Apostolic succession and the problem of unity

II

The Apostles' Creed as the baptismal symbol ; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

Ill

The two sacraments ordained by Christ Himself — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of Institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.

IV

The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration, to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called by God into the Unity of His Church.

Contents

I

THE PROBLEM STATED II

MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH CATHOLIC III

Introduction

In writing an introduction to this book I do not intend to convey the impression that I have, in any way, contributed to its contents. The book is the author's work, and his alone. While I do not agree with all that is written, I think it well and strongly written, and that it ought to find place in the discussion of the subject of the unity of Christendom. Where the issues are so great, so profoundly important, no region ought to be left unexplored, no question (no matter how old or how often investigated) should be left undiscussed in its new bearings, no amount of patient, charitable investigation ought to be regarded as onerous; but the discussion should be utterly free, completely full and without passion. No subject connected with it should be held so sacred that it may not reverently and respectfully be tested. In this spirit of respectful investigation the author has entered into the discussion, sometimes with questions which he seeks to answer, sometimes with declarations which he considers that the Church's teaching warrants. The real merit of both questions and declarations can best be tested in the open court of the Church's sifting and searching processes which inevitably tend to the illumination of the truth. Into this open court the book enters, its author anx ous to con-

Introduction tribute to the unity of God's people, and that what is of error in his work should be exposed.

His intention is not to undermine the existing order or organization of the Church, but to make a serious and earnest examination into what that order and organization are and what they rest upon. If the argument seems to antagonize the theories and doctrines of present-day writers, may it not be that these writers have themselves misconceived the Church, and with honest but mistaken intent misstated her position.? The author's effort is not to assert or to establish a theory of his own making, but to discover the Church's practical doctrine, and then present it in its significant bearing upon the great question of Unity, which he rightly regards as the foremost ecclesiastical question of the day. That the Historic Episcopate is a practical necessity to stability in Church government has become his firm belief, which has grown out of his patient study of the history of the past. When the Roman Church replaced the Historic Episcopate with Papal sovereignty and sought to fix this strange doctrine upon the Catholic Church, disintegration resulted ; and when the Protestant Churches discarded the Episcopate, segregation and confusion resulted as a natural consequence. The author believes that the Historic Episcopate is worthy, and is destined to become a basis of unity, not because it is a doctrine of necessity, but because it has proved its practical necessity to stable government.

Those who disagree with his conclusions will be

Introduction stimulated by his arguments. Those who agree with them will be fortified, and their belief in unity, and their hope for unity, rekindled.

For myself, I must decline to be construed as belonging to any party in the Church. Party shiboleths have a tendency to narrow one's conceptions of the Church, to fix one's conception of that which is a living organism, to limit and sometimes prevent, and sometimes even predetermine, one's search for the truth.

Theodore D. Bratton postolic Succession and Problem of Unity

Apostolic Succession and the Problem of Unity

I

THE PROBLEM STATED

There can be little doubt that the matter of Church Unity is one of the most important of the many subjects under consideration of the Christian world. Not only are men of all denominations beginning to feel that the various controversies and disputes of Christendom have been waged, for the most part, over matters which have been of far from vital importance to the cause of truth, but they are further beginning to realize that the maintenance of such divisions, except for reasons of inevitable necessity, where principles deemed absolutely essential to spiritual gowth and welfare are at stake, must be regarded as sinful and inexcusable. In short, they are beginning to realize that Unity is not merely a pleasing ideal, which is beautiful to contemplate and would for many reasons be a great boon to humanity, were it possible to be had, but they are further beginning to appreciate that it is an end for which each individual man, as well as each individual denomination is in duty bound to pray and hope and labor — that schism is absolutely inexcusable in the sight of God except for the most vital principles of Christian faith, and that the paramount question with the members of each individual denomination should be, not are we right or wrong with respect to our contention as to the truth of Christ's teaching on this or that disputed point, but that even if right, does the correctness of our position justify us in our continued separation from our brethren in the great Body of Christ.

