Unity
Unity
The idea of unity is one of those that are most pervasive in the apostolic writings; and naturally so. Christianity is the religion of reconciliation; and, fully recognizing the radical character of the antagonisms that reveal themselves in experience, it everywhere discloses a profounder unity in which these opposites are harmonized. While it does not assume the function of a philosophy, it does claim to give, from the moral and teleological standpoint, a synthetic view, and, indeed, the only synthetic view, of reality; in Christ it finds the way, the truth, and the life by which the unity of God and man and the whole universe of being must be finally achieved.
On the cardinal issue, existence is seen both as a unity and as a duality. The duality is wholly and tragically real. Physical evil is no illusion, but is the correlate of moral evil; and moral evil is not an inevitable stage in the evolution of moral good, but is sin, that which absolutely ought not to be. Yet this duality exists within the circumference, so to say, of an eternal unity before and after; an original self-existent principle of evil is excluded by NT thought. On the other hand, it attempts no solution of the problem how duality has arisen out of pre-existent unity; it is content to trace sin back to the beginning of human history, or, if further, to the agency of a Tempter who had himself fallen from his first estate. Its interest in the problem is not at all speculative, but solely practical-to emphasize, on the one hand, the fact of mans innate sinfulness, and, on the other, the fact that sin is precisely that which has no point of origination in the Divine causality, but is in essential antagonism to the nature and will of God.
1. The Being of God as the primal source of all unity.-(a) As against all polytheistic or dualistic systems, apostolic thought posits this as its first truth (1Co 8:4; 1Co 8:6, Eph 4:6, Jam 2:19). And this ensures a unity in nature and history. Although the marks of imperfection and disorganization are everywhere seen upon the face of Creation, although it is in bondage to the law of decay and corruption, and is the scene of apparently fruitless tragedy (Rom 8:20-22), yet it is pervaded by a unity of rational purpose and control (Rom 8:28, Act 27:22-24); and this is true not only of natural processes and events, but of those that are brought about by the volition of men or other free agents (Act 2:23; Act 21:10-14, 2Co 12:7).
(b) The Divine nature is ethically a unity-light in which there is no darkness at all. God is faithful (1Jn 1:9, 2Ti 2:13), unchangeably self-consistent (Jam 1:17). His different modes of action upon different objects only prove the immutability of His moral nature (Rom 2:6-10, 2Th 1:6-7; 2Pe 2:4-9). And the centre of this unity, from which all His ethical attributes derive, is Love; the ultimate explanation of all that God does, and purposes, and permits is-God is Love (1Jn 4:8). Hence, also, the Righteousness of God, His Will as imperative for all beings capable of ethical life, is a unity. His Law is an ethical organism, expressing in every part the same principle (Rom 13:8-10), to violate which in one point is virtually to violate the whole (Jam 2:10). Hence, again, sin is a unity. Within all individual sins () there lives that ( ) which makes them to be sinful. St. Paul almost personifies this principle of sin (Rom 7:11; Rom 7:14). St. John defines it as , lawlessness, the assertion of an evil egoistic will against the perfectly good will of God (1Jn 3:4). Sin is not seen in its true character until it is seen in its unity.
2. Unity of mediation.-The explanation of the dualism we are conscious of in experience is not found, as in Gnosticism, in the transition from the transcendent God to the created universe. The unity of the Divine self-existence is not lost when related to other being; its fullness is not portioned out in successive separate emanations. There is one God, and one Mediator (1Co 8:6, 1Ti 2:5)-He who became in human history the man Christ Jesus. In Him, as the Image and Only-begotten of the Father, the undivided fullness of the Godhead dwells (Joh 1:14, Col 2:9); and He is not only, by His Incarnation, the one Mediator to mankind of all Divine life, truth, and saving grace, but the Divine agent in all creation (Joh 1:3, Col 1:16), and the principle of its unity (Col 1:17). See Fulness; Mediation.
3. The unity of man.-(a) The generic unity, physical and moral, of mankind (already seen in the OT and in Stoicism) is a presupposition of Christian soteriology; human nature has everywhere the same spiritual capacities, needs the same salvation, and is capable of appropriating it by the same means (Rom 1:16, etc.). This unity is categorically affirmed (Act 17:26); historically it has its source in descent from one common primal ancestor (Rom 5:14-19, 1Co 15:22; 1Co 15:47), but ultimately in the fact that man as man is the image and offspring of God (Act 17:28-29).
(b) Hence there is unity as regards responsibility. Apart from special revelation, man possesses a rational and moral nature, made for the knowledge and love of God, with capacities for discerning the self-manifestations of God in His creative and providential activities (Act 14:17, Rom 1:19-21); and especially does conscience bear witness to the sovereign imperative of His righteousness (Rom 2:14-15).
