the essentials of spiritual unity.doc

8/11/2019 The Essentials of Spiritual Unity.doc

1/18

THE ESSENTIALS OF SPIRITUAL UNITYBy Ronald Knox

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9511clas.asp

Preface

I began to be anxio s abo t my position as an !nglican" I #elt that I had noright to pl nge into $atholicism %altho gh I then held most o# its doctrines&witho t going back o'er old gro nd and satis#ying mysel# that I had not

nd ly neglected the claims o# other denominations to a hearing.

!mong other experiments in this direction" I began to write down some

acco nt o# what I meant by (a $h rch.( ! $h rch I was determined to ha'e"b t it seemed to me it might clear my mind i# I started with the bare ideaand de)nition o# a $h rch and #ollowed o t the implications o# that idea"where'er %as *lato says& the arg ment sho ld lead.

+y method was not that o# *lato" b t that o# !ristotle" at least in his Ethics .,or *lato knows what he thinks be#orehand" and his dialog e #orm is aliterary arti)ce" b t !ristotle seems %at any rate& to set o t on no other basisthan that o# generally recei'ed ideas-- hat do we mean by (good( hat dowe mean by (deliberate( and so on--and" by whittling away the ri'alexplanations that will not do" arri'es in the end at the de)nition he wants.

0his nice slo'enly method I adopted.

hen I #o nd mysel# %as s al& ( p against( the $atholic system" Iexchanged this experimentalist #or an a priori method and began asking: I#s ch and s ch a system o# religio s organi ation is the only tolerable kind o# $h rch" how wo ld s ch a $h rch %s pposing it to exist& be likely to appearin the records o# history 2ow m ch sho ld we expect historical andgeographical accidents to obsc re" at )rst sight" the principles on which itwas based

0he )rst part was beg n as early as ! g st 1915" b t the work went onslowly and cas ally" as the mood took me" and the last part was ne'er really)nished--the last page or two I act ally wrote in 3eptember 1914" stbe#ore I was recei'ed. I ha'e let it stand as I wrote it" except #or hal# a do en

incidental corrections which were s ggested to me. I do not pretend that itis the way in which one o ght to arri'e at the idea o# the $atholic $h rch6 itis merely the way in which one so l did.

7an ary 1918

R. !. Knox


2/18

The essentials of spiritual unity

1. The Church a selection and one made by an agent from without.

0he name ecclesia seems to post late two points: )rst" that the body it

denotes sho ld be separated" i.e. there sho ld be at least the h manpossibility o# some people being o tside it6 second" that it is called" that is"de)ned #rom witho t" not sel#-appointed or sel#-determined like a cl b or arep blic.

2. The principle of selection must be based on some qualities in thoseselected.

It is th s" in potency at any rate" excl si'e. !nd since in an instit tionwhose essence is concerned with matters o# ltimate moment we co ldhardly expect the selection to be arbitrary" like that o# a cl b" we m sts ppose the excl sion to be d e either to the n)tness o# certain people #ormembership on the gro nd o# morals or belie# or else to the will# l re# sal o#certain people to oin the instit tion" which wo ld be" 'iewed #rom inside"the repelling o# those who showed no aptit de #or membership.

3 ch ncl bableness wo ld be hardly h man i# the re# sal did not base itsel# pon some tangible ob ection" an ob ection to certain ali)cations which

had been set p as tests #or membership.

3. God selects, in the true sense, but this does not mean that man cannotnow who ha!e and who ha!e not been selected.

It wo ld be well to know at once who is the agent who calls o t and in what

sense he does it. o #orm o# $hristianity wo ld disp te that this agent is;od: 0he din the other side" no $hristian wo ld claim thathis embracing his creed was a matter p rely o# choice on his own part.

". #t least so far as a !isible Church is concerned, there may also be

unco!enanted mercies, with which we are not concerned.

