2. Outward unity easily secured. The "catholic" means for securing unity. Horrors of the рарасу. Antagonism of Roman, Greek, Anglican. Catholicity. The claim of mere extension. The Roman definition. Vincent's dictum. No one church, as organized, catholic. All belonging to Christ in the Catholic Church. 3. Sanctity. Are the catholic churches holy? New Testament "saints." The worship of catholic churches not holy. No one church is holy. Catholic churches purest in protestant lands. 4. Apostolicity. 5. Tertullian quoted. Iranæus quoted as to tradition. Writings more important than tradition. To be apostolic is to be true to the apostles. The two tests applied. Infallibility worthless as a test. The true oneness of The Church. The catholic error, seeking organic unity. Moberly's admission. Hatch on church formations. The unity of The Church is from above. The unity of faith, hope, love. Charles Hodge quoted. The prayer of Jesus. Spiritual, blood, union with differences. Köstlin (Herzog Ency.) quoted. Ethical unity. Excommunications and force. Paul on unity. "All ye are brethren." The unity after which we strive; of Faith. The disturbance by doctrines. The unity of Hope. The catholic error as to this hope. The unity of Love. The hospitality of the early church. Charity. The prayer in the Didache. Conclusion: Christ is The Church. XIV THE MARKS OF THE CHURCH THE whole question as to what The Church is can easily be foreclosed and prejudged by defining The Church in the terms of a church and by assuming that the supposed marks of a particular church are the signs positive of The Church. Thus, Cardinal Gibbons says: "Lest we should be mistaken in distinguishing between the true Church and false sects, which our Lord predicted would arise, He was pleased to stamp upon His Church certain shining marks by which every sincere inquirer could easily recognize this as His only Spouse. The principal marks or characteristics of the True Church are her Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity, to which may be added the Infallibility of her teaching and the Perpetuity of her existence (་་ "Faith of our Fathers," p. 11). " So also in the creed determined at Constantinople (381 A. D.) it is confessed: "I believe (in) one holy, catholic, apostolic church." It has been quite common in discussions concerning The Church, to allow that these are the marks of The Church and also to let some one church put its own interpretation on these marks. The preliminary question therefore, is: How shall we determine what the marks of The Church are, and then we can inquire as to where these marks are found. Are we involved in a vicious circle of reasoning? Are we to conclude concerning The Church from our concept of it, or are we to derive our concept from our knowledge of The Church? Shall we detect The Church by marks, or deduce the marks from The Church? The Church must exist concretely before one can form any abstract notion as to The Church. The Church is not a bundle of notions. The Church is the name given to an historical fact. There was something to which the name "Ecclesia' was given. Our notion of the marks of this thing must be derived from the thing itself. When and only when we know the historical Church, can we affirm such and such are its marks. What are the marks of a man? Unless I have a perception of man I can form no concept of him. What are the marks of a state? Unless I have a perception of a state I cannot say what its marks are. We distinguish between what is essential to the man, or the state, and what is accidental. I see that the colour of a man's skin, his size, etc., are not essential. I see that a state may be aristocratic, autocratic or democratic, and that these do not affect its being. I would be guilty of the same bad logic of which the catholic is guilty, who says that a church must be episcopal, if I were to say, a state must be monarchical, or a man must be white or black. I do, indeed, perceive that certain animals may and must be classed together, and called for convenience, man. I perceive that certain associations of men must be classified, as family, or state. So I perceive that oth ers have a distinct raison d'être, namely: the maintenance and performance of religious life and service in a fashion which has its origin in Jesus Christ. These associations I must call churches, because they correspond with a recognizable percept, a body of men associated together by means of the Spirit of Jesus Christ and to perpetuate His life and work. To say that these men must associate all in one mode or fashion is like saying that all governments must be republican. It may be that a church has other marks than those which characterize The Church, e. g., episcopacy or presbytery, immersion or celibacy. There is no correct way of forming an abstract notion of what The Church ought to be apart from the knowledge of The Church. Have we a percept of The Church? Surely, we have it in the person of Jesus Christ Himself who is The Church; we have it less clearly perhaps, yet discernibly, in the disciples whom He gathered about Himself and to whom He gave communion. The Church, we perceive in the company of those who believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant and who more and more gave him supremacy in their lives, and multiplied His influence in others who were brought to acknowledge that Jesus was the Christ, Mediator and Redeemer. To ascertain what the marks of The Church are, we should first study Him who was, historically, the new fountain and source of Church life. As we have seen there is a very real sense in which The Church did not originate with Christ, so far as it means the company |