It is a demonstrable fact, and one that should be self-evident to every thoughtful man, that an entire unity of opinion upon all matters of faith is an absolute impossibility, so long as men are mentally, morally and physically constituted as they are. There are no two men in the world who can absolutely agree in their understanding or intellectual appreciation of any problem, however earnest each may be to ascertain the truth and nothing but the truth. Each is compelled by nature and education to view the same problem in a somewhat different light, and no matter how desirous each may be to agree with the other, they cannot declare their unanimity in every particular without being guilty of intellectual dishonesty. In short, the price of absolute intellectual unity upon all theological or other questions is moral turpitude and insincerity ; the price of absolute mental conformity to a fixed formula of belief on all disputed matters of Christian Faith is infidelity to the voice of conscience, infidelity to the sense of right and duty, infidelity to The Spirit of Truth — The Holy Spirit — The Holy Ghost. Christ does not, therefore, expect that of us. He does not ask absolute unity of opinion upon all theological questions, but what He does ask is unity of life and will and purpose in The Spirit, and through unity in The Spirit gradually to come more and more into a unity of mind and opinion. The latter, however, is an end, not a present state or condition either actual or possible, and an end, moreover, which will be attained and can be attained only through what is now and always an ever present possibility, viz., — unity in The Spirit of Christ. Absolute agreement in all doctrinal matters, therefore, should not be expected in any proposed platform of organic unity. It will be a supreme blessing to knov/ that we can be one on those matters generally regarded as vital, and as there is good reason to believe that such a consummation is not so irrevocably beyond the hope of realization (at least as regards the greater part of Christendom) as some would suppose, it certainly behooves the members of all denominations to look at the matter attentively, and see if there be not among the many doctrinal tenets of the various churches, some common ground in things essential.

It will, of course, be a difficult task, in view of the many and conflicting opinions held on all sides, and the natural denominational prejudices with which each tenet is encumbered, rightly to distinguish between what are essential and what are unessential matters, and for this we can only trust to the guidance of that one, supreme Spirit, in Whom happily we are already professedly one, and Whose still, small voice if duly heeded, cannot but point the way to a final solution of all these and other merely intellectual difficulties, being, as He is. The Spirit of Truth Itself.

It is a foregone conclusion, therefore, that we must under any circumtsances expect to differ more or less widely upon many important points, but unless any of the points in question should be more than merely important — unless they should be esteemed by any of us to be vital to spiritual health and moral principle — they should in no case be allowed to justify the continuance of schism, as, excepting these, we should ever regard Unity as above all other considerations the supreme end and purpose of all outward and visible Christianity. It is manifest, then, that we must be willing to agree to disagree on all matters short of what conscience declares to be essential to individual spiritual safety, and that in examining the problem our first and highest endeavor should always be to discover what is false or erroneous in our own creed, rather than what is false or erroneous in the creed of others. The latter is always an easy task. It is the former that is so difficult of accomplishment, and that is the real obstacle — or at least the most serious obstacle — that ever stands in the way of ultimate Unity.

Now as a member of this branch of the Catholic Church, it is our purpose in the following pages to examine our own position carefully, and to inquire, in absolute disregard of what has been done by other churches, whether we ourselves have done everything possible on our part to bring about the end desired. If we have so done, then we may feel assured that further responsibility rests with others ; but if not, no stone should be left unturned in our endeavor to sacrifice all worldly or denominational interests for the one supreme ideal.

The exposure of denominational error, pride and prejudice, painful as indeed it is, cannot be shirked when the integrity of the Church Catholic is at stake, and once we have the courage nobly to admit our weaknesses, and manfully to right the wrong (regardless of the sins of others) the spectacle of such Christ-like heroism will rouse the Christian world, as nothing else will ever rouse it, to the sense of its duty and responsibility in the matter. Now we fully realize that this church, in connection with the mother church of England, has already taken a most commendable step towards the attainment of this end.