Inso#ar as ;od calls s" and pres mably #oreknows s" there is no inherentreason why we sho ld expect to be able to say" this or that man has beencalled o# ;od--so long as he knows his own sheep by name" all is well withtheir sal'ation. B t i# the $h rch is to be a 'isible instit tion" g ardingcommon mysteries in its tr st" or at the lowest binding people together inconscio s #ellowship" there m st be marks by which they can be recogni ed.2ere" it is almost ni'ersally admitted" we can take heart o'er the case o#those who do not ali#y #or 'isible membership" yet p le s by the #act o# their excl sion. ;od may ha'e called them" b t called them by special and

nco'enanted paths6 it is no b siness o# o rs on the one side to em late oron the other side to despair o# them.


3/18

$. %nderlying causes of non&membership must be 'a( some moral wea ness,'b( some distortion of moral standards, or 'c( some defect of speculati!ebelief.

0he act al #orm la which carries with it membership o# the $h rch is not theexplanation o# anybody=s incl sion or re ection6 it is merely %i# non-mirac lo s& the mark or %i# mirac lo s& the means o# it. 0he explanationm st lie in some determination o# the man=s own mind which is inconsistentwith the terms o# admission. 3ince there are to be no arbitrary or accidental

ali)cations" other than that the applicant sho ld be a rational h manbeing" the gro nds o# excl sion limit themsel'es to three.

1. 2e may" tho gh in theory prepared to accept the moral standards pheldby the society" #all so #ar short o# them in practice that the a thorities dgehim n)t.

?. 2e may" thro gh want o# sympathy with partic lar determinations in

detail o# the moral code" be clearly incapable o# entering into the spirit o#the instit tion.

@. 0here may be belie#s held by the society which he cannot admit" or !ice!ersa . 3ome" no do bt" wo ld pre#er to see this last" doctrinal test abolishedaltogether or at least red ced to a minim m. B t in any case it m st bereckoned with as a possibility.

)ote --It might seem that there was a #o rth possibility o# dis ali)cation" adisciplinary dis ali)cation. 0he man might do and belie'e all that themembers did and belie'ed" yet re# se to p t himsel# within a circle o# like-minded people. B t this" it will be easily seen" resol'es itsel# either into adoctrinal or into a moral dis ali)cation. Aither he does not wish his ownmoral standards to be o# ni'ersal application" in which case his practice isnot in #act morally determined" b t d e to taste" pre#erence" etc." or else"admitting he belie'es the doctrines" he does not belie'e in the doctrinesbeing 'ital" and in this absence o# belie# in his belie#s he is at 'ariance withthe members o# the body.

*. The argument for 'a( as the only obstacle appears logical, satisfying tomoral instincts, biblical, and traditional.

It might seem at )rst sight that %1& was" i# not o# sole" at least o# primary

importance. ,or all sects agree that" whate'er else is signi)cant" moralaction" which means precisely li'ing p to the best standard a man knows" iso# the 'ery )rst importance. 0he $h rch wo ld th s be a society o# people

nited in the e


4/18

conscientio sly be abandoned or e'en s ppressed to s it the con'enienceo# others" they are not s ited to #orm a test o# admission. *ressed e'en# rther" it seems we sho ld ha'e to claim that 'ario s moral standards m stmeet with e al respect" pro'ided they were not de)nitely nderde'elopedor demonstrably calc lated to militate against the happiness o# mankind ingeneral or the society in partic lar.

Indeed" it is o#ten s pposed that the )rst concern o# the apostles was tokeep the $h rch holy" rather than to keep it orthodox or ni#orm. 0heweapon o# excomm nication seems to ha'e been sed at )rst hesitatinglyand with rel ctance. 0he heresies 3aint *a l combats might be said to ha'ebeen condemned rather #or their anti-social tendency" as p tting a barrierbetween $hristian and $hristian" than #or their #alse spec lati'e 'iews"whereas the moral discipline o# the $h rch seems to ha'e been at its mostse'ere in the early cent ries. !postasy and ad ltery" certainly" were 'iewedso gra'ely that the a thor o# them was" i# not technically depri'ed o# $h rchmembership" at least debarred #or li#e #rom the exercise o# $h rch

pri'ileges.

