Level plan for church union /

Front matter

Section

BY THE SAME AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER.

“The Church for Americans,” $1.25; Nineteenth

Preface

WITHIN each of the national Churches which compose the Anglican Communion there is a large and influential school which makes much of what is characterized as the prophetic office of the Christian priesthood, and would close the doors of pulpits against all who have not received ordination to the Ministry by a representative of the Historic Episcopate.

This school, which contains many of the most saintly, earnest and learned among our Ministers and People, is, I believe, quite right in the importance which it attaches to the prophetic office. The world is to be saved very largely by “ the foolishness of preaching;” not prosaic teaching, but prophetic preaching.

I am in complete sympathy with this school in its contention so far as it relates to the existence and importance of the prophetic mission. Indeed, I am inclined to go beyond it, by insisting that no one, not even a Greek, Roman or Anglican Bishop, should remain in

X

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

the Christian ministry unless he feels in his heart that he has for the world at least some one message, especially his own; so that, like St. Paul, he can say of it, “my gospel;’’ and “woe is me if I preach not this gospel.’’

The idea that the Christian faith was once for all delivered to the Saints in a crystallized form, and that it is the office of a Minister of the Gospel simply to propagate it, by teaching it as it has been formulated by an ecumenical council, or interpreted in the writings of some ancient Father or Doctor does not commend itself to me. A Christian minister does not fulfill his duty by a restatement of the doctrines of, say, St. Thomas Aquinas. He must, indeed, be a teacher and defender of the great essentials of the old, the primitive, the Catholic faith; but he must also be a living voice through which God, if He does not make new revelations, at least interprets His old revelations with reference to the newer developments of His providence.

But while I agree with the representatives of this great school in the importance which they attach to the prophetic mission of the Christian ministry, I am fully persuaded that they are wrong in limiting the right to preach to the historic or to any official Ministry. I have come firmly to believe that there are real prophets, inspired prophets, who are not Christians in the ordinary sense of the word; and that there are real Christian prophets, inspired prophets, in Ministries which have never had any connection with the Historic Episcopate, or which have broken off that connection ; and that there are real prophets, inspired

PREFACE.

XI prophets, among Christian laymen and laywomen who have never occupied a pulpit, and whose congregation is limited to a Sunday School class.

TTie conviction grows upon me that prophetic inspiration is not the rare, official, limited, little thing that some among us would make it out to be. It is like the wind that bloweth where it listeth, and it is quite as likely to illuminate the mind of a humble mother while teaching her inattentive child the catechism, as that of an illustrious Pope in his ex-cathedra utterances to a waiting world.

In the lectures of this book, and in its notable introduction and appendix, three representatives of another great Anglican school preach the Gospel of that Christian unity which is necessary to the evangelization of the world; a unity to be accomplished through a Common Inter-Church Ministry, secured and maintained on the perfectly level basis of the pure Republicanism which constitutes the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Divine Republican.

The Level Plan for Church Union proceeds upon the assumption that the Common Inter-Church Ministry, upon which the carrying out of the plan is dependent, must be secured without compromise of principle. There are two theories respecting the origin and authority of the Christian ministry, the Sacerdotal or Priestly and the Republican or Protestant.

According to the Sacerdotal theory, a true Christian

Xll ministry is dependent upon a devolutionary transmission of authority and power by an unbroken series of ordinations from the Lord Jesus through the original Eleven faithful Apostles, or from St. Paul. Sacerdotalists, who regard ordination by Apostolic Succession as transmitting the commission necessary to a valid Christian ministry, are either Episcopalian or Presbyterian.

There is a very large and influential school in all the national Churches that constitute the Anglican Communion which holds that the official acts of a Christian minister are Invalid unless he has been ordained by a Bishop of the Apostolic Succession. So important does this doctrine appear to the representatives of this school that, in order to establish it, they have tried, some think with success, to trace our Anglican Episcopate back, by tactual succession, link by link, to Augustine of Canterbury, and from him to St. John or to St. Peter.

There is a school in some, if not all, of the Presbyterian Churches which holds to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession almost as firmly as any among Episcopalians, but its representatives insist that the succession must be traced through the Presbyterate, and that Bishops and Presbyters constitute one and the same order.

The Congregationalists of various names, among them the great Baptist and Disciple Churches, hold to the non- Sacerdotal, Republican, Protestant theory of the origin and authority of the Christian ministry, and count ministerial succession, whether Episcopalian or Presbyterian, as of no vital importance. They contend that Christian

PREFACE.

