Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the hope perhaps of certain Uniat concessions—such as the marriage of the clergy.

Dr. Orchard's able and interesting book, The Outlook for Religion, which seems to look towards pacifism, ecclesiastical and civil, has been followed, according to the English papers, by a conference of "Free Catholics" held in a Unitarian chapel at Birmingham, in which he took part, which was attended by all sorts of people including an extreme, or unbridled, ritualist (who preached) and a ritualistic Unitarian who claims episcopal orders derived from Abp. Vilatte or one of his kind, and who has set up his church at Oxford, of all places in the world, and in the parish of Cowley St. John! At the celebration of Holy Communion, churchmen and non-conformists together received the sacrament. Discipline as a safeguard of liberty all seemed agreed to abandon.

The latest of these suggestions, to be presented in some form, we are told, to the House of Bishops at its special meeting in April, originating with a distinguished Congregationalist divine and a leader among the Disciples of Christ, proposes as a war measure the joint ordination by representatives of all Christian bodies of ministers from whatever church they may come, that commissioned by all they may minister to all.* It will be noted that this is no mere question of the equality of orders, or of the cumulative effect of Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian,

*The following are the exact words of the "Appeal for Christion Unity," to which the name of one Bishop and the names of several clergymen and laymen of the Episcopal Church have been subscribed: "The hour commands unity. By some decisive act our faith in it should be made fact. That might be done if, for example, as a war measure we should put in cantonments, in regiments, and on battleships chaplains and ministers, from whatever church they may come, commissioned not by their own communion only, but by joint ordination or consecration, sent forth with whatsoever authority and grace the whole Church of God may confer, bearing no mark upon them but the sign of the Cross."'

Episcopal (it is hardly expected that Papal would be thrown in) commissioning; the practical unimportance of varying and discordant beliefs is assumed. Unitarian and Methodist, Christian Scientist and Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican ministers, "from whatever church they may come," are to be commissioned alike. There must be a very poor conception of the intelligence of our soldiers, not to speak of their definite spiritual needs, for whom this strange commixture of religious ministration is thought satisfactory.

This attitude of deliberate indifference to creeds and ministries and ordinances is of course definitely taken by some who would support such a proposal. Witness the widely distributed booklet, The Christian Church-What of Its Future? by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. The writer is a liberal Baptist, who probably represents in general a considerable proportion of ministers and members of Protestant bodies in this country, though we can hardly suppose that many of them would agree to the statement that Christ "regarded baptism as an expression of affection between the soul and the Saviour. He did not, however, make it a condition of Church membership, as is commonly assumed, or look upon it as an act relating the believer to the Church; nor did His disciples," (p. 19)-a truly astounding assertion in view of the New Testament scriptures as we have them!

The real issue and alternative before us at this time (we had better face it) is between (1) on the one hand the acceptance of a revelation of God's mind and will culminating in Jesus Christ His incarnate Son, with covenanted gifts of grace, bestowed through ordinances, agencies and instrumentalities instituted by Him, His Church and Ministry and Sacraments, our Lord Himself as a living Person reigning over His people and endowing

The Church of the Future ("which would be called the Church of the Living God," and would "win into its fellowship the followers of the Religion of the Inarticulate") "would pronounce ordinance, ritual, creed all non-essential for admission into the Kingdom of God or His Church." p. 11.

them with His Spirit; between this catholic belief on the one hand, and (2) on the other a moral or philosophical seeking after God and goodness, with Jesus Christ as (probably) the greatest religious teacher that has arisen (but not in reality different from other prophets), who taught great principles of life that those who catch his spirit embrace and follow, using, as they may find them helpful, certain graceful but grace-less ordinances as reminders (but not "efficacious signs") of spiritual gifts and truths.*

On this understanding of the Christian Religion, Bishops would of course be only in the position of diocesan chairmen or superintendents, elected for a term of service, with the power of recall. They might be inducted into office with an appropriate service like a Lay Reader or a chorister, but there would be no thought of ordination in the traditional sense of the word. The question here is not only, or so much, as to which of these positions is true, but to which are we committed. The time has come when we must choose and stand by our choice.

