The Unity of the Church
By unity is meant that the members of the true Church must be united in the belief of the same doctrines of revelation, and in the acknowledgment of the authority of the same pastors.
Heresy and schism are opposed to Christian unity. By heresy, a man rejects one or more articles of the Christian faith. By schism, he spurns the authority of his spiritual superiors.
That our Saviour requires this unity of faith and government among His members is evident from various passages of Holy Writ. In His admirable prayer, spoken immediately before His Passion, He says: “I pray for them also who through their word shall believe in Me; that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me,” [16] because the unity of the Church is the most luminous evidence of the Divine mission of Christ.
Jesus prayed that His followers might be united in the bond of a common faith, as He and His Father are united in essence—and certainly, the prayer of Jesus is always heard.
St Paul ranks schism and heresy with the crimes of murder and idolatry, and he declares that the authors of sects shall not possess the Kingdom of God.[17] [006] He also addresses a letter to the Ephesians from his prison in Rome, and if the words of the Apostle should always command our homage, with how much reverence ought they to be received when written in chains from the Imperial City! In this Epistle, he insists upon unity of faith in the following emphatic language:
“Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit, as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” [18]
As you all, he says, worship one God and not many gods; as you acknowledge the same Divine Mediator of redemption, and not many mediators; as you are sanctified by the same Divine Spirit, and not by many spirits; as you all hope for the same heaven, and not different heavens—so must you all profess the same faith.
Unity of government is no less essential to the Church of Christ than unity of doctrine. Our Divine Saviour never speaks of His Churches, but always of His Church. He does not say: “Upon this rock I will build my Churches,” but rather, “upon this rock I will build My Church,” [19] from which words we must conclude that it was never His intention to establish or to sanction various conflicting denominations, but rather one corporate body, with all its members united under one visible Head. For as the Church is a visible body, it must have a visible head.
The Church is called a kingdom: “He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be no end.” [20]
Now, in every well-regulated kingdom, there is but one king, one form of government, one uniform body of laws which [007] all are obliged to observe. In like manner, in Christ’s spiritual kingdom there must be one Chief to whom all owe spiritual allegiance; one form of ecclesiastical government; one uniform body of laws which all Christians are bound to observe. For, “every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate.” [21]
Our Saviour calls His Church a sheepfold: “And there shall be made one fold and one shepherd.” [22] What more beautiful or fitting illustration of unity can we have than that which is suggested by a sheepfold?
All the sheep of a flock cling together. If they are momentarily separated, they grow restless until reunited. They follow the same path. They feed upon the same pastures. They obey the same shepherd and flee from the voice of strangers.
So did our Lord intend that all the sheep of His fold should be nourished by the same Sacraments and the same Bread of Life; that they should follow the same rule of faith as their guide to heaven; that they should heed the voice of one Chief Pastor; and that they should diligently avoid false teachers.
His Church is compared to a human body:
“As in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of the other.” [23]
In one body there are many members, all inseparably connected with the head. The head commands, and the foot instantly moves; the hand is raised, and the lips open. Even so, our Lord ordained that His Church, composed of many members, should all be united to one supreme [008] visible Head, whom they are bound to obey.
The Church is compared to a vine:
“I am the Vine, ye the branches; he that abideth in Me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit, for without Me ye can do nothing.” [24]
All the branches of a vine, though they spread far and wide, are necessarily connected to the main stem, and from its sap they receive nourishment. In like manner, our Saviour wills that all the saplings of His vineyard be connected with the main stem, and all draw their sustenance from the parent stock.
The Church, in fine, is called in Scripture by the beautiful title of the bride or spouse of Christ,[25] and the Christian law admits only of one wife.
In fact, our common sense alone—apart from revelation—is sufficient to convince us that God could not be the author of various opposing systems of religion. God is essentially one. He is Truth itself.
How could the God of truth affirm, for instance, to one body of Christians that there are three Persons in God, and to another that there is only one Person in God? How could He say to one individual that Jesus Christ is God, and to another that He is only man? How can He tell me that the punishments of the wicked are eternal, and tell another that they are not eternal?
One of these contradictory statements must be false. “God is not the God of dissension, but of peace.” [26]
I see perfect harmony in the laws which govern the physical world that we inhabit. I see a marvellous unity in our planetary system. Each planet moves in its own sphere, and all are controlled by the central sun.
Why, then, should there not also be harmony and concord in that spiritual world—the Church of God—the grandest conception of His omnipotence, and the most bounteous manifestation of His goodness and love for mankind? [009]
Hence, it is clear that Jesus Christ intended that His Church should have one common doctrine, which all Christians are bound to believe, and one uniform government, to which all should be loyally attached.
With all due respect for my dissenting brethren, truth compels me to say that this unity of doctrine and government is not to be found in the Protestant sects—whether taken collectively or separately.
