The true Church must be Apostolical. Thus, in the Creed formulated at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa in the year 325, we find the declaration: “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”
This attribute—or note—of the Church implies that the true Church must always teach the identical doctrines once delivered by the Apostles, and that her ministers must derive their powers from the Apostles by an unbroken succession.
Consequently, no church can legitimately claim to be the true one if its doctrines diverge from those of the Apostles, or if its ministers are unable to trace, through an unbroken line, their authority back to an Apostolic source—just as our Minister to England can exercise no authority there unless he is duly commissioned by our Government and represents its views.
“The Church,” says St Paul, “is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone,” [70] so that the doctrine it propagates must be firmly grounded in Apostolic teaching.
Hence, the same Apostle declares to the Galatians:
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” [71]
And again, in his admonition to Timothy, he writes:
“What you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.” [72]
Timothy must transmit to his disciples only those doctrines which he had heard from the lips of his Master.
It is not enough that ministers of the Gospel conform their teaching to the doctrine of the Apostles; it is also required that these ministers be ordained and commissioned either by the Apostles themselves or by their legitimate successors.
“And one does not presume to take this honour, but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was.” [73]
This text plainly condemns all self-constituted preachers and reformers. “And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent?” [74]
—sent, of course, by lawful authority and not acting according to private whim or personal presumption.
Hence, we find that those who succeeded the Apostles were themselves ordained and commissioned by them to preach; and that no others were permitted to exercise this function.
Thus, we are told that Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders for them in each church” [75]; and the Apostle says to Titus:
“I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.” [76]
Even St Paul himself, though miraculously called and instructed by God, received the imposition of hands,[77] lest others be misled by his example and presume to preach without Apostolic commission.
To identify, therefore, the Church of Christ amidst the various conflicting claimants, we must inquire:
First, which Church teaches, whole and entire, the doctrines that were taught by the Apostles?
Second, which Church’s ministers can trace, in an unbroken line, their authority and missionary power back to the Apostles themselves?
[040] The Catholic Church alone teaches doctrines that are, in every respect, identical with those of the original heralds of the Gospel.
The following parallel lines exhibit several examples of the departure of the Protestant bodies from the primitive teachings of Christianity, and the faithful adhesion of the Catholic Church to them:
Apostolic Church | Catholic Church | Protestant Churches |
---|---|---|
1. Our Saviour gives pre-eminence to Peter over the other Apostles: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” [78] “Strengthen your brothers.” [79] “Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.” [80] | The Catholic Church gives the primacy of honour and jurisdiction to Peter and to his successors. | All other Christian communions practically deny Peter’s supremacy over the other Apostles. |
2. The Apostolic Church claimed to be infallible in her teachings. The Apostles spoke with unerring authority, and their words were received not as human opinions, but as Divine truths: “When you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word.” [81] “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials.” [82] “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” [83] | The Catholic Church alone, of all Christian communions, claims to exercise the prerogative of infallibility in her teaching. Her ministers speak with authority, and the faithful receive her doctrine with implicit confidence, never questioning the Church’s veracity. | All Protestant churches repudiate the claim of infallibility. They deny that any teacher of religion possesses such a gift. Ministers do not pronounce authoritative doctrine but offer personal interpretations of Scripture, leaving their hearers to draw individual conclusions from the Bible. |
3. Our Saviour enjoins and prescribes rules for fasting: “But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” [84] The Apostles fasted before engaging in sacred functions: “While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting…” [85] “And after they had appointed elders for them in each church, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the Lord.” [86] | The Church prescribes fasting for the faithful at set times, particularly during Lent. A Catholic priest is always fasting when he offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, breaking his fast only after its conclusion. When bishops ordain priests, both they and the candidates for ordination are in a state of fasting. | Protestants have no law mandating fasts, though some individuals may choose to fast from private devotion. Many even cast ridicule on fasting, treating it as a needless work of supererogation that detracts from the merits of Christ. Neither candidates for ordination nor the ministers who ordain them observe fasting on such occasions. |
