UNION OF THE CHURCHES.* I. Anglican Position. I. Historical Survey. New-Testament Period (§ I).
During the New-Testament period the union of
Christians was insisted upon by our Lord and his
apostles, and in terms and connections
which make
Christian union and Church unity mutually equivalent.
"The Church" stands for the totality of
Christians in their organic unity. Our Lord speaks
of it in the singular number
(
(Matt. xviii.17-18). Christians were to become one
flock, under one
Shepherd.(
I. New- ure of the vine and its branches (John Testament
Period. xv. l-6). That his followers might be one was a subject-matter of prayer by Christ on the eve of his crucifixion (|
67 |
The schismatic spirit soon revived, however, at Corinth, and became the occasion of the "Epistle of Clement," written in behalf of the Roman Church about 95 A.D. (see Clement of Rome, §§ 3-4), in which it is declared that the ministry of the Church was arranged by the apostles with foreknowledge of the contentions that were to arise concerning the office of oversight (xliv.); and the rise of dissident faction is described as " detestable and unholy aedi 2. Patristic Period. tion " (i.). This teaching is echoed by
Ignatius of Antioch (q.v.), about 110 A.D., in his well-known "Epistles." The imperative need of unity is the chief burden of his letters, and it is made to depend upon loyalty to the bishop with his presbyters and deacons, who to gether constitute the marks of a real ekklesia (e.g., Ad Trallianos, iii.). He says in one representative passage, "If any man followeth one that maketh a schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God" (Ad Ephesios, iv.; cf. Ad Philadelphenos, iii.). The rise of Montanistic and Gnostic sectarianism caused the obligation of Church unity to be emphasized by various writers (e.g., Irenæus, Hær., IV., xxxiii. 1, 7; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., VII., ~xvii. 107; Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vi. 45). Cyprian of Carthage (q.v.) wrote a treatise, De unitate ecclesice, in which he makes the episco pate the center of unity. The general sentiment of the ancients was registered in the Constantinopoli tan Creed, " I believe . . . in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." Various schisms arose, but the sentiment that schism is sinful prevailed throughout this period, and the main body of Christians, both East and West, with a few brief in terruptions, succeeded in maintaining intercommu nion and visible unity. Each local bishop was rec ognized as the center of unity within his jurisdiction, while the unity of the episcopate at large was se cured by the development of provinces, each having its metropolitan, and of five patriarchates, severally centering in Rome, Constantinople, Alex andria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Political circum stances gave to Rome the foremost place, and to Constantinople, as new Rome, the second place.Serious controversies were usually dealt with, however, by councils of bishops-provincial or general, according to necessity (see Councils and Synods, §§ 1-3).
The claims which began to be made by the Roman see in the patristic period became in the Middle Ages a chief cause of permanent schism between the East and West; although other causes also were operative. The division of the Roman Empire, coupled with the decline of civilization, caused mutual isolation, accentuated racial differences, and gave fictitious importance to every 3. Xedievalmutual divergence in practise and
Period. terminology. Frequent quarrels took place between. Rome and Constantinople, and matters reached a climax in 1054 A.D., when a permanent schism began. The more prominent issues between the two Churches were (1) the claims of the papal see; (2) the insertion by the West of the Filiogue clause in the Nicene Creed (see Filioque Controversy); and the use by the Westerns of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. Attempts at reunion were made at the councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439), which grew out of the need which the Eastern Empire felt of assistance in its struggle with the Turks. The motive was worldly, and although at each council important concordats were adopted by representatives of both churches, the fanaticism of the Eastern monastic clergy and populace made them abortive. The schism remains unhealed.
The sixteenth century saw the Protestant revolt, out of which has grown the multiplicity of religious bodies which now divide Christian allegiance in the Western world. Its well-known causes need not be described, but it took two forms-the Lutherans and Reformed (Calvinists and Zwinglians) developed presbyterial and congregational ministries; while the Anglicans retained the threefold ministry, although rejecting papal jurisdiction over themselves; and the Swedes retained an episcopate, but abandoned the diaconate. All of the revolting bodies except the Anglicans rejected the sacerdotal conception of the ministry, and with vary-
4. Moderning completeness abandoned the sac-Period ramental doctrines of the medieval Through thechurch, in order to remove what they
Centurysixteenth regarded as barriers between individual . souls and the pardoning grace of God. This revolt had an inevitable tendency to deaden -in some directions to destroy-belief in the visible Church as the mystical body of Christ, and as intended by Christ to be united forever in a visible intercommunion by a common faith and ministry. Accordingly, the spirit of dissent grew mightily; and in spite of efforts to stay the process, Western Christendom has become broken up into several hundred rival bodies.
