In the so-called Orthodox catechism it is said: By the one Christian Church is understood the Orthodox, which remains fully

In the so-called Orthodox catechism it is said: By the one

Christian Church is understood the Orthodox, which remains fully

in accord with the Universal Church.  As for the Roman Church and

other sects (the Lutherans and the rest they do not even dignify

by the name of church), they cannot be included in the one true

Church, since they have themselves separated from it.

According to this definition the Catholics and Lutherans are

outside the Church, and there are only Orthodox in the Church.

The Lutheran catechism says: "Die wahre kirche wird darein

erkannt, dass in ihr das Wort Gottes lauter und rein ohne

Menschenzusätze gelehrt and die Sacramente treu nach Christi

Einsetzung gewahret werden." [Footnote: "The true Church will be

known by the Word of God being studied clear and unmixed with

man's additions and the sacraments being maintained faithful to

Christ's teaching."

According to this definition all those who have added anything to

the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the Catholic and Greek

churches have done, are outside the Church.  And in the Church

there are only Protestants.

The Catholics assert that the Holy Ghost has been transmitted

without a break in their priesthood.  The Orthodox assert that the

same Holy Ghost has been transmitted without a break in their

priesthood.  The Arians asserted that the Holy Ghost was

transmitted in their priesthood (they asserted this with just as

much right as the churches in authority now).  The Protestants of

every kind--Lutherans, Reformed Church, Presbyterians, Methodists,

Swedenborgians, Mormons--assert that the Holy Ghost is only

present in their communities.  If the Catholics assert that the

Holy Ghost, at the time of the division of the Church into Arian

and Greek, left the Church that fell away and remained in the one

true Church, with precisely the same right the Protestants of

every denomination can assert that at the time of the separation

of their Church from the Catholic the Holy Ghost left the Catholic

and passed into the Church they professed.  And this is just what

they do.

Every church traces its creed through an uninterrupted

transmission from Christ and the Apostles.  And truly every

Christian creed that has been derived from Christ must have come

down to the present generation through a certain transmission.

But that does not prove that it alone of all that has been

transmuted, excluding all the rest, can be the sole truth,

admitting of no doubt.

Every branch in a tree comes from the root in unbroken connection;

but the fact that each branch comes from the one root, does not

prove at all that each branch was the only one.  It is precisely

the same with the Church.  Every church presents exactly the same

proofs of the succession, and even the same miracles, in support

of its authenticity, as every other.  So that there is but one

strict and exact definition of what is a church (not of something

fantastic which we would wish it to be, but of what it is and has

been in reality)--a church is a body of men who claim for

themselves that they are in complete and sole possession of the

truth.  And these bodies, having in course of time, aided by the

support of the temporal authorities, developed into powerful

institutions, have been the principal obstacles to the diffusion

of a true comprehension of the teaching of Christ.

It could not be otherwise.  The chief peculiarity which

distinguished Christ's teaching from previous religions consisted

in the fact that those who accepted it strove ever more and more

to comprehend and realize its teaching.  But the Church doctrine

asserted its own complete and final comprehension and realization

of it.

Strange though it may seem to us who have been brought up in the

erroneous view of the Church as a Christian institution, and in

contempt for heresy, yet the fact is that only in what was called

heresy was there any true movement, that is, true Christianity,

and that it only ceased to be so when those heresies stopped short

in their movement and also petrified into the fixed forms of a

church.

And, indeed what is a heresy?  Read all the theological works one

after another.  In all of them heresy is the subject which first

presents itself for definition; since every theological work deals

with the true doctrine of Christ as distinguished from the

erroneous doctrines which surround it, that is, heresies.  Yet you

will not find anywhere anything like a definition of heresy.

The treatment of this subject by the learned historian of

Christianity, E. de Pressensé, in his "Histoire du Dogme" (Paris,

1869), under the heading "Ubi Christus, ibi Ecclesia," may serve

as an illustration of the complete absence of anything like a

definition of what is understood by the word heresy. Here is what

he says in his introduction (p. 3):

   "Je sais  que l'on nous conteste le droit de qualifier ainsi

   [that is, to call heresies] les tendances qui furent si

   vivement combattues par les premiers Pères.  La désignation

   même d'hérésie semble une atteinte portée à la liberté de

   conscience et de pensée.  Nous ne pouvons partager ce scrupule,

   car il n'irait à rien moins qu'à enlever au Christianisme tout

   caractère distinctif." [see Footnote]

    [Footnote: "I know that our right to qualify thus the

    tendencies which were so actively opposed by the early

    Fathers is contested.  The very use of the word heresy

    seems an attack upon liberty of conscience and thought.

    We cannot share this scruple; for it would amount to

    nothing less than depriving Christianity of all

    distinctive character."

And though he tells us that after Constantine's time the Church

did actually abuse its power by designating those who dissented

from it as heretics and persecuting them, yet he says, when

speaking of early times:

   "L'église est une libre association; il y a tout profit a se

   séparer d'elle.  La polémique contre l'erreur n'a d'autres

   ressources que la pensée et le sentiment. Un type doctrinal

   uniforme n'a pas encore été élaboré; les divergences

   secondaires se produisent en Orient et en Occident avec une

   entière liberté; la théologie n'est point liée a d'invariables

   formules.  Si au sein de cette diversité apparait un fonds

   commun de croyances, n'est-on pas en droit d'y voir non pas un

   système formulé et composé par les représentants d'une

   autorité d'école, mais la foi elle-même dons son instinct le

   plus sûr et sa manifestation la plus spontanée?  Si cette même

   unanimité qui se révèle dans les croyances essentielles, se

   retrouve pour repousser telles ou telles tendances ne serons

   nous pas en droit de conclure que ces tendances étaient en

   désacord flagrant avec les principes fondamentaux du

   christianisme?  Cette présomption ne se transformerait-elle

   pas en certitude si nous reconnaissons dans la doctrine

   universellement repoussée par l'Église les traits

   caractéristiques de l'une des religions du passé?  Pour dire

   que le gnosticisme ou l'ébionitisme sont les formes légitimes

   de la pensée chrétienne il faut dire hardiment qu'il n'y a pas

   de pensée chrétienne, ni de caractère spécifique qui la fasse

   reconnaître.  Sous prétexte de l'élargir, on la dissout.

   Personne au temps de Platon n'eût osé couvrir de son nom une

Tweet