628. There are so many and so clear oracles of the Sacred Scriptures by which the unity of the Church is asserted that the Innovators themselves, with very few exceptions, who are not consistent with themselves, by no means dare to deny it. Indeed Christ willed a most perfect unity in his Church; for thus in John 17.20-28 he addresses the Father: “But I do not pray for these only, namely the Apostles, but also for those who will believe in me through their word. That all may be one, as you, Father, in me and I in you, that they also may be one in us… And the glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, as we also are one. I in them, and you in me, that they may be consummated into one,” etc.
629. It is likewise manifest that a multiple unity can be attended to in the Church: 1. by reason of the same principle, that is, of God calling, according to that saying in John 6.44: “No one can come to me unless my Father has drawn him”; 2. by reason of the same ultimate end, which was signified in Matthew 20.9 in that one denarius promised to all; 3. by reason of the same means, that is, faith, sacraments, laws, according to that saying in Ephesians 4.5: “One faith, one baptism,” etc.; 4. by reason of the same Holy Spirit, by whom the whole Church is governed as by an internal ruler, according to that saying in 1 Corinthians 12.4: “There are divisions of graces, but the same Spirit”; 5. by reason of the same invisible head, for the whole Church is joined to the same Christ as to its Head, according to that saying in Ephesians 1.22: “He gave him as head over the whole Church”; 6. by reason of the connection of the members with one another, according to that saying in Romans 12.5: “We are one body, but individually members one of another.”
630. But, these things having been supposed, the concept of the unity which we here assert of the Church must be explained. Generally, the unity with which we are dealing consists in this: that there are not several Churches, but one single Church, and that this same one is the one which Christ founded and instituted. Hence simultaneous and successive unity are usually distinguished. For the Church is said to be one: 1. insofar as at no time from its institution by Christ have there simultaneously been, or will there be, two or more Churches of Christ; and this unity is simultaneous; 2. insofar as throughout the whole succession of times the one true Church which exists always perseveres the same and consistent with itself, not changed into another; and this unity is successive. Compare Suarez, On Faith, disputation 9, section 4. Although this unity of the Church comprehends all these things, nevertheless, since successive unity is easily referred to apostolicity and indefectibility, here we properly and directly consider simultaneous unity.
631. In order that the genuine character of this unity, which is proper to the Church, may be well understood, we must recall to mind that the Church is “an assembly of the faithful,” or “a society of men who are joined by the same profession of faith and by subjection to legitimate pastors,” number 401. Therefore the property of unity ought to be such as is required in order that a society be called one, and one society of the faithful. Hence the unity of faith is usually distinguished, which presents a most close concord in faith, or the agreement of all Christ’s faithful in professing the true faith; and the unity of government, without which no society can be one. Now to this double unity are referred the other species of unity which are usually assigned by some. Thus the unity which is called of communion or charity properly regards the union of the members among themselves, and denotes the mutual agreement of all the associates toward the same end through the same means under the direction of one and the same government; from this union it results that, feeling the same thing toward one another, they keep unity in the bond of peace. But everyone sees that the unity of faith and government in the Church necessarily includes this unity of communion. Likewise a unity is usually assigned which they call ritual, by force of which all preserve in the Church those rites which are of divine institution. Hence one and the same rite of initiation exists among all, namely Baptism; there is a common fellowship of the same sacraments; one sacrifice exists among all, which, since it is the principal act of religion, in a certain principal way pertains to the Church of Christ, which is a Christian religious society. But everyone also sees that this ritual unity can by no means be lacking where the unity of faith and government is present. Therefore it is enough to treat this double unity.
632. But in what does the unity of faith consist? For the Innovators themselves, unless they have utterly declined to the views of the rationalists, do not deny that the Church is in some way one in faith. Certainly faith can be called one for many reasons: 1. by reason of the formal object or motive, which is one, namely the authority of God revealing; 2. by reason of the primary object, which is God himself; 3. by reason of the principle or habit, which, since it is one, is equally extended to all the objects which are believed, etc. But, these things having been presupposed or passed over, the unity of faith with which we are dealing is located in this: that “the faithful diffused throughout the world all believe, or profess to believe, all and the same articles which the Church proposes to them as to be believed.” All and the same articles indeed, according to that saying in 1 Corinthians 1.10: “But I beseech you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same sense and in the same judgment.” Which the Church proposes as to be believed, according to that saying in Romans 1.5: “Through whom,” Jesus Christ, “we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for his name”; that is, we have received the apostleship so that we may announce the faith and by the authority of our apostleship demand obedience to the faith among all nations for his name, namely that on account of his authority and name they may render the obedience of faith. Compare On the Infused Virtues, number 927.
633. From this it is clear: 1. The unity of faith imports not only the fact by which all and the same truths are believed by all everywhere, but also, as they say, the right, or the principle by which that fact is perpetually produced and preserved. This principle is the magisterium of the governing Church, certainly infallible under the assistance of the Holy Spirit in defining the truths of faith. We shall establish below the charism of infallibility in this magisterium. For the present matter it is enough to say that the unity of faith comprehends the consent of all in the same truths, through the adherence of all to the same principle determining consent, which is the apostolic magisterium. 2. It is clear that if a collection of Churches is supposed, each of which has its own proper profession of faith, complete and diverse from the others, so that what one embraces as doctrine pertaining to faith, another rejects or leaves only to free disputation, it must be concluded that all those Churches, taken collectively, do not make one true Church; nor do the individual Churches, taken separately, make so many true Churches; but either one alone of them is the true Church, or all are false.
634. But lest the Innovators accuse the Church as though it overwhelms the faithful with a multitude of things to be believed, let it be observed that it is not necessary that all the faithful believe with explicit faith all the truths proposed by the Church, but rather that, once such an article is known, they are prohibited from doubting about it or contradicting it. Indeed those things which are called necessary by necessity of means and of precept must be believed by all with explicit faith; but as regards the rest, it suffices that they believe them by a general and implicit faith, by which we universally believe as revealed by God those things which are proposed by the Church as such. Therefore the obligation which arises from the proposition of these dogmas is negative rather than positive; namely, one is prohibited from contradicting them, but is not commanded by a special act actually to believe them explicitly. Compare On the Infused Virtues, numbers 364-366.
635. Come then: in what does the unity of government consist? They are accustomed to distinguish a twofold unity of this kind. One they call the unity of similarity, and it is had when different assemblies have the same form of government, without nevertheless being subject to the same supreme government numerically; of this kind is the unity of two independent nations which are governed by the same form of government, for example, monarchic. But this is only a likeness between two societies, and in no way true unity, nor can it rightly be called unity. The other, however, which they call the unity of identity, is had when all are subject to the same supreme government. By this unity the Church is said to be, and is essentially, one in government, namely by the unity of identity. From this certainly it follows that, if the existence is supposed of several assemblies which call themselves Churches of Christ, and each of which has its own independent government, it must be said that all of them, taken collectively, by no means make one true Church, nor do the individual ones, taken separately, make so many true Churches; but either one alone of them is the true Church of Christ, or all are false.
636. Therefore there are two things which split the unity of the Church: heresy and schism. Heresy is “a pertinacious error in faith”; but schism is “a voluntary withdrawal from the unity of the Church.” Schismatics, says St. Thomas, second-second part, question 39, article 1, “are those who by their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church, which is the principal unity. But the unity of the Church is attended to in two things: namely, in the connection or communication of the members of the Church with one another, and again in the order of all the members of the Church toward one head… And therefore those are called schismatics who refuse to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff and who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him.” Cajetan, explaining these things in the same place, notes that not just any disobedience constitutes schism, “unless it is rebellion against the office of the Pope or of the Church, so that they refuse to be subject to him, to recognize him as superior.” And: “someone is a schismatic from this, that he refuses to operate as a part of the Church”; which indeed necessarily happens when someone refuses to operate as moved by a superior, number 37.
637. Therefore heresy and schism agree with each other in some respect, but differ from one another in some respect. “We judge this to be the difference between heresy and schism,” says St. Jerome, “that heresy has a perverse dogma, while schism likewise separates from the Church on account of episcopal dissension,” commentary on the epistle to Titus, chapter 3, verses 10-11; or, as St. Augustine says, “that heretics, by thinking false things about God, (1) In order that this definition of schism may be rightly understood, it is useful to observe with the brothers de Walenburch, On the Unity of the Church, book 3, chapter 8, number 2 and following, that the notion of schism is not completed by withdrawal from the unity of the Church. For a Christian who crossed over to the Turks would be called an apostate, not a schismatic. Similarly, withdrawal properly so called from the unity of the Church is not altogether necessary for constituting a schismatic; otherwise those who were born and educated in schism, adhering to the schismatic party, would not be true schismatics. Therefore, in order that someone be properly held as a schismatic, it is required and sufficient that he establish or follow private conventicles of Christians gathered from deserters from the Church. violate the faith itself, while schismatics by unjust divisions leap away from fraternal charity, although they believe the things which we believe.” Yet it must be noted that heresy directly violates the unity of faith and indirectly always violates the unity of communion; but schism, although it properly violates the unity of communion, nevertheless must come to the point of splitting the unity of faith. For, as St. Jerome says, “there is no schism which does not fashion for itself some heresy, so that it may seem to have withdrawn rightly from the Church.”