Numerous attempts at reunion have since been made, but the world-wide aspects of the problem have not often been faced. Among these attempts the following are of chief historical importance: (1) The Conference of Marburg, 1529 (see Marburg, Conference of), between Lutheran and Zwinglian theologians; an attempt to harmonize sacramental views, but defeated by the rigid position of Luther.
|
68 |
obedience, in their defense of national liberties; but Wake refused to entertain the idea of such return. (10) The English non-jurors' negotiations with the East (1716-25), given with some fulness in T. Lathbury's History of the Non-Jurors, London, 1862, ch. viii., came to no result; but the correspondence throws light on the conditions to be reckoned with in negotiations with Eastern Churches. (11) The Evangelical United Church of Prussia was constituted in 1817 by Frederick William III, through union of the Lutherans and Calvinists in one state Church (see Union, Ecclesiastical), but the union was only partially successful, and an old Lutheran reaction- occurred, the dissidents in time obtaining recognition. (12) .In America the Presbyterians, after suffering some disintegration, have achieved partial reunions. The Old School and New School Presbyterians were united in 1869, and the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. united with the Cumberland Presbyterian Church in 1906. The Council of Reformed Churches in the U. S. holding the Presbyterian System was constituted in 1907, while the Canadian Presbyterians were united in 1875 into the Presbyterian Church in Canada (see Presbyterians, VIII., 3a, § 4, 12, § 3). A union of Methodists in Canada in 1874 and 1883 constituted the Methodist Church of Canada (see Methodists, IV., 10, § 3), and a large proportion of the Lutherans in the United States are more or less closely affiliated with a General Council (see Lutherans, III., § 8). (13) The Bonn Reunion Conferences, held in 1874 and 1875, were attended by theologians of the Old Catholic Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed communions, and several propositions were agreed to, especially with regard to the Filioque controversy. (14) The Pan-Anglican Movement for unity, initiated by the American House of Bishops in 1886, will be considered in the next part of this article. It may also be well to refer to several movements which, although not reunion movements in the strict sense of the phrase, throw light upon the problem. The Uniate Movements (see Roman Catholics, II.) represent various submissions of Eastern Christians to the papal see, the Uniates being given certain concessions, including marriage of the clergy. Members of various Protestant communions have formed alliances and federations, which leave these communions in possession of their denominational independence. They are not church unions, but are designed to reduce the evil effects o£ disunion, and to secure interdenominational cooperation on certain lines. Notable examples are the Evangelical Alliance (q.v.), founded in 1845, the Alliance of the Reformed Churches throughout the world holding the Presbyterian System, founded in 1875 (see Alliance of the Reformed Churches), and the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, organized in 1906, and including members of thirty-Four denominations. [A movement for the union of Canadian Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. is at present in an advanced stage of progress. Mention should also be made of the efforts of Old Catholics to secure union with the Anglican and Oriental churches. A. a. N.[
|
69 |
2. Anglican Platform: The Anglican communion possesses important points of contact and sympathy with all types of Christianity, whether they are called Catholic or Protestant. Its position is really
1. General unique in this regard- and the work of Attitude. mediating and of laboring for Christian reunion seems to be providentially assigned to the Anglican churches. Accordingly, the problem of unity has loomed large in Anglican thought and effort. The Anglican realizes than an adequate movement for reunion must be worldwide in its scope-embracing both Catholics and Protestants within its ultimate reference; but he also perceives that positive elements of truth are included in the contentions of the different communions, elements which are vital to Christianity, and which may not be surrendered or driven into neglect even in tbe interests of unity. A union obtained by compromise in such matters can not, he believes, be either permanent or blessed. Love must be paramount, but a love which encourages men to act contrary to their deeper convictions is surely unchristian.