Xlll ministers are simply officers of the Church, elected and appointed by the people, and that, aside from this, the all important essential of a true Ministry is the call of the Holy Ghost and the possession of the spirit of Christ.

Sacerdotalists and Republicans agree that Divine grace is necessary to efficiency in the preaching and sacramental ministrations of a Christian minister; but they differ in that the former hold that this grace is a transmission of power from Christ in the Sacrament of ordination, while the latter hold that it is a transmission of power from the Holy Ghost, without any necessary connection with the ceremony of ordination.

I hope to convince the reader of this book that there is no reason why the representatives of these diverse views of the origin and authority of the Christian ministry should not unite in constituting a Common Inter-Church Ministry, and that I have discovered a way by which they may do so.

As my gospel of the Level Plan for the unification of Christendom came to me as a progressive revelation from my personal experience as a missionary worker, perhaps the interest in it will be increased if I give a short autobiographical sketch covering my ministerial life so far as it has a direct bearing upon this gospel.

Let me say, then, that I became a convert to the Episcopal Church, as the result of Sacerdotal teaching and have been in her Ministry for a quarter of a century.

XIV

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

The whole of my ministerial life has been spent in this Church’s mission field, first as a Circuit, then as a General missionary in the Diocese of Ohio, and afterwards as a Bishop missionary in the Diocese of Arkansas. I have devoted every energy of mind and body to my Church extension and upbuilding work, much of which has been of a proselyting character.

I have gloried in this work, and have spent and been spent in it, because of the conviction that in English-speaking countries, the Churches of the Anglican Communion can make superior claims to the allegiance of the people; and that these Churches will become the several rallying points of unity, when it shall please God to bring together into National churches and International Communions all Christians of our race into one fold, under one ministerial shepherding. In support of this conviction I preached and wrote a great deal, and not in vain; for I have been instrumental in establishing many Churches and in making a multitude of converts. Within the twelve years since I became Bishop over forty Episcopal Churches have been built in my Diocese, and it has more than doubled in every element of strength of which statistics can take account.

If sectarianism is to continue, I should much prefer to be an Episcopalian sectarian, rather than any other kind; and so long as it continues, or until my tongue cleaves to the roof of my mouth, and my right hand forgets its cunning, I may be counted upon to speak and write of the superior claims of the Churches of the Anglican

PREFACE.

XV

Communion to the allegiance of English-speaking people.

But, now that I have made this declaration of loyalty to the Protestant Episcopal Church in particular, and to the Anglican Communion in general, let me make the reader my confessor.

As the years have gone by, the conviction has been forcing itself upon me, that though, to others, I have seemed to have had somewhat notable success as a missionary, I, to my own mind, have failed in my distinctive work as a Christian minister; and the pity of it is, that under present conditions, there is no way of escape from the sectarianism which has defeated my highest aim. I must either quit my missionary efforts, or else continue to build up a sect at the expense of other sects; and, try as I will to prevent it, while things remain as they are, my sectarian work will overlap the work of other sectarians; and this, notwithstanding the fact that it scarcely touches the hem of the garment of the unchristianized, and of the needy poor who are on every side.

My work is completely typical of nearly all successful sectarian ministerial endeavors. It is to a great extent a pulling down and a building up, at a tremendous waste of energy and money, and in a shameful disobedience of our Lord’s commands: “ Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature;” and “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.”

If I have learned anything from my experience and observation as a sectarian missionary, it is that we cannot

XVI

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

make the real progress that should be made in the conquest of the world for Christ, unless we get rid of our sectarianism.

A very large proportion of the classes which the Bishops of the Episcopal Church are confirming, is made up of Christians from other Churches. Often the majority of a confirmation class is composed of such, and recently I had an experience which, notwithstanding my thorough-going sectarianism, made me heartsick. I confirmed a class, all the members of which had been exemplary Christians, some among them eminently so, of other religious bodies. For a long time I held the theory that this process would rightly continue until the Episcopal body would swallow and absorb all other Christian bodies; but now I see that such a result is neither possible nor desirable.

Of course, as a sectarian I welcomed these good people into the Episcopal Church and would be glad to see many like them in all the classes presented to me for confirmation. I always have proceeded, and probably always shall proceed, upon the assumption that many of the English-speaking Denominations originally got all of their members from the Churches of the Anglican Communion and that, therefore, I have a right to get back as many as I possibly can of their adherents. Besides, to say nothing about the superior, or at least prior claims of the Episcopal Church to the allegiance of English-speaking Americans, this is the land of the free, where people are at liberty to follow their convictions, or, if they have

PREFACE. xvii

no convictions, their preferences in the choice of their Church relationship.