In the Lambeth Articles a proposed basis of union has been set forth which, were it rightly understood, would, we believe, be willingly entered into by at least a large number of Christian people. Unfortunately however, in spite of the broad and liberal wording of this platform, the end for which it was intended has had to suffer because of the interpretation which many of our churchmen both in public and in private, in the pulpit and in the press, have persisted in placing upon one of its clauses, and the general attitude assumed by them regarding many doctrinal questions more or less directly associated therewith.

To be brief, the broad phrase — "the Historic Episcopate"— contained in the 4th Article of the Platform, and which appears to be the only clause that has met with serious objection, has been arbitrarily assumed to carry with it the so-called doctrine of Apostolic Succession as though the latter were a necessary corollary, and this interpretation of its meaning, together with a number of conclusions naturally consequent therefrom respecting the nature and extent of the Church Catholic have been so widely diffused among all classes of churchmen that the result has been that the true, official teachings of this church on all such matters have been obscured, and what might have been hoped for from the broad and catholic wording of the Lambeth Articles has necessarily been lost.

We propose in the following pages to discuss in detail some of these hindrances to Unity, and to show that the various principles underlying them have no justification either in reason or in the official teachings of this church. We shall begin by considering the matter of membership in the Church Catholic — particularly as that subject has been presented in the recent agitation to change the name of this church ; and following this, we shall discuss at some length the real attitude of this church, assumed at the very beginning of her history and never surrendered at any time, upon the subject of the Apostolic Succession, in contra-distinction to the views generally entertained to-day — both of which matters, intimately connected as they are, have in their popular representation, greatly militated against all proposals on the part of this church looking to the possible re-union of Christendom.

II

MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH CATHOLIC

While the discussion regarding a change in the present title of the Church has now somewhat abated, because of the adverse report of the committee recently appointed by the General Convention to ascertain the mind of the people at large, yet because of the qualified character of the objections urged by many of the Diocesan Councils, and the evident popularity of the movement in many quarters — a popularity, moreover, which continues to increase rather than to diminish — it is impossible for any one to look upon the matter as definitely and finally settled. In fact, the advocates of the movement are far from discouraged. It is pointed out that if such a proposition had even been broached in the Convention a few years back, it would have been treated with scant courtesy, whereas so great a change in the sentiment of churchmen has come about within the past decade, that at the last meeting of the same body, the subject was not only allowed a hearing, but was deemed of sufficient importance to be brought to the attention of the v'arious Dioceses and their opinions solicited. That the result of the investigation has been unfavorable to immediate action, is not surprising. It was not to be expected that so momentous a question should be decided in a day, and even if possible, the most sanguine would hardly have deemed it advisable. As it is, they contend, much has been accomplished in the right direction. The very action of the Convention has made the question a matter of discussion throughout the entire Church, and the report of the committee has at least revealed the fact that the percentage of churchmen in favor of a change in the near future, is far greater than the majority of people were inclined to suspect. In view of all the circumstances, therefore, it appears to be true that the question is one which is, indeed, far from being disposed of by the committee's report, and will inevitably present itself again, and that at no distant day, for final solution. With this conviction in mind, and with the further belief that if such an end be attained along the particular lines upon which it is now being advocated it will prove disastrous to the welfare of this Church, and the hope of Christian Unity through her endeavors, it becomes necessary for us to speak at some length of the matter.

It is not the question of a change of name, in and by itself, that we regard as necessarily dangerous to the cause of Unity, but change, as we have said, along the particular lines upon which it is being advocated to-day. In short, we have no desire to insist upon the adequacy of the present title. The designation "Protestant Episcopal Church" may fail, perhaps, to some extent, in clearly defining our real position to the world, and it may very possibly be true that some other title would be more appropriate and desirable. But however this may be, adequate or inadequate, we believe that the present name comes far nearer expressing the real truth of our position, and is more comprehensible to the world at large, than any that has yet been suggested — particularly more appropriate and satisfactory than the title "The American Catholic Church" — the designation that appeared to be riie one most seriously contemplated by the late advocates of the change and which is to-day the title most commonly in mind whenever the subject is discussed. Not only do we believe that the adoption of such a title would prove a serious barrier to Unity, but we further believe that it would tend to place the Church in a most embarrassing position before the world because of its absolute indefensibility when examined in the light of her official utterances in the past. Let us look into the matter carefully and see if we are not fully justified in this opinion.

