CHURCH UNION.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 313, 28 September 1908, Page 9

CHURCH UNION.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. Much space has been given up of late to. correspondence on the subject of Church Union. We Still have a number,of letters on hand, and in order to ensure publication have condensed these, -leaving the main points of tho writers undisturbed. THE STUMBLING BLOCK. : . "Observer" writes: — "I am much interested in the letters of your correspondents, which should do much to promote Churct; Union. The State Church-of Scotland (,i*iusbyterian) has in the person of his Majesty the King a sworn protector: and is safeguarded in every sense so far as tho human law is concerned; and that without the fear of any interpretation of the Divino Law becoming thwarted by tho Human Law. Tho stumbling block to Church Union is a mere snare of human contrivanco ' precedence.' There is an ecclesiastical snobbishness about precedence; therein is a huma'n senso of prido'. Practical Church Union of a workable kind is not impossible, and. would bo welconto by tho denominations affected. . Tho Divine Law is Love and tho joining of love with moro love is consumated in affection. Let the affection of Church with Church become intense in tho ideal lovo of a united- Church on earth towards Christ. Tho progress of world-wide, civilisation calls for Church Union —will tho Churches respond?" APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION DISPUTED. "Outsider" regards the letter of "-Genuine Catholic" showing the political origin of tho Anglican Church and the weakness of its claims to Apostolic succession -as'-valuable' just now. let the-force-of his reasoning would havo been stronger had lie pointed out that the soveroign is head of the Church, and that tho Church is represented in Parliament. Again, his argument lacks force from his failure to mention (1) that the weakness of tho claims of the' Anglican Church to Apostolic succession rests not so much upon its relation to the Roman . Church as the weakness of the claims of tho Roman Church itself to regular ordination; (2) that the origin of the Roman Church was political and the papacy was controlled by. emperors and kings for many centuries. In other words, ho should have-pointed out that while the "earnest Christian" cannot find a sure ground of support in a " branch- theoryj" or a " province theory," ho must bo satisfied that- all the links in the chain of tho "• continuity. theory " are. sound before ho can accept it. _, ■ ' " Genuine. Catholic " on leaping into tho arena of -this contest professed the laudablo desire to throw what light be could upon the question in dispute. Why then has he withheld, tho most important information at his disposal ? He surely was aware that many of tho early councils of the Church were called together by the emperors themselves and that they often"presided at the councils. Further, tho popes chosen by the councils were at times set aside by the emperor. Again, many popes wero deposed by tho councils, and the popes summoned and dissolved councils. In addition to. all this, as.many.as threo popes were in power at the same time " "Outsider" quotes at . some length the history of the~early Roman Church to support his contention that continuity has not been established. "Thus it appears," ho continues, "that tho power of tho popes and the power of tho councils were at see-saw for centuries — now one on top, now the other. Tho supremacy of the popes was not secured until the middle of tho fifteenth century. In other words, chaos reigned in the Church for about 1100 yea-vs. It fol'ows, therefore, that in order,to prove the continuity of regular ordination or Apostolic succession in the Roman Church throughout thi-s_ period, one must bo ablo to prove a negative. "From the foregoing it would appear that Apostolic succession, both in the Roman and tho Anglican Churches, is ,too imaginary to bo- valuable or necessary. But, imaginary and unreal as it always' has beon,) it-.,appears to ■bo tho chief obstacle to union of the Churches. Another obstacle to union is the stress put upon tho terms presbyter and bishop. Yet every. half-educated person knows that these words aro usod inter-changeably-ill the Greek Testament. Here one may search in vain> for any compulsory scheme for the government of .the Christian Church. It is true that tho terms presbyter, bishop, ;.nd deacon occur. But the questionof government is left open; for some of the early churches had a -bishop, others a presbytor, and others again had neither one nor tho other. Common sense' ruled until ousted by selfish greed. . . "To one outside tho Churches, such a stato of affairs as obtains to-day regarding potty difforonces of beliefs and forms of 'government, is appalling. A leading Anglican clergyman told me yesterday that ho held services in a small town in New Zealand, when about! a dozen, including children, wero all that could be got together. At tho same hour just across t-ht street a Presbyterian minister was doing duty for a like number. There are six churches_ in the same town oil. equal footing. Now this is a oxamplo of the sinful waste of energy, time, and moans that has been going on for scores of years. It is little wonder that so many think that there must be' a wide gulf between tho religion of the Churches and the religion of Jesus."