638. Thus far we have presented the sum of Catholic doctrine concerning the unity of the Church; now the errors contrary to it must be briefly set forth. Heterodox persons generally, as we have warned elsewhere, readily confess the unity of the Church, both because the most express testimonies of the Scriptures are had concerning it and because they have not dared to erase an article from the symbol of faith. But since they could not deny unity, they most shamefully corrupted its concept, as the interests of their own sect required. In what, therefore, do they constitute the unity of the Church? It would indeed be impossible to report here the opinions of all, nor is that necessary; since once the true unity of the Church has been demonstrated, by that very fact any other unity which is opposed to it is rejected as insufficient or false. Still it is useful to indicate at least the principal errors.
639. And first, if the discourse is about the unity of faith, those who do not altogether deny it: a. reduce that same unity wholly to faith in Christ. Thus, for example, Wegscheider writes, section 186: “It is greatly to be wished that thought should now diligently be given not so much to uniting or confounding Churches, which defend formulas of doctrine plainly opposed to one another, as to bringing about and confirming a certain moral agreement among the individual members of these churches, so that whoever have given their name to Christ, however otherwise diverse they may be, may nevertheless be and remain most devoted to mutual concord.” b. Others contend that the unity of faith is obtained if all things contained in the Scriptures are believed. But since all the sects retaining the Scriptures taught opposite things, indeed did not agree even on the canon itself of the Scriptures, compare On the Infused Virtues, number 916 and following, it was easy to see that there is no unity of this kind. c. Hence others introduced the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles, asserting that for the unity of faith consent concerning fundamentals suffices. We said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, number 366, in what sense that distinction has been handed down by Catholics; but the Innovators teach it in an entirely different sense. For for them those articles are fundamental “which must be explicitly believed by all if they wish to be saved”; but non-fundamental are those “which can be rejected without loss of salvation, even if they are proposed as to be believed through the apostolic ministry.”
640. Jurieu methodically developed this doctrine in the book which he entitled System of the Church. There the disciple of Calvin taught that “the catholic Church is composed from all societies of Christians which do not err in fundamentals, even if no communion is preserved among those sects, indeed even if they mutually excommunicate and anathematize one another.” This unheard-of notion concerning the unity of faith seemed so apt for defending the cause of the Reformation that the other Innovators embraced it with both arms, as the sole anchor of their salvation. But this opinion is so easily accommodated to the private views of each person that it is still today admitted by almost all heterodox persons. Compare On the Infused Virtues, number 358.
641. Secondly, with regard to the unity of government, Jurieu himself is so far from acknowledging that the catholic Church is one external society that, on the contrary, he teaches that the individual particular Churches are independent of one another and are connected by no other bond except the internal bond of charity alone. Indeed, with regard to faith itself, he distinguishes a double external unity. One of these he calls catholic unity, and it properly consists in the profession of fundamental articles. The other he calls the unity of a particular Church, and it is properly situated in this: that certain faithful persons professing the same faith make one society. Wherefore, according to him, only the particular Church is to be called a society, not the catholic or universal Church, although it is scarcely understood how even the particular Church itself can be called a true society, since it lacks authority, which is an essential part of society.
642. Yet it must be observed that our adversaries, when they say that all and each of the Churches are independent of one another, do not deny that a certain friendly league can exist among them. But they contend that this confederation itself is an arbitrary thing, so that the Church which withdraws from the confederation once entered into will not for that reason be less a true Church, although it acts illicitly if it breaks that confederation without a just cause.
643. The perverse opinion of the Oxford men concerning the unity of the Church deserves special mention here. They, at least in word, rejecting the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles, confess that for the unity of faith it is required that all the faithful profess all the articles which the Church, at least gathered together, believes or by legitimate judgment has proposed as to be believed. But: 1. They think that the universal Church is composed from the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Church, the Russian Church, and the Established Church of England; therefore they attribute to this universal Church the authority of defining what must be held as of faith. 2. They hold no councils as ecumenical except the first six, and they say that all must necessarily agree in the articles defined by these. 3. But they do not seem stable even in this opinion, since Pusey himself, in his letter to the Protestant Bishop of Oxford, page 28, says that for communion with the Established Church only faith in the articles of the Apostles’ Creed is required. (1)
644. But with regard to the unity of government, they say that the unity which is established by Catholics is indeed more perfect, and perhaps falls under precept, but is by no means essential; and therefore it can be lacking without the Church itself failing. Hence they teach that the obligation of preserving communion with the Church, just like certain other grave obligations from positive precept, can sometimes cease on account of a grave change of circumstances. Indeed, they say that it can be not only licit but even obligatory for this or that particular church, or collection of churches, to withdraw itself from the communion of the whole Church, or, as they say in English, “the rest of the Church.” Then, they say, the separation is not total and perfect, nor is it from the Church insofar as it is true, but insofar as it is corrupted in faith or morals, or both. Essential communion remains, namely in those things which are true and right; nevertheless those things are rejected which in doctrine are erroneous, in worship superstitious, in government tyrannical. Compare on these things the distinguished Murray.
645. From this arose in London a society, founded in the year 1857, for procuring, as its founders and promoters say, by the help of prayers, (1) “For this [the essentials to Communion] she requires only belief in the Apostles Creed.” And in the same letter, explaining his mind more fully, page 53, he says: To our own Church we owe submission; to the decisions of the Universal Church, Faith. the unity of Christendom; or for pouring forth prayers to God that he might bring to unity the three Christian communions, the Roman Catholic, the Greek schismatic, and the Anglican. The Sacred Roman Universal Inquisition, in a letter to the Bishops of England, says: “It has been reported to the Apostolic See that some Catholics and even ecclesiastical men have given their name to a society erected in London in the year 1857 for procuring, as they say, the unity of Christendom, etc…” And then it adds: “For it was formed and directed by Protestants and was stirred up by that spirit which it expressly professes: namely, that the three Christian communions, the Roman Catholic, the Greek schismatic, and the Anglican, although separated and divided from one another, nevertheless with equal right claim the Catholic name for themselves,” etc. It prohibited the Christian faithful from giving their name to this society or in any way favoring it.
646. These things, therefore, having been established beforehand. Section II The Unity of the Church in Faith Is Established Proposition XXVII. 1. The true Church of Christ is one; 2. and it first claims for itself that unity of faith by which the faithful diffused throughout the world believe all and the same articles which the Church proposes to them as to be believed. Therefore every heresy separates from unity; and 3. the distinction introduced by the Innovators between fundamental and non-fundamental articles can in no way be admitted, since it overturns rather than establishes the unity of faith.
647. The first part is proved. I. The Church is called in the Scriptures the Kingdom of God and of Christ; but this is one, for all nations pertain to it. It is called the City placed upon a mountain, to which all nations come together, and therefore it also is one. It is called the House of God and of Christ, which, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 3.6, “we are”; therefore it is one House. It is called the Sheepfold to which all the sheep must be led back, and which has only one Shepherd; therefore it is one. It is called the Spouse of Christ, and this spouse is one. Finally, it is called the Body, and the Body of Christ, which likewise is one, numbers 400 and 463. Therefore the Church of Christ is one.
648. II. Christ constituted the Church as a society, numbers 439 and following, of which he himself is the one invisible Head; to which he gave one visible Head, as we hinted in numbers 545 and following and as will be shown more expressly below; which he willed to be extended to all nations, “going, teach all nations,” or to be catholic; to which as a whole he established one end, etc. But all these things present the idea of one single Church. Therefore.
649. III. The true Church of Christ is the society which professes and teaches the true and divine religion of Christ which is in the world, number 478. But the true and divine religion can only be one, as we have shown several times. Therefore the true Church of Christ is only one; and on that account unity is an essential property of the true and divine Church of Christ. But we abstain from bringing forward other arguments, both because this part of the thesis, or the unity of the Church under the general acceptation, is easily conceded by all, and because it will be confirmed from the things soon to be said.
