PART II.

COMMUNION WITH THE ROMAN SEE IS NOT A NECESSARY CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

LECTURE VI.

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH.

IN the preceding lectures I have spoken of the position of the Roman see during the first four and a half centuries of our era; of its primacy of honour and influence, and of the causes which brought about that primacy; of its metropolitical jurisdiction over the suburbicarian churches from the earliest times; and of the patriarchal jurisdiction over the churches of the Western empire which it gradually acquired during the fourth and fifth centuries, partly through the legislation of the Council of Sardica, but mainly through the action of the civil power. We have noticed the upgrowth in Rome of the conception that S. Peter was bishop of the local Roman Church until his death, and that he bequeathed to his see his supposed primacy of jurisdiction, so that all subsequent popes were, in the sense implied by this theory, successors of S. Peter in S. Peter's own chair; and attention has been called to the great use which was made of this conception, to give an appearance of apostolic and even of divine sanction to claims whose real origin was partly synodical, but mainly secular; and we have observed how the use of these Petrine arguments during the process of the building up of the Western patriarchate prepared the way for the claim to an ecumenical jurisdiction over the whole Church, which was unmistakably put forth in the time of S. Leo. We have had occasion to notice over and over again how the great saints of the Church, especially in the East and in Africa and in Gaul, repudiated the papal jurisdiction, when from time to time an attempt was made to put it in force outside the suburbicarian limits; and we have seen how entirely the supporters of the definitions of the Vatican

Council concerning the papal primacy fail, when they attempt to prove those definitions by an appeal to Holy Scripture.

I propose in these supplementary lectures to drop the discussion of the origin and growth of the papal jurisdiction, and to deal with the cognate subject of the claim of the Roman see to be the necessary centre of communion for the whole Church. The discussion of this claim will, I hope, throw light on the true nature of the Church's unity, a very important point, which is often much misunderstood.

In order that we may know precisely what the Roman claim is, I will quote a remarkable passage from a remarkable article by the late Cardinal Wiseman.1 He says, "According to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, it is easy at once to ascertain who are the Church Catholic, and who are in a state of schism, by simply discovering who are in communion with the see of Rome, and who are not." Thus, according to the teaching of this distinguished Roman Catholic prelate and divine, who was in every sense a representative man, communion with the Roman see is a test of fellowship with the Catholic Church; those who are out of communion with the Roman see are in schism; and this statement is put forth, not as the description of the de facto state of things in this or that age of the Church's history, but as "the doctrine of the ancient Fathers," which is presumably in accordance with the revealed will of God, and therefore obligatory for all time.

It is obvious that the theory, which underlies Dr. Wiseman's statement, is based on the notion that the Church's unity is always visibly manifested by the intercommunion of her various parts; that is to say, that the different dioceses, provinces, and patriarchates, into which the Church militant is divided, are at all times in visible communion with the see of Rome, their divinely appointed centre, and, as a consequence, in communion with each other. If at any time any patriarchate or province or diocese ceases to be in communion with the pope, on this theory it necessarily ceases for the time to be in fellowship with the Catholic Church; it has lapsed into schism. Such is the view which is held, I suppose, universally by modern Roman Catholics, which is implied in

The article appeared in the Dublin Review for August, 1839. It is the famous article in which occurred a sentence quoted from S. Augustine, which produced the strange effect on Newman so graphically described in the Apologia (pp. 211-213, edit. 1864).

2 Dublin Review, vol. vii. p. 163. The Jesuit Perrone (Praelectt. Theoll., Tractat. de Locc. Theoll., part. i. sect. ii. cap. ii. prop. iii. n. 576, edit. 1841, vol. ii. pars i. p. 408) inculcates the same teaching. Speaking of the Fathers, he says, Opponebant haereticis et schismaticis auctoritatem ecclesiae romanae quâcum si quivis haud communicaret, frustra speraret sese ad ecclesiam pertinere."

the second paragraph of the third chapter of the Vatican dogmatic decree, "de Ecclesid Christi," but to us seems so strange, and, in the face of the facts and writings of the saints, so absolutely untenable.

Not that we make light of the importance of visible unity. The fundamental law of the Church is the law of love; and to whatever degree the main body of the Church is dominated by that law, there will be a proportionate yearning for visible unity, and a readiness to give up a great deal in order to attain it. The several members of the Church, or a majority of them in the various provinces, being inwardly united by love, the provincial or national churches will manifest the love which dwells in the hearts of the faithful,' by external fellowship and intercommunion. Moreover, intercommunion is not merely an outcome and expression of love; it is in itself a sacred duty which cannot be set aside except in obedience to some higher law. But this visible unity, at which the Church is bound to aim, which expresses the supernatural love which dwells in her, is no mechanical unity resulting from an iron necessity; it is produced by the action of the Holy Ghost, who dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the Church's members, and by the free co-operation of their sanctified wills. On the Roman theory, the external unity of the Church is a mechanical unity; it is a unity which cannot be broken. Those who are in fellowship with the pope are in the Church, those who are not in fellowship are outside. On this theory, the visible unity of the Church, resulting from the intercommunion of her several parts, is not the outcome of the free co-operation of the members of the Church with the unifying influences of the Spirit of God; it is the rigidly necessary result of the way in which the Church is defined. It would be hardly conceivable that any one should on this theory pray that, in the sense indicated above, the Church may be visibly one; the Church must be visibly one at all times, for the Church consists of the pope and those who are in visible communion with him. No amount of sin and unbelief can suspend or mar this Roman

2

1 Obstacles resulting from past unfaithfulness may hinder at times this manifestation of love, but the spirit of unity and the tendency to unity are inseparable accompaniments of true love.