The American Protestant Episcopal Church inherits the Anglican position and the advantages described above in relation to the problem of unity. Moreover, two circumstances have tended to accentuate these advantages: exemption from the hindrances to free action which con-
2. In the nection with the State involves, and American the fact that immigration has brought Episcopal almost every communion of Christen dom into its immediate neighborhood. Accordingly, the problem of unity has assumed peculiar and increasing importance among the members of that church, and in the deliberations of its general conventions. Since 1853 various joint committees have been appointed and coaknued on church unity, and on ecclesiastical relations with various churches, and these committees have en gaged in much fraternal negotiation, and have helped to remove certain mutual misunderstandings. In response to a memorial, the House of Bishops issued in 1886 its well-known Declaration on Unity, to which was appended an expression of "our desire and readiness . . . to enter into brotherly conference with all or any Christian Bodies seeking the restoration of the organic unity of the Church, with a view to the earnest study of the conditions under which so priceless a blessing might happily be brought to pass" (Journal of the General Conven tion of 1886, pp. 79-80). This declaration mentions four particulars-the so-called Quadrilateral (text in Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity, § 4) -which have been widely understood to represent formal terms of unity, an acceptance of which would suffice to secure union with the Episcopal Church, although, as a matter of fact, these particulars were given as leading instances of what the bishops de clared to be " inherent parts " of " the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender." The document was expository. The bishops neither did nor could (except with the con currence of the House of Deputies) offer formalterms of union; they simply declared what they believed to be fundamental principles, and left the discussion of terms to the future.
In 1888 the Lambeth Conference (q.v.) of the bishops in communion with the see of Canterbury adopted a resolution in which the American " Quadrilateral " was embodied, as follows: " That in the opinion of this conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God's blessing made toward Home Reunion:
3. The (A) The Holy Scriptures of the Old Lambeth and New Testaments, as containing Conference. and toga necessary to salvation, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. (B) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Sym bol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith. (C) 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. (D) The Historic Episco pate, locally adapted in the methods of its admin istration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of his Church." The conference recommended brotherly confer ences " in order to consider what steps can be taken either toward corporate reunion, or toward such relations as may prepare the way for fuller organic unity hereafter." Thus the whole Anglican epis copate adopted the American platform (Lambeth Conferences of 1867,1878, and 1888, ed. R. T. David son, London, 1889, pp. 280-281). The claim that the historic episcopate was " committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world " has been much debated. Modern scholars consider that the episcopate originated by organic development rather than by formal appointment ab initio; but the manner of its origin is immaterial, if its development was determined in result by the Holy Spirit, and if the continuance of the episco pate is by Christ's will. The conviction that it is his will can alone justify making acceptance of the episcopate an essential condition of unity, and until non-episcopal bodies reach this conviction, they can not be expected to acknowledge that the his toric epiacopate3sESSential. In brief, an important difference of conviction moat be removed before the "Quadrilateral" can become a generally accepted basis for the discussion of terms of unity.The negotiations which followed between coin, mittees appointed by the Episcopal and Presbyterian Churches (1887-96) represent in their
4. Episco- lack of results what was inevitable. pal and The Presbyterian committee took the Presbyte- ground that no negotiations for union rian Nego- could be pursued by it except on equal
tiatioas. terms with regard to the ministry, and the Northern General Assembly of 1896 in courteous terms suspended correspondence with the Episcopal commission until it might " be reopened by the acceptance by that [the Episcopal] Church of the doctrine of' mutual recognition and reciprocity."' This negative result accentuates the undeniable fact that, so long as certain existing differences touching faith and order continue, formal negotiations for unity between the bodies thus differing
|
70 |
The appointment of a joint commission for s world conference on faith and order by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church at Cincinnati Oct. 19, 1910, was dictated by these considerations, and its significance can best be defined in the terms of the report and resolution which that convention accepted and unanimously adopted: ". . . We believe that the time has now arrived
6. The when representatives of the whole famCommiesionil of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit, for a World ay be willing to come together for Conference. the consideration of questions of Faith and Order. . . We would heed this call of the Spirit of God . . . . We would place ourselves by the aide of our fellow Christians, . . . convinced that our one hope of mutual understanding is in taking personal counsel together in the spirit of love and forbearance. It is our conviction that such a conference for the purpose of study and discussion, without power to legislate or to adopt resolutions, is the next step toward unity. With grief for our aloofness in the peat, and for other faults of pride and self-sufficiency, which make for schism; with loyalty to the truth as we see it, and with respect for the convictions of those who differ from us; holding the belief that the beginnings of unity are to be found in the clear statement and full consideration of those things in which we differ, as well as of those things in which we are at one, we respectfully submit the following resolution: Whereas, There is to-day among all Christian people a growing desire for the fulfilment of our Lord's Prayer that all his disciples may be one; that the world may believe that God has sent him: Resolved,
. . That a Joint Commission be appointed to bring about a conference for the consideration of questions
touching Faith and Order, and that all Christian Communions throughout the world which confess our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior be asked to unite with us in arranging for and conducting such a conference." Seven bishops, seven presbyters, and seven laymen were duly appointed to constitute this commission, and several members have since been added. The commission organized at once, and appointed a committee on plan and scope to which the executive business is largely given. The Rt. Rev. Charles P. Anderson, bishop of Chicago, is president of the commission; the Rev. William T. Manning, rector of Trinity Church, New York, is chairman of the committee on plan and scope; Mr. R. H. Gardiner, 11 Pemberton Square, Boston, Mass., is secretary; and Mr. George Zabriskie is treasurer. It is to be noticed that the commission is not authorized to retain in its hands the preparation for, and management of, the proposed conference, for this is left to the representatives in general of the commissions which consent to participate, and all are equally to share in the business. While the Cincinnati convention was sitting, the American Congregationalists and the Disciples were constituting similar commissions, and these are in cordial touch with the Episcopal commission. The Presbyterians have also welcomed the movement, and representatives of other bodies, including the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, have shown interest. The undertaking will necessarily require several years for its achievement, but the signs are encouraging.