650. The second part is proved. I. From the general economy instituted by Christ. For: 1. As long as our Savior dwelt on earth, he alone was for his disciples the adequate rule of things to be believed, and indeed an external and living rule. For, clothed in visible flesh, as man teaching men, with a sensible voice and according to the manner of men, he taught his divine religion. But this contained all truths, not only those whose explicit faith would be necessary for all and each unto salvation, but also those whose explicit faith is not demanded from all. Now who would say that it was lawful for the disciples to distinguish among the truths proposed by Christ, so that they would admit some but reject others? 2. In order to perpetuate his doctrine, Christ equipped his disciples with the same authority by which he himself had been sent by the Father, and sent them through the whole world to preach the Gospel. “All power,” he said to them, “has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Going, therefore, teach all nations.” Therefore the Apostles were ambassadors of Christ, just as Christ was ambassador of the Father; and by the same obligation by which the disciples were bound to obey Christ teaching, the peoples also were bound to obey the Apostles preaching in the name of Christ. Hence the Savior had said: “He who hears you hears me; he who despises you despises me; and he who despises me despises him who sent me.” Therefore, just as he could not have been called a true disciple of Christ who rejected some truths proposed by him, so he could not be reckoned a true disciple of the Apostles who rejected some doctrine preached by them as not necessary. 3. In reality Christ had made no distinction among truths; but, sending his Apostles, he had said: “Going… teach all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”; “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” certainly the whole Gospel, and not a mutilated one. Hence it is that the Apostle exhorts the Romans “to observe those who cause dissensions and stumbling blocks contrary to the doctrine which they had learned”; and in the epistle to the Galatians he “pronounces anathema upon anyone who shall have evangelized otherwise than he himself had evangelized.” Did the Apostles preach to the nations, or St. Paul to the Galatians, only fundamental articles? No sane person would say this. For Christ commanded the Apostles to teach them to observe “all things whatsoever he had commanded,” and that the nations should receive these things by faith. To mention still one thing, St. Paul pronounces anathema upon those who, having contemned his doctrine, contended that “the observance of legal things” was necessary; but not even Protestants themselves will deny that “the observance of legal things” must be numbered among non-fundamental articles. 4. But the office of preaching the Gospel imposed upon the Apostles was not merely personal and therefore transitory, but public and permanent, as is clear from the things said in numbers 482 and following concerning the end for which Christ instituted the Church. Therefore, just as in the successors of the Apostles there perseveres the obligation of teaching the whole doctrine of Christ, so there remains the obligation of applying faith to their entire preaching.
651. II. It will help here to weigh briefly the testimony of the Apostle in Ephesians 4, where he says: “Careful to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit, as you have been called in one hope of your vocation. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all… And he gave some indeed as Apostles, and some as Prophets, others as Evangelists, and others as Pastors and Teachers, for the consummation of the saints, unto the work of the ministry, unto the building up of the body of Christ; until we all meet in the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children tossed about and carried around by every wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men, in craftiness unto the circumvention of error. But doing the truth in charity, let us grow in him in all things, who is the head, Christ; from whom the whole body,” etc. Hence: 1. Christ willed a unity of faith by which we would not be “carried around by every wind of doctrine… in craftiness unto the circumvention of error”; and to obtain that unity he gave Apostles, Pastors, Teachers, who must remain “until we all meet in the unity of faith.” Therefore, from the institution of Christ, that is the unity of faith in the Church by which the faithful believe all the articles proposed by the Pastors, Apostles, and Teachers, so that they avoid every error concerning the doctrine of Christ. 2. The Apostle exhorts the Ephesians to fraternal charity, which, as is established in number 628, Christ willed to be most perfect in his disciples. But to inculcate it he uses, as an example and stimulus, the unity which flourishes excellently in the end of the religion which they profess, in its author, and in faith. Now if the faith of the Church were or could be divided and diverse, unity in faith would have to be proposed to those who are stirred up to preserving perfect unity of charity not as an example to imitate, but as a vice to avoid. Hence the Apostle ought not to say: as you have one faith, so have one heart; but rather: although you are disjoined in faith, nevertheless you must have one heart. Surely, as Murray rightly observes, if someone were to exhort Catholics and Protestants, or even diverse Protestant sects, to unity of charity, drawing an argument from the unity of faith flourishing among them, and were to say: “You ought to be united in charity, just as, or because, there is one faith among you,” he would be held either as insane or as jesting. Compare the arguments from Scripture which we gave in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, numbers 369-371 and 934-938.
652. III. The Church itself, most conscious of its right and obligation, has perpetually watched over the integrity of faith with such solicitude that it has never tolerated even the smallest error in faith. Hence it condemned, without any distinction, all heretics who presumed to think otherwise than it did: it anathematized not only the Arians, who attacked the divinity of Christ, but also the Novatians, Montanists, Quartodecimans, etc., certainly infected by no fundamental error, and cut them off from its unity. The First Council of Nicaea, canon 8, says: “Concerning those who at some time call themselves Cathari, but come to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it has seemed good to the holy great Synod that, hands having been imposed upon them, they should thus remain in the clergy.” The First Council of Constantinople, canon 7: “Those who are joined to the right faith from the side of those who are saved from heretics… Arians indeed, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who also call themselves Cathari… Tesseradecadites, or Tetradites, and Apollinarists, we receive, giving indeed written statements and anathematizing every heresy which does not think as the Holy Church of God and Apostolic Church.” All subsequent synods have similar things. Compare the things which we wrote concerning this argument in the treatise On the Virtues, numbers 440 and 983.
653. IV. The same is confirmed from the Fathers. For: 1. They all held as cut off from Catholic unity those who withdrew from the doctrine of the Church even in the smallest point. St. Epiphanius already in his time enumerated seventy heresies; after him St. Augustine, eighty-eight; Theodoret, fifty-two. But although among the heresies which they allege there are several which, according to the mind of the adversaries, touch no fundamental dogma of faith, nevertheless there was one judgment of those Fathers concerning all. “Not everyone,” says St. Augustine at the end of On Heresies, “who does not believe these things,” the heresies which he had enumerated, “ought consequently already to think or call himself a Catholic Christian. For there can either be or come to be other heresies also, which have not been mentioned in this work of ours, and whoever shall hold any one of them will not be a Catholic Christian.” 2. They constantly preach our doctrine concerning the unity of faith. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 63, having established the principle that the preaching of the Church is the true rule by which the one and same way of salvation is manifested in the whole world, infers that light has been entrusted to the Church, and that those who leave it are by that very fact constituted heretics. But just as the Church adds nothing to, or takes nothing away from, the true doctrine of Christ, so those who receive its light ought to add nothing or take nothing away. “True knowledge is,” says the holy Martyr, “the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state of the Church in the whole world, and the character of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, to whom they handed down the Church which is in each place; which has come down even to us, guarded without fiction, with the fullest treatment of the Scriptures, receiving neither addition nor subtraction.” Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics, chapter 21: “If the Lord Jesus Christ,” he says, “sent the Apostles to preach, no other preachers ought to be received than those whom Christ appointed; but what they preached… ought not to be proved otherwise than through those same Churches which the Apostles themselves founded, by preaching to them themselves, both by living voice, as they say, and afterwards by epistles. If these things are so, it is consequently established that every doctrine which agrees with those Apostolic Churches, the mothers and originals of faith, must be counted as truth… but every doctrine must be prejudged as belonging to falsehood which tastes contrary to the truth of the Churches.” Origen, as St. Pamphilus testifies in the Apology for Origen, distinguished two kinds of dogmas: some “which are manifestly handed down by ecclesiastical preaching,” and others “which are not openly defined.” But he taught that “that truth alone is to be received and believed which is opposed in nothing to the Apostolic dogmas; and that must be held which the apostolic and ecclesiastical reader has approved.” This rule and no other, says the same Pamphilus, he followed “when he was examining the sects of heretics.” But the heretical sects judged by this rule he himself so did not place in Catholic unity that, on the contrary, he held them as enemies of unity, who “unceasingly fight against the unity of the Church.” St. Cyprian, letter 69 to Magnus: “Nor did our Lord Jesus Christ, when in his Gospel he testified that his adversaries are those who were not with him, at any time designate a species of heresy; but he showed that all heretics altogether, who were not with him and who, not gathering with him, scattered his flock, are his adversaries, saying: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Nor did the blessed Apostle John himself decree any heresy or schism, but called all who had gone out from the Church Antichrists, saying: You have heard that Antichrist is coming; but now many Antichrists have come into being… From this it appears that all are the adversaries of the Lord and Antichrists who are established to have withdrawn from charity and from the unity of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine teaches first of all that heretics and schismatics of any kind do not pertain to the Church: “The whole Christ,” he says in On the Unity of the Church, chapter 4, “is head and body; the head is the Only-begotten Son of God, and his body is the Church, bridegroom and bride, two in one flesh. Whoever dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ himself, even if they are found in all places in which the Church has been designated, are not in the Church. And again, whoever agree with the Holy Scriptures concerning the head itself and do not communicate with the unity of the Church, are not in the Church.” In these words he by no means distinguishes between fundamental and non-fundamental errors; indeed, if he had acknowledged this distinction, he would without doubt have excepted several from the eighty-eight heresies which he enumerated. For Augustine the supreme rule of things to be believed was this: “To refuse to give first place to the Church,” against the epistle of Fundanius, chapter 5, “is certainly either the height of impiety or of precipitous arrogance”; “But I,” On the Usefulness of Believing, chapter 17, “would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.” St. Jerome openly teaches that the one doctrine and authority of the Church suffices for destroying all heresies: “I could,” he says in the dialogue against the Luciferians, number 27, “draw out the day with speech of this kind, and dry up all the streams of propositions with one sun of the Church.” And in the same place near the end: “I shall bring forth the open judgment of my mind: one must remain in that Church which, founded by the Apostles, endures unto this day. If anywhere you have heard that those who are said to be of Christ are named not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from anyone else, for example Marcionites, Valentinians, Montanists or Campites, know that it is not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist.” St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, chapter 13, beautifully expresses what would happen to the Christian religion if certain articles of faith could be rejected as less principal. “If once this impious license of fraud has been admitted, I shudder to say,” he writes, “how great a danger of cutting away and abolishing religion follows. For once any part of Catholic dogma has been rejected, another also, and likewise another, and thereafter another, will now be rejected as if by custom and lawfully. But when the parts have been repudiated one by one, what follows at the end except that the whole likewise be repudiated? But also, on the contrary, if new things begin to be mixed with old, foreign with domestic, and profane with sacred, this custom must creep through the whole, so that thereafter nothing in the Church is left untouched, nothing whole, nothing immaculate; but there will henceforth be there a brothel of impious and shameful errors, where before there was the sanctuary of chaste and incorrupt truth.” 3. Hence all the testimonies of the Fathers, which are almost innumerable, by which they preach the unity of faith as necessary in the Church, must be understood of that unity which they explain in the cited testimonies. Therefore there is nothing surprising if Jurieu himself confesses that all the ancients taught such a unity of faith in the Church; but he insolently affirms that all of them erred.