It will be evident from the perusal of a little work entitled "A Handbook of Information," published some time ago by The Young Churchman Co., of Milwaukee, in which arguments for the correction of the present title are advanced, that one point in favor of the proposed name "American Catholic Church" is that it suggests "historic identity with the Church of the ages." This, of course, refers to the word "Catholic," as there is no such significance in the word "American." By "Catholic" then, is signified "Historic identity with the Church of the ages," and by the prefix "American" such historic identity is further "localized" so "as to imply this particular lO body in the United States and none other." The meaning of this is, of course, not difficult to discern, and the remainder of the article only confirms and illustrates it the more. To put it in plain terms, the entire argument for the adoption of this title rests upon the following assumptions.

Our Lord established in this world but one Church. This Church was known at the beginning as the Catholic Church. In the course of ages, because of internal disputes and dissensions, this holy, catholic and apostolic Church became divided. Each division, however, continued to preserve its corporate connection with the original Catholic Church, and hence continued to be a corporate branch of this Catholic Church. At the time of the Reformation, and subsequently, however, a large number of dissatisfied members left their respective branches and separated themselves from all further organic or corporate connection with the Catholic Church— organizing themselves into various bodies and societies patterned after their own ideas, but continuing to call themselves churches. In view of these palpable facts of history, it is evident that to retain the word "Protestant" in our official title is grievously to mis-state our position to the world, for the Protestant bodies are those which have separated themselves from all organic connection with the Church Catholic, whereas it is a matter of peculiar pride with us, that we have never severed such connection. If, therefore, the remaining legitimate branches of the Catholic Church continue

II to uphold their Catholic lineage in their official titles, we should do the same. We are not a Protestant sect, but a Catholic branch, and if that Catholic branch that originated in Rome, be the Roman Catholic ; that in the East, generally designated as Greek, be the Greek Catholic; that originating in England, the Anglican or Anglo-Catholic, why should we, the only legitimate branch originating in America, fear to assume our lawful title, the American Catholic ?

Now we freely grant that with such assumptions before us, it is impossible logically to evade this result. The premises once accepted, the conclusion is irresistible. But is it necessary to accept the premises ? In answer to this we unhesitatingly assert that not only is it unnecessary to accept the truth of such assumptions, but that it is impossible to do so consistently with other principles and teachings of this Church. What right have we to assume that these Protestant bodies are cut off from the Church Catholic ? What grounds have we for maintaining that they are no longer "members incorporate in the Mystical Body" of Christ, "which is the blessed company of all faithful people.'" If membership in the Catholic Church depends solely upon Baptism, and if Baptism again, is not a rite limited to the official acts of a valid Ministry, but is a rite which can be legitimately administered by any baptized person — a principle which this Church openly admits both by teaching and practice — then it follows inevitably that every duly baptized person, of whatever denomination in Christis endom, is a member of the Church Catholic, and it will not do to teach the validity of Lay Baptism, and further attest our belief in its validity by accepting converts from other Protestant bodies without requiring further baptism at the hands of our Ministers, and then, in the face of all this, deliberately assert that these self-same Protestants have no corporate connection with the Catholic Church. Baptism is itself incorporation into the Catholic Church, as the Prayer Book distinctly teaches, and furthermore, as it is the only means of incorporation that Christ has provided, it is for that very reason the sole test of corporate connection for any individual or Body of individuals .