S. Principles of Unity: These can be briefly stated. Unity is inseparable from some form of corporate or organic union. Whatever passing expedients may be adopted to reduce the evils of sectarian division, real union is vital to the fulfilment of our Lord's prayer, and of New-Testament
1. Organic teaching-a union that will restore full Unionin intercommunion between Christian
Faith and Order. believers; that will eliminate rivalry between Christian ministries in their internal, religious, and sacramental functions, as well as in those external activities which existing federations seek to harmonize; and that will foster such world-wide harmony of working conditions as is needful for the growth of Christians in one mind and one faith. The New Testament, as has been stated, treats the Church. not only as having one Lord, but as constituting one body, which upbuilds itself in love. .Corporate union should, therefore, be consciously kept in view as the ultimate aim of all efforts for Christian unity. This is not generally realized; and to bring Christians to see that it is so is an important part of present labor fir unity. Nor can this unity be secured except on the basis of a common faith and order-that is, substantial agreement concerning matters which are deemed essential to Christianity and to the fulfilment of Christ's will. ~ This agreement can only be obtained, as the bishops .of the Protestant Episcopal Church say in their declaration of 1886, " by the return of all Christian Communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church dur ing the first ages of its existence." If any principles can constitute a common faith and order, they must|
71 |
The impossibility of securing external uniformity in non-essentials, and. the necessity that a truly Catholic religion should be practically adapted to every race, condition, and tempera 2. External ment, should be clearly realized. Yet Uniformity there is an obvious limitation to this
and principle. True unity requires de MiniatrieaParity of centy and order, even in things not in- .trinsically vital. There must be visible harmony even in things of human ordering; so that Christians can feel at home in the Church wherever they go; and so that the divergencies of use that remain shall not appear to represent a conflict of principles and ideals. The Supper of the Lord is the sacramental and working center of unity; and its general method should be at least as uniform, broadly speaking, as is consistent with the edification of diverse peoples and temperaments. The elasticity of the Church's devotional life is most fully to be attained in the devotions and usages which supplement and fill out this central service. The thorny question of parity of ministries ought not to be forced to the front until it is more ripe for settlement. In particular, mutual reciprocity in ministerial functions can not be pressed without imperiling the earlier stages of growth toward unity. For Christians of different bodies to confer successfully is possible only by treating ministerial claims as a subject for discussion and study, rather than as a mutually accepted platform; and to treat the subject in this mutually non-committal way is entirely consistent with faithfulness to conviction on the part of all.
4. How Unity is to be Achieved: This is certainly not by mere human effort and wisdom, nor on lines which can with certainty be described beforehand; but by the working of the Holy Spirit, in manners known only to God, and in God's own time. The certainty that Christian unity, and
therefore union, is God's will, and the i. Trust in assurance that the Holy Spirit is the clod and real cause of the growing demand for
Love. Christian wity, show clearly that Christians ought to labor for the union of Chris tendom, and that such labor will not, in the long run, prove abortive. The most powerful human factor is love-love which is strong enough to bridge the gulfs that divide the Christian world, to over come denominational pride, to fortify patient cour tesy and persistent study in the face of polemical war-cries, and to enlighten our minds to distinguishwhat is essential truth, and incapable of compromise, from what is not.