654. The third part is proved. Although this is inferred from the things said, nevertheless it will help to confirm it with proper arguments. Therefore: I. That which constitutes true unity, which is an essential property of the Church, cannot be some new invention. But the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles is new. Therefore. The minor is proved. 1. Surely the Fathers were ignorant of this distinction; for if they had known it, beyond doubt they would somewhere have used it, especially since in their polemical writings an occasion often occurred to make mention of this distinction. But far from indicating it, they unanimously exclude it, as is clear from the testimonies brought forward above, and from the confession of Jurieu himself, who is the true author of that distinction. 2. The same Protestant distinction was unknown to all the heretics who existed before the pseudo-Reformation; they never had recourse to it in order to accuse the Catholic Church of tyranny. If they had known it, the Novatians, Arians, Donatists, Pelagians, and Monothelites would willingly have embraced it, and would have reproved the Catholic Church because, rejecting only non-necessary articles, they were expelled by it. But so far were the heretics from objecting this to the Church that, on the contrary, they condemned the Church for error and called their own assemblies the true and Catholic Church.
655. II. That which constitutes the unity of faith proper to the Church ought to have a certain foundation. But the distinction with which we are dealing has none. Therefore. The minor is proved. Since the Innovators reject the word of God handed down by mouth, that foundation would be located either: 1. in the Scriptures; or 2. in the very nature of the thing. But it is found in neither. Therefore. The minor is proved as to the first part. For: 1. Jurieu, having searched the whole of Sacred Scripture, objected only one passage from which he thought his distinction could be proved: that saying of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 3: “No one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus; but if anyone builds upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,” etc. Jurieu interprets these words of the Apostle in this way: the foundation is the articles whose faith is necessary for salvation; gold and silver are articles whose faith is by no means necessary for salvation; finally, wood, hay, and straw are errors in non-necessary articles, which errors can be admitted without loss of salvation. But: a. This place, which Jurieu explains with such ease, seemed difficult to St. Augustine, who testifies in On Faith and Works, chapters 15-16, that the aforesaid words of the Apostle are obscure and plainly difficult to understand. And indeed, many and various interpretations of them are brought forward by the Fathers, among which nevertheless there is absolutely none which either indicates or supposes the explanation fabricated by the adversary. Therefore even its novelty itself stands against it. b. Moreover, that interpretation is altogether arbitrary; for, to observe one thing, hay, wood, and straw are indeed said not to stand in the way of salvation, but by what reason at last does the adversary assert that these things must be understood of errors in non-necessary articles? Compare Estius on this place. 2. Chillingworth, Hobbes, Locke, and others taught that there is one single article proposed in Sacred Scripture as necessary for salvation, namely faith in Christ Jesus, true God. But they relied chiefly on these sentences of Sacred Scripture: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life”; “Whoever shall have confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him and he in God”; “But these things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” But: a. in these places faith in Christ is indeed said to be necessary that someone may have life, but it is not said to suffice alone, the remaining articles of faith having been neglected. Indeed this latter sense is elsewhere expressly excluded; for Christ himself said: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments”; and “unless one has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Otherwise the Apostle would not have said concerning Hymenaeus and Alexander, who certainly boasted that they were subject to Christ, “that they had made shipwreck concerning the faith”; nor would he have written about those who said that the resurrection had already happened, “that they had fallen away from the truth”; nor finally would he have terrified the Galatians, saying: “Because if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.” b. In reality, to believe in Christ as in the Son of God is to believe that he is such as he was announced by the prophets, declared by himself, and preached by the Apostles: namely, that faith must be applied to all his words, and obedience rendered to all his commands. Compare On Grace, number 1088 and following. The minor is proved as to the second part. It belongs to the nature of divine faith that revealed truths be believed on account of the authority of God revealing. But this motive is one and the same with respect to all revealed truths, whether they are called fundamental or non-fundamental. Therefore, once the nature of faith is considered, or from the nature of the thing, that distinction of articles into fundamental and non-fundamental, understood according to the mind of the adversaries, is rather to be rejected. Compare On the Infused Virtues, numbers 369-371 and 729 and following.
656. III. Since Christ the Lord absolutely willed unity in faith, the means of obtaining it must be certain and fixed. But that distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles is not a means of this kind. Certainly it would have to be established with certainty which articles are fundamental and which are not. But this can be defined certainly by no rule. To place this in full light, it is enough to weigh the principal rules which the Protestants themselves have assigned. Therefore they say first: “All those things pertain to fundamentals which are clearly contained in the Scriptures.” But: 1. If that criterion were admitted, the smallest matters, such as the bend of Tobias’s dog’s tail and other things of this kind, clearly expressed in the Sacred Letters, would be fundamental articles; other things, on the contrary, most pertaining to piety, such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, etc., would have to be sent away among indifferent matters. 2. Even if we grant that the articles which are clearly contained in Sacred Scripture are fundamental, nevertheless we have advanced nothing; for one would further have to determine which at last are those articles which are so clearly expressed in Scripture. 3. But if it is said that fundamental articles are clearly determined in Sacred Scripture, what is the cause why Protestants do not agree among themselves in assigning them? Compare the things which we said in the treatise On the Infused Virtues, number 976 and following. They say secondly: “Fundamentals are those things which have a necessary connection with the foundation of the Christian religion.” Now one must be blind not to see that this rule is ridiculous, since it is reduced to this: Fundamentals are those things which are fundamental. In reality, what could the Innovators respond to a Catholic asking: what are those dogmas which have a necessary connection with the foundation of the Christian religion? Only this: that they are those which are fundamental. They say thirdly: “To fundamental articles pertain all those which all sects of Christians hold by common consent.” But: 1. this rule fights against the principle of the Innovators concerning the interpretation of the Scriptures, which for them are the sole rule of faith, from the private spirit of each person. 2. When individual heresies first arose and new sects were born, they constantly repudiated faith in the truths which the Church believed by common consent; this is historically established also concerning the heresy of the Innovators. Therefore all those sects erred and err in fundamentals. Is the consensus concerning some article said to cease because a new heresy arises and a new sect is formed, and would that article therefore cease to be fundamental? But by this reasoning there will be no fundamental article. 3. If the article which all Christian societies have professed by common consent is fundamental, certainly this article is fundamental: that the Catholic Church is one by such a unity of faith that it excludes all sects of heretics erring in any article whatever; since, as we have seen, the whole of antiquity looking backward believed in a Church one in this way. They say, fourthly, that there is “a certain internal sense, implanted by the Holy Spirit, by which someone discerns what is fundamental and what is not as easily as taste discerns bitter from sweet.” But we refuted this rule, which is shown by the very fact to be vain and false, in the treatise On the Virtues, number 981 and following.
657. IV. Hence it is clear that the distinction with which we are dealing is subversive of unity. For if unity is lacking even in the rule by which the unity of faith must be procured, what unity in faith at last will be able to be obtained? This can furthermore be confirmed: 1. From the confessions of Protestants. Mosheim, Elements of Dogmatic Theology, volume 1, chapter 1, writes: “As long as it is asked in the abstract what is a fundamental article and what is not, they agree; but the face of things is far different if these concepts are applied to theological dogmas… then disputes arise which cannot easily be solved.” Buddeus, Institutes of Dogmatic Theology, book 1, chapter 1: “It is usually disputed vehemently from what marks or indications the fundamental articles of faith are discerned.” Limmerman, Theological Opuscula, volume 1: “He alone can discern who is Lord of salvation and destruction.” 2. From the fact. For what do Protestants now believe? They protested from the beginning against some articles; day by day they protest against others; they will protest until some dogma of supernatural faith remains. And indeed the matter has now reached the point that many believe nothing further, many do not know whether they believe anything, or what at last must be believed. This fact is especially placed in clear view by those efforts, employed in vain in our days by the government of Prussia, to sustain its pseudo-evangelical Church. Who does not know that Protestantism has for the greatest part degenerated into rationalism? They contend, according to Malou, Reading of the Holy Bible, etc., volume 2, page 392, that “one must adhere to no symbol of faith, that nothing is more antiphilosophical than the word heresy; they wonder how fallible men still dare to call themselves orthodox”; and therefore to the old orthodoxy of the Protestants they oppose “a certain modern and progressive orthodoxy.” Compare, for this last part of the thesis, the brothers de Walenburch, On Necessary Articles, treatise 3. Section III The Unity of Government in the Church Is Established Proposition XXVIII. 1. The Church is one also by the unity of government, by force of which however many faithful there are in the world are subject to one supreme authority. Therefore any schism whatever, as the very name indicates, separates from true unity; 2. nor is it ever lawful by any reason to introduce it or to remain in it.