ogically" then" this principle can claim that in re ecting a candidate #ormembership yo are basing yo r action on a clear deli'ery o# theconscience" a moral imperati'e" not on any point o# dogma" not on anyspec lati'e estion abo t which" a#ter all" yo may be wrong and he right.3entimentally %to se the term in no nkind sense& it enables yo to a'oidthe #eeling that yo are re ecting one who is in point o# cond ct st as goodas yo rsel#. Biblically" it corresponds with the emphasis laid on moral p rityby o r 3a'ior and his disciples. 2istorically" it seems to ha'e m ch incommon with what we know o# the practice o# the earliest cent ries.

+. %ntil it is e amined closely. #re we to admit people who li!e up to anystandard, pro!ided they do li!e up to it-

*reliminary ob ection to this 'iew. It is clear" howe'er" that there is a point atwhich it becomes rather diCc lt to draw the line between di


5/18

close to dogma.

0o p t the case in a more concrete and probable #orm: It seems do bt# l i#those ,riends DE akersF who are tr e to the spirit o# their instit te co ld #ailto regard the bearing o# arms against an enemy as anything b t a totaldis ali)cation #or membership.

. /urther, ha!e we a right to 0udge moti!es- Can we be sure ofdistinguishing the penitent from the hypocrite- iscipline may be used inthese cases, but e clusion is, precisely here, inappropriate.

B t indeed there is a root diCc lty" #ar more serio s. e immediatelybecome con#ronted with the problem o# the moral str ggle: (I )nd anotherlaw in my members"( etc. It is ite certain that the $hristian society existsto achie'e the indi'id al moral %and spirit al& per#ection o# its members" b tis it certain that this end is best ser'ed by debarring the sinner in toto #romcomm nion Is it not rather to be anticipated that the sinner will )nd means

to tri mph o'er his sins thro gh membership" rather than by the #act o#excl sion" which may easily ind ce despair or de)ance in his attit de towardthe body

ho is to disting ish between the case o# the hypocrite who contin ally sinsand contin ally #eigns penitence and that o# the recidi!us who constantly#alls" yet disowns" and to some extent atones #or his #a lts by gen inecontrition Is not he at least in a better position than the hypocrite whoretains his membership by dint o# not being #o nd o t" by secret sins andinsincere con#essions Goes not the example o# the ,riend o# p blicans andsinners rather s ggest" that while demanding a penitent will on the part o#the applicant #or membership" we shall yet be ind lgent to the sins againstwhich he str ggles" b t not always s ccess# lly In a word" is not the whole

estion o# moti'es in action" and responsibility in moral cases" toocomplicated to decide by hard and #ast r les o# excl sion

. #nd the tendency to deal with the recidi' s by indness appears to be progressi!e.

Rightly or wrongly" this wo ld appear to ha'e been increasingly the practiceo# the $h rch and nder the inH ence o# the Roman hierarch. 3o it was apope who stood o t #or the rights o# the lapsed in the persec tions" and *i s

laid it down that $omm nion is too 'al able a pre'enti'e against sin to

allow o# o r diss ading the weaker brethren #rom its #re ent reception.hate'er penances ha'e been imposed" total excl sion has come to bereser'ed #or those who are mani#estly impenitent" since they will notabandon the so rces o# temptation6 the harlot will not gi'e p her means o#li'elihood" the man who has contracted an incest o s marriage will not li'eapart #rom his wi#e" and so on. In a word" excl sion is held to be sti)ableonly when immorality takes the #orm o# moral obli ity" and the applicant#or membership not merely #ails to amend b t #ails to admit e'en in theorythe $hristian standard o# morals. e are th s #orced back again #rom class%1& o# possible obstacles to comm nion to class %?&.

1 . 4e fall bac then on the set of obstacles mar ed 'b(. 5ut we 6nd that

'b(, quite as much as 'c(, e cludes people from the Church on the ground of their conscientious con!ictions.


