CHRIST ORGANIZED A CHURCH


By A. H. C. DOWNES

CTS No Do 101 (1956)

* * * * * * * * *

Other sheep I have that are not of this  fold : them also I must bring. And they shall hear My voice: and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. -(John 10; 16).

 CATHOLICS believe that Our Lord intended, and Himself founded, one Undivided and Authoritative Institution as the permanent means of teaching all men His religion; and spoke of that institution as 'My Church '. Protestants on the other hand commonly hold that Christ, having founded Christianity, left His followers free to organize themselves into such Christian societies or churches as they pleased. This fundamental difference may be very simply illustrated.
I ask, for example, a Salvationist : 'Are you a Christian?'
He answers : 'Yes.'
I then enquire: 'But did Christ found the Salvation Army?'
'No ', he must answer, 'not Christ but General Booth '.
In this he sees nothing strange : for he has always taken it for granted that Christ left to all believers in the Gospel the principle of voluntary association. But we who are Catholics reply that just as General Booth organized the Salvation Army, so did Christ organize, once and for all, His One Authoritative Church upon earth. It follows necessarily that that Church, whichever Church it may be, has the right to call itself exclusively the true Church of Jesus Christ.

When you hear Catholics say, for instance, 'The Catholic and Roman Church, spread throughout the world, with the Pope at its head, is the One True Church of Christ' that is not, just (or even) bigotry; but expresses their belief in the historical fact that Christ founded an Institution to carry on His work and (although with this we are not here immediately concerned) that the Catholic and Roman Church is that Institution.

And thus there is no more important question that can be debated between Catholic and Protestant than the question: Did Christ organize a Church ?

1. Why should we expect our Lord to organize a Church?

Christ, being the Teacher of mankind, must have named some means by which His message should be brought to mankind. It is not likely that he would have relied entirely on a book, seeing that most people would usually be unable to read. He never said (as far as we  know) that He would rely on a book. In any case the New Testament does not appear to be such a book, since it nowhere claims to set forth His teaching completely or systematically, and, to judge from the divisions of those who rely on it alone, would hardly appear to state the teaching with that clearness we might reasonably expect from a book intended for that purpose. The New Testament is a collection of writings produced within the Church after its foundation; ; not completely written until the end of the first century; not finally ascertained and collected until the end of the fourth. It was written almost entirely for those who were already Christians: who therefore did not need to be taught Christian doctrine over again. The New Testament itself suggests on the face of it that Christ would propagate His doctrine in another way. It tells us that He preached Himself, and sent out others to preach in His name.

It is usual for founders of religions to found also a preaching and teaching society to carry on their work, since it is by no means only a reading public whom they would seek to reach. It is usual even for Protestants, who generally hold that Christ intended to teach the world by means of a book, to found nevertheless their own religious societies, and thereby to to confess in practice that without an organized society religion will hardly live. Such a society can do much more than merely teach like a book - it can organize religious worship and train people in religious life.

WHY EXPECT CHRIST TO ORGANIZE A CHURCH

And if the society comes from the mind and hand of the founder, it will more easily do these things in the spirit of the founder, for into the very texture of the society itself the founder will weave a large measure of his spirit. A living teaching body can explain itself when misunderstood; can deal with new interpretations of doctrine as they arise; can answer questions; can adapt its language to the special needs of each age and type of hearer - and none of these things can be done by a book. It can keep the faithful together for mutual communication, encouragement, and support ; and may make them a force to affect the world. Without organization nothing of great importance is effected in this world.

Moreover, if you leave everyone free to organize, everyone free to found the institution, you will certainly not get unity; you are pretty certain to get, and in fact you do get, a number of small institutions, more or less divergent and contradictory in doctrine, more or less antagonistic in spirit, more or less hampering and spoiling each other's work, and (not the least of evils) more or less split up along the lines of nationality or class. True religion should transcend these limitations and bind men together in fraternal unity, on the basis of their common humanity and before the face of their common Father. Is not all this also confessed in Protestant efforts for reunion? But nothing will counteract the natural tendency to division and dissensions, nothing, that is to say, will leave division without excuse, except an official Institution coming from the hand, and invested with the authority, of the Founder Himself. Our Lord prayed for unity - did He therefore take no practical steps to secure it ? If He is God made man, legislating for men and the needs of men, is it likely that He would have refused to adopt the one effective human means of uniting men in truth and peace ? Is it strange that He should have done so ? Should we hope that He did not ?