658. The first part is proved. I. From Scripture. For it is read in Matthew 16.18-19: “And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” Hence, in this place supreme power is promised to Peter, as we showed in numbers 546-558, and as will be demonstrated more fully when the discourse is about the primacy of jurisdiction divinely instituted in blessed Peter. But that supreme power extends to however many faithful there are in the world. Therefore, however many faithful or particular Churches there are in the world, they must be subject to that supreme authority. The minor is proved: 1. The Church with which we are dealing here is the one which Christ built. But Christ built not some particular Church, but the universal Church. 2. Christ calls the Church to be built upon Peter his own, simply and without addition, “my Church.” But the Church which is simply called the Church of Christ is not this or that particular Church, but the universal Church. 3. Christ speaks of the Church against which “the gates of hell shall not prevail.” But this promise, that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, can be understood only of the universal Church. 4. It is established from the usage of the Scriptures of the New Testament that the name Church, used simply and without addition, signifies the whole Church. For when a particular Church is signified, either the name is restricted by express words, “the Church which prays at Jerusalem,” “the Church of God which is at Corinth,” etc.; or it is known from the subject matter, as, for example, in Acts 20.17: “Sending to Ephesus, he called the elders of the Church,” etc. But in the cited text of Matthew the name of Church is used simply and without addition, nor is it restricted by any of the reasons just stated. Therefore.
659. II. Again from Scripture. For there exists the prophecy which the Holy Spirit uttered through the mouth of Caiaphas, John 11.50-52: “It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish. But this he did not say of himself; but since he was the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation; and not only for the nation, but that he might gather together into one the children of God who were dispersed.” Hence: here the discourse concerns all the faithful, wherever they may be, “not only for the nation… but that the children of God who were dispersed,” etc., all of whom are said to be gathered into one society. But the one society which Christ founded by his death is the Church. Yet there is not one society where there is not one supreme government. Therefore. To confirm the major, let those things be recalled by which above we established that Christ founded the Church in the form of a true society; and at the same time let the word “he might gather together” be weighed, by which it is signified that men dispersed throughout the world are not only to be converted, but to be put and gathered together into one. (1)
660. III. Still from Scripture, by recalling things already often said. For: 1. The Church is called a kingdom, numbers 440 and 545, and indeed one kingdom in the singular, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ. But a kingdom is not one unless there is one person with whom supreme power resides. Therefore. But this kingdom is visible, number 461 and following; therefore all must be subject to its one Head. 2. The Church is called a City. Now: a. it is one city; for it is constantly called city in the singular, and there is added “of you,” (1) The Protestant interpreters themselves admit this. Kuinoel says: “that he might collect them into one assembly with the Jews, Ephesians 2.13-14; 3.6, so that there might come to be one flock of one pastor, John 10.16, a mixed flock from pagans and Jews.” Rosenmuller: “that he might collect them into one society, so that all might become one by reason of a corrected and more divine soul, as Christ often afterwards speaks, so that there might thus exist one flock and one shepherd.” Bloomfield: “As it were into one Catholic and universal Church, united in one holy communion, under one common head.” A. Clarke: “That he should collect into one body; form one Church out of the Jewish and Gentile believers,” according to Murray. “over you,” “in you,” “to you,” “yours,” “to you,” etc., compare the things said in number 405 and Isaiah 60 and Psalm 86. b. It is a universal city; for all nations and all kingdoms flow together to it, “Rahab and Babylon, and Tyre and the people of the Ethiopians, the sons of foreigners, and all their kings who detracted from you.” But it could not be one universal city unless one supreme power presided over it. Therefore. 3. The Church was instituted by Christ in the form of a visible society, as we demonstrated above. But, as is easily conceded, number 628, there is only one Church. Therefore there is only one Church as a society. But a society is not one unless there is one supreme authority. Therefore.
661. IV. From the Fathers, whose testimonies, for the sake of brevity, we shall refer to certain classes, as it were. And: 1. Here belong those testimonies by which the unity of government is placed by them in the very definition of the Church. Thus, for example, St. Cyprian, letter 69 to Florentius Pupianus, after saying that the Church is “a people united to the priest, and a flock adhering to its pastor,” adds that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop; that he who is not with the bishop is not in the Church; that they flatter themselves in vain who, not having peace with the priests of God, creep in and believe that they communicate secretly with certain persons, “since,” he adds, “the Church which is Catholic is one, not torn, nor divided, but certainly connected and joined by the glue of priests adhering to one another.” 2. Unless the Church were one external universal society, or unless it had one supreme power for the whole world, it could not teach and judge as universal. Jurieu himself admits this, according to Nicole, The Unity of the Church, book 1, chapter 9; and it is clear from the very nature of the thing. For if the supreme magisterium and judgment pertained to Churches disagreeing among themselves, nothing could be defined which would oblige all; the things which would be denied by one would be affirmed by another. But the Fathers always asserted universal magisterium and supreme judgment of the Church. Hence St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 10, number 2, writes: “The Church, although scattered throughout the world… endowed by marvelous consent as if with one mouth, preaches, teaches, and hands down these things.” “We receive heretics returning,” says the First Synod of Constantinople, according to Labbe, volume 2, page 952, “giving indeed written statements and anathematizing every heresy which does not think as the holy Church of God and Apostolic Church.” Leporius, in the abjuration of his errors, at the demand of the African bishops, was bound to profess that he accepted and held “what the order of the Church holds or accepts,” in the same place, page 1683. Recall the things said in number 652. 3. There exists in the Church a power by which someone can be cut off from Catholic unity. Tertullian, Apology, chapter 39, calls excommunication “a prejudgment of the future judgment, if anyone has so sinned that he is banished from the communion of prayer, and assembly, and all sacred intercourse.” St. Cyprian, letter 2 to Pomponius, calls it a spiritual sword, “by which the proud and contumacious are slain, while they are cast out of the Church.” “The fornicator, adulterer, murderer, and the other vices,” says St. Jerome, on chapter 3 of the epistle to Titus, “are driven from the Church by priests; but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, departing from the Church by their own choice.” (1) But that power would be impossible unless one supreme authority presided over the whole Church; for he who was separated from one Church would be received by another, nor would all Churches be subject to one judgment. Therefore. 4. The Fathers taught the unity of government in the Church as often as they said that the Roman Pontiff is the center of Catholic unity divinely instituted. But testimonies of this kind are innumerable. St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3, teaches that “to the Church of Rome, because of its more powerful principality, it is necessary that every Church come together, that is, those who are the faithful from every side.” St. Cyprian, letter 70 to Januarius, teaches: “Just as God is one, so the Church is one, and Catholic, founded as one upon Peter by the voice of the Lord.” At the same time he says, in letter 55 to Cornelius, that the Roman Church is “this chair of Peter and the principal Church, (1) It may seem marvelous that this doctrine is sometimes acknowledged by the Protestants themselves. The second Synod of Paris, held in the year 1565, discipline chapter 5, article 17, defines excommunication in this way: “To excommunicate,” they say, “is to cut someone off from the body of the Church as a rotten member, and to deprive him of communion and all its goods.” In the same way the reformed ministers gathered in the twentieth Synod understood the matter; for, excommunicating Jeremiah Feriez, they have these words: “We have cast him off and we cast him off outside the congregation of the faithful, that he may be handed over to Satan. We have cut him off and cut him off from the communion of the saints, declaring that he ought no longer to be counted or reckoned as a member of Jesus Christ and of the Church, but to be held as a heathen and a publican, as profane and a contemner of God.” Finally, several Synods of the Protestants agree, which may be seen in Malou, Reading of the Holy Bible, etc., volume 1, page 113. whence sacerdotal unity has arisen.” Hence he calls it, in letter 45 to the same man, “the root and matrix of the Catholic Church.” St. Ambrose, on Psalm 50, number 30, asserting that where Peter is, there is the Church, tells concerning his brother Satyrus, book On the Death of His Brother, number 47, that he was asked by the bishop of the place where he was staying “whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church.” St. Jerome, writing to Damasus in letters 16 and 14, brings forward these splendid words: “I… am joined in communion to your Blessedness, that is, to the chair of Peter. I know that the Church has been built upon that rock. Whoever shall have eaten the lamb outside this house is profane. If anyone is joined to the chair of Peter, he is mine.” We shall see more in its own place.
