tion of that Spirit which is the property only of the good, another; whatever heretics and schismatics may receive, charity, which covers a multitude of sins, is the peculiar gift of Catholic unity beyond the pale of which the aforesaid charity exists not, and without it everything else, though it may be recognised and approved, cannot profit or deliver." "While the integrity of the sacrament (of baptism) is to be acknowledged wherever it is administered, it must be remembered, that, beyond the unity of the Church, it avails not to remission of sins."+ "The comparison of the Church to the garden of Eden signifies to us, that without her pale men may receive her baptism indeed, but can neither receive nor retain the bliss of salvation. The baptism of the Church may be elsewhere, but only within the Church is the gift of eternal life to be found."+ "To salvation and life eternal, no one can attain who holds not Christ the head. But no one can hold Christ the head, who is not in communion with His body, the Church."§ "Within that threshing-floor (of the Church), there may be both good and bad; outside it there cannot be good." The mixture of truth and error which the foregoing citations, which faithfully represent the teaching of these two eminent fathers on the subject under discussion, contain, must strike every reader. That there is no salvation out of that Church which is composed of Christ's living members; that every one who belongs not to it is, whatever be his religious profession, without hope, and without God in the world; that beyond its pale, no real Christians are found, is beyond doubt: but this is far from being the meaning of Cyprian and Augustin. The Church, within which alone salvation is to be found, was, in their view, the visible society, or societies, in communion with the Catholic bishops, to union with which they conceived a sacramental efficacy to be attached, which imparted to the religious acts performed within its pale an acceptableness in the sight of God, which they would not otherwise have possessed. Though not all within this consecrated pale was Christ's, yet beyond it there were not, and could not be, any in life-giving union with Him; the faith which schismatics professed, however orthodox, becoming, in their case, inefficacious to salvation; the sacraments, however celebrated "according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity De Bap. Cont. Don. 1. iii. 8. 21. Ibid. 1. iv. 8. 1. De Unic. Bap. s. 30. † Ibid. 1. iii. s. 22. are requisite to the same," failing to convey covenanted grace; and what appeared to be the fruits of the Spirit, being nothing better than counterfeit imitations. To what results such principles must, and did in fact, lead, it is needless to remark. What is most difficult to account for is, the unquestioning confidence with which they were received and maintained by so diligent a student of Scripture as Augustin, to whom it never appears to have occurred to examine on what grounds the saving grace of Christ was absolutely confined to the visible Catholic Church, or a sacramental virtue connected with a particular line of ministerial succession. Why did he not recollect that the rule which he himself lays down in reference to the sacraments is applicable to other things also: "Sicut ergo et intus quod diaboli est arguendum est, sic et foris quod Christi est agnoscendum est. An extra unitatem ecclesiæ non habet sua Christus, et in unitate ecclesiæ habet sua diabolus?" (De Bap. cont. Don. 1. iv. s. 13.) But it is only given to a few to rise superior to the errors and prejudices of the age in which they live. In proportion as the doctrine of the exclusiveness of the Church advanced to maturity, did that of its unity assume a fixed and concrete form. To affirm, that beyond the pale of the visible church there is no salvation, would have been unmeaning, did no means exist of clearly defining the boundaries of the sacred inclosure. On this point, the early fathers speak nearly as indeterminately as Scripture itself. To the simple scriptural unities"one faith, one Lord, one baptism, one God and Father of all "Tertullian adds, only, however, as a guarantee for soundness of doctrine, a community of descent from apostles, or apostolical churches; and inculcates among all branches of the visible church, which should be found to agree in these particulars, the duties of brotherly love and mutual recognition.* True it is, that when he comes to define more closely how a church is to prove its apostolical origin, he insists particularly upon the succession of bishops from the first; but even while enlarging on this point, he gives the preference to apostolicity of doctrine. "If any of the * Dehine in orbem profecti (Apostoli) eandem doctrinam ejusdem fidei nationibus promulgaverunt, et proinde ecclesias apud unamquamque civitatem condiderunt, a quibus traducem fidei et semina doctrinæ cæteræ exinde ecclesiæ mutuatæ sunt, et quotidie mutuantur ut ecclesiæ fiant. Ac per hoc et ipsæ Apostolicæ deputantur, ut soboles Apostolicarum ecclesiarum. Omne genus ad originem suam censeatur necesse est. Itaque tot et tantæ ecclesiæ, una est illa ab Apostolis prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes prima et Apostolicæ, dum uns omnes probant unitatem: dum est illis communicatio pacis, et appellatio fraternitatis, et contesseratio hospitalitatis.- De Præscrip. Hæret. s. 20. heretical sects," he says, "should venture to ascribe themselves to the age of the Apostles, in order that they may appear to be of apostolical origin, we reply;-let them exhibit the first foundation of their churches; let them declare the series of their bishops so from the commencement descending by succession, that the first of such bishops had some one of the Apostles, or of their contemporaries, for his predecessor .. But even should they feign something of this kind, it will profit them nothing. For their doctrine, when compared with the apostolical, proves by its discrepancy therefrom, that it had for its author, neither an Apostle, nor an apostolical man: for as the Apostles could not have taught contrary to each other, so the apostolical men cannot be supposed to have taught contrary to the Apostles. By a reference to this standard, they (the heretics) can be tested even by those churches which, being lately founded, cannot produce, as their author, either an Apostle or an apostolical man; which, however, professing as they do the same faith, are, on account of affinity of doctrine, not the less entitled to the name of apostolical."