of those who acceptredemption, of those whom Christ "has chosen out of the world" (John 15:19). Thus it is the Church alone which He "hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). Of the members of the Church, theApostle can say that "God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of hislove" (Colossians 1:13).St. Augustine terms the Church "mundus salvatus" — theredeemed world — and speaking of the enmity borne towards the Church by those who reject her, says: "The world of perditionhates the world ofsalvation" (Tractate 80 on the Gospel of John, no. 2). To the Church Christ has given the means of grace He merited by His life and death. She communicates them to her members; and those who are outside her fold she bids to enter that they too may participate in them. By these means of grace — the light ofrevealedtruth, thesacraments, theperpetual renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary — the Church carries on the work of sanctifying theelect. Through their instrumentality eachindividualsoul is perfected, and conformed to the likeness of theSon of God.
It is thus manifest that, when we regard the Church simply as thesociety ofdisciples, we are considering its externalform only. Its inward life is found in the indwelling of theHoly Ghost, thegifts offaith,hope, and charity, the grace communicated by thesacraments, and the other prerogatives by which the children ofGod differ from the children of the world. This aspect of the Church is described by theApostles in figurative language. They represent it as the Body ofChrist, the Spouse ofChrist, theTemple ofGod. In order to understand itstrue nature some consideration of these comparisons is requisite. In the conception of the Church as a body governed and directed by Christ as the head, far more is contained than the familiaranalogy between a ruler and his subjects on the one hand, and the head guiding and coordinating the activities of the several members on the other. Thatanalogy expresses indeed the variety of function, the unity of directive principle, and the cooperation of the parts to a common end, which are found in asociety; but it is insufficient to explain the terms in whichSt. Paul speaks of the union between Christ and Hisdisciples. Each of them is a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15); together they form thebody of Christ (Ephesians 4:16); as a corporate unity they are simply termedChrist (1 Corinthians 12:12).
The intimacy of union here suggested is, however, justified, if we recall that thegifts andgraces bestowed upon eachdisciple aregraces merited by thePassion of Christ, and are destined to produce in him the likeness of Christ. The connection between Christ and himself is thus very different from the purely juridical relation binding the ruler of a naturalsociety to theindividuals belonging to it. TheApostle develops the relation between Christ and His members from various points of view. As ahuman body is organized, each joint and muscle having its own function, yet each contributing to the union of the complex whole, so too theChristiansociety is a body "compacted and firmly joined together by that which every part supplieth" (Ephesians 4:16), while all the parts depend on Christ their head. It is He Who has organized the body, assigning to each member his place in the Church, endowing each with the specialgracesnecessary, and, above all, conferring on some of the members thegraces in virtue of which they rule and guide the Church in His name (4:11). Strengthened by thesegraces, themystical body, like a physical body, grows and increases. This growth is twofold. It takes place in theindividual, inasmuch as eachChristian gradually grows into the"perfect man", into the image of Christ (Ephesians 4:13, 15;Romans 8:29). But there is also a growth in the whole body. Astime goes on, the Church is to increase and multiply till it fills the earth. So intimate is the union between Christ and His members, that theApostle speaks of the Church as the "fullness" (pleroma) of Christ (Ephesians 1:23;4:13), as though apart from His members something were lacking to the head. He even speaks of it as Christ: "As all the members of the body whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12). And to establish the reality of this union he refers it to the efficacious instrumentality of theHoly Eucharist: "We being many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of that one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17 — Greek text).
The description of the Church asGod's temple, in which thedisciples are "living stones" (1 Peter 2:5), is scarcely less frequent in theApostolic writings than is the metaphor of the body. "You are the temple of theliving God" (2 Corinthians 6:16), writesSt. Paul to the Corinthians, and he reminds the Ephesians that they are "built upon the foundation of theapostles andprophets,Jesus Christ himself being the chiefcorner stone; in whom all the building being framed together, groweth up into aholy temple in the Lord" (Ephesians 2:20 sq.). With a slight change in the metaphor, the sameApostle in another passage (1 Corinthians 3:11) compares Christ to the foundation, and himself and otherApostolic labourers to the builders who raise the temple upon it. It is noticeable that the word translated "temple" isnaos, a term which signifies properly the inner sanctuary. TheApostle, when he employs this word, is clearly comparing theChristian Church to that Holy of Holies whereGod manifested His visible presence in the Shekinah. The metaphor of the temple is well adapted to enforce two lessons. On several occasions theApostle employs it to impress on his readers thesanctity of the Church in which they have been incorporated. "If any shall violate the temple ofGod", he says, speaking of those who corrupt the Church byfalse doctrine, "him shallGod destroy" (1 Corinthians 3:17). And he employs the same motive to dissuadedisciples from formingmatrimonial alliance with Unbelievers: "What agreement hath the temple ofGod withidols? For you are the temple of theliving God" (2 Corinthians 6:16). It further illustrates in the clearest way thetruth that to each member of the ChurchGod has assigned his own place, enabling him by his work there to cooperate towards the great common end, theglory ofGod.
The third parallel represents the Church as the bride of Christ. Here there is much more than a metaphor. TheApostle says that the union between Christ and His Church is the archetype of whichhuman marriage is an earthly representation. Thus he bids wives be subject to their husbands, as the Church is subject to Christ (Ephesians 5:22 sq.). Yet he points out on the other hand that the relation of husband to wife is not that of a master to his servant, but one involving the tenderest and most self-sacrificinglove. He bids husbandslove their wives, "as Christ alsoloved the Church, and delivered himself up for it" (Ephesians 5:25). Man and wife are one flesh; and in this the husband has a powerful motive forlove towards the wife, since "no man everhated his own flesh". This physical union is but theantitype of thatmysterious bond in virtue of which the Church is so truly one with Christ, that "we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 'For this cause shall a man leave hisfather and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh'" (Ephesians 5:30 sq.;Genesis 2:24). In these words theApostle indicates themysterious parallelism between the union of thefirst Adam with thespouse formed from his body, and the union of thesecond Adam with the Church. She is "bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh", even asEve was in regard to our first father. And those only belong to thefamily of the second Adam, who are her children, "born again ofwater and of theHoly Ghost". Occasionally the metaphor assumes a slightly different form. InApocalypse 19:7, the marriage of the Lamb to his spouse the Church does not take place till the last day in the hour of the Church's final triumph. Thus tooSt. Paul, writing to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:2), compares himself to "the friend of the bridegroom", who played so important a part in the Hebrew marriageceremony (cf.John 3:29). He has, he says, espoused theCorinthian community to Christ, and he holds himself responsible to present it spotless to the bridegroom.