662. V. For one weighing well the arguments brought forward, the response is easy to the exception which Palmer proposes. He thinks that the Church was indeed instituted by Christ as one, but not in such a way that it must always remain one without interruption, even with regard to government: that unity is of the necessity of precept, but not of essence. But: 1. It is clear from the things said that unity of government is attributed to the Church insofar as it is one society and a Catholic society; but this pertains to the very essence of the Church. Hence the Fathers also place it in the very definition of the Church. For this reason, since the Church is indefectible, it will always be one, also by the unity of government. 2. In the Church, as Palmer also admits, there must always be unity of faith. But the unity of faith, as is clear from the preceding proposition, depends upon Apostolic government as upon its principle. Therefore if the unity of government can at some time be lacking, the unity of faith also will be able to be lacking. (1) 3. The Fathers not only affirm that the Church is one by the unity of government, but also say that it cannot be split into parts. Thus St. Cyprian, treating of the Church “which, suffused with the light of the Lord, spreads its rays through the whole world,” and in which “there is only one flock (1) Worthy of consideration are the things which that author has, part 1, chapter 5, section 4: “We may infer then that Christ having enjoined unity in the belief of the truth on all Christians, there must necessarily be in His Church some means for preserving or restoring this unity, as well in particular churches as in the Church universal, and, therefore, all those societies which are prevented by their fundamental principles from sustaining unity in the truth, cannot he churches of Christ.” and one Pastor,” teaches in On the Unity of the Church, chapters 6-7, that the seamless garment of Christ, the type of the Church, cannot be split: “The people of Christ,” he says, “cannot be split. Who therefore is so criminal and faithless, who so mad with the fury of discord, that he believes that the unity of God, the garment of the Lord, the Church of Christ, can be split? He himself warns and teaches in his Gospel, saying: ‘And there will be one flock and one shepherd’; and does anyone think that in one place there can be either many pastors or several flocks?” St. Ambrose, book 1 On Faith, chapter 1, number 11, had said that the Church is one body; and afterwards he confirms this, because “unity is not divided nor split, and therefore is subjected neither to corruption nor to age.” St. Epiphanius, Exposition of the Faith, chapter 6, locates the difference between the Catholic Church and the sects in this: that while the former is always virgin, undefiled, and one, the sects, on the contrary, are continually split: “It is worthy of observation,” he says, “that very often any heresy whatever, split and divided within itself, is drawn into various parts and names.” This will be confirmed from the things soon to be said.
663. The second part is proved. I. It is never lawful by any reason to introduce schism or to remain in it, if the necessity of preserving external unity is absolute and suffers no exception. But such is this necessity. Therefore. The minor is proved: 1. The Scriptures openly exclude any exception. This indeed is easily clear by recalling the arguments already given; for since the Church is the Body of Christ, the Temple or House of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the Sheepfold of Christ, if it were ever lawful to split the unity of the Church, it would be lawful to split the body of Christ, the house of God, the Kingdom of Christ, the sheepfold of Christ; or it would be lawful not to have Christ as Head, to live outside the house and Kingdom of Christ, not to have Christ as Pastor. But these things most plainly can never be lawful, just as it can never be lawful to be deprived of the life which Christ communicates to us. Therefore. 2. If the necessity of preserving the unity of the Church were not absolute, from the principles of the adversaries it would follow that there is no precept of this kind with regard to external government; which nevertheless they themselves deny. In reality, according to them, it would be lawful to split that unity by reason of corruption, heresy, etc. But in this case by whom would the cause of separation have to be defined? If by the authority constituted by Christ in the Church, the schism of the adversaries would certainly be illicit, since the Church always resisted it; but if without the consent of that authority, each person by his own judgment could define a just cause of separation. Then the government of the Church would be absolutely destroyed; for what is authority which subjects can licitly reject by their own judgment? 3. The Fathers teach that it is as illicit to be separated from the Church on account of schism as on account of heresy. But the adversaries against whom we are here dealing acknowledge the absolute necessity of avoiding heresies. Therefore. “I say and protest,” says St. John Chrysostom, homily 11 on the epistle to the Ephesians, “that to split the Church is no less evil than to fall into heresy. Tell me, if someone subject to a king did not indeed defect to another, nor hand himself over to another king, but took off and tore into many fragments the purple garment received and held from that king’s clasp, would he be punished less than those who defected to another? But what if, moreover, he also took the king himself by the throat and killed him, tearing his body limb by limb? What punishments would he have paid according to his merits? But if he who did this to a king, his fellow-servant, has done things greater than anyone can adequately pay penalties for, what hell will he not deserve who slays Christ and tears him limb by limb?” 4. The Fathers teach that the external unity of the Church is as necessary as charity is necessary; but just as without charity nothing profits, so for those voluntarily existing outside the unity of the Church, nothing can profit. “Let no one,” says St. Augustine, sermon 88, number 19, “leave the ark before the time; let him tolerate the chaff on the threshing floor; let him tolerate it in the ark… But he who has deserted unity violates charity; and whoever violates charity, whatever great thing he has, he himself is nothing. If he speaks with the tongues of men and angels, if he knows all mysteries, if he has all faith so as to transfer mountains, if he distributes all his goods to the poor, if he hands over his body to burn, but does not have charity, he is nothing; nothing profits him. He possesses all things uselessly who does not have that one thing by which he may use all things. Therefore let us embrace charity, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Let those not seduce us who understand carnally and, making a bodily separation, are separated by spiritual sacrilege from the wheat of the Church diffused throughout the whole world,” the Donatists. “For the good seed has been sown throughout the whole world. That good sower, the Son of Man, scattered the good seed not in Africa alone, but everywhere. But the enemy sowed tares over it. Yet what does the father of the household say? Let both grow until the harvest.” And St. Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, says: “Do they think that Christ is with them when they have been gathered together, who are gathered outside the Church of Christ? Such persons, even if they have been killed in confession of the name, this stain is not washed away even by blood. The inexpiable and grave fault of discord is not purged even by suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church. He will not be able to arrive at the kingdom who abandons her who is going to reign… He cannot present himself as a martyr who has not held fraternal charity… Those who have not wished to be unanimous in the Church of God cannot remain with God. Although, handed over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to beasts, lay down their lives, that will not be the crown of faith, but the penalty of perfidy; not the glorious departure of religious virtue, but the destruction of desperation. Such a one can be killed; he cannot be crowned.” “Anyone at all who has been separated from the Church is to be turned away from and fled. One of this kind is perverse and sins, and is condemned by himself. Does he seem to himself to be with Christ who acts against the priests of Christ, who separates himself from the society of his clergy and people?” See the confessions of the heretics themselves in the brothers de Walenburch, On the Unity of the Church, book 2, treatise 9, chapter 7.
664. II. In order that we may press the argument more strongly, and at the same time exclude the principal causes of separation assigned by the adversaries, it is useful to renew the argument in this way: it is never lawful to introduce schism if there can be no just cause for splitting unity. But such is the case. Therefore. The minor is proved: 2. The Fathers generally deny any cause of this kind. St. Augustine, against the epistle of Parmenianus, book 2, number 25, says: “We bring forward these proofs from the Holy Scriptures, so that it may appear easily that nothing is graver than the sacrilege of schism: because there is no just necessity for cutting off unity, since the good tolerate the bad, who will in no way harm them spiritually, precisely so that they may not be spiritually separated from the good, when the consideration of preserving peace restrains or defers the severity of discipline,” etc. And in book 3, number 2: “Therefore let us hold unshaken and firm that no good persons can divide themselves from it, that is, that no good persons, even if they suffer bad persons known to themselves, wherever they may live, are to be separated on account of them from good persons placed far away and unknown by the rash sacrilege of schism.” And St. Irenaeus, book 4, chapter 33, writes: “For no correction so great can be made by them as is the destruction of schism. But he will judge all those who are outside the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself will be judged by no one.” 2. Are the corrupt morals of Catholics said to be a just cause? But, leaving aside the rest, this supposes that the Church is composed only of the just, which we refuted above. Hence St. Augustine, against Gaudentius, book 2, chapter 3, says: “What do you say? Necessity compelled us, as just persons, to leave the unjust? Scripture answers you: A bad son calls himself just.” And in sermon 88, number 26: “Surely it is already manifest to your prudence how all such testimonies of the Scriptures are to be received: that when Scripture sounds forth that we ought to withdraw from the wicked, we are commanded to understand nothing other than that we withdraw in heart, lest we commit a greater evil in the separation of the good than we flee in the conjunction of the bad, as the Donatists themselves did… Certainly the Prophet said manifestly: Withdraw and go out from there, and touch not the unclean. In order that I may understand what he said, I attend to what he did. By his deed he explains his saying to me. He said: Withdraw. To whom did he say this? Certainly to the just. From whom did he say that they should withdraw? Certainly from sinners and the unjust. I ask whether he himself withdrew from such persons. I find that he did not withdraw. Therefore he understood it otherwise.” Indeed the heretics themselves at last admit this. Calvin, against Pighius, book 1, writes “that his own are not so morose that they have judged that the Church must be split because of vices of morals, even the gravest.” “We know none so shameless,” says Crocius, “as to say that one must withdraw from the communion of the true Church on account of corrupt morals.” “Therefore Christ warned us,” according to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession in its conferences on the Church, “that, offended by the private vices either of priests or of the people, we should not stir up schisms.” 3. Are new rites instituted by the Church said to be a just cause of schism? “In those matters,” says St. Augustine, letter 85 to Casulanus, “concerning which divine Scripture has established nothing certain, the custom of the people of God, or the institutions of the elders, are to be held as law. If we should wish to dispute about these things, and from the custom of some to disapprove others, there will arise an endless struggle which, by the labor of speech, since it indicates no certain documents of truth, must certainly be avoided, lest by the storm of contention it cloud over the serenity of charity.” There is also the confession of the Protestants among the brothers de Walenburch, in the same place, chapter 5. 4. Are heresies said to be a just cause of schism? But: a. the Church cannot fail in faith; b. the unity of faith, as we saw in the preceding proposition, depends upon the unity of government; c. if by an impossible hypothesis the Church were stained by heresy, by that very fact it would cease to be the true Church of Christ, and those who separated would constitute it; and therefore the one true Church of Christ would always remain. Compare the often-cited brothers de Walenburch, in the same place, chapters 5-8.