(c) But, actually, unity in responsibility has become unity in sin. Human character has become corrupt at its hereditary source (Rom 5:12; Rom 5:17-19; Rom 5:4 Ezr Rom 3:26, Apoc. Bar. liv. 15, 19); human life universally characterized by wilful sin (Rom 3:9-20), involving guilt (Rom 3:19) and that separation from God (Eph 4:18, Col 1:21) which is death (Rom 6:23, Eph 2:1; Eph 2:5, Col 2:13).
4. Unity of redemption.-(a) For the common human need one common redemption is provided (Act 4:12, Rom 10:4; Rom 10:12, 1Jn 2:2), to be received by the same means (Rom 4:11-16, Gal 2:16, 1Jn 1:7-9), working to the same issues of forgiveness (Rom 8:1, Rev 1:5), reconciliation to God (Rom 5:1; Rom 5:10, 2Co 5:18-21), enduement with the Spirit (Rom 8:1-16), eternal life (Rom 5:17; Rom 5:21, 1Jn 5:11; 1Jn 5:13; 1Jn 5:20). Possessing such fellowship with God in Christ, as the source of their common life and object of their common faith, Christians also possess a unique spiritual affinity and fellowship with each other. And, in the Apostolic Age, the consciousness of unity reaches its intensest point in the conception of this fellowship, alike Divine and human, as embodied in the Church. In this, racial and social distinctions-Jew and Gentile, bond and free-serve only to emphasize and enhance the fact that those who are united in Christ, however different in all else, have immeasurably more in common than those who are separated by Christ, however alike in every other respect (1Co 7:22, Gal 3:28, Eph 2:11-22). So, also, distinctions of custom and even of conviction do not disappear (Rom 14:5); yet even such diverse interpretations of truth and duty ought only to evoke a fuller realization of supreme truth and duty, the faith and love in which all are one. Unity is emphasized as against mere uniformity (1 Corinthians 12). In the spiritual body, as in the physical, a rich diversity of gift and function is necessary to the complete expression of the organic life-principle (Rom 14:4-6). It is only in its complex collective unity that renewed humanity can reach its Divine ideal (Eph 4:11-13).
(b) But in the Pauline Epistles it is seen that, Christ being what He is, universal Mediator and Lord, He is destined to become by His reconciling work the centre of a unity that embraces all existence, and that is essential even for the full redemption of man. Christ must be Head over all things to His Body, which is the Church (Eph 1:22); hostile elemental forces must be subdued (1Co 15:24, Eph 1:21); all things, whether on earth or in heaven, must come under His reconciling sway (Col 1:20), and the whole creation be emancipated into the liberty that belongs to the glorified state of Gods children (Rom 8:21), that God may be all in all (1Co 15:28).
5. The final unity.-As has been said, the NT attempts no solution of the problem how duality has arisen out of an original unity, and the same is largely true of the converse problem, how the existent duality is to be finally overcome, resolved into the eternal unity of Divine truth and love. One thing only is seen as a certainty for Christian faith: of such unity Christ is the sole cause and ever-living centre. He must reign: it is unto Him that all things must be subdued; it is as the fruit of His sacrifice that God will reconcile all things unto Himself; it is in His name that every knee shall bow, Him that every tongue must confess as Lord, to the glory of God the Father. But in apostolic thought (which here virtually means Pauline) the age to come seems to be viewed in different perspectives. In the one the curtain falls upon an unresolved or, at any rate, imperfectly resolved dualism. Christs enemies are made His footstool; yet their subjection, if not merely physical, is not completely moral. Evil is still evil, though in chains and, to this extent, subject to the righteousness of God. This is the vision which arises when the final issue is viewed from the side of human freedom and responsibility. If absolute finality is not ascribed to the spiritual choices of the present, the future of those who in this present world reject the life-giving Spirit is left in unrelieved gloom. From another point of view, the necessary consummation of Christs victory is seen to be nothing less than the moral unification of all existence. The ruin wrought by Adam and the redemption wrought by Christ seem to be co-extensive in human history (Rom 5:16, 1Co 15:22); and in the dispensation of the fullness of the times it is Gods purpose to bring all things again into unity () in Christ (Eph 1:10; cf. Col 1:19-20, Php 2:9-11). When Christs work is done, God will be all in all (1Co 15:28). And this is the vision that arises when the final issue is regarded from the side of Divine sovereignty and purpose. As to the means by which such a consummation may be hereafter achieved the NT is silent. Again it has to be said that its interest in the problem is wholly practical, not speculative-to emphasize the fact that there is complete, eternal deliverance and blessedness for all who are Christs; that in some sense, at some time, by some means beyond our ken, Christ will be universally victorious, because God is God, and God is Love.