If our Lord founded a single official Institution or Church He did that which the nature of man requires and for which as Christians we should wish. The assertion of the fact however must rest upon evidence ; and for that we will turn to the New Testament.

2. Christ begins to build His Church

 'Upon this rock I will build My Church'. - In these words our Lord announced an intention the nature of which we must determine from His other acts and words.

Having already, as we know, called certain of the Twelve to follow Him (Matt. 4; 18-22), He supplemented this first personal calling by another, in which therefore we can see only the gift of an official status. After a night spent in prayer, as though in preparation for a momentous choice, He called His disciples around Him, and He chose twelve of them, whom also He named Apostles (Luke 6; 12-13). By this decisive act our Lord threw among His followers the first element of organization.

The word 'Apostle' means 'one who is sent'. Others, besides the Twelve, were on occasion sent to preach in the villages of Galilee: but did not receive the apostolic title. In the Twelve, therefore, it referred not merely to an occasional fact, but signified a permanent official function. They were 'sent', as we shall see, to all nations until the consummation of the world. To prepare them for this, our Lord seems to have given them - and possibly some of the 'others' above mentioned - special private teaching not vouchsafed to the multitudes and not always reported by the Evangelists. 'To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven but to them it is not given ... therefore do I speak to them in parables' (Matt. 13; 11-13) 'And without parable He did not speak unto them but, apart, He explained all things to His disciples' (Mark 4; 34). To anticipate for a moment we may read in Acts 1; 3 how our Lord instructed His Apostles during forty days after His passion : but of the contents of such instruction we are told nothing. They were also sent out on experimental preaching missions (e.g., Luke chapter 9 ). It is clear that our Lord was deliberately training these chosen men for a future work. Within the Church also they received the power of 'binding and loosing ' (Matt. 18; 17-18). This meant, in the Rabbinical phraseology of the tine, the power of issuing prohibitions and permissions on matters of the Law, and thus in general the power of legislating and judging. Whatsoever they bind upon earth is to be bound in heaven and whatsoever they loose upon earth is to be loosed in heaven : in plain words they are invested with divine authority.

CHRIST BEGINS TO BUILD HIS CHURCH

 Amongst the Twelve thus chosen, thus empowered, one, Simon, received a promise of headship amongst his fellows ; for he was to be the Rock of the Church, the Keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Confirmer of his brethren, the Shepherd, or Feeder of the sheep. Now, in the possession of a common head lies precisely that which distinguishes a corporate body from a crowd. Therefore, when our Lord finally addressed the eleven before His Ascension, they were already a corporate body, an organized society, owing obedience to Peter. But since this headship of Peter will be disputed by Protestants it demands a separate treatise to itself ; nor is it really essential to our present line of argument. We merely mention it here in passing. Decisive proof that the Apostles formed a permanent corporate body may be found without needing to refer to Peter, in the words of Christ recorded at the end of the first Gospel.

'All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world' (Matt. 28; 18). It is obvious that as individuals they could not teach all nations, nor pursue that task until the consummation of the world. As a corporate body they could do both: for a corporate body can be ubiquitous and undying. Could they, perhaps, fulfil the commission by writing Gospels and Epistles? No: for the commission included a commission to baptize. A man can teach indeed by means of a book : but he can baptize only by his living presence. Therefore it was these men in living presence who were sent to all nations throughout all time - not however as so many individuals but as a permanent corporate body.

Such were the essential acts - namely the constitution of an official body, its investment with authoritative powers, and a final commission to exercise those powers over all nations and through all time - by which Christ constituted His teaching Church. But He spoke of it also in words which equally indicate its corporate character. Thus in Matthew 18: 'The Church' is a body which can sit in judgement and excommunicate the incorrigible. 'Tell the Church : and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican'. Our Lord continually spoke of a Kingdom. What kind of kingdom ? A kingdom of which the keys (the common symbol of authority) could be committed to a man, to Peter. Again, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is like to a net cast into the sea' (the sea, of course, represents the world) 'and gathering together of all kinds of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth'. (The Kingdom then does not consist only of the redeemed, the elect, the true believers, or even only of the just). 'So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out and shall separate the wicked from among the just' (Matt. 13).