4. “Let women be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. … For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” [87] | The Catholic Church has never permitted women to preach in the house of God. | Women, especially in this country, publicly preach in Methodist and other churches, with the sanction of church elders. |
5. St Peter and St John confirmed the newly baptised in Samaria: “Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” [88] | Every Catholic bishop, as a successor of the Apostles, likewise lays hands on the baptised in the Sacrament of Confirmation, by which they receive the Holy Spirit. | No denomination in this country performs the laying on of hands except the Episcopalians—and even they do not recognise Confirmation as a Sacrament. |
6. Our Saviour and His Apostles taught that the Eucharist contains the Body and Blood of Christ: “Take, eat; this is my body.” “Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” [89] “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?” [90] | The Catholic Church teaches, in union with our Lord and His Apostles, that the Eucharist truly and substantially contains the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. | The Protestant churches (with the possible exception of a few Ritualists) reject the doctrine of the Real Presence as idolatrous. They assert that in partaking of communion, one receives only a memorial of Christ. |
7. The Apostles were empowered by our Saviour to forgive sins: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [91] “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” [92] | The bishops and priests of the Catholic Church, as inheritors of Apostolic prerogatives, profess to exercise the ministry of reconciliation and to forgive sins in the name of Christ. | Protestants affirm, on the contrary, that God delegates to no man the power of pardoning sin. |
8. Regarding the sick, St James gives this instruction: “Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord.” [93] | One of the most ordinary duties of a Catholic priest is to anoint the sick in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. If a man is sick among us, he is careful to call in the priest of the Church, that he may anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. | No such ceremony as that of anointing the sick is practised by any Protestant denomination, notwithstanding the Apostle’s clear instruction. |
9. Concerning marriage, our Saviour says: “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” [94] And again, St Paul declares: “To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” [95] | Literally following the Apostle’s injunction, the Catholic Church forbids husband and wife to separate. If they do separate, neither party may remarry during the lifetime of the other. | The Protestant churches, as is well known, have relaxed this rigorous law of the Gospel, allowing divorced persons to remarry. Divorce a vinculo is granted on various—even trifling—grounds. |
10. Our Lord recommends, not only by word but by His own example, the state of perpetual virginity to souls aspiring to perfection. St Paul likewise exhorts the Corinthians—both by counsel and by his personal example—to the same angelic virtue: “So then, he who marries his virgin does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.” [96] | Like the Apostle and his Master, the Catholic clergy bind themselves to a life of perpetual chastity. The men and women in our religious orders voluntarily consecrate their virginity to God. | Ministers of other denominations, with very rare exceptions, marry. And far from encouraging the Apostolic counsel of celibacy, they often go so far as to imply that the virtue of perpetual chastity—though recommended by St Paul—is impracticable. |
We now leave the reader to judge for himself which Church enforces the doctrines of the Apostles in all their pristine vigour.
To demonstrate that the Catholic Church is the only lineal descendant of the Apostles, it is sufficient to show that she alone can trace her spiritual pedigree—generation after generation—directly to the Apostolic age. By contrast, the origins of all other Christian communities can be historically traced to comparatively modern periods.
The most influential Christian sects currently existing in this country are the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists. The other Protestant denominations are, in terms of numbers, comparatively insignificant and, for the most part, constitute offshoots from the principal communities just named.
Martin Luther, a Saxon monk, was the founder of the Church which bears his name. He was born at Eisleben, in Saxony, in 1483, and died in 1546.
The Anglican or Episcopal Church owes its origin to Henry VIII of England. The immediate cause of his renunciation of the Roman Church was the refusal of Pope Clement to grant him a divorce from his lawful wife, Catherine of Aragon, that he [044] might be free to enter into wedlock with Anne Boleyn. In order to legalise his separation from his virtuous queen, the licentious monarch divorced both himself and his kingdom from the spiritual supremacy of the Pope.
“There is a close relationship,” says D’Aubigné, “between these two divorces,” referring to Henry’s divorce from his wife and England’s divorce from the Church. Yes, the relationship is indeed that of cause and effect.