But though it is easy enough, by such considerations, to justify my proselyting efforts, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for me to be reconciled to the fact that, while a large percentage of my confirmation classes are made up of proselytes from the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and other Churches, fully fifty per cent of the adult population of the United States are not faithful members of any Church. The Good Shepherd rejoiced over the one sheep that He found in the wilderness more than over the ninety-nine which did not go astray, and I have come into the possession of that measure of His spirit which leads me to prefer that, in making up their confirmation classes, the Clergy should direct their special efforts towards the securing of non-Church members. Not that I am unwilling to confirm ten times as many proselytes as I do, but that I want to confirm ten non-Church members to one proselyte, and that I have come to regard a confirmation class which is wholly, or even chiefly made up of proselytes as an evidence of weakness rather than strength in the Church which should inspire regret instead of satisfaction. The Rector who presented the class of proselytes to which I refer, was greatly elated at his valuable catches from the other Churches, but, notwithstanding his enthusiasm, my heart was heavy because he had toiled all the year without catching anything from the great sea of the unchurched world.

I honestly believe that I am an illustration of the power

XVlll

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

of a sectarian leopard to change, by God’s grace, some of his spots. For I have reached the point, when I think that Christian unity in the United States, by an absorbing process on the part of the Episcopal Church, would be a misfortune.

The “ United Church of the United States ” cannot be an old Church including within its organization all other Churches. It must be a newly developed, national institution, resulting from the union on an equal footing of all the orthodox Churches, ancient and modem. Sacerdotal and Republican.

This book was written for the purpose of showing that ( 1 ) the unification of Christendom necessary to the evangelization of the world is dependent upon a Common Inter-Church Ministry and (2) that this requisite Ministry cannot exist except in the case of the Churches which mutually acknowledge that a Church, whether ancient or modern, large or small, which holds to the belief that Jesus is the God-Man, Saviour of the world and makes provision for the teaching of this doctrine and the administration of the Sacraments of Christian Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is a true Church of Christ; that the official Ministry of every such Church is entirely regular, and that the acts of its representatives in preaching and administering the Sacraments are completely valid and efficacious.

The Sacerdotal doctrines of the origin and authority of the Christian ministry and of the unnatural super-

PREFACE.

XIX natural effects of the two Sacraments, and other sacramental ordinances are fully considered with the result of establishing the conclusion that they will not stand the test of examination in the light of either Scripture, history or philosophy.

In this general conclusion I am most ably supported by two learned writers, the Rev, Dr. George Williamson Smith, and “Anglican Presbyter,” who respectively contribute to the book an exceptionally important Introduction and Appendix. They are in themselves such distinct and finished essays in support of the Level Plan for Church Union, that I may fairly claim for this book that it presents to the public in one volume three separate and distinct works in support of this plan.

In the Introduction, the traditional Sacerdotal claims respecting the origin and authority of the “ Historic ” Episcopate are examined in the light of the evidence afforded by the New Testament and Patristic literatures, with the result of showing that it was developed for the purpose of securing unity to the church; and that therefore the use of it as a sectarian asset is wrong. Thus, the conclusion is reached that I am justified in proposing an Inter- Denominational, non-sectarian Episcopate which will become the center of ecclesiastical unity in the case of each nation.

The primary object of the Appendix is to show by special references to recognized authorities, that a fundamental contention which runs through the lectures of this book is in exact alignment with the doctrines of the

XX

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

Anglican Reformers and with the conclusions reached by scientific experts in the field of ecclesiastical antiquities. This contention is, that Christianity is essentially Republican, or Democratic, and that therefore Republicanism rather than Sacerdotalism must be made the basis of any plan for Church union in which can reasonably be centered any hope for success. But the scholarly and brilliant writer of the Appendix who, like many another Christian minister of extraordinary gifts and acquirements, is the pastor of a small but highly favored flock, goes far beyond this purpose by advancing and supporting independent arguments against Sacerdotalism, with so much originality and skilfulness as to render his essay one of the most powerful pieces of controversial literature that has appeared in recent years.

May I suggest that the most advantageous reading of this threefold book would be to pass from its Introduction to the Appendix; then take up its Lecture III and afterwards Lectures I and II in order. This arrangement for the book was of course out of the question, but, nevertheless, it would have been logical and effective. Those who read through the book as it stands are earnestly recommended to go back and re-read at least Section II of Lecture II in the light of the information that they have gained from Lecture III and the Appendix. This Section II, Lecture II, is the crucial section in which the Level Plan for Church Union is stated.