It is clear from this, and from the similar parable of the wheat and the cockle, that the Kingdom is on this earth, that it contains the good and bad, the lost and saved together, and thus is something more than a sum-total of all faithful hearts or souls in grace. It is, in short, a corporate body, or Church. Still clearer are the words spoken at the Last Supper. Not for the Apostles only did Christ pray, 'but for them also who through their word believe in Me: that they all may be one as You Father, in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that You have sent Me. And the glory You have given Me I have given them that they may he one as We also are one. . . . and the world may know that You have sent Me' (John 17; 20-23). He prays for Unity. He promises Unity. But it is not merely a hidden unity in men's hearts, a unity in divine grace, but a visible external unity also, that may convince the world. We shall see the full force of this if we remember that the visible disunion of Christendom is a common argument against the truth of Christianity: but also that the visible unity of the Catholic Church is a standing marvel, convincing men not merely of its own claims, but of those of its Master. That is the kind of unity which our Lord desired.

Now if anyone feels that these references to the Church are somewhat incidental or indirect, he should bear in mind the following considerations. First, the Gospels were not intended to be a complete record of Christ's teaching ; but records of the life of Christ expressing His character for our love and imitation and establishing His divinity. Secondly, Christ did not formally set in motion His teaching Church until the day of Pentecost; in His own time He merely prepared and announced it. Thirdly, at the time the Gospels were written, the Church had long been functioning; and therefore needed not be to described, but merely ascribed to its founder. Therefore we need not expect to find in the Gospels a formal account of the Church, but perhaps a series of passing allusions thereto, pointing towards it as a future fact. Now this is just what we do find : and the best comment on the real meaning of these allusions is to be found in the way the Apostles carried out their Master's commands. In their acts we shall see the meaning of His words.

3. The Church in the Acts of the Apostles

The first thing the Apostles did after the Ascension of our Lord has a vivid significance. At the suggestion of Peter, they proceeded to elect a successor to Judas. They chose a man named Matthias who had seen the risen Jesus ; but it was not enough that he could bear personal witness, he had to bear official witness also. So, investing him with the apostolic office, they gave him the 'bishopric' (Acts 1; 20) that had been vacated by another. It could hardly be possible to show more clearly that they regarded themselves as an official corporate body, the permanence of which must he provided for.

The Christian Church, almost at once beginning to grow rapidly, was nevertheless sufficiently well organized to practise community of goods. 'And all that believed were together and had all things in common' (Acts 2; 44). 'For as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the prices of the things which were sold and laid them at the Apostles' feet, and distribution was made to every man according to his need' (Acts 4; 34-35). Here we see not merely organization, but government by the Apostles. When these could no longer attend to such matters personally, seven men were sought out, 'full of the Holy Ghost', and brought to the Apostles (Acts 6; 1-6). And the Apostles delegated to these seven a share of their own authority in the matter of temporalities, and also as it appears of preaching : and the seven were ordained deacons by the imposition of hands.

Soon we see the teaching Church in action and dealing with the gravest matters of doctrine. A dispute had arisen as to whether the Jewish ceremonial law, ordained of old by God, was binding upon Christians; and since the Apostles also were involved in the doubt, it is plain that the matter had never been explicitly decided by words of Christ.

Did they say, like some Protestants, 'The Holy Ghost will reveal the truth in every true believer'? By no means.
Did they say, like others, 'Anyhow, doctrine and ritual do not matter much; let everyone do as he pleases'?
Not at all.

They assembled a Council in Jerusalem in which the Apostles presided and in which sat the elders, and other members of that local Church. After 'much disputing' (in these words the whole discussion at the Council is summed up) Peter stood up and decided the doctrinal question. James then echoed his decision, and suggested the practical measures to be based upon it. The Council wrote an encyclical letter, 'The Apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment ... it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and unto us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things' (Acts 15; 23-29). The final words of this decree should be compared with the words of our Lord to His Apostles at the Last Supper (John 16; 12): 'I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now: but when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will teach you all truth'. Remember that the Spirit had come upon the Apostles at Pentecost: and thus the authoritative voice of the Council is the fruit of the promise at the Supper. In the next chapter (Acts 16; 4) we read how Paul and Timothy 'as they passed through the cities delivered unto them the decrees to keep, that were decreed by the Apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem'. In the whole incident we have a strikingly exact picture of the manner in which a General Council of the Catholic Church exerts its authority in doctrine and extends it over the local churches.