Through the medium of these metaphors theApostles set forth the inwardnature of the Church. Their expressions leave nodoubt that in them they always refer to the actually existing Church founded byChrist on earth — thesociety ofChrist'sdisciples. Hence it is instructive to observe thatProtestant divines find it necessary to distinguish between an actual and an ideal Church, and to assert that the teaching of theApostles regarding theSpouse, theTemple, and the Body refers to the ideal Church alone (cf. Gayford in Hastings, "Dict. of the Bible", s.v. Church).
In the preceding examination of theScripturaldoctrine regarding the Church, it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by entering the Church can we participate in theredemption wrought for us byChrist. Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to thefamily of thesecond Adam, and alone can engraft us into the true Vine. Moreover, it is to the Church that Christ has committed those means of grace through which thegifts He earned formen are communicated to them. The Church alone dispenses thesacraments. It alone makesknown the light ofrevealedtruth. Outside the Church thesegifts cannot be obtained. From all this there is but one conclusion: Union with the Church is not merely one out of various means by whichsalvation may be obtained: it is the only means.
Thisdoctrine of the absolutenecessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms byChrist.Baptism, theact of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to beessential tosalvation. "He thatbelieveth and isbaptized shall besaved: he thatbelieveth not shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Anydisciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of theheathen: he has no part in theKingdom of God (Matthew 18:17).St. Paul is equally explicit. "Aman that is aheretic", he writes to Titus, "after the first and secondadmonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment" (Titus 3:10 sq.). Thedoctrine is summed up in the phrase,Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can besaved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. TheCatholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtainjustification than anact of perfect charity and ofcontrition. Whoever, under the impulse ofactual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately thegift ofsanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children ofGod. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attainheaven. It istrue such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware thatGod has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. Forlove ofGod carries with it the practical desire to fulfill Hiscommandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience toGod's commands. Many are kept from the Church byignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up inheresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus anexcommunicatedperson may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts ofcontrition and charity.
It should be observed that those who are thussaved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill allGod's commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though theyknow it not, has been commanded byGod. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is atrue sense in which they may be said to besaved through the Church. In the order ofDivine Providence,salvation is given toman in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant.Sanctifying grace, the title tosalvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children ofGod. The primary purpose of thoseactual graces whichGod bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in whichGodsavesmen apart from the Church, He does so through the Church'sgraces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression oftheologians, they belong to thesoul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility ofsalvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from thesacramentsGod has given as the support of thesoul. In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to thefaithfulCatholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of sanctification which the Church offers are denied to them. It is often urged that this is a stern and narrowdoctrine. The reply to this objection is that thedoctrine is stern, but only in the sense in which sternness is inseparable fromlove. It is the same sternness which we find inChrist's words, when he said: "If youbelieve not that I am he, you shall die in yoursin" (John 8:24). The Church is animated with the spirit of Christ; she is filled with the samelove forsouls, the same desire for theirsalvation. Since, then, she knows that the way ofsalvation is through union with her, that in her and in her alone are stored the benefits of the Passion, she must needs be uncompromising and even stern in the assertion of her claims. To fail here would be to fail in theduty entrusted to her by her Lord. Even where the message is unwelcome, she must deliver it.
It is instructive to observe that thisdoctrine has been proclaimed at every period of the Church's history. It is no accretion of a later age. The earliestsuccessors of the Apostles speak as plainly as themedievaltheologians, and themedievaltheologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity.St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: "Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that makethschism, he doth not inherit thekingdom of God. If any one walketh in strangedoctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion" (Philadelphians 3).Origen says: "Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none issaved" (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P.G., XII, 841).St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: "He cannot haveGod for hisfather, who has not the Church for his mother" (Treatise on Unity 6). The words of theFourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215)define thedoctrine thus in itsdecree against theAlbigenses: "Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur" (Denzinger, n. 357); andPius IX employed almost identical language in hisEncyclical to thebishops ofItaly (10 August, 1863): "Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari" (Denzinger, n. 1529).
In asserting that the Church of Christ is visible, we signify, first, that as asociety it will at all times be conspicuous and public, and second, that it will ever be recognizable among other bodies as the Church ofChrist. These two aspects of visibility are termed respectively "material" and "formal" visibility byCatholictheologians. The material visibility of the Church involves no more than that it must ever be a public, not a private profession; asociety manifest to the world, not a body whose members are bound by some secret tie. Formal visibility is more than this. It implies that in all ages thetrue Church ofChrist will be easily recognizable for that which it is, viz. as the Divinesociety of theSon of God, the means ofsalvation offered byGod tomen; that it possesses certain attributes which so evidently postulate a Divine origin that all who see it mustknow it comes fromGod. This must, of course, be understood with somenecessary qualifications. The power to recognize the Church for what it is presupposes certainmoral dispositions. Where there is a rooted unwillingness to followGod's will, there may be spiritual blindness to the claims of the Church. Invincible prejudice or inherited assumptions may produce the same result. But in such cases the incapacity tosee is due, not to the want of visibility in the Church, but to the blindness of theindividual. The case bears an almost exactanalogy to the evidence possessed by theproofs for theexistence of God. Theproofs in themselves are evident: but they may fail to penetrate amind obscured by prejudice or ill will. From the time of theReformation,Protestant writers either denied the visibility of the Church, or so explained it as to rob it of most of its meaning. After briefly indicating the grounds of theCatholic doctrine, some views prevalent on this subject amongProtestant authorities will be noticed.
