# The Collected Works of Theodore Parker/Volume 01/Book 5/Chapter 1

BOOK V.
“When the Church, without temporal support, is able to do her great works upon the unforced obedience of man, it argues a divinity about her. But when she thinks to credit and better her spiritual efficacy, and to win herself respect and dread, by strutting in the false vizard of worldly authority, it is evident that God is not there, but that her apostolic virtue is departed from her, and hath left her key-cold; which she perceiving, as in a decayed nature, seeks to the outward fermentations and chafings of worldly help and external flourishes, to fetch, if it be possible, some motion into her extreme parts, or to hatch a counterfeit life with the crafty and artificial heat of jurisdiction. But it is observable, that so long as the Church, in true imitation of Christ, can be content to ride upon an ass, carrying herself and her government along in a mean and simple guise, she may be, as he is, a Lion of the tribe of Judah, and in her humility all men, with loud hosannas, will confess her greatness. But when, despising the mighty operation of the Spirit by the weak things of this world, she thinks to make herself bigger and more considerable by using the way of civil force and jurisdiction, as she sits upon this Lion, she changes into an Ass, and instead of Hosannas, every man pelts her with stones and dirt.”—Milton.—The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy, Chap. III.
BOOK V.
THE RELATION OF THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT TO THE GREATEST OF HUMAN INSTITUTIONS, OR A DISCOURSE OF THE CHURCH.
CHAPTER I.
CLAIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The Catholic church, and most if not all the minor Protestant churches, claim superiority over Reason, Conscience, and the religious Element in the individual soul, assuming dominion over these, as the State justly assumes authority over the excessive passions and selfishness of men. Now since the former are not, like the latter, evils in themselves, the Church, to justify itself, must denounce them either as emanations from the devil, or at best as uncertain and dangerous guides. The churches make this claim of superiority, either distinctly in their creeds and formularies of faith, claiming a divine origin for themselves, or by implication, in their actions, when they condemn and blast with curses one who differs from them in religious matters, and teaches doctrines they disapprove. In virtue of this assumed superiority the Christian Church, as a whole, denies what it calls “salvation” to all out of the Christian Church—excepting some of the Jews before Christ—though their life be divine as an angel's. How often have Socrates and that long line of noble men who do honour to Greek and Roman antiquity been damned by hirelings of the Church! The Catholic church denies salvation to all out of its pale, and in general each church of ​the straiter and more numerous sects confirms the damnation of all who think more liberally. Men who expose to scorn the folly of their assumptions, the Bayles, the Humes, the Voltaires; men who will not accept their pretensions, the Newtons, the Lockes, the Priestleys, the Channings, have their warrant of eternal damnation made out and sealed; not because their life was bad, but their faith not orthodox! Supported by this claim of superiority on the churches' part, canonized Ignorance may blast Learning; ecclesiastical Dulness condemn secular Genius; and surpliced Impiety, with shameless forehead, may damn Religion, meek and thoughtful, who out of the narrow church, walks with beautiful feet on the rugged path of mortal life, and makes real the kingdom of Heaven.
For many centuries it has been a heresy in the Christian churches to believe that any man out of their walls could expect less than damnation in the next world; it is still a heresy. It is taught with great plainness by the majority of Christians, that God will damn to eternal torments the majority of his children, because they are not in any of the Christian churches. If we look into the value of this claim of superiority, we shall find the foundation on which it rests. It must be either in the Idea of a Church, or in the Fact of the Christian Church receiving this delegated power from a human or a divine founder.
I. Of the Idea of a Church.
We do not speak, except figuratively, of a Church of Moses or Mahomet. It seems to be necessary to the idea of a visible and historical Church, that there should be a model-man for its central figure, around whom others are to be grouped. He must be an example of the virtues Religion demands; an incarnation of God, to adopt the phrase of ancient India, which has since become so prevalent among the Christians. Now Moses, viewed as a mythological character, and Mahomet, as an historical ​person, were not model-men, but miraculous characters whose relation to God and perfection of life each faithful soul might not share, for it was peculiar to themselves. Their character was not their own work. It was made for them by God, and therefore they could not be objects of imitation. It would be impious madness in the Mussulman or the Jew, to aim at the perfections of the great prophet who stood above him.