That the various Protestant denominations differ from one another, not only in minor details, but in most essential principles of faith, is evident to everyone conversant with the doctrines of the different Creeds.
The multiplicity of sects in this country, with their mutual recriminations, is the scandal of Christianity, and the greatest obstacle to the conversion of the heathen. Not only does sect differ from sect, but each particular denomination is itself divided into two or more independent or conflicting branches.
In the State of North Carolina, for example, there exist several Baptist denominations, each bearing its own distinctive appellation. There is also the Methodist Church North and the Methodist Church South. There was the Old and the New School Presbyterian Church. And even in the Episcopal Communion, which is the most conservative body outside the Catholic Church, there exists the ritualistic, or High Church, and the Low Church.
Nay, if you question closely the individual members composing any one fraction of these denominations, you will not infrequently find them giving contradictory views of their own tenets of religion.
Protestants differ from one another not only in doctrine, but in their form of ecclesiastical government and discipline. The Church of England acknowledges the reigning Sovereign as its Spiritual [010] Head. Some denominations recognise Deacons, Priests, and Bishops as an essential part of their hierarchy; while the great majority of Protestants reject such titles altogether.
Where, then, shall we find this essential unity of faith and government? I answer, confidently: nowhere save in the Catholic Church.
The number of Catholics in the world is computed at three hundred millions. They have all “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” one Creed. They receive the same Sacraments, they worship at the same altar, and they pay spiritual allegiance to one common Head.
Should a Catholic be so unfortunate as contumaciously to deny a single article of faith, or withdraw from communion with his legitimate pastors, he ceases to be a member of the Church, and is cut off like a withered branch.
The Church would rather sever her right hand than allow any member to corrode her vitals. It was thus she excommunicated Henry VIII, because he persisted in violating the sacred law of marriage—even though she foresaw that the lustful monarch would drag a nation into his spiritual ruin.
She anathematised, more recently, Dr. Döllinger, despite the prestige of his name threatening to foment a schism in Germany.
She says to her children: “You may espouse any political party you choose; with this I have no concern.” But as soon as they encroach upon matters of faith, she cries aloud: “Hitherto thou shalt come, and shalt go no farther; and here thou shalt break thy swelling waves” [27] of discord.
The temple of faith is the asylum of peace, concord, and unity.
How sublime and consoling is the thought that wherever a Catholic may go across the wide world—whether he enters his Church in Peking or in Melbourne, in London, or Dublin, or [011] Paris, or Rome, or New York, or San Francisco—he is certain to hear the self-same doctrine preached, to assist at the same Sacrifice, and to partake of the same Sacraments.
And this is not all. Her Creed remains identical with what it was in ages past.
The same Gospel of peace which Jesus Christ preached on the Mount; the same doctrine proclaimed by St. Peter at Antioch and at Rome; by St. Paul at Ephesus; by St. John Chrysostom at Constantinople; by St. Augustine in Hippo; by St. Ambrose in Milan; by St. Remigius in France; by St. Boniface in Germany; by St. Athanasius in Alexandria; the same doctrine which St. Patrick introduced into Ireland, which St. Augustine brought into England, which St. Pelagius carried to Scotland, and which Columbus bore to this American continent—this is the doctrine ever preached in the Catholic Church throughout the globe, from January to December:
“Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and the same forever.” [28]
The same admirable unity that prevails in matters of faith is also firmly established in the government of the Church. All the members of the vast body of Catholic Christians are as intimately united to one visible Chief as the members of the human body are joined to the head.
The faithful of each parish are subject to their immediate Pastor. Each Pastor is subordinate to his Bishop, and each Bishop of Christendom acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome—the successor of St. Peter, and Head of the Catholic Church.
But it may be asked: is not this unity of faith impaired by those doctrinal definitions which the Church has promulgated from time to time?
We answer: no new dogma, unknown to [012] the Apostles, not contained in the primitive Christian revelation, can be admitted. (John xiv. 26; xv. 15; xvi. 13). For the Apostles received the whole deposit of God's word, according to the promise of our Lord: “When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, He shall teach you all truth.” And so the Church proposes the doctrines of faith, such as came from the lips of Christ, and as the Holy Spirit taught them to the Apostles at the birth of the Christian law—doctrines which know neither variation nor decay.
Hence, whenever it has been defined that any point of doctrine pertains to the Catholic faith, it has always been understood that this was equivalent to declaring that the doctrine in question had been revealed to the Apostles, and has come down to us from them, either by Scripture or tradition.
As the acts of all the Councils and the history of every definition of faith clearly show, it was never claimed that a new revelation had been made. Every inquiry was directed to this one point: whether the doctrine in question was contained in the Sacred Scriptures or in the Apostolic traditions.
