THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN REUNION.* pus author

of these important Lectures, when he has occasion

to refer to writers of distinction from whom he differs, does so with a freedom of speech characteristic of a past age. In connexion, e.g., with Professor Buchanan Gray—" Evidence has little weight with a modern critic " ; with the late Dr. Hatch, one of the few English theologians whose name is known outaide England—" Too often the pro-

fessed adoption of the historical method appears to be but a device for concealing one's biaa " ; while Schmiedel treats the primitive community of goods (Acts ii., 44) "with more than usual want of sanity " ; and the critics who question the genuineness of Mark x., 35-45, are told roundly that "we "—i.e., the Lecturer—" cannot waste more space on such trifling." These pleasantries, while not without a certain

personal interest, are to be regretted, because they disincline the reader to give Dr. Headlam's work—which is of exceptional

value both as a theological treatise and, under present circum- stances, as an Eirenicon—the consideration which it deserves. It shoUld not only be read, but studied ; and, in particular, it should be in the hands of every member of the Lambeth Conference. For Dr. Headlam deals as faithfully with bishops as with critics ; and with better reason, though (as befits their office) with slightly more reserve.

The Lectures deal first with the origin of the Christian ministry, and, secondly with "the somewhat complicated questions which have been raised concerning validity of Orders and Sacraments." These questions became acute during the discussions relating to Anglican Orders and their possible recognition by the Church of Rome which took place in 1895-96.

The ignorance with regard to this Church and, in general, to Catholicism in the European sense of the word, which prevails among English ecclesiastics even of the highest rank, is profound.

Had it not been so we should have been spared that foolish and humiliating episode ; no one with the most rudimentary know- ledge of the situation could for a moment have doubted its end.

Its effect on Dr. Headlam was "to create a profound distrust of the methods and theology of the Church of Rome." It should also, it may be suggested, have given him a no less profound distrust of the common sense of the authorities of the Church of England-

' and at the same time a feeling that we had not probed to the bottom the question of what we mean by valid Orders and Sacraments. Moreover, it was impossible not to ask whether our relation towards Nonconformists was not open to just the same criticism as the relation of the Church of Rome towards ourselves."

In spite of his contempt for critics, he finds himself unable to come down on the side of tradition; Apostolic Succession, as ordinarily taught in the Church of England, seems to him "mechanical and entirely unreal"

"When I came to examine the doctrine historically, I was

• equally surprised and gratified to find how different was the more primitive teaching on the subject from that which was customary in Anglican circles. Further, I was surprised to see how little support the current form of teaching among us had from mediaeval and even modern Roman Catholic theo- logians. Their point of view seemed to me a different one ; and I began to suspect that here we had an instance of insular disproportion.'

There could be no happier suspicion ; the Anglican who entertains it has at least begun to "put away childish things."

There is no Biblical authority for Episcopacy, Dr. Headlam tells us, nor is there any evidence that the Apostles ever gave any directions about the future government of the Church. And the great barrier to reunion at the present moment is an incorrect conception of the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession. This succession is a fact, not a doctrine ; and it is not a succes- sion by ordination, it is the succession of bishops in a see. From

the middle of the second century, or earlier, the fact of the Episcopate was generally accepted ; and, in the third, we find the bishop the regular minister of ordination, "not because there was anything magical in his office, or because he had received spiritual power of transmission from the Apostles," but "because the Church had so ordered it." The important point

to be remembered is that the question whether anyone could or could not ordain was regarded, as it still is in the East, "as a question not of dogma but of ecclesiastical rule." The con- clusion indicated is that, while we have no justification for

, The Docirine of ihe Churca and Christian Reunion. The Bampton Lectures "1, 1920. By Arthur 0. Heedlam. D.D. London : John Hurray. [12s. net.1 -

questioning the validity of non-episcopal orders which are performed with a desire to obey the commands of Christ, and to fulfil the intention of the Apostles by prayer and laying on of hands, the practical rule of episcopal ordination, and the fact of Apostolic Succession which resulted from it, have been in the past the great strength of Christian unity ; and that reunion must come not only from the mutual recognition of Orders and Sacraments, but from the establishment of the Catholic rule of episcopacy and episcopal ordination for the future. Which is very much the position of what is called the Lambeth Quadri- lateral—a scheme which has so far led to no results.