6/18


7/18

conscio s that it is in the position not o# a plenipotentiary" b t o# a tr steesho ld be more care# l as to whom it admits" not merely as to whom itre ects. 0h s" ndo btedly" those religio s bodies %the $ongregationalists"#or example& which claim no special di'ine charter" b t merely the stat s o#c lt ral associations" #eel #ar more liberty in re# sing or in acceptingcandidates #or membership than" #or example" the $h rch o# Rome.

13. 9s it possible that e clusion from the Church should rest on practicalconsiderations&&considerations, that is, of the e igencies of any societywhich is to ha!e a corporate life-

e ha'e" then" to consider the s ggestion that religio s tests sho ld beinsisted pon only where the #ail re to accept them wo ld mean the #ail reto accept a common standard o# beha'ior necessary to the li#e andcoherence o# the religio s body in estion. 0h s" the mere con# sion whichwo ld be introd ced into the social li#e o# a monogamo s society by theadmission o# a person with #o r wi'es might be held s Ccient reason #or

re# sing membership" witho t going into the estion o# ltimate sanctions.>r" again" complete incompatibility o# o tlook might be pleaded as a bar" i#a pro#essional soldier desired" witho t abandoning his pro#ession" to beenrolled among the 3ociety o# ,riends.

1". These considerations may be cultual as well as merely moral.

+ore than this" there may be c lt al incompatibility which is not moralincompatibility. 0h s" in a religio s body whose members laid stress on (thegathering o# themsel'es together"( a man conscientio sly con'inced that allprayer was waste o# time" who wo ld conse ently re# se to take any partin p blic worship" wo ld clearly be o t o# place. 3imilarly" an obser'er o# the

7ewish 3abbath who re# sed to take any notice o# 3 nday might be re ectedby a body interested in 3 nday obser'ance.

1$. #nswer to 13: ;es, if the body be of human origin and !alue. )o, if it beof di!ine, for a di!ine society is too important a thing to be regulated byconsiderations of its own con!enience.

B t these p rely moral and c lt al considerations can be sed as a basis o#excl sion only i# and inso#ar as the body in estion does not pro#ess to beo# ni ely di'ine instit tion and the sole tr e representati'e o# # lly-re'ealed religion. 0heir bearing" so #ar as we ha'e hitherto considered it" is

social only" and" i# the spirit al pri'ileges #or#eited by excl sion #rom thebody are considerable" it becomes a estion whether iss es o# socialcon'enience sho ld be allowed to weigh6 o ght not the weaker brother" #orall his #o r wi'es and his re# sal to attend ch rch" to be admitted tomembership" i# only as a weaker brother

It appears that he sho ld" nless the taboos which excl de him are o# anorigin and a certainty no less di'ine than the pri'ileges #rom which excl siondebars him. In a word" a society o# h man #o ndation" g arding h manpri'ileges--a bene'olent society" #or example--is at liberty to re ectapplicants on gro nds which claim no more than the sanction o# h maninstinct or h man theory--s ch a society may" #or example" excl de all

except total abstainers. B t a society which claims to be o# di'ine#o ndation and to be the tr stee o# di'ine pri'ileges can excl de only where


8/18


9/18

carry s.

1 . Three possible groundwor s of quali6catory beliefs= reducingthemsel!es to two: '1( a written contract, '2( a li!ing !oice.

It does not appear that any religio s system has e'er appealed to ana thority which was not expressed in one o# three ways:

1. By s pernat ral ill mination accorded to indi'id als generally in momentso# prophetic exaltation.

?. By the written word" which is really a 'ariant o# %1&" since it impliesill mination granted to an indi'id al %or set o# indi'id als& the content o#which has been committed to paper. In some systems the re'elation oncegi'en is closed #or all time6 in others" it is capable o# being s pplemented by#resh ill mination accorded later.