This is a point that the editor of The Living Church seems to have overlooked, when replying to certain inquiries recently made regarding the word "Catholic." In answer to this very point, viz., — that all duly baptized persons are members incorporate in the Body of Christ, i. e. the Church Catholic, he says, (^Living Church, Feb. 14th, 1903, p. 548). . . . "it is quite true that in one sense every properly baptized Christian, whether among the sects or in any part of the historic Church, is a member of the Catholic Church, because such membership is obtained by Baptism ; in a second sense, only those who accept the authority of some corporate branch of the Catholic Church are catholics, for the organization of even baptized men outside the Church are no parts of the Catholic Church, though individually the people are members of it." Here the editor confounds two very distinct ideas, for if lie means anything at all by the phrase "the organization of even baptized men outside the Church," he means that the organization (and not the individual men) is outside the Church, and this again can only mean that the plan or pattern upon which the body is organized is a plan or pattern foreign to the plan or pattern of the Catholic Church. But whether this be true or not, this Catholic plan or pattern of organization, whether of bodies in or out of the Church, has nothing to do with the corporate, organic connection of such bodies with the Church. Christ never provided any plan or pattern of organization as a test of corporate connection with His Body. The only test of corporate connection which He ever authorized is not a plan or pattern of any kind, but a Rite — a rite, moreover, which pertains to individuals, not to bodies. Let us examine the matter carefully, and in order to do so, let us anticipate an illustration that will very likely be brought forward. Let us take any human society or organization, as for example, the Masons, or Knights of Pythias, and let us agree to suppose (which, of course, may not be the case) that one of these societies consists solely of baptized persons. Do we mean to assert that the individual membership of these persons in the Church constitutes the Masons, as a body, a corporate branch of the Church? We reply unhesitatingly, as much so as any body or organization of men can be a corporate branch of the Church, for whatever by the conventionalities of human speech men may refer to when speaking of the members of Christ's Body, or the branches of the Vine, Christ refers only to individuals when using these expressions. He simply does not recognize bodies or organizations of any kind as the corporate members or branches of His Church.

The Roman Church as such, has never been incorporated into the Catholic Church; the Anglican Church as such, has never been so incorporated; and there is no denomination in Christendom which as a body or organization has ever been incorporated into the Body of Christ. Our Lord indeed intended that His Body should have many members, but these members were not to be organizations, but individuals, and the sole right by which these members were to be incorporated or grafted into the Body, was the rite of Baptism — a rite which was instituted for individuals, not for organizations. No organization ever underwent the rite of Baptism or incorporation into the Body of Christ, hence no organization as such, can claim to be a corporate branch or member of the Body. In short, our Lord does not recognize any organization in Christendom as a corporate branch of His Church; but only the baptized individual Christians in all lands and of all denominations. These so called branches or organizations are human distinctions, not divine. In His sight, there is not an organized body in Rome, for example, that as a body or organization is a corporate branch or member of His Church, or another in England, Russia or America, but in all these places He sees only the individual members of His

IS one, divine organization or Body — the Catholic Church. The truth of the whole matter, then, is simply this: — There is no corporate connection of bodies or organizations, as such, with the Catholic Church, but only of individuals. The catholic organization of corporate individuals, is another matter altogether, which has no bearing on the problem.

But we seem to hear the reply made, all this may be true, but nevertheless there is something else necessary to the being or existence of the Church than the mere incorporation of individuals by Baptism. Members may indeed incorporate other members, and so the priesthood of the people may be all that is necessary to insure initiation into the Church, but Baptism is not all. The Church exercises other functions than that of incorporation. These same incorporated individuals must be nourished and sustained. The spiritual life vouchsafed them in this new birth or regeneration, must be supported by proper spiritual food. Even as a child born into this lower world and possessing the same natural life that all others enjoy, must have this life sustained by constant natural food, if it is to continue in this world, so he who is regenerate, and born anew into the higher world, though possessing the same spiritual life that all others enjoy, must nevertheless have this life sustained by constant spiritual food, if he is to continue in this higher world. To be deprived of natural food in the lower world, means to forfeit natural life, and thus to be put out of the natural world ; and so too, to be deprived