Apart from these graver aspects of the situation, it must be distinctly recognized as a practical point of ecclesiastical politics that any acceptance by the Bishops of Dr. Newman Smyth's proposal would certainly involve schism among ourselves, and would as certainly and hopelessly alienate Catholic Christendom, East and West, Greek and Latin, and irretrievably forfeit our much boasted opportunity of mediating between the Historical and the Reformed Communions.

The last Lambeth conference (1908), in its resolutions concerning Reunion, solemnly warned against any action which while seeking immediate reunion between comparatively neighboring bodies might jeopardize larger hopes. "It desires to affirm that in all partial projects of reunion and intercommunion the final attainment of the divine purpose should be kept in view as our object, and that care should be taken to do what will advance the reunion of the whole of Christendom, and to abstain from doing anything that will retard or prevent it."

*Compare Harnack's What is Christianity? Chapter on "Protestantism.”

Two points with regard to the Ministry we should wish to urge.

(1) Undue stress, it seems, is often laid on the particular form of the Ministry, whether on its threefold rank or on the episcopal headship. The real principle to be contended for is the transmission of our Lord's ministerial commission from the apostles' time to our own. As a matter of historical fact this has been conveyed through those whom we call Bishops-not necessarily diocesan or monarchical Bishops; but the approach to the question is simplified by emphasizing first the necessary transmission rather than by insisting on its particular instrument.

(2) A superstitutious regard of episcopacy and an episcopally ordained ministry is sometimes manifested, as if that alone and by itself were sufficient, even though its powers might be exercised in defiance of catholic order or orthodox belief. This, we take it, is what Mr. Lacey means when he says that the popular Anglican theory "puts too much upon episcopacy." "It is an instrument of unity; if you try to make it the only possible instrument, fixed and indispensable, you will put more upon it than the tradition warrants."* Episcopacy is an organ of the Body; divorced from the life of the Body, or Brotherhood, it is valueless. A former Bishop of Arkansas, Dr. W. M. Brown, seemed to think that all that was necessary to restore Christian unity was to scatter broadcast episcopal orders, leaving the episcopally ordained Bishops or Priests to continue their ministrations in schism or heresy.†

Another utterance (of a very different character) on the subject of Reunion, happened to be published at about the same time with Dr. Newman Smyth's Appeal, a sermon (on the Hale Foundation) by the Bishop of Chicago, entitled, The Work of

*Unity and Schism. P. 47. He is not dealing with episcopacy as a necessary office, but in its relation to unity.

+See The Level Plan for Church Union. P. 175. "A denomination after creation of this Episcopate is, according to the plan, to be organically as independent of all other churches as before."

the Church on Behalf of Unity. In notes the publication contains a useful summary of the various movements in the direction of Reunion from Abp. Wake's correspondence with Gallican theologians in 1716 to the present time. The sermon itself is an impassioned plea for unity. We venture to think that the Bishop exposes himself at some points to misunderstanding. At the very outset he applies to the subject our Lord's words about saving life to lose it and losing life to find it, and he says both Church and Nation "should venture their very life, their structure, their resources and their possessions for the ideals which they represent.' The preacher's meaning is apparently made clear later on when he speaks of "the churches" as "selfconscious." "They have a meticulous dread that something may happen to the sect structure of the organization." "What does it matter," he asks, "what becomes of the churches, if the Church remains as God's vice-gerent, the witness for Christ and the conscience of the nations?" From this later passage it seems (as we should have supposed) that it is only the material possessions and worldly position (such as establishment may give) with any merely local arrangements, that the Bishop means the Church must be ready to sacrifice. But the words "very life and structure" will be understood by many to mean much more than this. And then we must protest that neither Church nor Nation can venture its very life, its structure. It must maintain and uphold these in order to bear witness to its ideals. We cannot help thinking that the Bishop in his earnestness falls into an unhappy, if not confused, use of language.

Then we feel moved to take up a defence of the Anglican Communion against the Bishop's somewhat severe pronouncements. "The Anglican communion," he declares, "has been as conspicuously timid in its practice as it has been conspicuously bold in its theory [as to Reunion]. It is afraid of its own ideals. It shrinks from the consequences of its own corporate actions. It is academic. Must it not plead guilty to this charge?" No, we are bold to reply; such a charge cannot be proved. We have made offers—not perhaps most wisely worded, such as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, 1886-1888. Have we in any way

« AnteriorContinuar »