665. III. These things, as is clear, equally fit the introduction of schism and permanence in it. But the Fathers also expressly contemplate this latter case. Thus, for example, St. Optatus of Milevis, book 1, page 21: “You see, therefore, brother Parmenianus, that these two crimes, so evil, so grave, of betrayal and schism, pertain to your leaders. Recognize it even late… since it is established that your predecessors committed this other wickedness, schism, you also labor to follow in their criminal footprints, so that what those predecessors had done under the title of schism, you also may seem long ago to have done and now to be doing. They broke peace in their times; you exterminate unity. Concerning your fathers and concerning you it can rightly be said: ‘If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit,’ Matthew 15.14. Furious envy blinded the eyes of your fathers; rivalry has blinded yours.” But separation from the Church is voluntary whether someone withdraws from it, or places or preserves a cause on account of which he is cut off or remains cut off. Section IV Certain Difficulties Are Satisfied
666. Many ecclesiastical documents are usually brought forward by the adversaries, especially by Jurieu and Palmer, from which they contend that they overturn the necessity of that unity in the Church which we have hitherto set forth and proved. There is not indeed leisure to refute all things one by one; but we shall report the principal ones, with certain observations premised, by which an answer is easily made to each. First of all, let us distinguish a threefold unity in the Church: 1. the unity of the members among themselves; 2. the unity of the members, or of particular Churches, with the one universal Church; 3. the unity of the Church itself, which, if removed, there would exist several true Churches of Christ. We do not deny that dissensions and divisions can exist among the various members of the Church. We also concede that the members themselves or certain particular Churches can fail from the unity of the Church. Indeed, we concede that the unity of the Church itself asserted by us can sometimes be shaken and disturbed. But we altogether deny that the unity of the Church itself, about which alone the question is, can ever be so removed or interrupted that the Church itself is split into various communions, each of which would be the true Church of Christ.
667. Now the things which are heaped up here by the adversaries can be reduced, as it were, to two classes. The first includes various separations of heretics and schismatics from the Catholic Church; these do not bear on the matter, since, as is clear from what has been said, they can be separated and placed outside the Church, while the one true Church of Christ nevertheless remains. But the second class is drawn from divisions and schisms which are sometimes said to have existed within the true Church itself. Yet concerning many of these it is plainly established that they were contentions among various members of the Church, and that a true separation from the Church itself did not intervene. There is, however, one fact which seems to present a special difficulty, namely the great schism which is called Western; concerning this we must deal a little more fully. These things therefore having been noted, let us mention the principal cases.
668. They object first: St. Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches, which nevertheless, notwithstanding this excommunication, remained in the unity of the Catholic Church; therefore the Church at that time was, as it were, divided into two parts, and consequently by no means one. The response is: 1. With foundation it can be asserted that St. Victor did not proceed beyond threats. For: a. Eusebius, book 5, chapter 24, says that Victor “was attempting to cut off those Churches from communion”; but one who attempts to cut off has not yet cut off. b. The same author relates concerning St. Irenaeus, and St. Jerome hands down the same in the catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, chapter 25, as do Photius in the Bibliotheca and Nicephorus, ecclesiastical history, book 4, chapter 38, that he admonished St. Victor “not to cut off whole Churches of God from communion.” But one who is admonished not to cut off seems not yet to have cut off. 2. If it be granted that a sentence of excommunication was issued by St. Victor, it is asserted with foundation that, at the insistence of bishops, it was revoked or suspended. For: a. Sozomen relates that the controversy was then quieted: “It was established,” he says, “that each, celebrating the feast as they had been accustomed, should by no means depart from mutual communion.” b. St. Firmilian testifies in the letter to Cyprian that on account of this question communion had not been interrupted. c. The silence of Eusebius confirms this; he would have criticized Victor’s manner of acting if, at the prayers of St. Irenaeus and so many other bishops, “that he should rather be willing to think those things which suited peace,” he had carried the sentence into execution, if it had been issued, so that communion was broken. 3. Finally, if it be granted both that excommunication was issued and that it was carried into execution, the Asian Churches would truly have been schismatic, just as they were held to be such after the Nicene Synod. This is clear from the very history of that controversy; for Victor asserted that he had the power of separating the Asians from the unity of the Church. St. Irenaeus and others, by the very fact that they asked Victor not to use that power, acknowledged it. Therefore, if the sentence had been issued, carried into execution, and the Asians had spurned it, they would have been placed outside the unity of the Church.
669. II. They take an argument from the very well-known controversy between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian. For the latter, with the bishops of Africa, and Firmilian with certain bishops of the East, contended that the baptism of heretics was invalid, and therefore that those who, having been baptized by heretics, sought the Church, had to be rebaptized. St. Stephen, on the contrary, with all the rest, taught that baptism conferred by heretics was valid, and therefore that nothing was to be innovated except what had been handed down. Although Cyprian did not acquiesce in the opinion of Stephen, nevertheless no one judged the unity of faith and communion dissolved between him and St. Stephen, or between the Roman Church and the African Church. The response is that there are various solutions of this difficulty. And: 1. St. Cyprian did not himself withdraw from the communion of Stephen. He himself testifies to this in the Third Council of Carthage, saying: “It remains that we bring forth what we think concerning this very matter, judging no one or removing anyone from the right of communion, if he should think differently.” Hence St. Augustine, book 1 On Baptism, chapter 18: Therefore “he did not separate himself by divided communion from the rest who thought differently”; but, as St. Jerome adds in the dialogue against the Luciferians, “he remained in the communion of those who had contradicted his opinion.” But how can this be understood? St. Cyprian thought, although by error, that the question concerning the baptism of heretics was not one of faith, but of discipline. Compare Natalis Alexander, century 3, dissertation 12, article 4. Hence he sinned by not obeying the Holy Pontiff, but did not withdraw from the Church; all the more, they say, because St. Stephen, from a certain prudent economy, judged that this was to be tolerated for a time. Finally, they say, by the sickle of martyrdom he purged his disobedience. 2. Nor does St. Stephen ever seem to have separated St. Cyprian from the unity of the Church. For: a. St. Cyprian himself indicates this, who with a reproachful spirit thus addresses the Holy Pontiff: “Does he give honor to God who, a friend of heretics and an enemy of Christians, thinks that the priests of God, defending the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be cut off?” Therefore St. Stephen had thought that they were to be cut off, but he had not cut them off. b. Dionysius of Alexandria confirms this, according to Eusebius, book 7, chapter 2; in a letter to Xystus, Stephen’s successor, he reports that Stephen had signified in his letters that “for this reason he would depart from their communion, because they were rebaptizing heretics.” Therefore he had not departed. c. St. Augustine often openly declares that unity was not broken. Thus, for example, in the book On the One Baptism against Petilian, chapter 12, and book 5 against the Donatists, chapter 25, he says: “Behold, there were two, to be silent about the others, bishops of most eminent Churches, namely of the Roman and Carthaginian Churches, Stephen and Cyprian, both established in Catholic unity. Many agreed with the former, few with the latter, both groups standing with them in unity. Peace prevailed in their hearts, so that in such a dispute no evil of schism arose among them.” How again can this be understood? As is clear, St. Stephen indeed proposed the doctrine of the Roman Church, but abstained from issuing a definitive sentence, permitting Cyprian to believe otherwise in the meantime, until the question, once clarified, should finally be defined. Nor does it stand in the way that Firmilian seems to judge that St. Stephen issued a sentence; for many doubt the genuineness of that letter in which Firmilian asserts this, while others hold that he was deceived. This is not marvelous if one considers the too-embittered spirit with which he was writing and the distance of the place. Compare Raymond Missorius, disputation on Firmilian’s letter, chapter 11. Greater faith certainly must be given to St. Augustine, who testified in the book On the One Baptism, chapter 14, that Stephen, although he threatened excommunication, nevertheless did not break communion. “Therefore when Stephen,” he says, “not only did not rebaptize heretics, but even judged that those doing this, or decreeing that it be done, were to be excommunicated, as the letters of other bishops and of Cyprian himself show, nevertheless Cyprian remained with him in the peace of unity.” 3. There are not lacking those who judge that the history of this controversy, in whole or in part, must be sent away among fables. Surely: a. St. Augustine speaks doubtfully about the writings of St. Cyprian which come into controversy; for, against Cresconius, book 2, chapter 31, he says: “if it is established that they are his writings, which you think must be brought forward for you”; and chapter 25: “but if you think and boast that Cyprian also favors you in this opinion,” namely concerning the invalidity of the baptism of heretics; and chapter 32: “or whoever wrote that letter,” to Jubaianus. b. Especially worthy of consideration are the things which St. Augustine has in letter 93 to Vincent the Rogatist: “But that Cyprian thought otherwise concerning Baptism than the form and custom of the Church held is found not in canonical writings, but in his own letters and in the letters of the Council. But that he corrected that opinion is not found; nevertheless it must not incongruously be thought concerning such a man that he did correct it, and perhaps it was suppressed by those who were too delighted by this error and did not wish to lack so great a patronage, although there are not lacking those who contend that Cyprian did not think this at all, but that it was fabricated under his name by presumptuous and lying men,” etc. But enough here concerning this difficulty, concerning which we shall speak again in the following disputation.