Robert Law.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Unity
The marks of the Church are certain unmistakeable signs, or distinctive characteristics which render the Church easily recognizable to all, and clearly distinguish it from every other religious society, especially from those which claim to be Christian in doctrine and origin. That such external signs are necessary to the true Church is plain from the aim and the purpose which Christ had in view when He made His revelation and founded a Church. The purpose of the redemption was the salvation of men. Hence, Christ made known the truths which men must heed and obey. He established a Church to which He committed the care and the exposition of these truths, and, consequently He made it obligatory on all men that they should know and hear it (Matthew 18:17). It is obvious that this Church, which takes the place of Christ, and is to carry on His work by gathering men into its fold and saving their souls, must be evidently discernible to all. There must be no doubt as to which is the true Church of Christ, the one which has received, and has preserved intact the Revelation which He gave it for man’s salvation. Were it otherwise the purpose of the Redemption would be frustrated, the blood of the Saviour shed in vain, and man’s eternal destination at the mercy of chance. Without doubt, therefore, Christ, the all-wise legislator, impressed upon His Church some distinctive external marks by which, with the use of ordinary diligence, all can distinguish the real Church from the false, the society of truth from the ranks of error. These marks flow from the very essence of the Church; they are properties inseparable from its nature and manifestive of its character, and, in their Christian and proper sense, can be found in no other institution. In the Formula of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), four marks of the Church are mentioned — unity, sanctity, Catholicity, Apostolicity — which are believed by most theologians to be exclusively the marks of the True Church. The present article considers unity.
I. Some False Notions of Unity
All admit that unity of some kind is indispensable to the existence of any well-ordered society, civil, political, or religious. Many Christians, however, hold that the unity necessary for the true Church of Christ need be nothing more than a certain spiritual internal bond, or, if external, it need be only in a general way, inasmuch as all acknowledge the same God and reverence the same Christ. Thus most Protestants think that the only union necessary for the Church is that which comes from faith, hope, and love toward Christ; in worshipping the same God, obeying the same Lord, and in believing the same fundamental truths which are necessary for salvation. This they regard as a unity of doctrine, organization, and cult. A like spiritual unity is all the Greek schismatics require. So long as they profess a common faith, are governed by the same general law of God under a hierarchy, and participate in the same sacraments, they look upon the various churches — Constantinople, Russian, Antiochene, etc. — as enjoying the union of the one true Church; there is the common head, Christ, and the one Spirit, and that suffices. The Anglicans likewise teach that the one Church of Christ is made up of three branches: the Greek, the Roman, and the Anglican, each having a different legitimate hierarchy but all united by a common spiritual bond.
II. True Notion of Unity
The Catholic conception of the mark of unity, which must characterize the one Church founded by Christ, is far more exacting. Not only must the true Church be one by an internal and spiritual union, but this union must also be external and visible, consisting in and growing out of a unity of faith, worship, and government. Hence the Church which has Christ for its founder is not to be characterized by any merely accidental or internal spiritual union, but, over and above this, it must unite its members in unity of doctrine, expressed by external, public profession; in unity of worship, manifested chiefly in the reception of the same sacraments; and in unity of government, by which all its members are subject to and obey the same authority, which was instituted by Christ Himself. In regard to faith or doctrine it may be here objected that in none of the Christian sects is there strict unity, since all of the members are not at all times aware of the same truths to be believed. Some give assent to certain truths which others know nothing of. Here it is important to note the distinction between the habit and the object of faith. The habit or the subjective disposition of the believer, though specifically the same in all, differs numerically according to individuals, but the objective truth to which assent is given is one and the same for all. There may be as many habits of faith numerically distinct as there are different individuals possessing the habit, but it is not possible that there be a diversity in the objective truths of faith. The unity of faith is manifested by all the faithful professing their adhesion to one and the same object of faith. All admit that God, the Supreme Truth, is the primary author of their faith, and from their explicit willingness to submit to the same external authority to whom God has given the power to make known whatever has been revealed, their faith, even in truths explicitly unknown, is implicitly external. All are prepared to believe whatever God has revealed and the Church teaches. Similarly, accidental differences in ceremonial forms do not in the least interfere with essential unity of worship, which is to be regarded primarily and principally in the celebration of the same sacrifice and in the reception of the same sacraments. All are expressive of the one doctrine and subject to the same authority.