@. By certain powers o# inerrant dgment 'ested in an indi'id al or set o#indi'id als and g aranteed to operate only when s ch and s ch conditionsare n)lled. It seems clear that any s ch s ccession o# indi'id als demandssome process o# co-optation" in order to ins re that the empowered oCcials$ and G are the legitimate s ccessors o# ! and B.

Red ced to a logical abs rdity" principle %1& wo ld mean simply (one manone ch rch.( 0he people who ote the text (!ll thy people shall be ta ghto# ;od( do not make this claim" b t it is do bt# l i# they o ght not to. I#"contrary to 3aint *a l=s ass mption" all were apostles and all prophets" a$h rch like that at $orinth might di'ide itsel#" not simply into #ollowers o#*a l and #ollowers o# $ephas" b t into a n mber o# sects e al to then mber o# those who had been members o# the $h rch" each regarding theill minations accorded to himsel# as o# paramo nt a thority andexcomm nicating the rest i# and inso#ar as they disagreed with him. emight ha'e s pposed" o# co rse" that a mirac lo s consens s o# opinionwo ld be granted to all who earnestly ask the g idance o# the 2oly 3pirit"witho t # rther ado" b t the history o# $hristendom does not #orti#y s in thisopinion.

!s a matter o# #act" pri'ate inspirations are more s ally claimed by a largen mber o# people #or some one person o# special spirit al gi#ts6 i# thecontent o# this re'elation is s Cciently startling to make the disciples

disown" or be disowned by" the religio s body #rom which they started" thenew inspiration" in passing into an instit tion" necessarily comes to baseitsel# either on the principle o# the Bible or on that o# the $h rch.

Aither the original #o nder=s words are care# lly treas red in writing" and"while s sceptible o# expansion or o# interpretation" are not considereds sceptible o# alteration or correction" or else a s ccession o# prophets hassomehow to be g aranteed" mediating a s ccession o# di'ine ill minationsade ate to any emergency that may arise. e can" in #act" ha'e no arrelwith pri'ate inspirations as s ch--they ha'e been granted to 3t. ;ertr de"3t. 0eresa" Blessed +argaret +ary" etc.6 they do not in reality #orm a distinctbasis o# a thority ntil they become the #o ndations either o# a new Bible or

o# a new $h rch.


10/18

0h s we can neglect the )rst o# o r three headings and say that only a Bibleor a $h rch" or some compromise between or combination o# the two" cangi'e s the a thority which we )nd necessary to the delimitation o# a 'isible$h rch.

2 . 4hether a priori or on grounds of e perience, it is di


11/18

teach and the Bible to pro'e.( hether" in this case" the de)nient a thoritydoes not become also the ltimate a thority is a diCc lt estion" b t doesnot concern s here6 it is eno gh #or o r p rposes that any religio s bodymay be #orced" and m st be prepared to be #orced" to prod ce an a thority#or what it holds in common" e'en on estions o# morality6 this willprobably be the #ate o# most religio s bodies soon on the cardinal problemo# the dissol bility or indissol bility o# marriage.

22. The principle of >one man, one !ote> does not sol!e the problem ofauthority.

2owe'er excellent the p rely democratic principle may be in a co ntry or ina )ctitio s instit tion s ch as a cl b--the principle" that is" o# co nting headsto a'oid breaking them --a (poll o# the members( does not seem to be anexpedient o#ten adopted by religio s bodies. 0he reason is not diCc lt to)nd.

! ma ority may ha'e a right to decide on a p rely practical point--e.g.whether seats sho ld be #ree or rented--in matters where only the well-beingo# the body as a h man society is concerned. B t i# the problem be" not toarri'e at the will o# the society" b t to arri'e at the will o# ;od" it is not to bewondered at i# an appeal to the 'ote lea'es the minority ncon'inced andprepared #or schism. (0hey are sla'es who dare not be in the right with twoor three.( e ha'e no di'ine g arantee that the 'oice o# the people will bethe 'oice o# ;od6 rather" we m st be prepared to expect that in any societywhich is not 'iolently rigorist" the ma ority will be largely composed o#people whose spirit al insight is not o# the keenest.