It is true that in the Baptismal Service we pray that the child may be regenerated, although we are quite certain that it will be regenerated. But there is no analogy between such a prayer and a prayer for the visible unity of the Church offered by one who holds the Ultramontane theory of visible unity. Our certainty concerning the regeneration of the child depends upon our trust in God, and in His faithfulness to His promises; but on the Ultramontane theory the visible unity of the Church is the necessary consequence of the definition of the Church. It does not depend on the action of God, or on the promise of God. We can no more pray for it than we can pray that two and two may make four.

unity. The area of its fold may be diminished, but the external unity itself cannot be touched or affected. Very different is the primitive idea of visible unity, which is also our own. According to the primitive idea, visible unity is no mere logical deduction from a definition; it is the outcome of the unifying operation of the Holy Spirit, which may be thwarted, and which often has been thwarted. The faithful, and more especially the rulers of the Church, have to pray and labour continually that this unity may be maintained when it exists, and may be recovered when at any time it is lost. It is the good gift of our ascended Lord, for which we are dependent on Him.

No doubt there is an underlying essential unity which never ceases. All true parts of the Church are united by their profession of one faith in essentials, by their possession of the same spiritual powers transmitted from Christ and His apostles through the unbroken succession of the episcopate, by their adherence to the fundamental laws of the Church's polity and discipline, and above all by their organic union with their invisible Head and Centre, Christ our Lord. In this sense the Church is always one. But that essential unity is, to a great extent, perceived by faith rather than by sight. The Church must never be content with the organic unity which never fails. It is her duty to do all she can to manifest to the world, by the visible intercommunion of her various parts, that she is indeed indwelt by the spirit of unity and love.

From what has been said, it will have been gathered that, according to the Roman idea, the Church is always visibly one by the external intercommunion of her several parts; but, according to the primitive teaching, this visible unity of the Church, though a great blessing which is always to be aimed at, is nevertheless not strictly necessary. The essential unity of the Church remains, even though the outward social unity may from time to time be broken.

It will be well, before investigating the teaching of the 1 On account of this abiding organic unity, we are always able to confess our faith in "the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church."

2 It must always be remembered that there is a great difference between the visibility of the Church and the visibility of the unity of the Church, in so far as that visibility of unity arises from the intercommunion of the various local divisions of the Church. The Church militant is always a visible body; it is not always in the sense indicated above a visibly united body. The distinction is sometimes overlooked. It may be worth noticing that the distinction between the two ideas was clearly perceived by the divines and canonists who were appointed to prepare materials for the Vatican Council. In the "Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae de Ecclesia Christi Patrum examini propositum," the fourth chapter has for its title, "Ecclesiam esse Societatem Visibilem," and the fifth chapter has the title, "De Visibili Ecclesiae Unitate" (see the Collectio Lacensis, tom. vii. coll. 568, 569).

Fathers, to whom Cardinal Wiseman rightly appeals, to consider whether Holy Scripture throws any light on the matter. I shall not attempt to exhaust the scriptural argument, but shall set before you two principal points, one connected with the Old Testament, and the other with a passage in our Lord's great prayer, which He offered just before His entrance on His Passion.

It seems to me that some considerable light comes to us, in regard to the matter which we are considering, from the history of God's ancient people, Israel. If we have any true perception of the relation between the old covenant and the new, we shall expect to find some close analogies between the organization and history of Israel and the organization and history of the Church; and so in fact we do. The Israelite nation was organized in twelve tribes under twelve tribal princes.1 These princes were co-ordinate one with another. No one of them had jurisdiction over the rest. It may perhaps be allowed that Judah at the first start had a slight pre-eminence in honour. During the journey through the wilderness, they of the camp of Judah "set forth first." 2 But there was no central monarchy. The Lord God was the King of Israel, and the only King; and when He saw fit He raised up heroes sometimes from one tribe and sometimes from another, to act as His people's leaders in war, and as their supreme judges in peace. The organization seems to have been devised in such a way as to leave the people dependent on God for the preservation of their national unity. There was no permanent supreme controlling power here on earth. The people were not headless, but the Head was invisible. The constitution, to be workable, presupposed a lively faith. In later times the people's faith grew weak. They came to Samuel and said, “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations ;" and so they "rejected" the Lord, that He "should not be King over them."5 As Samuel said to them some time afterwards, "Ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the Lord your God was your king." So the Lord "gave them a king in His anger; and first Saul, and then David, and then Solomon, reigned over them. It is most interesting to notice how, so long as the people were content with their twelve co-ordinate princes, and looked only to their invisible King to keep them one, their unity was preserved. But very soon after they had

3

1 Numb. i. 4-16.

2 Ibid., ii. 9.

"7

E.g. Joshua from Ephraim, Gideon from Manasseh, Jephthah from Gad, Samson from Dan.

1 Sam. viii. 5.

6 Ibid., xii. 12.

5 Ibid., viii. 7.

7 Hos. xiii. II.