III. The True Church of Christ Is One
That the Church which Christ instituted for man’s salvation must be one in the strict sense of the term just explained, is already evident from its very nature and purpose; truth is one, Christ revealed the truth and gave it to His Church, and men are to be saved by knowing and following the truth. But the essential unity of the true Christian Church is also explicitly and repeatedly declared throughout the New Testament: Speaking of His Church, the Saviour called it a kingdom, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God (Matthew 13:24, 31, 33; Luke 13:18; John 18:36); He compared it to a city the keys of which were entrusted to the Apostles (Matthew 5:14; 16:19), to a sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17); to a vine and its branches, to a house built upon a rock against which not even the powers of hell should ever prevail (Matthew 16:18). Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him — for His Church — that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23); and He had already warned them that “every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matthew 12:25). These words of Christ are expressive of the closest unity.
St. Paul likewise insists on the unity of the Church. Schism and disunion he brands as crimes to be classed with murder and debauchery, and declares that those guilty of “dissensions” and “sects” shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). Hearing of the schisms among the Corinthians, he asked impatiently: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:13). And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: “For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free” (1 Corinthians 12:13). To show the intimate union of the members of the Church with the one God, he asks: “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he teaches the same doctrine, and exhorts them to be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”, and he reminds them that there is but “one body and one spirit-one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:3-6). Already, in one of his very first Epistles, he had warned the faithful of Galatia that if anybody, even an angel from heaven, should preach unto them any other Gospel than that which he had preached, “let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8). Such declarations as these coming from the great Apostle are clear evidence of the essential unity which must be characteristic of the true Christian Church.
The other Apostles also persistently proclaimed this essential and necessary unity of Christ’s Church (cf. 1 John 4:1-7; Apocalypse 2:6, 14-15, 20-29; 2 Peter 2:1-19; Jude 5:19). And although divisions did arise now and then in the early Church, they were speedily put down and the disturbers rejected, so that even from the beginning the Christians could boast that they were of “one heart and one soul” (Acts 4:32; cf. Acts 11:22; 13:1).
Tradition is unanimous to the same effect. Whenever heresy threatened to invade the Church, the Fathers rose up against it as an essential evil. The unity of the Church was the object of nearly all the exhortations of St. Ignatius of Antioch (“Ad Ephes.”, n. 5, 16-17; “Ad Philadelph.”, n. 3). St. Irenaeus went even further, and taught that the test of the one true Church, in which alone was salvation, was its union with Rome (Adv. haeres., III, iii). Tertullian likewise compared the Church to an ark outside of which there is no salvation, and he maintained that only he who embraced every doctrine handed down by the Apostolic Churches, especially by that of Rome, belonged to the true Church (De praescript., xxi). The same contention was upheld by Clement of Alexandria and by Origen, who said that outside the one visible Church none could be saved. St. Cyprian in his treatise on the unity of the Church says: “God is one, and Christ one, and one the Church of Christ” (De eccl. unitate, xxiii); and again in his epistles he insists that there is but “One Church founded upon Peter by Christ the Lord” (Epist. 70, ad Jan.) and that there is but “one altar and one priesthood” (Epist. 40, v). Many more testimonies of unity might be adduced from Saints Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, and the other Fathers, but their teachings are only too well known. The long list of councils, the history and treatment of heretics and heresies in every century show beyond doubt that unity of doctrine of cult, and of authority, has always been regarded as an essential and visible mark of the true Christian Church. As shown above, it was the intention of Christ that His Church should be one, and that, not in any accidental internal way, but essentially and visibly. Unity is the fundamental mark of the Church, for without it the other marks would have no meaning, since indeed the Church itself could not exist. Unity is the source of strength and organization, as discord and schism are of weakness and confusion. Given one supernatural authority which all respect, a common doctrine which all profess, one form of worship subject to the same authority and expressive of the same teaching, centred in one sacrifice and in the reception of the same sacraments, and the other marks of the Church necessarily follow and are easily understood.
That the mark of unity which is distinctive of and essential to the true Church of Christ is to be found in none other than the Roman Catholic Church, follows naturally from what has been said. All the theories of unity entertained by the sects are woefully out of harmony with the true and proper concept of unity as defined above and as taught by Christ, the Apostles, and all orthodox Tradition. In no other Christian body is there a oneness of faith, of worship, and of discipline. Between no two of the hundreds of nonCatholic sects is there a common bond of union; each one having a different head, a different belief, a different cult. Nay more, even between the members of any one sect there is no such thing as real unity, for their first and foremost principle is that each one is free to believe and do as he wishes. They are constantly breaking up into new sects and subdivisions of sects, showing that they have within themselves the seeds of disunion and disintegration. Divisions and subdivisions have ever been the characteristics of Protestantism. This is certainly a literal fulfilment of the words of Christ: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Matthew 15:13); and “every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matthew 12:25).