ANGLICAN ORDERS. "Anglican" writes: —The caso for Anglican Orders lias been put so fairly and forcibly quito recently by Eisiiop Matlw of the Old Catholic Church (and '110 deals with tho main points raised in "Genuine Catholic's" letters) that i will givo a summary of his remarks, which are all the mere convincing as coming from 0110 who is not himself an Anglican. . Bishop Mat-how, in a i reccnt lecture stated that, in 'his opinion,- the' best book that had ever been published against tho validity cf Anglican Orders was tho Rev. Arthur \\ : ollaston Button's 'Tho Anglican Ministry,' written'while Mr. liutton was a member cf tlio Oratory, ; under Cardinal Newman. But tho -best answer to it was tho fact that Sir.' H'utton himself had returnedto tho .Church of' England, and was now tho rector of an important London church. It was clear that the English Reformers had 110 thought of abolishing tho Apostolic ministry. Tno preamble to the ; forms of Ordination appended to tho Prayer-book, of 1552 distinctly stated that their intention was to "continue" and '.'retain" that-minis-try. Objections to the validity of Anglican Orders had been advanced en various grounds, both historical and theological. Of thesa tho historical objections might bo reduced to one—the allegpd uncertainty ~as: to. tho Episcopate of Barlow, the .consecrator of Matthew Parker, Archdeacon of-. Canterbury. Parker was consecrated at Lambeth, December 17,1559, Barlow officiating, assisted by tho Roman Catholic Bishop Hodgkyns and tho Edwardiuq Bishops Scary and Cuverdale. Was Barlow a Bishop? The .deeds relating to his consecration are missing,'bat.this much is certain —when Barlow was ' installed as Bishop of St. David's the mandate of - his installation recited tho fact of liis.consccration and when 110 took-his. seat in the Houso of Lords he had to bo presented by tlio witnesses of his consecration, for 110 bishop-elect became a spiritual peer until after his consecration. In Mary's reign Barlow's consecration was not doubted. Ho conformed to tho Roman Catholic Church and was recognised as a Bishop. But granting Lingard and other iC'jpnblo and fairmindod Roman Catholic' authors lnivo been wrong in supposing Barlow not to have been consecrated, would tlio fact affect Parker? Certainly not. . It is impossible to deny that all tho essential elements of a valid consecration wero prermit when Parker received tho Episcopate. Three Bishops, tho validity of whoso Orders was never questioned prayed, imposed hands, and uttered a form, meagre 110 doubt, but not moro so than the extern-, poraneous forms of tho earliest times. , Consequently Parker became a real Bishop, and thoso wlio derive their succession from him aro indeed truo Bishops. From time to time other lines of succession havo united with, that of Parker. For instance, Antonio de Dominis, who was Roman Catholic Bishop of Segna in 1600 and Archbishop of Spalato in 1602, joined the Church, of England and was mado Dean of Windsor. Ho was ono of tho co-consecrators of George Montaigne, liishop of London, and of Nicholas Felton, Bishop of Ely. Thcso two Bishops wero cooonscorato'rs of Archbishop Laud, from whom the present Anglican hicrachy derives. More-,

over, in Ireland, under Elizabeth, only two Roman- Bishops were deposed; most of the others conformed to the Anglican Church. Of these, Hugh Curwon, Archbishop of Dublin,' had been' consecrated by Bonner, Thirlby, and Griffin during Mary's _ reign. Threo of Laud'a 00-consecrators derived their succession from Curwen, and not from Parker, so that in Laud three lines of succession met, and the Anglican Episcopate descends from this united, succession. Tho historical objection therefore fails, and the liturgical one is absurd, inasmuch as it would render all primitive Ordinations null. But it is said_ that the "Anglican Ordinal, being vitiated in its origin, was wholly insufficient to confer Orders," and this on\tho ground of "defective intention in tho consecrators." Those consccrators were, however. Christian men. Nono of them had denied Divino revelation .or avowed themselves atheists. ' If they wero incapable of conferring valid Ordination, what are we to think of the" Ordinations in Franco during tho Revolution? The "channels of grace" there wero of such a character as to put aside all possibility of any intention facicndi quod tacit ecclesia (of doing what the Church does). Was not tho chosen starter of the new episcopal system, Bishop Charles Maurice do Talleyrand-Perigord, an avowed atheist? Ono of his colleagues was Bishop Gobel, of Paris; another atheist, who later on publicly renounced all his functions. Numerous other Bishops abjured Christianity, and this is tho source of the French Ordinal tions of to-day. »