THE CHURCH IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES

The incidents above mentioned are quite sufficient to show that the Church was
(1) organized,
(2) governed by the Apostles, and
(3) able to answer new doctrinal questions with authority.
When the general nature of the evidence is thus indicated, any thoughtful reader of the Acts can find it in abundance. He should always remember, however, that the Acts, like the rest of the New Testament, was written for members of the Church (primarily for Theophilus), and that it is essentially a history and not a doctrinal statement. No one, therefore, need expect to find in it more than a series of incidental allusions to the government and organization of the Church ; for these were already well known to its readers and needed no formal description. We will recall but one or two more of these passing allusions and then take our leave of 'Acts'. When St Paul and Barnabas retraced their steps on their first missionary journey 'they appointed elders in every church' (Acts 14; 22). In his farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus St Paul says: 'Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God' (Acts 20; 28). Such texts as these show the general Apostolic supervision of the ministry of the local churches, which are but parts of a larger whole, the Church. We shall see this still more clearly in the next section.

4. The Witness of St Paul

By collating a number of passages from St Paul's Epistles to Timothy and Titus, we shall see very clearly how the Apostle handed on his powers to his delegates, how he extended the organization of the Church, and provided for its permanence.

To Timothy and Titus episcopal power had been given, and grace to exercise it, by the imposition of hands (2 Tim. 1; 6). Timothy is sent to Ephesus, Titus to Crete. In their respective spheres they are to teach and to rule, first being careful to keep the faith committed to their trust and to 'hold the form of sound words' (1 Tim. 6; 20: 2 Tim. 1; 13), and next to 'Preach the word; be instant in season and out of season : reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine' (2 Tim. 4; 2), and again: 'These things speak and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise you' (Tit. 2; 15). They are also to sit as judges in the Church: 'Against an elder receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses' (1 Tim. 5; I9).

The office received from the Apostle is to be delegated also to others, 'The things which you have heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also' (2 Tim. 2; 2), and 'For this cause I left you in Crete that you should set in order the things which are wanting, and should ordain elders in every city as I also appointed you' (Tit. 1; 5). The elders whom they were to ordain (or bishops, as appears from 1 Tim. 3; 1) were to be carefully selected. They were not to 'impose hands lightly on any man' (1 Tim. 5; 22), but to choose and ordain such as could rule well their own houses, and so might be thought fit to take care of the Church of God (1 Tim. 3; 4-5). For the elders also are to rule (1 Tim. 5; 17), and to be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. Lastly, there will be some folk who will not endure sound doctrine but 'according to their own desires will heap to themselves teachers' (that is, teachers of their own choosing), 'having itching ears' (2 Tim. 4; 3). These 'false prophets' and 'lying teachers' will mislead the people, bringing in 'sects of perdition' - the Revised Version has 'destructive heresies' - as Peter also says in his second epistle (2 Pet. 2; 1), and must as 'heretics' be 'avoided', after the first and second admonition (Tit. 3; 10). In this way, then, there must be planted in Ephesus and Crete the Church of God in all its apostolic authority, 'The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim 3; 15) - one, organized, authoritative, teaching 'all things whatsoever I have commanded you' in the place of Christ.

THE WITNESS OF ST PAUL

We see that St Paul grants no autonomy to these recently founded churches. He rules them through his delegates. And when he wills, he withdraws his delegates, 'When I shall send to you Artemas or Tychicus make haste to come to me to Nicopolis' (Tit. 3; 12); 'Make haste to come to me quickly . . . Take Mark and bring him with you for he is profitable to me for the ministry. But Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus' (2 Tim. 4; 8-I2). He declares (2 Cor. 11; 28) that he has care of all the churches - that is, of course, all the local churches - nor is this a merely personal anxiety and interest. Everywhere he exerts acts of direct authority: The rest I will set in order when I come' (I Cor. 11; 34): see also the judicial sentences of excommunication and pardon in I Cor. 5; 5 and 2 Cor. 2; 10, and the claim to be obeyed in 2 Thess. 3; 14. 'The churches of St Paul ', says F. Prat, S. J., [The Theology of St. Paul, Vol. ii, p. 32] 'were served by deacons and governed by a council of dignitaries called indifferently presbyters or bishops, under the always alert surveillance and ever active direction of their founder or his substitutes'.