23. # !ariation of the popular principle&&the conciliar theory.

0here is" howe'er" a 'ariation o# this theory which" discredited as it is now"appears to ha'e commended itsel# to solid thinkers--the 0ractarians. 0his isthe p re conciliar theory" according to which certain representati'es o# thebody" meeting in concla'e" were act ally pre'ented by the o'err linginH ence o# ;od #rom arri'ing at a #alse concl sion. 3 ch a body is notrepresentati'e in the strict sense" #or e'en i# all the members o# it had beenpop larly elected" it was still not in 'irt e o# their election" b t in 'irt e o# aspecial gi#t ab e tra that they were preser'ed #rom error. 0he diCc lty o#this doctrine is two#old.

2". i


12/18

2$. # more modern conciliar !iew.

0he conciliar doctrine there#ore seems to ha'e ndergone an amendment inrecent times" and the decisions o# the co ncils are now claimed as binding%or something like it& not on the gro nd that the co ncils were directlyinspired" b t on the gro nd that the $h rch" by no s dden show o# hands"b t by slow processes o# assimilation and re ection" came to hold one 'iewor the other and so rati)ed the decree.

3 ch a 'iew can at least claim texts s ch as (2e shall g ide yo into alltr th"( (!ll thy people shall be ta ght o# ;od"( etc. It does not seem diCc ltto s ppose that ;od has implanted in the hearts o# those who endea'or tokeep the nity o# the 3pirit an in#allible tendency toward" or instinct #or" thetr th which" like the red corp scles o# a healthy body" e ects nat rally thein'asions o# alien doctrine.

3 ch a 'iew is also 'ery com#ortable at the present day. I# we are preparedto look pon the ecclesiastical history o# the last #o r h ndred years as aninterl de" and to call by the name o# $hristian all those who serio sly claimthe title" we can console o rsel'es with the hope that perhaps a#ter all the

estions raised at and since the Re#ormation are only specially gristlymo th# ls" which the $h rch is slowly taking her time to digest6 nothing issettled as yet" b t" being all $h rchmen" we shall ine'itably" in the end"come to see things in the same light. *robably this 'iew is held" in one #ormor another" by almost all $hristians o tside the Roman and Aastern$h rches who are serio sly exercised abo t the estion o# $h rch nityand $h rch a thority.

2*. This !iew seems to put us bac where we were before.

0his doctrine" in the #orm in which it has become pop lar amongoncon#ormists and laxiorist !nglicans" is destr cti'e o# the whole principle

o# a 'isible $h rch or an a dible a thority. I# we belie'e what we belie'eabo t the 0rinity" not in obedience to #orm las laid down at icaea andelsewhere b t beca se ($hristians( ha'e in co rse o# time come to belie'es ch doctrines and #o nd them s ited to their religio s needs" then we m stbe prepared to re'ise those belie#s in con#ormity with what ($hristians( arecoming to belie'e or may come to belie'e abo t the di'ine nat re" #orti)ednow by methods o# criticism wholly di


13/18

0here is" howe'er" a re)nement o# this doctrine commonly held among morerigorist !nglicans. !ccording to this 'iew" altho gh the $h rch does make pits mind" not by s dden conciliar ill mination" b t by a grad al process o#assimilation" yet the doctrines once so assimilated ha'e become (de)ned(and there#ore irre'ersible %howe'er m ch they may admit o# interpretation&.

0he $h rch may make p her mind" cent ries hence" on s ch a point as thewithholding o# the chalice or %#rom their point o# 'iew& the Immac late$onception" b t what has once been sealed" in the early ages" is sealed #ore'er--e.g. the marriage laws" the three creeds" the three orders o# theministry" at least two sacraments" etc. 3ince the schism between the Aastand the est" the $h rch has been nable to #orm late any opinion which(co nts"( seeing that she has been di'ided.