Another important human factor would appear to be modern cosmopolitanism in religious investigation. In our day the results of Christian research in every land rapidly become common property. No doubt these results are often obscured and given perverted explication from
2. Broad rationalistic standpoints, but the power Inveatiga- of truth to accredit itself, and to pre-
p tience vail against caricature, is to be counted and Prayer. on. Above all, the Holy Spirit can be reckoned upon, ' whose enlightening grace will enable sincere truth-seekers everywhere to profit by cosmopolitan scholarship, and to util ize it from a truly Christian standpoint for the at tainment of increasing unity of faith. To doubt it is to doubt Providence. Time also is a vital factor. Reunion may indeed become possible sooner and more suddenly than was dreamed, but in any case it will come as precipitating. and revealing results of much hidden growth, of workings that have gone on for generations. The point requiring emphasis is that unity can not be forced before God's moment; and until that moment arrives, efforts to formulate the precise conditions and terms of unity must serve as a hindrance rather than a help to the cause of unity. Prayer-unceasing and habitual prayer for unity, and for the Christian graces and illumina tion which make for it-is absolutely indispensable. Prayer is necessary to afford the human conditions of the. Spirit's work, to develop love, and to enable us all to grow in one. The following prayer is widely used in certain communions, and might well be used by all Christians: "O Lord Jesus Christ, who saidst unto Thine Apostles, Peace I leave with you; My peace I give unto you; regard not our sins, but the Faith of Thy Church; and grant her that peace and unity which is agreeable to Thy will: Who livest and reignest God for ever and ever. Amen." FRANCIS J. HALL.6. Anglo-Swedish Negotiations: [After some preliminary unofficial negotiations in 1888 and 1897 between the Anglican and Swedish Churches, the archbishop of Canterbury, at the request of the Lambeth Conference in 1908, appointed a committee to inquire into the possibility of closer relations between the two communions, the initial basis being the fact that the Swedish Church, alone of Lutheran communions, has preserved an episcopate. The report of this commission has declared that " the succession of bishops has been maintained unbroken by the Church of Sweden, and that it has a true conception of the episcopal office. . . That the office of priest is also rightly conceived as a divinely instituted instrument for the ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and that it has been in intention handed on throughout the whole history of the Church of Sweden." It is, accordingly, recommended that at the next Lambeth Conference (or at a meeting of English bishops) a resolution be adopted which, like that regarding the Old Catholics of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (adopted in 1888), will permit " members of the National Church of Sweden, otherwise qualified to receive the Sacrament in their own Church," to be admitted to Holy
|
72 |
Communion in the Anglican Church. It is also recommended that, in case Swedish churches are not available, the use of Anglican churches be permitted, with the consent of the diocesan, for marriages, burials, etc.; while Swedish ecclesiastics might profitably be permitted to give addresses occasionally in Anglican pulpits. It is the hope of the commission that there may ultimately be intercommunion between the two churches. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that there are grave barriers still, even after Anglican acknowledgment of the validity of Swedish orders. Thus in Sweden the diaconate has been lost since the seventeenth century, and confirmation is administered (when administered at all) by the second order of the ministry, as in non-episcopal Lutheran bodies; while reference to the "holy Catholic Church" has been expunged from the Creeds. Though one may waive, as more than counterbalanced by other passages in the liturgy, the substitution in the ordinal, from 1809 to 1894, of " preaching office " (predikoembet) for " priestly offices " (prestembet) (but see Bishop G. M. Williams, in The Loving Church, xliii. 18-19), there can be little doubt that, as has been semiofficially declared by Swedish Lutherans, the Swedish communion regards the episcopate as " a good external order which ought to be retained, but which is not essential to the life of the Church," while the Swedish Church itself is classed as one of several "Lutheran Churches" (the alleged point of contact between the Anglican and Swedish Churches that both are Protestant may be due to the fact that katolslc in Swedish means only " Roman Catholic ").
In the United States this movement has encountered bitter opposition on the part of the various Lutheran bodies, especially in the Augustana Synod, an intensely antiepiscopal body (see Bishop Williama, in The Living Church, xliv. 165, 173, 201), to which the majority of Swedish immigrants naturally first turn.
The outcome of the efforts for Anglo-Swedish intercommunion it would be premature to forecast.]
