EPISCOPACY AND UNITY.* Tins little book in the course of
two hundred and fifty pages gives a clear view of the relations of the Church of England to non-episcopalian bodies, here and on the Continent, from the Reformation to our own day, and supplies a valuable catena of the opinions held on the subject of those relations by the most distinguished leaders on both sides. We believe that ignorance of the history of their own Church was one main cause of the growth among our clergy during the last century of an intolerant spirit towards members of other Reformed churches. They swallowed the Tractarian principles without examination, and so proceeded to un-church all bodies who were without episcopal government, despite their mani- festation of "the fruits of the Spirit." The argument employed was a simple one. "The power of ordination is inherent in bishops only; consequently, where there is no bishop, there are no priests ; where there are no priests, there are no sacraments ; where there are no sacraments, there is no church." But no one has yet succeeded in proving from Scripture the first of these propositions, upon which all the rest depend. " Let any man show me," said the Bishop of Hereford in 1675, " Timothy or Titus or anyone ordained twice, made first priest and then bishop, which is absolutely neces- sary if they be distinct characters." The greatest scholar of his time, Archbishop Usher, said the same thing. "I have ever declared my opinion to be that bishop and presbyter differ only in rank, not in order." And he went on to say, " I do profess that with like affection I should receive the Blessed Sacrament at the hands of the Dutch ministers if I were in Holland, as I should do at the hands of the French ministers if I were in Charenton." Bishop Andrewes may be quoted to the same effect : " Though our government be by divine right, it follows not either that ' there is no salvation' or that a church cannot stand' without it. . . . This is not to damn anything, to prefer a better thing before it." The contrary opinion dates from Laud, who maintained that there could be no true church without diocesan bishops; and as a consequence of this doctrine exiled from the Church of England many of its most sincere and godly members.
There can be no question that a reunion of the Reformed Churches is impossible until our High Churchmen learn a little more respect for the facts of history, both ancient and modern. To base a theory of necessary Church government upon episcopal Asia Minor while ignoring unepiscopal Alexandria is convenient but not creditable. To hold that the sole Christian church in America is that very small section of those professing the Christian name which is governed by bishops, is magnificent but not convincing. On the other hand, to allow that episcopacy, while of the bene ease of the Church, is not of its ease, would remove the main objection to episcopacy in the minds of the great Protestant societies,
• Episcopacy and Unity. By H. A. Wilson. London : Longmont; and Co. [3s. 6d. net.]
and so pave the way to ultimate union. Mr. Wilson does not write in any spirit of partisanship, and is content for the most part to leave the facts and opinions he collects to speak for. themselves. Occasionally be adds a short excursus on some point of special interest, such as the Synod of Dort, or Occasional Conformity, or the rubric requiring confirmation. In regard to the last point he discusses the historical inter- pretation of the rubric, and decides that it had no reference to dissenters, further pointing out that from dissenters who were required occasionally to communicate, confirmation was not required. While admitting that confirmation may rank as an apostolic custom, he holds that the Church of England by its articles and rubrics, and by its practice through many centuries, does not claim for it the rank of an ordinance " generally necessary to salvation."
Previous page