———————————–
CHARLES J. CALLAN Transcribed by Tomas Hancil
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Unity
as a philosophical term, signifies oneness. Aristotle makes it the element of number, and defines it as indivisibleness. In the Kantian philosophy it is defined as that mental representation in the understanding by which the manifold is thought of as linked together. It is by the same authority classified as anatlytic, or unity of a logical connection; and synthetic, or unity of intentions in the concept of an object. As a theological term, unity is employed to signify a oneness whether of sentiment, affection, or behavior (Psa 133:1). The unity of the faith is an equal belief of the same great truths of God, and the possession of the grace of faith in a similar form and degree (Eph 4:13). The unity of the spirit is that union between Christ and his saints by which the same divine spirit dwells in both, and they have the same disposition and aims; and that unity of the saints among themselves by which, being joined to the same head, and having the same spirit dwelling in them, they have the same graces of faith, hope, love, etc., and are rooted and grounded in the same doctrine of Christ, and bear a mutual affection to each other. When Christian unity is spoken of in the New. Test., it generally means the unity of dispensation for the various classes of converts. It is expressive of the great principle that all were to be under one fold and one Shepherd.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Unity
UNITY.In the NT the term unity, like its Gr. equivalent , occurs only in Eph 4:3; Eph 4:13both times with reference to the unity of the Christian Church (Eph 4:3 the unity of the Spirit, Eph 4:13 the unity of the faith). But the idea of the unity of the Church as the body of Christ is one that constantly meets us both in positive and in negative formsin connexion, i.e., alike with exhortations to Christian unity and with the deprecation and rebuke of schism or of the divisive spirit.
St. Paul in 1 Cor. (1Co 1:13; 1Co 11:18; 1Co 12:25) is the first to use schism () with an approach to its present technical meaning. The , however, which he condemns are parties only in the Church, not sects; strifes, but not separations. There is no suggestion that those who called themselves of Paul had ceased to communicate with those who called themselves of Apollos (1Co 1:12). The divisions apparent in their meetings for worship (1Co 11:13-21) were of class, of richer and poorer (1Co 11:22), and did not prevent the common meeting. The schism deprecated in his parable of body and members (1Co 12:25) amounts only to carelessness of mutual interest; solution of continuity in the body of Christ is not contemplated. The word (Authorized and Revised Versions sect, heresy). comes nearer in NT use to the idea of sect, though it does not reach it. It still denotes any party or faction within a single communion, as of the Sadducees (Act 5:17), of the Pharisees (Act 15:5, Act 26:5), or of Christians considered as a school of Judaism (Act 24:5; Act 24:14, Act 28:22). It goes no farther in Gal 5:20, where are counted among works of the flesh, as the natural sequence of and . In 2Pe 2:1 they are the secret work of pseudoprophets, and are . ; but there is no suggestion that they amounted to separations: they work among you. The strongest expression used on the subject is that of St. Jude (Jud 1:19), who speaks of some as , marking themselves off from their fellows; but apparently only in tone and conductthere was no interruption of formal fellowship: the murmurers still feasted with the Church, and were present at its . The Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6; Rev 2:15) were a party within the Church, not a separation from it. The idea of communions severally arranged upon differing bases of opinion or order does not exist within the NT thought. What is conceived as possible, only to be reprobated, is the tendency to faction, or the spirit of party, or the divisive course: as for actual schism .
1. Our Lords personal teaching on the subject is positive, not negative; He inculcates unity rather than forbids division. It is to be gathered (1) from His example, (2) from His recorded sayings.
(1) The condition of religion in the Jewish commonwealth of His time was profoundly unsatisfactory to Him. It called forth His sharp rebuke. Its teachers, their doctrine and their practice, incurred His denunciation. The Temple demanded cleansing at His hands; the synagogues were in possession of those scribes and lawyers and Pharisees on whom He cried Woe, as hypocrites. Nevertheless, He bade His disciples respect their authority and obey their ordinancesalways without imitating their conduct. They sit in Moses seat (Mat 23:2); a seat self-assumed,their office had no recognition in the Law,but in a sense they represented the prophetic succession, and de facto stood for constituted order. Christ neither separated Himself, nor allowed others to separate, on the ground of their corruption, error, or abuse of power; though He recognized that all these existed, and protested against them. His custom was to go up to the synagogue on the Sabbath days. He observed the Feasts of the Temple, that of the Dedication (which had only customary sanction) as well as those prescribed. His example suggests no extremity of circumstance under which separation from the Divine Society becomes the course of duty.