It is unnecessary to say more in regard to the material visibility of the Church than has been said in sections III and IV of this article. It has been shown there that Christ established His Church as an organizedsociety under accredited leaders, and that He commanded its rulers and those who should succeed them to summon allmen to secure theireternalsalvation by entry into it. It is manifest that there is no question here of a secret union of believers: the Church is a worldwide corporation, whoseexistence is to be forced upon the notice of all, willing or unwilling. Formal visibility is secured by those attributes which are usually termed the "notes" of the Church — herUnity,Sanctity,Catholicity, andApostolicity (see below). Theproof may be illustrated in the case of the first of these. Theunity of the Church stands out as a fact altogether unparalleled in human history. Her members all over the world are united by the profession of a commonfaith, by participation in a common worship, and by obedience to a common authority. Differences of class, of nationality, and of race, which seem as though they must be fatal to any form of union, cannot sever this bond. It links in one the civilized and the uncivilized, thephilosopher and the peasant, therich and thepoor. One and all hold the samebelief, join in the same religious ceremonies, and acknowledge in thesuccessor of Peter the same supreme ruler. Nothing but asupernatural power can explain this. It is aproof manifest to allminds, even to the simple and the unlettered, that the Church is a Divinesociety. Without this formal visibility, the purpose for which the Church was founded would be frustrated. Christ established it to be the means ofsalvation for allmankind. For this end it isessential that its claims should be authenticated in a manner evident to all; in other words, it must be visible, not merely as other publicsocieties are visible, but as being thesociety of theSon of God.
The views taken byProtestants as to the visibility of the Church are various. Therationalist critics naturally reject the whole conception. To them the religion preached byJesus Christ was something purely internal. When the Church as an institution came to be regarded as an indispensable factor in religion, it was a corruption of the primitive message. (See Harnack,What is Christianity, p. 213.) Passages which deal with the Church in her corporate unity are referred by writers of this school to an ideal invisible Church, a mystical communion ofsouls. Such an interpretation does violence to the sense of the passages. Moreover, no explanation possessing any semblance of probability has yet been given to account for the genesis among thedisciples of this remarkable and altogether novel conception of an invisible Church. It may reasonably be demanded of a professedly criticalschool that this phenomenon should be explained. Harnack holds that it took the place ofJewish racial unity. But it does not appear whyGentileconverts should have felt the need of replacing a feature so entirely proper to the Hebrew religion.
Thedoctrine of the olderProtestant writers is that there are two Churches, a visible and an invisible. This is the view of such standardAnglican divines as Barrow, Field, and Jeremy Taylor (see e.g. Barrow, Unity of Church, Works, 1830, VII, 628). Those who thus explain visibility urge that theessential and vital element of membership in Christ lies in an inner union with Him; that this is necessarily invisible, and those who possess it constitute an invisible Church. Those who are united to Him externally alone have, they maintain, no part in His grace. Thus, when He promised to His Church thegift of indefectibility, declaring that the gates ofhell should never prevail against it, the promise must be understood of the invisible, not of the visible Church. In regard to this theory, which is still tolerably prevalent, it is to be said thatChrist's promises were made to the Church as a corporate body, as constituting asociety. As thus understood, they were made to the visible Church, not to an invisible and unknown body. Indeed for this distinction between a visible and an invisible Church there is noScriptural warrant. Even though many of her children prove unfaithful, yet all that Christ said in regard to the Church is realized in her as a corporate body. Nor does the unfaithfulness of these professingCatholics cut them off altogether from membership in Christ. They are His in virtue of theirbaptism. Thecharacter then received still stamps them as His. Though dry and withered branches they are not altogether broken off from thetrue Vine (Bellarmine, De Ecciesiâ, III, ix, 13). TheAnglican High Church writers explicitly teach the visibility of the Church. They restrict themselves, however, to the consideration of material visibility (cf.Palmer, Treatise on the Church, Part I, C. iii).
Thedoctrine of the visibility in no way excludes from the Church those who have already attained to bliss. These are united with the members of the Church Militant in onecommunion of saints. They watch her struggles; theirprayers are offered on her behalf. Similarly, those who are still in the cleansing fires ofpurgatory belong to the Church. There are not, as has been said, two Churches; there is but one Church, and of it all thesouls of the just, whether inheaven, on earth, or inpurgatory, are members (Catech. Rom., I, x, 6). But it is to the Church only in so far as militant here below — to the Church amongmen — that the property of visibility belongs.
Whatever authority is exercised in the Church, is exercised in virtue of the commission of Christ. He is the oneProphet, Who has given to the world therevelation oftruth, and by His spirit preserves in the Church thefaith once delivered to thesaints. He is the onePriest, ever pleading on behalf of the Church the sacrifice of Calvary. And He is the one King — the chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4) — Who rules and guides, through His Providence, His Church's course. Yet He wills to exercise His power through earthly representatives. He chose theTwelve, and charged them in His name to teach the nations (Matthew 28:19), to offer sacrifice (Luke 22:19), to govern His flock (Matthew 18:18;John 21:17). They, as seen above, used the authority committed to them while they lived; and before their death, they took measures for the perpetuation of this principle of government in the Church. From that day to this, thehierarchy thus established has claimed and has exercised this threefold office. Thus theprophecies of theOld Testament have been fulfilled which foretold that to those who should be appointed to rule theMessianic kingdom it should be granted to participate in theMessias' office ofprophet,priest, and king. (See II above.)
The authority established in the Church holds its commission from above, not from below. Thepope and thebishops exercise their power as thesuccessors of the men who were chosen byChrist in person. They are not, as thePresbyterian theory of Church government teaches, the delegates of the flock; their warrant is received from the Shepherd, not from the sheep. The view that ecclesiastical authority is ministerial only, and derived by delegation from thefaithful, was expressly condemned byPius VI (1794) in his Constitution"Auctorem Fidei"; and on the renovation of theerror by certain recentModernist writers,Pius X reiterated the condemnation in theEncyclical on the errors of the Modernists. In this sense the government of the Church is not democratic. This indeed is involved in the verynature of the Church as asupernaturalsociety, leadingmen to asupernatural end. No man is capable of wielding authority for such a purpose, unless power is communicated to him from a Divine source. The case is altogether different where civilsociety is concerned. There the end is notsupernatural: it is the temporal well-being of the citizens. It cannot then be said that a special endowment is required to render any class of men capable of filling the place of rulers and of guides. Hence the Church approves equally all forms ofcivil government which are consonant with the principle ofjustice. The power exercised by the Church through sacrifice andsacrament (potestas ordinis) lies outside the present subject. It is proposed briefly to consider here thenature of the Church's authority in her office (1) of teaching (potestas magisterii) and (2) of government (potestas jurisdictionis).