St Paul, in short, is not only a preacher but an organizer, and one who retains control over the churches which he organizes: which thus form organic parts of a larger unity called 'the Church of God'. His epistles are pervaded with the spirit of institutionalism. For instance, that differentiation of function which is the mark of an organized hierarchy is touched upon in the twelfth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which it also appears that the Church is not only 'one spirit', but 'one body'. Neither is there to be any schism or division in the body (verse 12) - 'Now I beseech you, brethren, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind' (1 Cor. 1; 10).

In Galatians 5; 20, heresy (which means choosing the doctrine you fancy without reference to due authority) is numbered among the 'works of the flesh' along with murder, drunkenness, etc., and they who do such things are warned that they shall not obtain the kingdom of God. Lastly, in a most vivid manner, St Paul insists upon the absolute character of his own apostolic authority: 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema' (Gal. 1; 8). The test of doctrine does not lie in the apparent sanctity of him who delivers it, but in its agreement with the Apostolic teaching.

What was St Paul's justification for all this organizing activity, all this exertion of authority? Is he the true founder of the Church? Is the Church nothing but a Pauline innovation? Not in the least.

On his conversion he found the Church already in being and governed by Apostles, as we have seen. They had accepted him as their collaborator. They had formally sent him (as they had sent Matthias) with a mission that comes indeed ultimately from the Holy Ghost, but through the visible Church nevertheless and with imposition of hands (Acts 13; 2-3). And whence came their mission and their authority? From their Master, from Christ, as we have seen. It is from His mind and will and hand that all at last proceeded.

5. Summary

The Church of the New Testament was not a democratic but a theocratic institution. Authority did not devolve upwards from the congregation, but downwards from Christ through His Apostles. What emerges from the text is this :

(1)
Christ selected His coadjutors and delegated to them a share in His own ruling and teaching office by means of an external rite and a commission expressed formally in words.

(2)
These in their turn selected their coadjutors, whether bishops, elders, or deacons, delegating a share in their own office by the external rite of the imposition of hands.

(3)
And these latter also were to ordain others : all acting together in 'one body' under apostolic supervision.

(4)
And if any man separated himself from the one body, or falsified its teaching, he was to he counted a schismatic or heretic, and 'avoided', anathematized, or cast out.

(5)
And since thus would he preserved the authority, the constitution, and visible unity of the Church founded by Christ, it would remain, until the consummation of the world, the pillar and ground of the truth.

6. Subsequent History

It will tend very strongly to confirm our argument if we can show that the next generation of Christians after the Apostles inherited from them a Church organized on this theocratic and authoritative model. We will appeal to St Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom in Rome in the year 110 A.D., a friend of Polycarp, and not improbably acquainted personally with St John. His epistles, written to various local churches as he went on his final journey to Rome, contain the strongest evidence that the Church of his day had a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons deriving authority from Christ, and that to these it was the duty of every true Christian to adhere.

Thus Ignatius writes to the Church at Ephesus exhorting them 'that you all would all run together according to the Will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is sent by the Will of the Father; as also the Bishops ordained unto the utmost bounds of the earth are by the Will of Jesus Christ. Wherefore it becomes you to run together according to the will of your Bishop'.
To the Church at Philadelphia he mentions 'unity with the bishops, priests and deacons who have been appointed, according to the mind of Jesus Christ'.
And to the Church at Tralles: 'Let all reverence the Deacons as Jesus Christ and the Bishops as the Father and the Priests as the Council of God and the assembly of the Apostles. Without these there is no Church.' And again in the same letter: 'Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God and from your Bishop, and from the commands of the Apostles. He that is within the Altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure. That is, he that does anything without the Bishop and the Priests and Deacons is not pure in his conscience.'
And finally to the Church at Smyrna: 'Let that Eucharist be regarded as well-established which is offered either by the Bishop or by him to whom the Bishop has given consent. Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the people be: as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the Bishop either to baptize or to hold Agapae.' Here we have the first known reference in Christian literature to the 'Catholic Church', that is, to the Church which is universal or intended for everybody.