A revealed truth frequently has a very extensive scope and is directed against error in its many changing forms. Nor is it necessary that those who receive this revelation in the first instance should be explicitly acquainted with its full import, or be cognisant of all its implications.
Truth never changes; it is the same now, yesterday, and forever, in itself. But our relation to truth may indeed change, for that which is hidden from us today may become known to us tomorrow.
“It often happens,” says St. Augustine, “that when it becomes necessary to defend certain points of Catholic doctrine against the insidious attacks of heretics, they are more carefully studied, they become more [013] clearly understood, they are more earnestly inculcated; and so the very questions raised by heretics give occasion to a more thorough knowledge of the subject in question.” [29]
Let us illustrate this.
In the Apostolic revelation and preaching, certain truths may have been contained implicitly. For example, in the doctrine that grace is necessary for every salutary work, it is implicitly asserted that the assistance of grace is required even for the inception of every good and salutary act. This particular point was denied by the semi-Pelagians, and their error was condemned by an explicit definition.
And so, in other matters, as rising controversies or new errors demanded, there followed more explicit declarations of doctrines that were formerly held implicitly. In the doctrine of the supreme power of Peter, as the visible foundation of the Church, we have the implied assertion of many rights and duties that belong to the centre of unity. In the revelation of the super-eminent dignity and purity of the Blessed Virgin, there is implied her exemption from original sin, and so forth.
So too, in the beginning, many truths may have been proposed somewhat obscurely, or with less clarity. They may have been less insistently emphasised, simply because there was no heresy—no contrary teaching—to make a more explicit declaration necessary.
Now, a doctrine which is proposed implicitly, less clearly, or less urgently, may be overlooked, misunderstood, or even called into question. Consequently, it may happen that some articles now universally believed in the Church were, in former ages—even within her own bosom—the subject of doubt or controversy.
“Those who err in belief do but serve to [014] bring out more clearly the soundness of those who believe rightly. For there are many things which lay hidden in the Scriptures and when heretics were cut off, they vexed the Church of God with disputes; then the hidden things were brought to light, and the will of God was made known.” (St. Augustine on the 54th Psalm, No. 22)
This kind of progress in faith we can—and do—admit; but the truth itself is not altered thereby. As Albertus Magnus says: “It would be more correct to style this the progress of the believer in the faith than of the faith in the believer.”
To demonstrate that this kind of progress is legitimate, only two things must be proven:
1. That some divinely revealed truths were contained in the Apostolic teaching implicitly—less clearly explained, less urgently pressed. This can only be denied by those who maintain that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith, that it is clear in every part, and could have been readily understood by all from the very beginning. I shall consider this point further on in this work.
2. That the Church can, in the course of time and as occasions arise, declare, explain, and urge such truths. This is proved not only from the Scriptures and the Fathers, but even from the conduct of Protestants themselves, who often boast of the care and diligence with which they “search the Scriptures” and study their meaning—even now, after so many Commentaries on the Sacred Text have been published.
And why? To obtain more light; to understand more fully what has been revealed.
It would seem, then, that the only real question which could arise on this matter is not about the possibility of arriving—by degrees—at a clearer understanding of the true sense of revelation, as circumstances [015] may call for successive developments, but rather about the authority of the Church to propose and to determine that sense.
So that, in the end, we are always brought back to the only real point of division and dispute between those who are not Catholics and ourselves—namely, the authority of the Church, of which I shall have more to say hereafter.
I cannot conclude better than by quoting the words of St. Vincent of Lerins:
*“Let us take care that it be with us in matters of religion, which affect our souls, as it is with material bodies, which, as time goes on, pass through successive phases of growth and development and multiply their years, but yet remain always the same individual bodies as they were in the beginning… It very properly follows from the nature of things that, with a perfect agreement and consistency between the beginnings and the final results, when we reap the harvest of dogmatic truth which has sprung from the seeds of doctrine sown in the spring-time of the Church’s existence, we should find no substantial difference between the grain which was first planted and that which we now gather. For though the germs of the early faith have in some respects been evolved in the course of time, and still receive nourishment and culture, yet nothing in them that is substantial can ever suffer change. The Church of Christ is a faithful and ever watchful guardian of the dogmas which have been committed to her charge. In this sacred deposit she changes nothing, she takes nothing from it, she adds nothing to it.”*
16 John xvii. 20, 21.
17 Gal. v. 20, 21
18 Ephes. iv. 3-6.
19 Matt. xvi. 18.
20 Luke i. 32, 33.
21 Matt. xii. 25..
22 John x. 16.
23 Rom. xii. 4, 5.
24 John xv. 5.
25 Apoc. xxi. 9.
26 I. Cor. xiv. 33.
27 Job xxxviii. 11.
28 Heb. xiii. 8.
29 De Civitate Dei, Lib. 16, Cap. ii., No. 1