As the Divinely appointed teacher ofrevealedtruth, the Church isinfallible. Thisgift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words ofChrist, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto alltruth (John 14:16;16:13). It is implied also in other passages ofScripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The scope of thisinfallibility is to preserve the deposit offaith revealed toman byChrist and HisApostles (seeINFALLIBILITY.) The Church teaches expressly that it is the guardian only of therevelation, that it can teach nothing which it has not received. TheVatican Council declares: "TheHoly Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter, in order that through Hisrevelation they might manifest newdoctrine: but that through His assistance they might religiously guard, and faithfully expound therevelation handed down by theApostles, or the deposit of thefaith" (Conc. Vat., Sess. IV, cap. liv). Theobligation of the natural moral law constitutes part of thisrevelation. The authority of thatlaw is again and again insisted on byChrist and HisApostles. The Church therefore isinfallible in matters both offaith andmorals. Moreover,theologians are agreed that thegift of infallibility in regard to the deposit must, bynecessary consequence, carry with itinfallibility as tocertain matters intimately related to the Faith. There are questions bearing so nearly on the preservation of theFaith that, could the Churcherr in these, herinfallibility would not suffice to guard the flock fromfalse doctrine. Such, for instance, is the decision whether a given book does or does not contain teaching condemned asheretical. (SeeDOGMATIC FACTS.)
It is needless to point out that if theChristian Faith is indeed a revealeddoctrine, whichmen mustbelieve under pain ofeternal loss, thegift of infallibility wasnecessary to the Church. Could sheerr at all, she mighterr in any point. The flock would have no guarantee of thetruth of anydoctrine. The condition of those bodies which at the time of theReformation forsook the Church affords us an object-lesson in point. Divided into various sections and parties, they are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from allhope of attaining tocertainty. In regard also to themoral law, the need of aninfallible guide is hardly less imperative. Though on a few broad principles there may be some consensus of opinion as to what is right and what is wrong, yet, in the application of these principles to concrete facts, it is impossible to obtain agreement. On matters of such practical moment as are, for instance, the questions of privateproperty, marriage, and liberty, the most divergent views are defended by thinkers of great ability. Amid all this questioning the unerring voice of the Church gives confidence to her children that they are following the right course, and have not been led astray by some specious fallacy. The various modes in which the Church exercises thisgift, and the prerogatives of theHoly See in regard toinfallibility, will be found discussed in the article dealing with that subject.
The Church'spastors govern and direct the flock committed to them in virtue ofjurisdiction conferred upon them byChrist. The authority ofjurisdiction differs essentially from the authority to teach. The two powers are concerned with different objects. Theright to teach is concerned solely with the manifestation of the revealeddoctrine; the object of thepower of jurisdiction is to establish and enforce suchlaws and regulations as arenecessary to the well-being of the Church. Further, theright of the Church to teach extends to the whole world: Thejurisdiction of her rulers extends to her members alone (1 Corinthians 5:12).Christ's words to St. Peter, "I will give thee thekeys of the kingdom of heaven", distinctly express thegift ofjurisdiction. Supreme authority over a body carries with it theright to govern and direct. The three elements which go to constitutejurisdiction — legislative power, judicial power, and coercive power — are, moreover, all implied inChrist's directions to theApostles (Matthew 18). Not merely are they instructed to imposeobligations and to settle disputes; but they may even inflict the extremest ecclesiastical penalty — that ofexclusion from membership in Christ.
Thejurisdiction exercised within the Church is partly of Divineright, and partly determined by ecclesiastical law. A supremejurisdiction over the whole Church —clergy andlaity alike — belongs by Divine appointment to thepope (Conc. Vat, Sess. IV, cap. iii). The government of thefaithful bybishops possessed of ordinaryjurisdiction (i.e. ajurisdiction that is not held by meredelegation, but is exercised in their own name) is likewise of Divine ordinance. But the system by which the Church is territorially divided intodioceses, within each of which a singlebishop rules thefaithful within that district, is an ecclesiastical arrangement capable of modification. The limits ofdioceses may be changed by theHoly See. InEngland the old pre-Reformationdiocesan divisions held good until 1850, though theCatholichierarchy had become extinct in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. In that year the old divisions were annulled and a newdiocesan system established. Similarly inFrance, a complete change was introduced after theRevolution. Abishop may exercise his power on other than a territorial basis. Thus in the East there are differentbishops for thefaithful belonging to the differentrites in communion with theHoly See. Besidesbishops, in countries where the ecclesiastical system is fully developed, those of the lowerclergy who areparishpriests, in the proper sense of the term, have ordinaryjurisdiction within their ownparishes.
Internaljurisdiction is that which is exercised in the tribunal of penance. It differs from the externaljurisdiction of which we have been speaking in that its object is the welfare of the individual penitent, while the object of externaljurisdiction is the welfare of the Church as a corporate body. To exercise this internaljurisdiction, the power of orders is anessentialcondition: none but apriest canabsolve. But the power of orders itself is insufficient. Theminister of thesacrament must receivejurisdiction from one competent to bestow it. Hence apriest cannot hearconfessions in any locality unless he has receivedfaculties from theordinary of the place. On the other hand, for the exercise of externaljurisdiction the power of orders is notnecessary. Abishop, duly appointed to a see, but not yetconsecrated, is invested with externaljurisdiction over hisdiocese as soon as he has exhibited his letters of appointment to the chapter.
The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited thegrace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of thetrue Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it. He still belongs toChrist. Threeconditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.
Regarding each of theseconditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn.
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is thegift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end oftime, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired itsessential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt infaith or inmorals; nor can it ever lose theApostolichierarchy, or thesacraments through which Christ communicates grace tomen. Thegift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates ofhell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter itsessential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates ofhell, i.e. the powers ofevil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffersubstantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for whichGod called it in to being. He established it that it might be to allmen theschool ofholiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up afalse and corruptmoral standard. He established it to proclaim Hisrevelation to the world, and charged it to warn allmen that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining thetruths ofrevelationerr in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might beerroneous. By thehierarchy and thesacraments,Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of thegraces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense tomen the treasures of grace.
Thegift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church againstheresy orapostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body.Individual Churches may become corrupt inmorals, may fall intoheresy, may evenapostatize. Thus at the time of theMohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced theirfaith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter thecharacter of the main stem. Thesociety ofJesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to theSee of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all hissuccessors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in theFaith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to theRoman Church, asCyprian says, "faithlessness cannot gain access" (Epistle 54). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body ofChristians has fallen so far from primitivetruth, or from the purity ofChristianmorals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable butnecessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it withChrist's promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore ofWorcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-classAnglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the wholetruth as revealed, yet "errors of addition" may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprivesChrist's words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as offaith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message ofGod.Men could reasonably urge in regard to anydoctrine that it might be an "error of addition".