 Now nothing in these letters leads us to suppose that the state of affairs revealed in them was new. On the contrary, St. Ignatius obviously regards the authority of Bishops as deriving through the Apostles from Christ. How clear a light his admonitions cast upon the Epistles to Timothy and Titus! The same type of Church that St Ignatius shows us in being St Paul has already shown us in the making. And everywhere we find, in Ephesus, Crete, Philadelphia, Tralles, Smyrna, and even in faraway Rome and Corinth (as the Epistle of St Clement of Rome in A.D. 97 also witnesses), the same apostolic succession and theocratic type of Church organization. Of this there can be no explanation save that these things were derived from the Apostles.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY

Irenaeus, also a friend of Polycarp, (a disciple of St John), and thus in close touch with the school of St John, refers in his third book, Against the Heretics (about 180 A.D.), to the fact of apostolic succession. 'We can enumerate', says he, 'those who were appointed as Bishops in the Churches by the Apostles', and he speaks of 'the men in whose charge they (the Apostles) placed the Churches, to whom they handed over their own position of authority'. Then he adds that, by pointing out the apostolic tradition handed down by the succession of Bishops of Rome, which has a 'more powerful headship' among the Churches, 'we can confute all those who in any other way hold unauthorized meetings'.

We also have often heard 'unauthorized meetings' defended by citation of the words of Christ: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.' But whoever will examine the context (Matt. 18; 15-20), will see that our Lord was addressing the Church (the disciples), was speaking of the power of the Church to judge and excommunicate, and the authority of the Apostles to bind and loose. And then He adds: 'I say to you that if two of you' (that is, two of the Church) 'shall consent upon earth concerning anything they shall ask, it shall be done to them by My Father. For where two or three' (again, of the Church) 'are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them'. Moreover, 'in My name' means 'by My authority', as, for instance, it does in the phrase, 'baptizing in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost', or in 'casting out devils in Your name. 'We have no need to set limits to the blessing of God on those individuals who may be in good faith; but assuredly the text contains no promise that if two or three gather themselves together by their own authority to invoke the name of Jesus in their own way, then He will at once approve, adopt, and recognize their assembly.

7. On the Meaning of Schism

 The Church upon earth (the Church Militant) is like an army. The mass of it consists of private soldiers or laity governed by officers appointed from above. If in the English army a particular regiment revolted from the Queen, and permanently held, let us say, the Isle of Wight as a separate state, that regiment would no longer belong to the English army, but would have become a separate army on its own account. That would be a schism; similar to that which occurred under Henry VIII, when the English Church separated itself from the unity of Christendom and from the centre of government     of the Catholic Church. The separatists in England became a new and separate society because now under a new head, namely, the King; the Catholic Church throughout the world  remained the same society that it was before, because remaining under the same head, namely, the Pope.

ON THE MEANING OF SCHISM

 It is commonly said that all the 'churches' or denominations taken together make up  the universal or Catholic Church of Christ. This is like saying that the British, French, German, and Italian armies taken together make up one universal army. They are, in fact, four entirely separate armies, because under four entirely separate governments. If, as we have shown, Christ organized one visible Church upon earth, the whole of it must necessarily be under one government and any part which breaks away and sets up an independent government becomes another institution, another 'church'. That is schism: and it is to be noted that schism is constantly denounced in the New Testament.

8. The Result

It is thus shown by ample evidence (accessible for the most part to every reader of the New Testament), {Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement and Polycarp and their respective writings are easily found on a 'Google' search of the internet}, that Christ founded a single authoritative and indivisible Institution to carry on His work on earth, to teach and baptize all nations, to bring light and life to all men. If there is one which is meant for all it is obvious that every other is excluded. And this Institution must be still on earth (unless Christ's promise fails), for He promised, for instance, that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church, which means precisely that His Church should never cease to be.

Now if all this is true we cannot but admit that He desires us all to be within this Church, within this Fold which He has built for us, and to which (as He said) He must bring His 'other sheep'. Therefore, if anyone is convinced that this is true, he must cease to suggest that any church is as good as any other and that there is nothing to do but to choose the one which suits himself; and must ask himself instead the question, Which is the true Fold, which is the One True Church of Christ upon earth? We will not discuss that any further now, except to say that the One True Church of Christ on earth must at least be one that claims, and has always claimed, to be so.

* * * * * *