Dr. Headlam is perhaps nearer the Modernists, whom he cold-shouldere, than the Tractarians, whom he compliments ;

certainly his suggestive and illuminating examination of the fact of Episcopacy has been better received by the Modern Church- man than by the Church Times. But it is doubtful whether the

driving power behind it is sufficient to commend it to Churches formed on another model, and not unreasonably distrustful of the shape actually taken and the results actually brought about by that institution. It is probably true that " a moderate Episcopacy" is the ideal form of Church Government. But Episcopacy as we know it is not moderate ; it is, what is a very different thing, opportunist—did not a distinguished man speak of " squeesing " the bishops ?—and "the violent bear it away."

Dr. Headlam seems to be obsessed by the idea of system which has so strong a hold upon the official mind ; and it in difficult not to think that something short of what he has in view would remedy the scandals caused by "our unhappy divisions," which in common with all good men he regrets, and which in

common with all wise men he desires to remove. Much con- fusion of thought would be avoided if for the loose word Reunion the more exact phrase communicatio in sacria--inter-oommunion

of worship and sacraments—were substituted. For the reunion, or union, of Christians which is so much to be desired is not a fusion, or coalition, of Churches; it would not touch the polity, the belief, the ceremonial, or (what perhaps is more important) the distinctive spirit, or genius, of any one of the Churches concerned. Much lees would it involve a national, or inter- national, organization of Christians into one visible body.

Such an organization, useful in one stage of civilization, might be mischievous in another ; in our own it could scarcely fail to produce friction between religious and civil society, and oppose

"the Church" to "the world." The unity which is so much to be desired is a unity of spirit. This is not broken when one

man prefers one place of worship and one another, nor when people hold different views as to the nature of the Church, the functions of the ministry, the operation of the Sacraments, and the character of what we may call the Christian facts. Religion is above such questions. Heresy is a temper, not an opinion., schism is a state of mind, not a relationship or a materia fact. The scandal of the separatist temper has always been felt, and is probably the root cause of the loss of hold of religion on the world of to-day. But the ferment of ideas consequent upon the war—a ferment to which the French Revolution is the closest modern parallel—has emphasized it. That "those who profess and call themselves Christians" should be unable to pray together, to hear the Word of God together, and to receive the Communion together, seems to the plain man scandalous and ridiculous. He is right ; it is both. And many people are coming to think that we have had enough of Con- ferences and Round Table discussions of this subject. What common ground is there between those who hold that Episcopacy

is of the ease of the Church, and those who regard it as a matter of circumstances and expediency ? The attempt of certain

prominent Anglicans to shuffle out of the resolutions of the recent Mansfield Conference, to which they had made themselves party, when they found that they were repudiated by the

Church Times, recalls Pascal's criticism of the theologians of his time: "Lea plus habilea d'entre eux sont ceux qui intrig- uent beaucoup, qui parlent peu, et qui n'ecrivent point."

Whether these eminent divines intrigued, they themselves best know. But they spoke and wrote, and, unless they were pre- pared to stick to their words and honour their signatures' they had better have done neither. To quote Pascal again: "Lean plies stir parti a toujours the de as take."

We are told by those who are in a position to know that thl reunion movement is weaker than it was a year ago. Neithei

the Dissenters, nor the "plain honest man" who sits loose to eoclesiasticisna, think that the Church means business. The

Lambeth Conference will show whether this is or is not so. But little will be done by officials ; it is individual action—pro- vided, of course, that people are prudent and know the rules of the ring—that tells. For the fail accompli becomes a pre- cedent. The Dean of Durham's recent action—taken, be it remembered, with the approval of his bishop—has been criti- cized. Whether it was lawful is a question for the law. But it was politic, and it was right.

The differences between the National Church and the non. episcopal Churches are political, historical, and cultural, not religious. And, as Philip Henry reminds Us, "it is not the actual differences among Christians that do the mischief ; it is the mismanagement of these differences." And hero the scholar is the true Pontifex or Bridge-builder ; for, to adapt Selden's wise saying, scholars "have ever been more temperate in their religion than the common people, as having more reason, the others running in a hurry." It is the misfortune of the Church of England, once the most learned Church in Christendom, that of late years it has been administered by persons lay and clerical, rather of the latter than the former type. Meanwhile "Sirs, ye are brethren." Is it too much to think thre the time has at last come when Dean Stanley's noble and truly Christian aspiration may be realized: when, i.e., "we may more and more learn to treat our. Dissenting brethren as our friends, our equals, and our allies—in one word, as Non- conforming members and ministers of the National Church" ?