It was said above that one part of the Church'sgift of indefectibility lies in her preservation from anysubstantial corruption in the sphere ofmorals. This supposes, not merely that she will always proclaim the perfect standard ofmorality bequeathed to her by herFounder, but also that in every age the lives of many of her children will be based on that sublime model. Only asupernatural principle of spiritual life could bring this about.Man's natural tendency is downwards. The force of every religious movement gradually spends itself; and the followers of great religious reformers tend in time to the level of their environment. According to thelaws of unassistedhumannature, it should have been thus with thesociety established byChrist. Yet history shows us that theCatholic Church possesses a power of reform from within, which has no parallel in any other religious organization. Again and again she producessaints,men imitating thevirtues of Christ in an extraordinary degree, whose influence, spreading far and wide, gives fresh ardour even to those who reach a less heroic standard. Thus, to cite one or two well-known instances out of many that might be given:St. Dominic andSt. Francis of Assisi rekindled thelove ofvirtue in themen of the thirteenth century;St. Philip Neri andSt. Ignatius Loyola accomplished a like work in the sixteenth century;St. Paul of the Cross andSt. Alphonsus Liguori, in the eighteenth. No explanation suffices to account for this phenomenon save theCatholic doctrine that the Church is not a natural but asupernaturalsociety, that the preservation of hermoral life depends, not on anylaws ofhumannature, but on the life-giving presence of theHoly Ghost. TheCatholic and theProtestant principles of reform stand in sharp contrast the one to the other.Catholic reformers have one and all fallen back on the model set before them in theperson of Christ and on the power of theHoly Ghost to breathe fresh life into thesouls which He hasregenerated.Protestant reformers have commenced their work by separation, and by thisact have severed themselves from the very principle of life. No one of course would wish to deny that within theProtestant bodies there have been manymen of greatvirtues. Yet it is not too much to assert that in every case theirvirtue has been nourished on what yet remained to them ofCatholicbelief and practice, and not on anything which they have received fromProtestantism as such.
Thedoctrine of the Church's indefectibility just considered will place us in a position to estimate, at itstrue value, the claim of theAnglican Church and of theEpiscopalian bodies in other English-speaking countries to be continuous with the ancient pre-Reformation Church ofEngland, in the sense of being part of one and the samesociety. The point to be determined here is what constitutes a breach of continuity as regards asociety. It may safely be said that the continuity of asociety is broken when a radical change in the principles it embodies is introduced. In the case of a Church, such a change in itshierarchical constitution and in its professedfaith suffices to make it a different Church from what it was before. For thesocieties we term Churches exist as the embodiment of certainsupernaturaldogmas and of a Divinely-authorized principle of government. when, therefore, thetruths previously field to be offaith are rejected, and the principle of government regarded as sacred is repudiated, there is a breach of continuity, and a new Church is formed. In this the continuity of a Church differs from the continuity of a nation. National continuity is independent of forms of government and ofbeliefs. A nation is an aggregate offamilies, and so long as thesefamilies constitute a self-sufficing social organism, it remains the same nation, whatever the form of government may be. The continuity of a Church depends essentially on its government and itsbeliefs.
The changes introduced into the English Church at the time of theReformation were precisely of the character just described. At that period fundamental alterations were made in itshierarchical constitution and in itsdogmatic standards. It is not to be determined here which was in the right, the Church ofCatholic days or the Reformed Church. It is sufficient if we show that changes were made vitally affecting thenature of thesociety. It isnotorious that from the days of Augustine to those ofWarham, everyarchbishop ofCanterbury recognized thepope as the supreme source ofecclesiastical jurisdiction. Thearchbishops themselves could not exercisejurisdiction within theirprovince until they had receivedpapal confirmation. Further, thepopes were accustomed to send toEnglandlegatesa latere, who, in virtue of their legatine authority, whatever their personal status in thehierarchy, possessed ajurisdiction superior to that of the localbishops.Appeals ran from everyecclesiastical court inEngland to thepope, and his decision was recognized by all as final. Thepope, too, exercised theright ofexcommunication in regard to the members of the English Church. This supreme authority was, moreover, regarded by all as belonging to thepope by Divineright, and not in virtue of merelyhuman institution. When, therefore, thispower of jurisdiction was transferred to the king, the alteration touched the constitutive principles of the body and was fundamental in itscharacter. Similarly, in regard to matters offaith, the changes were revolutionary. It will be sufficient to note that a newrule of faith was introduced,Scripture alone being substituted forScripture andTradition; that several books were expunged from the Canon of Scripture; that five out of the sevensacraments were repudiated; and that thesacrifices of Masses were declared to be "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits". It is indeed sometimes said that the officialformularies ofAnglicanism are capable of aCatholic sense, if given a "non-natural" interpretation. This argument can, however, carry no weight. In estimating thecharacter of asociety, we must judge, not by the strained sense which someindividuals may attach to itsformularies, but by the sense they were intended to bear. Judged by this criterion, none can dispute that these innovations were such as to constitute a fundamental change in thedogmatic standpoint of theChurch of England.
The Church ofChrist has from the first claimed to transcend all those national differences which dividemen. In it, theApostle asserts, "there is neitherGentile norJew . . . Barbarian nor Scythian" (Colossians 3:11).Men of every race are one in it; they form a single brotherhood in theKingdom of God. In thepagan world, religion and nationality had been coterminous. The boundaries of the State were the boundaries of thefaith which the State professed. Even theJewish Dispensation was limited to a special race. Previous to theChristianrevelation theidea of a religion adapted to all peoples was foreign to the conceptions ofmen. It is one of theessential features of the Church that she should be a single, worldwidesociety embracing all races. In it, and in it alone, is the brotherhood ofman realized. All national barriers, no less than all differences of class, disappear in the City of God. It is not to be understood that the Church disregards the ties which bindmen to their country, or undervalues thevirtue ofpatriotism. The division ofmen into different nations enters into the scheme of Providence. To each nation has been assigned a special task to accomplish in the working out ofGod's purposes. A man owes aduty to his nation no less than to hisfamily. One who omits thisduty has failed in a primarymoralobligation. Moreover, each nation has its own character, and its own special gifts. It will usually be found that a man attains to highvirtue, not by neglecting these gifts, but by embodying the best and noblest ideals of his own people.