(2) His express teaching is as emphatic as the circumstances permit us to expect. He establishes a Kingdom which in time and place is to be represented by the Ecclesia which He will build upon the confession of Himself (Mat 16:18). The essential unity of the Kingdom necessarily reflects itself in the unity of the representative society. Unity is involved in the fact that its bond is a relation to Himself: the one Shepherd implies the one flock, the one door implies the one fold (Joh 11:9; Joh 11:16). It is presented under similes which convey the idea of unity: it is one building on one foundation (Mat 16:18), one enclosed vineyard (Mat 20:1-11), one shoal taken in a single net (Mat 13:47-48), one company of watchers (Mat 25:1-13), or of guests at one feast (Luk 14:7-24); it is a perfect century of sheep, a complete sum of money, and the breaking of its completeness is intolerable (Luk 15:4; Luk 15:8).
Its unity is primarily theological, necessitated by its causation in the unity which is in God (Joh 17:11; Joh 17:21), and objectively effected by the indwelling in its constituents of the one Christ (Joh 17:23). The subjective unity in mutual affection of which Christians are conscious is a result of this objective unity, and is evidential of their common relation to Christ (Joh 13:35, cf. 1Jn 3:14; 1Jn 3:19); but that sense of unity does not constitute the bond which unites Christians; the bond is antecedent to the sense of it, and stands in the life of Christ transfused through the discipleship. This transfusion of life is effected by the mission of the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost mediated by Christ in His heavenly intercession (Joh 14:16-19), and results in a vital unity of Christ with the recipients of the Paraclete; which is comparable to that of a single organism (the True Vine, Joh 15:1-8) in which the individual inheres by the fact of his inherence in Christ (Joh 15:6-7). So much our Lord declares of His own operation; for the rest, He implies that He is in measure, in this as in all, dependent for the realization of His purpose on our apprehension of it and co-operative obedience. Undoubtedly He desires that the vital and spiritual unity which He effects should have a concrete expressionsuch expression as is apprehensible, not only to the spiritual man discerning spiritual things (1Co 2:11-16), but to the world, which cannot receive the Spirit (Joh 14:17), and is aware of that only which with eyes of flesh it sees. He commands us, as a condition of the worlds recognition of our discipleship, to love one another as I have loved you (Joh 13:34). He prays the Father that we may be one in such fashion that the world, seeing it, may believe in His mission: and defines this unity as comparable to His own unity with the Father. Beyond question He demands a unity manifested in terms of the common understanding of the man of this world. He prays, not that believers may be at one (in harmony of faith or temperor as Abraham and Lot were at one in agreeing to part peaceably), but that they may be one thing, (Joh 17:11; Joh 17:21-22); completed into one thing (Joh 17:23). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this one thing is, spiritually, the Kingdom which His Incarnation brings among us (Luk 17:21); representatively, the Society which He builds (Mat 16:18), to which by His institution the one Baptism (Eph 4:5) admits, and which the one Bread (1Co 10:17) shows. Every kingdom, He says, divided against itself (the Kingdom of heaven is included in the argument) is brought to desolation; every city or house (the City of God, the House built of living stones, is included) divided against itself shall not stand (Mat 12:25, Mar 3:24-25). The unity which our Lord teaches appears, then, to be a visible and organic unity, based upon a vital unity in the Holy Ghost, and necessary both for evidence and for stability. His verdict upon schism, as the interruption of such unity, must be inferredit is nowhere stated* [Note: The possible exception is where (Mat 24:51, Luk 12:46) Christ threatens the evil servant who smites his fellow-servants and eats and drinks with the drunken, that He will come and cut him asunder ( ). The RV translators and others suggest for this remarkable phrase ( . in NT) will scourge him severelywhich is as if one were to say in our speech will flay him alive, and is an expression which one has difficulty in hearing with that sense from those lips. Ruskin somewhere interprets it of the judicial aspect of schism, as Gods revenge upon worldly and oppressive priesthoodsan interpretation which the history of schism may seem to commend.] from the sanctions assigned to unity, and from the intensity of His supplication that it may be realized in the experience of His Church.
2. In this sense the Apostolic writers have understood Christ. It is noted that the disciples were all with one accord in one place to receive the Spirit (Act 2:1); that, as the result of Pentecost, they were together, and had all things common (Act 2:44); the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul (Act 4:32). The assumption of the Epistles is that the saints anywhere are the church of God which is there (Rom 1:7, 1Pe 1:1 etc.). If they are churches, they are not less one fellowship in the unity of Christ (Gal 1:1, Rev 1:4).