Bishop Short, an Anglican historian, candidly admits:
“The existence of the Church of England as a distinct body, and her final separation from Rome, may be dated from the period of the divorce.” [97]
The Book of Homilies, in terms of fulsome praise, refers to Henry as “the true and faithful minister,” and credits him with having abolished the Papal supremacy in England and established the new order of things.[98]
John Wesley is the acknowledged founder of the Methodist Church. Methodism dates from the year 1729, and its cradle was the University of Oxford in England. John and Charles Wesley were students at Oxford. They gathered around them a number of young men devoted to the frequent reading of Holy Scripture and to prayer. Their methodical and disciplined manner of life earned them the name of Methodists.
The Methodist Church in this country is the offspring of a colony sent hither from England.
As it would be tedious to present even a succinct historical account of each sect, I shall instead offer a tabular statement [045] that sets forth:
the name and founder of each denomination,
the place and date of its origin, and
the names of the Protestant authors from whom I quote.
[046] It is to be noted that in every instance, my authorities are Protestant.
Name of Sect | Place of Origin | Founder | Year | Authority Quoted |
---|---|---|---|---|
Anabaptists | Germany | Nicolas Stork | 1521 | Vincent L. Milner, Religious Denominations |
Baptists | Rhode Island | Roger Williams | 1639 | The Book of Religions by John Hayward |
Free-Will Baptists | New Hampshire | Benjamin Randall | 1780 | Ibid. |
Free Communion Baptists | New York | Benijah Corp | Close of 18th century | Rev. A. D. Williams in History of all Denominations |
Seventh-Day Baptists | United States | General Conference | 1833 | W. B. Gillett, Ibid. |
Campbellites, or Christians | Virginia | Alexander Campbell | 1813 | Book of Religions |
Methodist Episcopal | England | John Wesley | 1739 | Rev. Nathan Bangs in History of all Denominations |
Reformed Methodist | Vermont | Branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church | 1814 | Ibid. |
Methodist Society | New York | Same | 1820 | Rev. W. M. Stilwell, Ibid. |
Methodist Protestant | Baltimore | Same | 1830 | James R. Williams, Ibid. |
True Wesleyan Methodist | New York | Delegates from Methodist denominations | 1843 | J. Timberman, Ibid. |
Presbyterian (Old School) | Scotland | General Assembly | 1560 | John M. Krebs, Ibid. |
Presbyterian (New School) | Philadelphia | General Assembly | 1840 | Joel Parker, D.D., Ibid. |
Episcopalian | England | Henry VIII | 1534 | Macaulay and other English Historians |
Lutheran | Germany | Martin Luther | 1524 | S. S. Schmucker in History of all Denominations |
Unitarian Congregationalists | Germany | Celatius | About 1540 | Alvan Lamson, Ibid. |
Congregationalists | England | Robert Browne | 1583 | E. W. Andrews, Ibid. |
Quakers | England | George Fox | 1647 | English Historians |
Quakers | America | William Penn | 1681 | American Historians |
Catholic Church | Jerusalem | Jesus | 33 | New Testament |
From this brief historical table, we discover that all the Christian sects now existing in the United States had their origin after the year 1500. Consequently, the oldest body of Christians among us—outside the Catholic Church—is not yet four centuries old. They all, therefore, appear fifteen centuries too late to lay any legitimate claim to the title of Apostolic Church.
But I may be told: “Though our public history as Protestants dates from the Reformation, we can trace our origin back to the Apostles.” To this I reply: such a claim is impossible.
First of all, the very names you bear betray your recent birth; for who ever heard of a Baptist, or an Episcopal, or any other Protestant church prior to the Reformation? Nor can you plausibly assert: “We existed in every age as an invisible church.” Your concealment, indeed, was so complete that no man, to this day, can identify where you lay hidden for sixteen centuries.