B t we m st press #or an answer: Go we hold s ch and s ch doctrines to beo# #aith beca se the $h rch has come to belie'e them or beca se they ha'ebeen de)ned by co ncils I# the #ormer" then what right ha'e we to ass me

that the $h rch has )nally made p her mind on %say& the doctrine o# the 0rinity hy sho ld the process o# doctrinal de'elopment ha'e petri)ed2ow are we to disting ish between kernel and h sk" between what intraditional belie# is part o# the depositum 6dei and what is merely accidentaland s ited to the needs o# an age e #all back once more on pri'ateopinion to determine this" which it does with no certain so nd.

I# on the other hand we say that the co ncils are the de)ning 'oice" b t weaccept them not inso#ar as they spoke in the heat o# contro'ersy" b t inso#aras they registered belie#s which by their time had become n estioned--i#"that is to say" the contro'ersy on circ mcision was really settled at icaea"and the contro'ersy on !rianism at $onstantinople" and so on--then indeedwe a'oid all skeptical diCc lties abo t (snap 'otes"( ( nd e inH ence"( andthe like" b t are we really better o< 0here still remains the ob ection thatwe ha'e no proo# that a ma ority can de)ne a generally accepted doctrineany more than decide a contro'ersy" with the ass rance o# di'inerati)cation.

2 . 4e are, in fact, still left with a circular argument or a bare con6dence innumbers.

In #act" whether it be the contin o s history o# the co ncils or thecontin o s history o# the $h rch at large to which we appeal when we say

that this or that doctrine is irre'ersible" we are still arg ing in a circle. !skedwhat is the orthodox #aith" we say" ( hat was and is belie'ed by theorthodox $h rch.( *ressed as to what the orthodox $h rch may be" we #allback on de)ning it as the body which holds the orthodox #aith. I# all theApiscopal $h rches o# the world were re- nited tomorrow and had a schismthe day a#ter" we sho ld be red ced to 'oting with the ma ority: 0his 'iew iss pported by n prelates-- ieu le !eult 6 that 'iew is s pported by n&1 prelates-- anathema sit . A'en then we sho ld ha'e to admit sadly that it wasle#t #or o r grandchildren to know which party was in the right.

2 . ?ogical outcome of the di!ided Church theory.

I# anybody is disposed to rest content with the 'iew that all appeals #ora thority sho ld be made to the early and nited $h rch" or at best to a


14/18

consens s o# opinion between the $h rch o# Rome and the >rthodox$h rches o# the Aast" he has still to #ace a diCc lty. et him ask thetheologians o# the still ndi'ided $h rch" let him ask any theologian"

estern or Aastern" who wrote between the schism and the beginning o#this cent ry" a pertinent estion : ($an the tr e $h rch o# $hrist lack themark o# 'isible nity ( 0he answer will s rely be ( o.( !nd th s the 'erya thority to which he appeals will be #o nd to disallow the ass mption onwhich he appealed to it.

3 . ?ogical outcome of the bare&ma0ority theory.

I# on the other hand we are disposed to treat the schism between Aast andest on a line with all other schisms and say that the #ragments it le#t

constit te %i& a tr e $h rch and %ii& a schismatic body" then" whate'er theprecise n merical proportion o# bishops" it is diCc lt not to #eel that the

est has it" as representing more di


15/18

nity and orthodoxy still react pon one another6 b t the #act remains thatthe Roman theory does gi'e a test #or de)ning the 6deles witho t the

estion-begging preliminary o# ascertaining who the 6deles are" #rom anexamination o# their tenets.

In #act there can be little do bt that in the est o r labeling o# this party asorthodox and that as heterodox in early $h rch history comes down to s#rom a thors who were applying this test o# orthodoxy and no other and thatwe" at the Re#ormation" made o r appeal %inso#ar as we did make anyappeal& to the $h rches o# 7er salem and !lexandria" meaning thereby notthe estorian or +onophysite claimants to these sees" b t therepresentati'es o# the body %hence admitted as (>rthodox(& which hadremained longest in comm nion with the Roman $h rch.

