No particular Church has, on its own showing, a right to existence, except as it believes itself to be the most perfect form of Christianity, the form which of right should be universal. No Church has a right to a part which does not claim that to it should belong the whole.
That communion confesses itself a sect which aims at no more than abiding as one of a number of equally legitimated bodies. That communion which does not believe in the certainty of the ultimate acceptance of its principles in the whole world has not the heart of a true Church. That which claims to be Catholic de facto claims to be Universal de jure. - Intro, *The Conservative Reformation* [emphasis added]
Ah, yes. But isn't it equally true that a "sect" is defined as a group which, being but a part, defines itself as the whole.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a certain danger in this though? Doesn't it leave one open to some subtle idea of infallibility and ultimately make the group just that much more sectarian?
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteBut he doesn't advocate defining itself as the whole; he advocates that if a particular Church be serious in its claims, it must believe that its goods are FOR the whole and belong to the whole; and will work towards the sharing and spread of them.
Scott,
No, he doesn't really argue for infallibility; he argues for correctness. His argument is not that our Symbols COULDN'T err; but that they DIDN'T err. And he encourages the use of private judgment to examine their teaching over against the Scripture and for each man to determine if they say or do not say the same thing.