* But in the age of Cyprian, when sects began to make their appearance, which in doctrine, and even in polity, agreed with the genuine traditions of the Apostles, the simpler theory of Tertullian became inapplicable, and a more stringent definition of the unity of the Church was needed, to distinguish the latter from the folds of heresy. And now commenced the effort to invest the organic unity of Christ's body, which, as has been more than once observed, is, in its primary state, inward and spiritual, with a corresponding outward form; an effort in itself natural and laudable, but which, from the principles assumed throughout the process, produced in the end evils of a serious character. The episcopalian theory of Cyprian was the first step in advance. However the dissident bodies might profess the orthodox faith, and retain the apostolical polity of episcopacy, they had separated from the communion of the Catholic bishops-the bishops, that is, who could trace their origin in an uninterrupted line of succession to the Apostles, and established an episcopate of their own: upon this defect in their system, therefore, Cyprian took his stand, and strenuously inculcated the dogma, that the legitimate episcopal chair is in each church the divinely appointed repository of the "Sacrament of Unity." "I say these things," he writes to Florentius Pupianus, "not in a spirit of boasting, but of grief, inas De Præscrip. Hæret. much as you constitute yourself the judge of God and of Christ, who declares to His apostles, and through them to all bishops who are the legitimate successors of the Apostles, 'He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that heareth me, heareth Him that sent me. He that rejects you, rejects me, and Him that sent me.' For hence it is, that schisms and heresies spring up,-viz. from a presumptuous despising of the bishop, who alone presides over the Church; as if he who is honoured by the divine approval is to be deemed unworthy of (ruling over) men. . . . . . Although a contumacious band of unruly spirits may depart, the Church never separates from Christ; and they are the Church who cleave to their priest and pastor (the bishop). You ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; so that if any one be not with the bishop, he is not in the Church."* “An intolerable grief oppresses me, ever since I heard that you" (the confessors at Rome) "had, contrary to the rule of the Church, to Christ's law, and to the principles of Catholic unity, given your consent to the appointment of another bishop (Novatian), that is, to the establishment of another Church, and the division of Christ's members." "Throughout the successive lapses of time, the custom of the Church, in the ordination of bishops, has so descended, that the Church has appeared founded on its bishops, and by them, as rulers, every act has been directed." "The Church is one, and therefore cannot be within and without, at the same time. If it is with Novatian, it cannot have been with Cornelius. But if it was with Cornelius, who, by a legitimate ordination, succeeded Fabian in the episcopal chair, Novatian is not in the Church, nor can he be deemed a bishop, who, setting at nought the divine and apostolical tradition, took his origin from himself and succeeded to no one."& That the principle of ecclesiastical unity in each diocese resides in the Catholic bishop-so that all who were not in communion with him were to be regarded as outside the Church—was an intelligible rule, and, as a test of church-membership, easily applied; but how was the whole church throughout the world, consisting as it did of a number of independent societies, each under its own bishop, to realize and exhibit its unity? To meet this difficulty, Cyprian propounded his well-known theory of the unity of the episcopal office in the abstract, however multiplied might be its living representatives. "There is one undivided • Ad Flor. Pup. Epist. 69 Ad Lapsos, Epist. 27. + Ad Confess. Rom. Epist. 44. Ad Magnum, Epist. 76. episcopate, which becomes visible in the person of each individual bishop (cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur)."* "There is one episcopate, diffused everywhere by the harmonious multiplicity of bishops." + "For this cause, dear brother, has the vast body of the priests (bishops) been united by the cement of mutual concord and unity, that if any one of our order should introduce heresy, and lacerate the Church of Christ, the rest might render succour, and, like compassionate shepherds, gather the Lord's sheep into the fold." It soon, however, suggested itself to Cyprian-as, indeed, it must to any mind of ordinary acuteness -that this abstract view of the unity of the universal episcopate was but ill fitted for practical purposes, and that, to produce an impression on men's minds, the idea must be clothed with flesh and blood. The unity of the episcopate must see itself visibly represented the abstract notion must become a concrete fact. The principle being established, that bishops hold the same place in the Church which the Apostles formerly did, it was not difficult to discover the required visible centre of unity. Cyprian observed - what indeed is evident-that Scripture ascribes to the apostle Peter an undefined pre-eminence amongst his brethren of the apostolic college; a position which the words of Christ addressed to him in Matt. xvi. 19. seem to foretel that he should occupy. Substituting for Peter, the occupant for the time being of the episcopal chair at Rome, with which city the Apostle was supposed to have had a peculiar connection, and for the apostolic college the episcopate of later times, Cyprian found what he wanted, and, in a number of remarkable passages, gives sufficient evidence of the point to which theological reflection was tending. A few of them will be sufficient to illustrate his train of thought. "This" (schism and its evils) "takes place from men's not recurring to the fountain-head of truth, and the doctrine of our heavenly Master. There is no need of prolix argument; the proof is short, and easy of comprehension. The Lord says to Peter, 'Thou art Peter,' &c.; and again, 'Feed my sheep.' Upon him alone He builds His Church, to him he commits His sheep to be fed. And although, after his resurrection, he invests all the Apostles with equal power, saying to them, 'As the Father hath sent me,' &c., yet, that he might exhibit (the principle of) unity, He, by His authority, so disposed matters, that that unity should take its beginning from one (Peter). All the Apostles, indeed, were what † Ad Anton. Epist. 52. De Unit. Eccles. p. 397. (Edit. Baluz.). |