33. The di


16/18

e sho ld expect that either a single body o# men" kept in close to ch withone another and di'inely g aranteed against serio s doctrinaldisagreement" or %better still& a single man" since in the last resort it is thecasting 'ote that co nts" wo ld be selected #rom among the immediate#ollowers o# the ,o nder" in the last resort the sa#e camp to pitch yo r tent

nder. et s s ppose a single man. e sho ld expect that s ch a manwo ld be open to ad'ice" e'en %i# he seemed to be hesitating in #ollowing hisconscience& to reproo# #rom the highest oCcials ro nd him.

0hat" as the )rst missionary work was done" while the ,o nder=s words werestill #resh in men=s ears and his chosen disciples yet ali'e" little reco rsewo ld be had to s ch a man or indeed be geographically possible. 0hatwhile disagreements wo ld be #ew in that blessed s nrise %except perhapsin connection with some who #rom the )rst had misconcei'ed the scope o#the whole enterprise&" these disagreements wo ld be dealt with locally" ontheir own a thority" by other oCcials who saw their d ty clearly.

0hat the malcontents in these cases wo ld attempt to plead the a thority o# the absent %let s call him& and that the oCcial they were opposing wo ld%while insisting on his own exceptional knowledge o# the ,o nder=sintentions& be occasionally at pains to show that his 'iews did not di


17/18

%0here are other ways" clearly" in which the thing might be managed" b t inthe absence o# a claim on the part o# any other s ccession o# persons to acaliphate o# this description" this way o# managing it wo ld seem a 'erynat ral one.&

3*. Early centrifugal inAuences to be e pected.

e sho ld expect that while the congregations in 'ario s parts were poor"scattered" and persec ted" there sho ld be little interco rse between the$h rch at J and those elsewhere %altho gh it wo ld nat rally be mentionedwith some de#erence" when mentioned at all&. 0hat the $h rch" rather thanthe bishop" wo ld be the ob ect o# respect# l all sion" since %1& his powerderi'ed #rom his position" %?& the local ch rch was more o# a distinct nitwhen con'erts were #ew" %@& the bishop himsel# wo ld be likely to li'e insome obsc rity owing to his exposed position in time o# persec tion.

0hat we sho ld not )nd him inter#ering in the a


18/18

standing.

2 man nat re being what it is it is only nat ral that this temporal a thoritysho ld at times be wielded by persons who attempted to exercise a directinH ence on the co ncils o# the $h rch by intrig ing #or the appointment o#this or that candidate #or 'acant sees" by (s mmoning( co ncils in

nrepresentati'e geographical conditions" etc. >wing to the #orce o# thesec lar arm" the candidate #a'ored by s ch a r ler in a gi'en case wo ld belikely to gain the temporalities o# the see" and the dispossessed candidate"were he right or wrong in his 'iews" wo ld appeal #rom this sec larcomp lsion to the bishop o# J.

0he sec lar r ler wo ld there#ore make e'ery enly at time o# openbreach between the Bishop o# J and the Amperor o# $ wo ld the casede)nitely present itsel# to the conscience--Is it to be ;od or $aesar

,or so long as" and inso#ar as" the ch rches acc stomed to look to $ #or alead were nited by the nity o# #aith with the bishop o# J" they wo ld be

rightly called (orthodox"( b t at whate'er periods they s pported the bishopo# $ against the bishop o# J they wo ld be #ormally disobedient" withwhate'er exc se o# de)cient in#ormation" etc. I# at any time a de)nite and#ormal breach took place" the party" howe'er large or important" whichsided against J wo ld be g ilty o# #ormal schism. 2owe'er #aith# llyhence#orward they g arded the deposit common to the ch rches o# $ and o#

J" they wo ld ne'ertheless be c t o< #rom the nity o# the $h rch.

sgr. 7onald Dno '1 &1 $+(, a con!ert from #nglicanism, was famedfor his 5ible translation and his detecti!e stories.

the essentials of spiritual unity.doc

Documents