670. They say thirdly: The French with impunity: 1. resisted the Second Council of Nicaea; 2. and the same remove the Council of Florence from the list of legitimate and ecumenical councils. The response to the first: First of all, let it be noted that the Council of Frankfurt, held in the year 794 under Charlemagne, was indeed approved by Hadrian I with regard to those things which it established against Felix of Urgel and Elipandus of Toledo, but by no means with regard to those things which it imprudently said against the Nicene Synod. With regard to these things the men of Frankfurt erred by a twofold error of fact: 1. From a perverse version, they thought that the Nicene Fathers had decreed that holy images were to be adored just like the most holy Trinity; whereas, on the contrary, in act 3 it is said: “I receive and embrace the venerable images; but the adoration which is according to latria I preserve only for the supersubstantial and life-giving Trinity.” 2. They thought that the Nicene Synod had not been approved by the Roman Pontiff, as is clear from the Caroline books asserting this and from Hincmar of Rheims. Others add: 3. that the men of Frankfurt also erred by an error of right, denying the due cult of the holy images; but that Hadrian and his legates, from a certain prudent economy, left the Franks in their ignorance for some time, lest graver evils should follow. Moreover, once the matters had been explained and rightly understood, the Germans and the French received the Nicene Synod and the cult of the holy images defined by it. Compare Cabassut, Ecclesiastical Notice, at the eighth century, and Christian Lupus, Dissertation on the Seventh General Synod, chapter 15 and following. To the second: The Council of Florence was never rejected by the Gallican Church, but only by certain Frenchmen who resisted it, not formally from a will of opposing the Church, but materially on account of an error of fact. All these things are clear: 1. from Natalis Alexander, an author otherwise most devoted to Gallican opinions, who says: “The Gallican Church nowhere opposed the Florentine Synod, nor was it opposed to the union of the Greeks and the definition of faith issued in it; indeed it perpetually venerated it”; 2. from Berthier, History of the Gallican Church, volume 16, book 48, who testifies that the Gallican clergy and the theological faculty of Paris thought no otherwise; 3. the principal French writers also agree, such as Bossuet, de Marca, etc.
671. They say fourthly: In the time of the Western schism, the unity of the Church was interrupted. In order that the force of this difficulty and its solution may be well understood, it will help to recall briefly the history of that schism. Hence: 1. The last of the Pontiffs legitimate by the opinion and consent of all in the fourteenth century of the Church had been Gregory XI, who, at the exhortation of St. Catherine of Siena, left Avignon and restored himself to Rome. When he died, the Roman people, with threats and arms, demanded a Pontiff Roman by country, or certainly Italian. Bartholomew Prignano, a Neapolitan, Archbishop of Bari, was created, and received the name Urban VI. He immediately sent letters concerning his election, and the whole Church acknowledged him as Supreme Pontiff. For at least two months no question was raised concerning the validity of the election. 2. But when Urban VI, scarcely made Pontiff, insisted not without severity on reforming the morals of the Cardinals, the French Cardinals with the Spaniard, for the rest were Italians, withdrew to Anagni. They declared Urban’s election null, under the pretext that they had voted from fear; and they gave letters concerning that matter on August 9, namely in the fourth month after the election. Then they began to act concerning a new election, and, the three Italian Cardinals also having been won over, for the fourth had died meanwhile, at Fondi in Campania they elected the Cardinal of Geneva, called Clement VII. 3. At the beginning only a few adhered to him. But when the encyclical letter of the Cardinals became known, in which there was contained the unanimous testimony concerning the violence which they said had been brought upon them in the election, and at the same time the rather serious tumults which had arisen at the time of the election were enlarged, a great disturbance of minds was produced, and entire provinces withdrew from Urban. 4. To Urban VI succeeded Boniface IX in 1389, Innocent VII in 1404, and Gregory XII in 1406. But on the other side, to Clement VII succeeded Peter de Luna, called Benedict XIII, in 1394. Thus far we have two obediences, as they say. 5. Since these things were so, the Cardinals of each obedience determined to convene a general council at Pisa, which then seemed the only means of restoring peace to the Church. Each Pontiff was called to the council, and, according to the oath issued, it was proposed that both should lay down the pontifical tiara; but if not, that they should be canonically deprived of authority. With each Pontiff deposed, Peter Philargus, commonly called of Candia, Cardinal priest of the Twelve Holy Apostles, was elected by the Cardinals of each obedience; he imposed upon himself the name Alexander V. Yet the schism did not quiet down, for Benedict XIII and Gregory XII by no means subjected themselves to the sentence of the synod. Hence three obediences came about. 6. Meanwhile, on May 3 of the year 1410, Alexander V died, in whose place on the seventeenth day of the same month Balthasar Cossa, a Neapolitan, created Cardinal by Boniface IX, was substituted, and he bore the appellation John XXIII. Certain cities of Italy still reverenced Gregory XII, and a great part of Spain Benedict XIII, because the authority of the Council of Pisa was not established. Hence John XXIII announced a general Council to be held at Constance, over whose first session he also presided. 7. In this Council: a. John XXIII was deposed, and he held the sentence as ratified; b. by law it was provided that neither he himself, nor Peter de Luna, nor Angelo Correr could be elected Pontiff; c. the resignation of Gregory XII was received in session 14, who before the resignation convoked the Council through the Cardinal of Ragusa of his obedience; d. by a decretory sentence Peter de Luna, or Benedict XIII, was deposed in session 37; e. the legates of the Spains joined themselves to the Synod; and from the Cardinals of the threefold obedience and other electors appointed by the synod, the Supreme Pontiff Odo Colonna, Cardinal deacon, was created, who chose the name Martin V.
672. With these things posited, behold the difficulty which arises: there is no unity of government where there are several independent societies. But for forty years in the Roman Church there were first two, then three obediences, namely independent Christian societies. Therefore. I respond by denying the minor. For there were indeed two, then three factions, as it were, of the same society; but there were not two or three separated and independent societies. To understand this solution, let us consider now not the Church, but any kingdom whatever, and let us see when it must be said to be divided so that it is no longer one kingdom. This certainly happens when it is split into several parts, each of which has its own king, and none of them judges that he is king of the whole kingdom, but of that part. Then certainly there would be several perfect societies of one and the same order, each of which would be independent, and consequently all together could not constitute one kingdom. But if the same multitude is split into several parts, each of which has its own king, who together with the multitude adhering to him judges and contends that he is king of the whole kingdom, and not only of the part adhering to him, then there will indeed be error with regard to the subject in whom supreme power legitimately resides; but the kingdom remains one. Unity has been disturbed and shaken, but not abolished and destroyed. Now during the division with which we are dealing: 1. All the obediences professed that the Catholic Church is essentially one, also by the unity of supreme government; that this supreme government pertains to him who, legitimately elected as Roman Pontiff, is the legitimate successor of St. Peter; that several legitimate successors of St. Peter cannot exist simultaneously. From where, therefore, did division arise? From an error of fact. For each obedience thought that its own Pontiff had been legitimately elected, and accordingly that he held the supreme principate not over the part which in fact was now subjected to him, but over all obediences, or over the universal Church. 2. Moved by this faith, all persons of whatever obedience seriously labored to remove the error of fact and to know with certainty the legitimately elected Pontiff who would preside over all the obediences, or over the universal Church. And since, while the doubt about the legitimate election of the Pontiff remains, there is no supreme tribunal able to expel the doubt except the assembly of bishops, all the obediences brought the matter to that assembly, all meanwhile prepared to render obedience to the one legitimate Pontiff once certainly known. 3. Therefore in the first period of the division, namely from the election of Clement VII up to the Council of Pisa, since the body of bishops had not yet brought forth a judgment, all the faithful invoked it. In the second period, namely from the Council of Pisa up to the Council of Constance, since judgment had been issued by a Council which seemed ecumenical, a great part of the faithful, having left Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, received Alexander V. Yet since the ecumenicity of that Council was not established with certainty, not a few among the Catholics refused to acquiesce in it, until in the third period a certainly ecumenical Council defined the matter. Then all, acquiescing in its sentence, obeyed the one supreme Head legitimately elected and certainly acknowledged. Therefore that which is called the Western schism, far from standing in the way of the unity of the Roman Church, the true Church of Christ, exists as a new argument for the same.