St. Paul is copious on the subject. The unity on which he insists is not only of spirit; it is also embodied unity. Many as we are, we are one loaf and one body, being partakers of the one sacramental food (1Co 10:17; cf. Did. ix. 4). The one Spirit makes us one body, and members one of another (1Co 12:4-27), that there should be no schism in the body. The unity of the Spirit is to be guarded in the bond of peaceone body, one Spirit, as there is unity in every basis of our life (Eph 3:4-6). This body is the Body of Christ, and requires for its attainment to completion the harmonious interworking of every member and group, as constituting a single organism in which all inhere (Eph 4:13-16). The Church is a Body, of which Christ is Head (Col 1:18; Col 1:24; Col 2:19). It is the mystery of Christ that the Gentiles should be of the same body with Israel (Eph 3:6). Baptism is into a unity to which neither race nor status nor sex is a barrier (Gal 3:27-28). It is against first principles to assume the name of any leader as a party distinction (1Co 1:13); to do so is carnal (1Co 3:3-4). God is to be glorified with one mouth, as well as with one mind (Rom 15:5-6). The Churches of God have no custom of love of controversy (1Co 11:16); God is not the author of confusion but of peace; and so it is in all the Churches (1Co 14:33). The contentious earn indignation and wrath (Rom 2:8); those who cause divisions are to be noted and discouraged (Rom 16:17); a partisan after repeated admonition is to be rejected (Tit 3:10). A Church is commended which follows other Churches already in Christ (1Th 2:14). Doubtful disputations are to be avoided; the weak to be borne with; uniformity of opinion on ceremonial or ritual points is not to be insisted upon; to insist on uniformity may be to destroy the work of God (Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:3). It becomes the gospel of love that men should stand fast in one spirit with one mind (Php 1:27): nothing is to be done through strife or vainglorythe guard of unity is humility (Php 2:3); we are to do all things without murmurings or disputings, as children of God (Php 2:14 f.).
St. Peter assumes the same general conception; diffused as the Church is (1Pe 1:1), it is one building, one priesthood, one nation (1Pe 2:5; 1Pe 2:9). St. John conceives of the Church as a fellowship with Apostles who have fellowship with God (1Jn 1:3), united in love, which is to be in deed and truth, not in phrase (1Jn 3:18). The Epp. to the Churches of Asia deal with conditions of corruption, moral and doctrinal; but there is no thought of self-segregation as the duty of the faithful, even where deeds that Christ hates are tolerated (Rev 2:6); He lays no other burden on His servants but to hold fast (Rev 2:24-25).
The teaching of the NT, in fact, is positive. It shows a threefold unity of the Church:(1) An objective unity of origin and of vital relation of its constituent elements, which (like the racial unity of blood) is constituted by the Divine act and exists antecedently to any action, for it or against it, of ours; to which we may do violence, but which we cannot abrogate; and which is the Churchs spiritual oneness. (2) A social unity, the result and therefore the manifestation of this common Divine life, which is related to the life communicated in the Holy Spirit as the physical organism of the individual is to the personal life which co-ordinates that of its component cells, one body for one spirit; which (being body) may be wounded, but only with suffering and to its hurt and weakening. (3) A unity of temper and intention, of consent in belief and thought, which it rests with us to supply; which is the co-operation with the Divine action that is required of us,obedience to the law of the nature of the Body of Christ in which we find ourselvesthe bond of peace in which we are to observe () the unity of the Spirit (Eph 4:3). The existence of a state of schism is not contemplated in the NT, nor is any direction given for conduct in such a case. Party spirit and divisive courses are condemned, but there is no precept for the regulation of the relations of one sect to another. The Apostolic doctrine as to schism can be inferred only from these facts.
3. According to the conception of the Church of the first centuries, unity was locally constituted by association in acts of communion with God (especially in the Eucharistic synaxis), and by recognition of the authority representing the discipline of the Church; cumenically, it was constituted by intercommunion, evidenced by reception on the part of each local community of the format (commendatory letters) of the rest, by homologation of each others discipline, by the encyclical letters of their respective chief pastors, and later by common Conciliar action. It was jealously a unity in the faith, but not necessarily in identity of expression of the faith; the Creed, as repeated in different Churches, was not in all verbally the same. It was a unity in moral obedience, but not a uniformity in ceremony or custom: each Church ordered its own liturgy, and determined its own ritual and usage; wide differences might exist in practices, e.g. of fast and festival (Eus. v. 24Polycarp and Anicetus, Irenaeus and Victor). Such differences were held only to demonstrate identity in the faith: in una fide nihil officit sanctae ecclesiae consuetudo diversa (Greg, ad Leandr., quoted by Bingham; see also his letter to Aug. of Cant. in Bede, Hist.). For the sojourner or incomer to scruple at local custom in things indifferent, or to abstain from the common worship on account of unfamiliar details, was in itself a schismatic act (Aug. ad Januar., ib.).