In Lecture I, an effort is made to show that the coming

PREFACE.

XXI together of the Churches, upon which the universal extension and full development of Christianity is dependent, cannot be brought about upon any except the exactly level ground of pure Republicanism. What is said in this section is fundamentally opposed by the Sacerdotal doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Accordingly, it contains in Section III, an effort to show the untenable character of that doctrine.

In Lecture II, the plans for Church union, for which the many Churches stand, are grouped into three general divisions, on the basis of the chief principles involved, and shown to be impracticable. As has just been observed, in Section II of this Lecture the plan which I am advocating is clearly stated and securely supported by historical facts and arguments. Section III is devoted to the answer of the chief objections that have been offered to the plan. Much labour was bestowed upon this section and considerable space given to it, because of the conviction that if the objections which pass under review here can be set aside, the Level Plan for Church Union may be regarded as invulnerable against any attack that can be made upon it.

In Lecture III, the writings of the great Sacerdotal authorities. Bishop Gore and Professor Moberly of England, and Bishop Hall, of the United States, are examined. Copious and telling quotations which give support to the positions taken by me here and elsewhere are made from the writings of the chief experts in the science of

XXIl

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

historical criticism. It is believed that they will generally be regarded as most interesting, illuminating and conclusive.

The answer by “ Anglican Presbyter,” to Bishop Hall’s representations in his recently published and widely read essay, “ The Apostolic Ministry,” is in itself worth the price of this volume. It is printed as a supplement to the Appendix.

On a recent visit to the home country, one of the Bishops of an English colony, who is doing work in a difficult mission field, where he deeply feels the necessity for Church union, offered the suggestion that the universities of Oxford and Cambridge should make provision for the meeting of the great need of an up-to-date restatement, in the light of the facts established by the science of historical criticism, of the whole Anglican system of doctrine concerning the Christian church, ministry and sacraments, in-so-far as that system bears upon the subject of Church union.

The authors of this tripartite book, in common with many others, felt the need for such a restatement long before eloquent expression was given to it in one of the stirring missionary addresses of this returned colonial Bishop; and, though they have no idea that their humble efforts will render it any the less desirable that the carrying out of his wise suggestion to the great universities should be arranged for by their authorities, yet they humbly believe that no restatement of the kind that might be made by representative Oxford and Cambridge scholars, would

PREFACE.

xxni in any important respect, except in fullness only, differ widely from that which is here presented as the result of their combined efforts.

I have chosen to denominate my plan for Church union, “ The Level Plan,” though perhaps, “ The Inter-Church Episcopate Plan,” or “ The Common Ministry Plan,” or ” The National Council Plan ” would have been as good a designation of it. The contents would also justify the title which Bishop Gore gave to his last book, ” Orders and Unity,” or better, “ The Christian Ministry and Church Union.”

The Level Plan for Church Union is my individual , unofficial interpretation of the official plan of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and of the semi-official plan of the rest of the Anglican Communion, as set forth in the fourth article of the so called Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.

I want most thankfully to acknowledge my very great obligation to some six or eight friends who have been so kind as to take much interest in this book. They have allowed me to put them to the trouble of reading the whole of its first draft, and large parts of the several revisions that were made before the Level Plan for Church Union was finally worked out as it is now presented to the public. Their criticisms have resulted in the improvement of many passages throughout the book, and also in the writing of that important section of it in which the chief objections to the plan are stated and answered.

The Rev. Quincy Ewing has been of so much service

XXIV

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

to me and has left such a deep impression upon the book as to cause me to feel that he should be mentioned by name. I started out with the conviction that the necessary coming together of the Churches could never be secured on the uneven ground of Sacerdotalism which, as I had come to believe, is essentially Jewish and Heathen, and that, consequently, the perfectly level ground of Christian Republicanism must be selected as the place for the requisite reunion. When I had carefully surveyed and staked off what I supposed to be this ground, Mr. Ewing pointed out that, according to the bearings which he took, I had not, here and there, altogether avoided the Sacerdotal domain. After much correspondence, I became convinced that he was right and made the necessary changes in my lines. Without these changes the book would have been wanting in logical consistency. During the remainder of my life, I shall thank God upon every remembrance of Mr. Ewing.

In concluding these prefatory remarks, may I, so to speak, rise to a question of personal privilege, by making reference to the painful consciousness of the fact that my book, “ The Church for Americans,” is in part irreconcilable with “ The Level Plan for Church Union.” Indeed, the books differ as a whole in that “ The Church for Americans ” is a criticism of Protestantism, written from the Sacerdotal view point; and that “The Level Plan for Church Union ” is a criticism of Sacerdotalism, written from the Protestant point of view.