Now there is this peculiarity of the greater part of Christians, that while they affirm Jesus to be God, by the divine side, they yet claim him as a model-man, on the human side, and so call him a God-man. About this central figure, the Christian Church is grouped. The fourth Gospel represents him as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, for all men. The churches also assume that he is to be imitated. But they assume this in defiance of logic, for Jesus is represented as born miraculously, endowed with miraculous powers, and separated from all others by his peculiar relation to God, in short, as a God-man. Of course he must be a model only to other God-men, who are born miraculously, endowed and defended as he was; he is no model to men born of flesh and blood, who have none but human powers. But he is the only God-man, and so no model to any one. Still more if the Christian churches view him as the infinite God with all His Infinity, dwelling in the flesh, it is absurd to make him a model for men. But the churches have rarely stopped at an absurdity. They “call things that are not as if they were.” Yet since the life of Jesus appears so entirely human in his friendships, sorrows, love, prayer, temptation, triumph, and death, and the Apostles now and then represent him as the great example—the churches could not forbear making him the model-man. Hence the homilies of the Preacher; the disquisition of the Schoolmen; the glorifying treatise of the Mystic; the painting of the Artist, giving us his Triumph, Transfiguration, Farewell Meeting, and Crucifixion—all aim to bring the Great Exemplar distinctly before human consciousness, in the most prominent ​scenes of his life, and always as a man, that the lesson of divinity might not be lost.
Now if he be this model man, and the churches are but assemblies of men and women grouped about him, to be instructed by his words, and warned by his example, it is not easy to see what authority they naturally have over the individual soul.
II. Of the Fact of the Christian Churches.
If Jesus were but a wise and good man, no word of his could have authority over Reason and Conscience. At best, it could repeat their oracles, and therefore he could never found an institution which should be Master of the Soul. But even if he were what the churches pretend, it does not appear that he has given this authority to any on earth. If we may credit the Gospels, Jesus established no organization; founded no church in any common sense of that term. He taught wherever men would listen; to numbers in the synagogue, temple, and fields; to a few in the little cottage at Bethany, and in the fisher's boat. He gave no instruction to his disciples to found a church; he sent them forth to preach the glad tidings to all mankind: the Spirit within was their calling and authority; Jesus their example; God their guide, protector, and head. In all the ministrations of Jesus, there is nothing which approaches the formation of a church. What was freely received was to be given as freely. Baptism and the Supper were accidents. He appointed no particular body of men as teachers, but sent forth his disciples, all of them, to proclaim the truth. The twelve had no actual authority over others; no preëminence in spreading the Gospel. Had they a right to bind and to loose? Let Paul answer the question. The first martyr, the most active Evangelist, and the greatest Apostle were not of the twelve. Excepting Peter, James, and John, the rest did little that we know of. Did Jesus say—as Matthew relates—that ​he would found a church on Simon Peter? It must have been a sandy foundation. Paul did not fear to withstand him to the face. Jesus appointed neither place nor day for worship. All the commands of the decalogue are reinforced in the New Testament, excepting that which enjoins the Sabbath; all the rest are natural laws. Religion with Jesus was a worship in spirit and in truth; a service at all times and in every place. He fell back on natural Religion and Morality, demanding a divine life, purity without and piety within; but he left the When, the Where, and the How to take care of themselves. A Church, in our sense of the term, is not so much as named in the Gospels. But Religion, above all emotions, brings men together. Uniting around this central figure, bound by the strongest of ties, the spiritual sympathies fired with admiration for the great soul of Jesus, relying on his authority, there grew up, unavoidably, a body of men and women. These the Apostles call the Church of Christ. Religion, as it descends into practice, takes a concrete form, which depends on the character and condition of the men who receive it: hence come the rites, dogmas, and ceremonies which mark the Church of this or that age and nation.
The Christian Church may be defined as a Body of Men and Women united in a common regard for Jesus, assembling for the purposes of worship and religious instruction. It has the powers delegated by individuals who compose it.
* ↑ For the opinion of the Catholics on this point, see instar omnium Bossuet, Hist. des Variations, Liv. II. et al.; for that of the Protestants, see their various confessions, &c., conveniently collected in Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis reformatis, Lips. 1840; Hahn, ubi sup. § 103 and 143; Bretschneider, ubi sup. Vol. II. § 204, p. 174, et seq. But see Hase, Hutterus redivivus, § 88.
* ↑ This term God-man is of Heathen origin, and involves a contradiction as much as the term Circle-triangle. The common mistake seems to arise from taking a figure of speech for a matter-of-fact, which leads to worse confusion in Theology than it would in Geometry.
* ↑ Galat. i. ii. et al.; Strauss, ch. v.; Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, Tüb. 1846, Vol. I. p. 114, et seq.; Baur, Paulus der Apostel; Stuttgart, 1846, p. 104, et seq.
* ↑ See in Ġieseler, Text-Book of Eccles. Hist., Philad. 1836, Vol. I. § 25-27.
* ↑ Math. xvi. 18, 19. See the various opinions of interpreters of this passage so improperly thrust into the mouth of Jesus, in De Wette, Exegetische Handbuch zur N. T. See Origen’s ingenious gloss.
* ↑ See the various opinions of the Catholics and Protestants on this point collected in Winer, Comparativ Darstellung der Lehrbegriffs, Leip. 1837, § 19, on the formation of the church. See much valuable matter in Ritschl, Die Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche, Bonn, 1850, Buch II.