For these reasons the Church consecrates the spirit of nationality. Yet it transcends it, for it binds together the various nationalities in a single brotherhood. More than this, it purifies, develops, and perfects national character, just as it purifies and perfects thecharacter of eachindividual. Often indeed it has been accused of exercising an anti-patriotic influence. But it will invariably be found that it has incurred this reproach by opposing and rebuking what was base in the national aspirations, not by thwarting what was heroic or just. As the Church perfects the nation, so reciprocally does each nation add something of its own to theglory of the Church. It brings its own type ofsanctity, its national virtues, and thus contributes to "the fullness of Christ" something which no other race could give. Such are the relations of the Church to what is termednationality. The external unity of the onesociety is the visible embodiment of thedoctrine of the brotherhood ofman. Thesin ofschism, the Fathers tell us, lies in this, that by it thelaw oflove to our neighbour is implicitly rejected. "Nec hæretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam, qæ diligit Deum; nec schismatici quoniam diligit proximum" (Neither doheretics belong to theCatholic church, for she lovesGod; nor doschismatics, for she loves her neighbour — Augustine,On Faith and the Creed 10). It is of importance to insist on this point. For it is sometimes urged that the organized unity ofCatholicism may be adapted to the Latin races but is ill-suited to the Teutonic spirit. To say this is to say that anessential characteristic of thisChristianrevelation is ill-suited to one of the great races of the world.
The union of different nations in onesociety is contrary to the natural inclinations of fallenhumanity. It must ever struggle against the impulses of nationalpride, the desire for complete independence, the dislike of external control. Hence history provides various cases in which thesepassions have obtained the upper hand, the bond of unity has been broken, and "National Churches" have been formed. In every such case the so-called National Church has found to its cost that, in severing its connection with theHoly See, it has lost its one protector against the encroachments of the secular Government. TheGreek Church under theByzantine Empire, the autocephalousRussian Church today, have been mere pawns in the hands of thecivil authority. The history of theAnglican Church presents the same features. There is but one institution which is able to resist the pressure ofsecular powers — theSee of Peter, which was set in the Church for this purpose by Christ, that it might afford a principle of stability and security to every part. Thepapacy is above all nationalities. It is the servant of no particular State; and hence it has strength to resist the forces that would make thereligion of Christ subservient to secular ends. Those Churches alone have retained their vitality which have kept their union with theSee of Peter. The branches which have been broken from that stem have withered.
In the course of the nineteenth century, the principle of National Churches was strenuously defended by the High ChurchAnglican divines under the name of the "Branch theory". According to this view, each National Church when fully constituted under its ownepiscopate is independent of external control. It possesses plenary authority as to its internaldiscipline, and may not merely reform itself as regardsritual andceremonial usages, but may correct obvious abuses in matters ofdoctrine. It is justified in doing this even if the step involve a breach of communion with the rest ofChristendom; for, in this case, the blame attaches not to the Church which undertakes the work of reformation, but to those which, on this score, reject it from communion. It still remains a "branch" of theCatholic Church as it was before. At the present day theAnglican,Roman Catholic, and Greek Churches are each of them a branch of the Universal Church. None of them has an exclusiveright to term itself the Catholic Church. The defenders of the theory recognize, indeed, that this divided state of the church is abnormal. They admit that the Fathers never contemplated the possibility of a church thus severed into parts. But they assert that circumstances such as those which led to this abnormal state of things never presented themselves during the early centuries ofecclesiastical history.
The position is open to fatal objections.
By the notes of the Church are meant certain conspicuous characteristics which distinguish it from all other bodies andprove it to be the onesociety ofJesus Christ. Some such distinguishing marks it needs must have, if it is, indeed, the sole depositary of theblessings ofredemption, the way ofsalvation offered byGod toman. A Babel of religious organizations all proclaim themselves to be the Church ofChrist. Their doctrines are contradictory; and precisely in so far as any one of them regards the doctrines which it teaches as of vital moment, it declares those of the rival bodies to be misleading and pernicious. Unless thetrue Church were endowed with such characteristics as wouldprove to allmen that it, and it alone, had aright to the name, how could the vast majority ofmankind distinguish therevelation ofGod from the inventions ofman? If it could not authenticate its claim, it would be impossible for it to warn allmen that to reject it was to reject Christ. In discussing the visibility of the Church (VII) it was seen that theCatholic Church points to four such notes — those namely which were inserted in theNicene Creed at theCouncil of Constantinople (A.D. 381):Unity,Sanctity,Catholicity, andApostolicity. These, it declares, distinguish it from every other body, andprove that in it alone is to be found thetrue religion. Each of these characteristics forms the subject of a special article in this work. Here, however, will be indicated the sense in which the terms are to be understood. A brief explanation of their meaning will show how decisive aproof they furnish that thesociety ofJesus Christ is none other than the Church in communion with theHoly See.
TheProtestant reformers endeavoured to assign notes of the Church, such as might lend support to their newly-foundedsects.Calvin declares that the Church is to be found "where the word ofGod is preached in its purity, and thesacraments administered according toChrist's ordinance" (Instit., Bk. IV, c. i; cf. Confessio August., art. 4). It is manifest that such notes are altogether nugatory. The very reason why notes are required at all is thatmen may be able to discern the word ofGod from the words offalseprophets, and mayknow which religious body has aright to term itsceremonies thesacraments ofChrist. To say that the Church is to be sought where these twoqualities are found cannot help us. TheAnglican Church adoptedCalvin's account in its officialformulary (Thirty-Nine Articles, art. 17); on the other hand, it retains the use of theNicene Creed; though a profession offaith in a Church which is One,Holy,Catholic, andApostolic, can have little meaning to those who are not in communion with thesuccessor of Peter.