PREFACE.

XXV

But I am happy in being able to say that, notwithstanding I was, in the days of its writing, a thorough-going “ Catholic,” ‘‘ The Church for Americans ” contains very few Sacerdotal passages, none of which are of a virulent type. But such as they are I trust that they will be forgiven me by God and man, because of my regret for them and also on account of the Lecture in that work, entitled, “ Our Controversy with Romanism,” which is an attack on the very citadel of Sacerdotalism that has never been repulsed.

This section of “ The Church for Americans ” and many shorter passages of the same character, have prevented the book from becoming popular in the “ Catholic ” school of the Protestant Episcopal Church, so that, though it has passed through many editions, nineteen, I think, very few copies have been purchased and circulated, as proselyting instrumentalities, by representatives of that school. The many Clergymen and Laymen who have used the book extensively, several among them purchasing twenty-five, and two or three as many as fifty copies at a time, have been almost without exception either “ low ” or “ broad ” or conservative ” high ” Churchmen.

The evening of life is upon me, and it will have to be longer than I fear it will be, if, before that night cometh in which no man can work, I accomplish all the undertakings that I have planned. It is not likely therefore, that I shall ever find time to rewrite “ The Church for Americans;” and while sectarianism continues, I shall remain too much of an Anglican sectarian to withdraw it.

XXVI

Of course, the next edition of “ The Church for Americans,” if another is called for, will, no preventing Providence, contain an additional preface, in which my radical and happy change of front will be frankly avowed. It will have a full list of the Sacerdotal passages and a correction of their erroneous teaching. If, however, I should not be permitted to prepare and publish such a correction of what there is of the false doctrine of Sacerdotalism, I here earnestly request that, in view of the true Gospel Republicanism of “ The Level Plan for Church Union.” and its recently published predecessor, “ The Crucial Race Question,” no man will charge against me the errors of “ The Church for Americans,” a book, written at a much earlier period, which reflects more of the teaching that I received at the theological seminary than of the results of my own independent investigation and thinking.

And may I not humbly plead that the inconsistency of my earlier and later writings is in principle the same inconsistency that St. Paul and St. Peter manifested. For at first they believed that the only way in which they could accomplish God’s purposes would be by going to the world w’ith the Gospel through Judaism, but afterwards they concluded, as the result of experience, that they must abandon that plan and go directly to the nations.

St. Paul was a strict Jew. He was a Pharisee, a party in the Jewish Church which corresponds to the “ Catholic ” party in the Anglican Churches, and he was also a Rabbi. He never quite got over his Rabbinism. His interpretation of the Gospel to the end was colored with it. But

PREFACE.

XXVll he left his Pharisaism very far behind. He at last found himself so immeasurably distant from it that he could say of the Jewish Church and its ceremonial requirements, “Christ is the abrogation of the law.” From that time on, St. Paul’s preaching and work had reference to Christianity as a world religion, which was to be regarded as quite separate and distinct from Judaism. Henceforth he taught that the Gospel included all nations on exactly the same footing.

My doctrine concerning the essential equality of the orthodox Christian churches, ancient and modern. Episcopal and non-Episcopal, a doctrine which constitutes the cornerstone of the foundation upon which The Level Plan for Church Union is rested, involves the very same principle that was involved in St. Paul’s doctrine that no distinction is to be made between the representatives of Judaism and Heathenism as to their relationship to Jesus and their standing in the Christian church.

I cannot get away altogether from my Protestant Episcopalianism, even, if I may reverently make such a comparison, as St. Paul could not get away altogether from his Judaism. He believed until the end that Judaism had certain great advantages over all other religions, and I believe this of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, as compared with any other Christian church. But, as St. Paul ceased to believe that the world was to be saved through a judaized Christianity, so I have ceased to believe that its salvation is dependent upon an anglicanlzed Christianity.

XXVllI

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

Those who may desire to examine the representations which constitute the basis of the Level Plan for Church Union, in the light of the great authorities who have written on both sides, will find a list of their works following the Index.

In the preparation of this volume I have devoted every moment for the last three years that could possibly be taken from “ the care of all the Churches,” and I respectfully invoke for this the first fruit of my assiduous labors on behalf of Church union, the thoughtful consideration of the reader.

The Episcopal Residence. W. M. B.

Little Rock, Arkansas.

St. Bartholomen)' s Day, 1910.