Even if you did exist, you still could not be rightly called the Church of Christ. Our Lord predicted that His Church would be as a city set upon a mountain, that all might see it; and that its ministers would preach the truths of salvation from its watch-towers, that all might hear them. His Church was not to be a secret society operating in obscurity, but a visible, audible, and enduring institution.
It is equally futile to assert that your communities were allied in faith to the various Christian sects that separated themselves from the Catholic Church over time. These sects not only diverged from the Church but also contradicted one another in doctrine. Yet, the true Church must be one in faith. And besides, the less association you claim with many of these seceders the better, for they frequently advocated errors against Christian truth, and some disseminated principles wholly at variance with decency and morality.
[048]
The Catholic Church, by contrast, can vindicate her title of Apostolic with ease, for she derives her origin directly from the Apostles. Every priest and bishop can trace his ecclesiastical genealogy back to the first disciples of Christ, just as easily as the most remote branch of a vine may be traced to its main stem.
All the Catholic clergy in the United States, for instance, were ordained only by bishops who are in active communion with the See of Rome. These bishops themselves received their commissions from other bishops likewise in communion with Rome.
The present Bishop of Rome, Pope Pius IX, is the successor of Gregory XVI, who succeeded Pius VIII, who in turn succeeded Leo XII. And thus we may proceed backwards, from century to century, until we reach Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ.
Like the Evangelist St Luke, who traces the genealogy of our Saviour back to Adam and to God, so we trace the pedigree of Pius IX to Peter and ultimately to Christ Himself. There is no missing link in the chain that unites the humblest priest in the land to the Prince of the Apostles.
And although, on rare occasions, there were two or even three claimants to the chair of Peter, such episodes no more compromised the validity of the legitimate Pope than a political contest between multiple presidential candidates could invalidate the office of the recognised Chief Magistrate.\
It was by pursuing this line of argument that the early Fathers demonstrated the Apostolicity of the Catholic Church and refuted the pretensions of contemporary sectaries.
St Irenæus, Tertullian, and St Augustine each provide catalogues of the Bishops of Rome who flourished up to their respective eras—men with whom it was their [049] privilege and happiness to be in communion. They then challenged their opponents to produce evidence of their own connection to the Apostolic See.
“Let them,” says Tertullian, writing in the second century, “produce the origin of their church. Let them exhibit the succession of their bishops, so that the first of them may appear to have been ordained by an Apostle, or by an apostolic man who was in communion with the Apostles.” [99]
And if the Fathers of the fifth century considered it a compelling argument that they could point to an unbroken line of fifty bishops who had occupied the See of Rome, how much stronger is that argument in our own day—when we can exhibit five times that number of Roman Pontiffs who have sat in the chair of Peter!
With all charity and sincerity, I would repeat to my separated brethren what St Augustine once said to the Donatists of his time:
“Come to us, brethren, if you wish to be grafted into the vine. We are afflicted to behold you lying cut off from it. Count over the bishops from the very See of St Peter, and mark, in this list of Fathers, how one succeeded another. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail.” [100]
70 Eph. ii. 20.
71 Gal. i. 8.
72 II. Tim. ii. 2.
73 Heb. v. 4.
74 Rom. x. 15.
75 Acts xiv. 22.
76 Tit. i. 5.
77 Acts xiii. 2, 3.
0 Matt. xvi. 18.
0 Luke xxii. 32.
0 John xxi. 15.
0 Acts xv. 28.
0 Gal. i. 8.
0 Matt. vi. 17.
0 Acts xiii. 2.
0 Acts xiv. 22.
0 I. Cor. xiv. 34, 35.
0 Acts viii. 17.
0 Matt. xxvi. 26-28.
0 I. Cor. x. 16.
0 John xx. 28.
0 II. Cor. v. 18.
0 James v. 14.
0 Mark x. 11, 12.
0 I. Cor. vii, 10, 11.
0 I. Cor. vii.
97 History of the Church of England, by Thomas. V. Short, Bishop of St. Asaph's, p. 44.
98 Book of Homilies.
99 Lib. de Præscrip., c. 32.
100 Psal. contra part Donati.