In the earlier stages of the Churchs life, government by bishops and presbyters in one local community could coexist with government by college of presbyters in another, without offence to either; Antioch, Epbesus, Smyrna communicated with Rome and Corinth. Ignatius addresses the collegiate Church at Rome as cordially as he does the monepiscopal elsewhere. Clement has no criticism for the absence of a bishop at Corinth, but only for insubordination to its presbyters. Churches autocephalous (externally independent of each other) might exercise large discretion in internal arrangement, yet recognize each others sacraments and discipline. The centre of unity was in heaven, not on earth. It was a unity as that of Hellas, rather than as that of the Empire. Local Churches were as bays of the one sea. Unity was essentially maintained when intercommunion was maintained. Schism was the interruption of communion: schismaticos facit, non diversa fides, sed disrupta communionis societas (Aug., quoted by Sprott, Macleod Lect. Schism, p. 2).
As for local unity, the safeguard of that was the recognized principle that only one valid ecclesiastical authority could exist in the same community; latterly, that only one bishop could validly occupy one seat, that presbyters could not act validly without him, and that the flock should communicate with him in sacraments and prayer. The worst form of schism was held to be the violation of this rule, as it produced sect within the same area, and led to the setting up of altar against altara greater evil than interruption of communion between one local Church and another, as civil war is a greater evil than war between State and State. The converse responsibility was equally recognized: that no uncatholic or heretical term of communion should be locally imposed or required between Church and Church. In the case of that being done, the schism was held to be on the part of the authority imposing such terms, or of the Church requiring them. Thus Firmilian writes (with reference to the excommunication by Stephen of Rome of those who disallowed the baptism of heretics): While thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all (Epp. of Cyprian, lxxv., Oxf. translation p. 284).
4. It was to this latter principle that the Reformers generally appealed, as justifying in Catholic order their action in reclaiming the autonomy of national Churches, and in continuing their administration independently of the Roman See; which they regarded as a tyranny, under which impossible terms of communion were schismatically demanded. As to schism generally, the Reformers maintained the traditional doctrine, and Calvins view may be taken as typical: Such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of His Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society in which the true ministry of His word and Sacraments is maintained, He regards as deserters of religion (Inst. iv.).
5. The modern tendency is to recognize that responsibility for divisions has generally been a diffused responsibility, and that a distinction is to be drawn between that of the authors of separation and of the inheritors of positions of confusion which personally they have not created; to accept the essential validity of the conceptions of unity which guided the Church in its inception, while recognizing the difficulty of return to their practice; and to welcome the efforts of those who desire to be called repairers of the breach, restorers of paths for men to dwell in. See, further, artt. Church, Communion, Oneness.
Literature.Augustine, de unitate Ecclesi; Ambrose, Epistles; Calvin, Institutes, iv.; Bacon, Essays, Of Unity in Religion; Barrow, Of the Unity of the Church; Bingham, Ant. xvi.; Archp. Wake, Letters; Walker, Scot. Theol.; Durham, on Scandal, 1659, Com. on Revelation, 1660; Boston, Serm. on Schism; Wood of St. Andrews, Works, 1664; Ferguson, Sermon before the Synod of Fife, 1653; Rutherford, Due right of Presbyteries, 1644; Bp. A. P. Forbes, Nicene Creed; Sprott, Macleod Lecture, 1902; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers; Gore, Body of Christ; Dale, The Idea of the Church in Essays and Addresses, and The Unity of the Church (Lect. xv.) in Ephesians; Fairbairn, Christ in Modern Theology, 513 ff.; Denney, Stud. in Theol. 186 ff.; Lindsay, Church and Ministry, 10 ff.
H. J. Wotherspoon.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Unity
uni-ti: Psa 133:1 for (, yahadh, unitedness, and Eph 4:3, Eph 4:13 for , henotes oneness. Also Sirach 25:1 the King James Version for , homonoia concord (so the Revised Version (British and American)).
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Unity
Of the Godhead
God, Unity of
Of the righteous
– General references
Psa 133:1; Isa 52:8; Mat 23:8; Act 4:32; Rom 12:16; Rom 14:19; Rom 15:5-6; 1Co 1:10; 2Co 13:11; Eph 4:3; Phi 1:27; Phi 2:2; Phi 3:16-17; 1Pe 3:8 Communion; Fellowship
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Unity
from hen, the neuter of heis, “one,” is used in Eph 4:3, Eph 4:13.