i6 of spiritual food in this higher world means to forfeit spiritual life, and thus to be put out of the spiritual world. No number of Christian people then, even though all of them are duly baptized into the Catholic Body, can expect to live and grow therein, can expect to retain the privileges bestowed upon them in their Baptism, and continue corporate members, without receiving further Divine Gifts, and as the administration of these Divine Gifts is a power entrusted not to the people as a whole, but to certain specially appointed persons only, it follows that no set of individuals can continue to maintain their corporate connection with the Church that is deprived of spiritual sustenance through the absence of a legitimate Ministry. Whether, therefore, there is such a thing as the corporate connection of organizations with the Catholic Church or not, it is none the less true that in some real sense the people calling themselves Protestants, have through their own attitude, deprived themselves of the privileges of the Church, and are vmquestionably cut off — in a literal sense, excommunicate— from the Body of Christ, and hence can not claim with the rest of Christendom, a living connection with the same. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you." If the members are to continue in the Life of the Church, they must receive the spiritual food of the Church — they must receive the Holy Communion, and as the Holy Communion can be validly and effectually administered only by a lawfully ordained

3 17

Ministry, — that is to say, a Ministry that derives its authority from Christ, the Head of the Church, through the channel of the Historic Episcopate — it follows that those who do not receive this rite at the hands of such a Ministry, do not receive that spiritual food which alone can sustain them as members incorporate in the Body. For the members of the Body must partake of the Life of the Body, or else atrophy and decay.

This view, which was the one held by the Tractarians, and is still countenanced by a few High Churchmen, is the only alternative that can be resorted to in justification of such wholesale discrimination against our Protestant brethren. Let us now examine it carefully, and see to what consequences it leads us.

If it be true that the spiritual food necessary to the sustenance of those duly incorporated in the Catholic Church can not be administered at the hands of any Ministry that has not received its authority through the Historic Episcopate, then it follows, of course, that no Protestant body receives such sustenance — that all Protestant people are in a condition of spiritual starvation — are under the condemnation of spiritual death — in short, that all Protestants, even the saintliest, are as inevitably lost as the most hopelessly depraved and criminal of the race. Now whatever may be said in defense of such a view, it is quite safe to affirm that it has never been officially promulgated either by the Church of England, or by our own, and it is as repugnant to the vast majority of churchmen as it is irreconcilable with the historic position of this church — an assertion which will be abundantly verified as we proceed. For the present, let us fully realize what it means. When we presume to assert that persons duly baptized into the Church of Christ — proud of their Christian heritage — many of them among the noblest types of manhood and womanhood the world has ever seen — devoting their lives to the service of the Master — searching the Scriptures diligently to discover and understand His ways — loving the Church — yea, the holy Catholic Church — into which they have been baptized, above all else in life — striving daily through earnest prayer and faith to lift themselves a little nearer to the heavenly goal — observing all God's ordinances and commandments to the very best of their knowledge and understanding of them, — in short, carrying out all of His injunctions as strictly and as consistently as they have the light and wisdom so to do — to say that these persons who grow in Grace and in the power of God all through this earthly life, are none the less cut off, excommunicate from that Church into which they have been lawfully baptized — deprived of the only food which can sustain their spiritual life — which can insure their eternal salvation in the world to come — • in short, that these persons, in spite of all the evidences of God's Grace manifest in their lives, are in reality dying spiritually — in spite of all their faith that Jesus is sustaining, has sustained and ever will sustain them, are none the less damned already, though they know it not, and all because of one most fearful error — the fatal mistake of not receiving the Bread of Life at the hands of a Minister commissioned through the Historic Episcopate — a mistake which was made, remember, under the full persuasion and conviction that they were responding to a call of duty — • to the voice of The Saviour Himself which they dared not disobey — when we presume to take such a stand as this, as repugnant to the common sense of mankind as it is fearful to contemplate, we may well pause a moment and ask ourselves if our own spiritual condition is as secure as it might be.