The Church isOne because its members;
As already noted (XI)Christ Himself declared that the unity of his followers should bear witness to Him. Discord and separation are theDevil's work on the earth. The unity and brotherhood promised by Christ are to be the visible manifestation on the earth of the Divine union (John 17:21).St. Paul's teaching on this point is to the same effect. He sees in the visible unity of the body of Christ an external sign of the oneness of the Spirit who dwells within it. There is, he says, "one body and one Spirit" (Ephesians 4:4). As in any living organism the union of the members in one body is the sign of the one animating principle within, so it is with the Church. If the Church were divided into two or more mutually exclusive bodies, how could she witness to the presence of that Spirit Whose name is Love. Further, when it is said that the members of the Church are united by the profession of the samefaith, we speak of external profession as well as inward acceptance. In recent years, much has been said by those outside the Church, about unity of spirit being compatible with differences ofcreed. Such words are meaningless in reference to aDivine revelation. Christ came fromheaven to reveal thetruth toman. If a diversity ofcreeds could be found in His Church, this could only be because thetruth He revealed had been lost in the quagmire ofhumanerror. It would signify that His work was frustrated, that His Church was no longer the pillar and ground of thetruth. There is, it is plain, but one Church, in which is found the unity we have described — in theCatholic Church, united under the government of thesupreme pontiff, and acknowledging all that he teaches in his capacity as theinfallible guide of the Church.
When the Church points tosanctity as one of her notes, it is manifest that what is meant is asanctity of such a kind as excludes the supposition of any natural origin. Theholiness which marks the Church should correspond to theholiness of itsFounder, of the Spirit Who dwells within it, of thegraces bestowed upon it. Aquality such as this may well serve to distinguish thetrue Church from counterfeits. It is not without reason that the Church ofRome claims to beholy in this sense. Herholiness appears in thedoctrine which she teaches, in the worship she offers toGod, in the fruits which she brings forth.
Christ founded the Church for thesalvation of thehuman race. He established it that it might preserve Hisrevelation, and dispense His grace to all nations. Hence it wasnecessary that it should be found in every land, proclaiming His message to allmen, and communicating to them the means of grace. To this end He laid on theApostles the Injunction to "go, and teach all nations". There is, notoriously, but one religious body which fulfills this command, and which can therefore lay any claim to the note ofCatholicity. The Church which owns theRoman pontiff as its supreme head extends its ministrations over the whole world. It owns itsobligation to preach the Gospel to all peoples. No other Church attempts this task, or can use the title ofCatholic with any appearance of justification. TheGreek Church is at the present day a mere localschism. None of theProtestant bodies has ever pretended to a universal mission. They claim noright toconvert to theirbeliefs theChristianized nations ofEurope. Even in regard to theheathen, for nearly two hundred years missionary enterprise was unknown amongProtestant bodies. In the nineteenth century, it istrue, many of them displayed no littlezeal for theconversion of theheathen, and contributed large sums of money for this purpose. But the results achieved were so inadequate as to justify the conclusion that theblessing ofGod did not rest upon the enterprise. (SeeCATHOLIC MISSIONS; MISSIONS; PROTESTANT.)
TheApostolicity of the Church consists in its identity with the body which Christ established on the foundation of theApostles, and which He commissioned to carry on His work. No other body save this is the Church ofChrist. Thetrue Church must beApostolic indoctrine andApostolic in mission. Since, however, it has already been shown that thegift of infallibility was promised to the Church, it follows that where there isApostolicity of mission, there will also beApostolicity ofdoctrine.Apostolicity of mission consists in the power ofHoly orders and thepower of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from theApostles. Any religious organization whoseministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For "how shall they preach", asks theApostle, "unless they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). It isApostolicity of mission which is reckoned as a note of the Church. No historical fact can be more clear than thatApostolicity, if it is found anywhere, is found in theCatholic Church. In it there is the power ofHoly orders received byApostolic succession. In it, too, there isApostolicity ofjurisdiction; for history shows us that theRoman bishop is the successor of Peter, and as such the centre ofjurisdiction. Thoseprelates who are united to theRoman See receive theirjurisdiction from thepope, who alone can bestow it. No other Church isApostolic. TheGreek church, it istrue, claims to possess thisproperty on the strength of its validsuccession ofbishops. But, by rejecting the authority of theHoly See, it severed itself from theApostolic College, and thereby forfeited alljurisdiction.Anglicans make a similar claim. But even if they possessed valid orders,jurisdiction would be wanting to them no less than to the Greeks.
The Church has been considered as asociety which aims at a spiritual end, but which yet is a visible polity, like the secular polities among which it exists. It is, further, a "perfectsociety". The meaning of this expression, "a perfectsociety", should be clearly understood, for this characteristic justifies, even on grounds of purereason, that independence of secular control which the Church has always claimed. Asociety may be defined as a number ofmen who unite in a manner more or less permanent in order, by their combined efforts, to attain a common good.Association of this kind is anecessarycondition of civilization. An isolatedindividual can achieve but little. He can scarcely provide himself withnecessary sustenance; much less can he find the means of developing his highermental andmoralgifts. As civilization progresses,men enter into varioussocieties for the attainment of various ends. These organizations are perfect or imperfectsocieties. For asociety to be perfect, twoconditions arenecessary:
There are twosocieties which are perfect — the Church and the State. The end of the State is the temporal welfare of the community. It seeks to realize theconditions which are requisite in order that its members may be able to attain temporalfelicity. It protects therights, and furthers the interests of theindividuals and the groups ofindividuals which belong to it. All othersocieties which aim in any manner at temporal good are necessarily imperfect. Either they exist ultimately for the good of the State itself; or, if their aim is the private advantage of some of its members, the State must grant them authorization, and protect them in the exercise of their various functions. Should they prove dangerous to it, itjustly dissolves them. The Church also possesses theconditions requisite for a perfectsociety. That its end is not subordinate to that of any othersociety is manifest: for it aims at the spiritual welfare, theeternal felicity, ofman. This is the highest end asociety can have; it is certainly not an end subordinate to the temporalfelicity aimed at by the State. Moreover, the Church is not dependent on the permission of the State in the attaining of its end. Itsright to exist is derived not from the permission of the State, but from the command ofGod. Itsright to preach the Gospel, to administer thesacraments, to exercisejurisdiction over its subjects, is not conditional on the authorization of the civil Government. It has received fromChrist Himself the great commission to teach all nations. To the command of the civil Government that they should desist from preaching, theApostles replied simply that they ought toobeyGod rather thanmen (Acts 5:29). Some measure of temporal goods is, indeed,necessary to the Church to enable it to carry out the work entrusted to it. The State cannotjustly prohibit it from receiving this from the benefactions of thefaithful. Those whoseduty it is to achieve a certain end have aright to possess the meansnecessary to accomplish their task.
Pope Leo XIII summed up thisdoctrine in hisEncyclical "Immortale Dei" (1 November, 1885) on theChristian constitution of States: "The Church", he says, "is distinguished and differs from civilsociety; and, what is of highest moment, it is asociety chartered as ofright divine, perfect in itsnature and its title to possess in itself and by itself through the will and loving kindness of itsFounder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action. And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most excellent of all authority, nor can it be looked on as inferior to thecivil power, or in any manner dependent upon it." It is to be observed that though the end at which the Church aims is higher than that of the State, the latter is not, as asociety, subordinate to the Church. The twosocieties belong to different orders. The temporalfelicity at which the State aims is not essentially dependent on the spiritual good which the Church seeks. Material prosperity and a high degree of civilization may be found where the Church does not exist. Eachsociety is Supreme in its own order. At the same time each contributes greatly to the advantage of the other. The church cannot appeal tomen who have not some rudiments of civilization, and whose savage mode of life rendersmoral development impossible. Hence, though her function is not to civilize but tosavesouls, yet when she is called on to deal with savage races, she commences by seeking to communicate the elements of civilization to them. On the other hand, the State needs theSupernaturalsanctions and spiritual motives which the Church impresses on its members. A civil order without these is insecurely based.
It has often been objected that thedoctrine of the Church's independence in regard to the State would rendercivil government impossible. Such a theory, it is urged, creates a State within a State; and from this, there must inevitably result a conflict of authorities each claiming supreme dominion over the same subjects. Such was the argument of the Gallican Regalists. The writers of thisschool, consequently, would not admit the claim of the Church to be a perfectsociety. They maintained that anyjurisdiction which it might exercise was entirely dependent on the permission of thecivil power. The difficulty, however, is rather apparent than real. The scope of the two authorities is different, the one belonging to what is temporal, the other to what is spiritual. Even when thejurisdiction of the Church involves the use of temporal means and affects temporal interests, it does not detract from the due authority of the State. If difficulties arise, they arise, not by thenecessity of the case, but from some extrinsic reason. In the course of history, occasions have doubtless arisen, whenecclesiastical authorities have grasped at power which byright belonged to the State, and, more often still, when the State has endeavoured to arrogate to itselfspiritual jurisdiction. This, however, does not show the system to be at fault, but merely thathuman perversity can abuse it. So far, indeed, is it from beingtrue that the Church's claims render government impossible, that the contrary is the case. By determining the just limits of liberty ofconscience, they are a defence to the State. Where the authority of the Church is not recognized, any enthusiast may elevate the vagaries of his own caprice into a Divine command, and may claim to reject the authority of the civil ruler on the plea that he mustobeyGod and notman. The history of John of Leyden and of many another self-styledprophet will afford examples in point. The Church bids her members see in thecivil power "the minister ofGod", and never justifies disobedience, except in those rare cases when the State openly violates thenatural or the revealed law. (SeeCIVIL ALLEGIANCE.)
Among the writings of the Fathers, the following are the principal works which bear on the doctrine of the Church: ST. IRENÆUS,Adv. Hæreses inP.G., VII; TERTULLIAN,De Prescriptionibus inP. L., II; ST. CYPRIAN, De UnitateEcclesie inP.L., IV; ST. OPTATUS,De Schismate Donatistarum inP.L., XI; ST. AUGUSTINE,Contra Donatistas, Contra Epistolas Parmeniani,Contra Litteras Petiliani inP.L., XLIII; ST. VINCENT OF LÉRINS,Commonitorium inP.L., L. — Of the theologians who in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries defended the Catholic Church against the Reformers may be mentioned: STAPLETON,Principiorum Fidei Doctrinalium Demonstratio (1574; Paris, 1620); BELLARMINE,Disputationes de Controversiis Fidei (1576; Prague, 1721); SUAREZ,Defensio Fidea Catholicoe adversus Anglicanoe Sectoe Errores (1613; Paris, 1859). — Among more recent writers: MURRAY,De Ecclesiâ (Dublin, 1866); FRANZLIN,De Ecclesiâ (Rome, 1887); PALMIERI,De Romano Pontifice (Prato, 1891); DÖLLINGER,The First Age of the Church (tr. London, 1866); SCHANZ,A Christian Apology (tr. Dublin, 1892). — The following English works may also be noticed: WISEMAM,Lectures on the Church; NEWMAN,Development of Christian Doctrine; IDEM,Difficulties of Anglicans; MATHEW, ed.,Ecclesia (London, 1907). In special relation to recent rationalist criticism regarding the primitive Church and its organization, may be noted: BATIFFOL,Etudes d'histoire et de la théologie positive (Paris, 1906); important articles by Mgr. Batiffol will also he found in theBulletin de littérature ecclésiastique for 1904, 1905, 1906, and in theIrish Theological Quarterly for 1906 and 1907; DE SMEDT in theRevue des questions historiques (1888, 1891), vols. XLIV, CL; BUTLER inThe Dublin Review (1893, 1897), vols. CXIII, CXXI. The following works are by Anglican divines of various schools of thought: PALMER,Treatise on the Church (1842); GORE,Lux Mundi (London, 1890); IDEM,The Church and the Ministry (London, 1889); HORT,The Christian Ecciesia (London, 1897); LIGHTFOOT, the dissertation entitledThe Christian Ministry in hisCommentary on Epistle to Philippians (London, 1881); GAYFORD in HASTING,Dict. of Bible, s.v.Church. Amongst rationalist critics may be mentioned: HARNACK,History of Dogma (tr. London, 1904); IDEM,What is Christianity? (tr. London, 1901), and articles inExpositor (1887), vol. V; HATCH,Organization of the Early Christian Churches (London, 1880); WEISZÄCKER,Apostolic Age (tr. London, 1892); SABATIER,Religions of Authority and the Religion of the Spirit (tr. London, 1906); LOWRIE,The Church and its Organization — anInterpretation of Rudolf Sohm's 'Kirchenrecht" (London, 1904). With these may be classed: LOISY, L'Evangile et l'Église (Paris, 1902).
APA citation.Joyce, G.(1908).The Church. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
MLA citation.Joyce, George."The Church."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 3.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1908.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.