II. Orthodox Catholic Position: One of the most promising signs of the times, in the present divided state of Christianity in Europe and America, is that this generation is witnessing the waning of active sectarian antagonism. The former constant strife of partizan polemics inseparable from denominational dissension, which has silenced again and again ironic writers pleading for Christian
x. Recent charity, and urging the mutual ap-Decline of proach, recognition, and ultimate union Denomina- of the several reformed communions
tionalism. in the West, is ending slowly but sure ly; and even the newer dissenting di visions of those same older communions, each of which, whether large or small, was organized as an evident consequence of minor doctrinal differences, magnified or overstated by implacable theological partizans during the continuation of the successive reforming movements since the sixteenth century, are striving to find in their common ecclesiastical descent, and in their similar statements of belief, an effective basis for cooperation and for union. Until the last decade of the nineteenth century, de-cided and uncompromising denominationalism was the common characteristic of American Christianity; but during this period a movement as significant as it was spontaneous, the gradual restoration of ritual, became evident, and has resulted everywhere in the more and more general observance of the chief festivals and commemorations of the Western church year. That even various praiseworthy leaders in the several reformed communions, whose Puritan forefathers had rejected and repudiated those same Christian symbols and sacred historic ceremonies, should strive so successfully to regain more and more of their ecclesiastical inheritance gives promise of the coming of a second great spiritual renaissance. This revival of ritual, with the restoration of the church year to its former vitalizing function in the parochial life of the people, could not fail to direct the attention of many earnest denominational scholars to the renewed study of the faith, government, and worship of the primitive Catholic Church; while the reexamination of these seemingly separate yet clearly connected subjects which were debated so defiantly in the past by the sectarian scholars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has been facilitated during the present period by searching studies of recently discovered documents that both simplify and at times solve successfully many perplexing ecclesiastical problems. One of the most reassuring results of this recent reaction from post-Reformation prejudices and preferences is seen in the increasing consciousness of the defects and dangers of denominationalism, and there is also a general willingness on the part of these same separated communions to discuss fraternally, and to define irenically, the doctrinal differences which divide them, not only from each other, but also from their common mother, the Western or Latin Church, and from its elder sister, the Eastern or Greek Church.
The well-known "Quadrilateral" of the Protestant Episcopal bishops of America, afterward affirmed in 1888 without change by the Lambeth Conference (q.v.; see also above, L, 2, § 3), called forth many essays discussing, from various denominational positions, the desirability or the necessity of Christian union. This joint Anglican proposal has been thus far seemingly unsuccessful, but it has certainly aided in directing the attention of the clergy and the laity, in both England and America, to the necessity for Christian z. The cooperation and eventual corporate Four Fun- union. In no other way can the
damental Church of Christ even regain, during Principles. the present period, much less increase in the future, its all but impotent spiritual influence over modern materialism, that significant symbol and dangerous defect of our com plicated Western civilization. At the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the memorable Ed inburgh World Missionary Conference (1910) is evi dence of the increasing interest in the searching historic study of the four ecclesiastical fundamentals of the" Quadrilateral," since summarized under the connected titles of "Faith and Order." Faith has al ways been defined to be generically the authoritative traditional teaching of Christ the Incarnate Logos,|
73 |
When the apostles began their appointed work
of proclaiming the Gospel of the risen and ascended
Christ, by baptizing all nations and teaching them
to observe all his commandments
(
In these historic accounts in the Acts and in the pastoral epistles of Paul are seen continually the energizing effects of the apostolic use of the four fundamentals of the undivided Church, the forming Scriptures of the New Testament, the expanding Creed, the constant administration of the primitive Sacraments, and the presence everywhere of the organized hierarchy of three distinct
|
74 |
The Eastern Church, influenced by an environment permeated with Alexandrian mysticism, and also by the philosophical problems of the Greeks, especially the origin of the material world, the existence and nature of the invisible creating Deity, and the hidden source of evil, concentrated more and more consistently its theological·teach-
5. Grow- ing on the elucidation .of the second ing Differ- question, and thereby eventually comentiation pleted for the entire Church of all ages Between the first part of the orthodox Catholic East and dogma of the ecumenical Christian West, faith, Christology, by developing cautiously and defining concisely the connected doctrines of the incarnation, the person of Christ, and the Trinity. The Western Church was destined to become more and more different from its elder sister in the East through the influence of its own daughter, the Latin Church of North Africa, whose three illustrious teachers, Tertullian,, Cyprian, and Augustine (qq.v.), influenced irresistibly by the legalism of Latin .life and civilization, developed successively those distinguishing Latin doctrines of soteriology and the constitution of the Catholic Church which were to transform slowly and steadily the Greek Church of the West into the theocratic Latin Church ruled by the popes of Rome during the coming centuries of strife and struggle. To these directing ecclesiastical influences must be added that potent political factor which has- had such far-reaching consequences through the centuries to the present day. When the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (q.v.) became the victorious ruler of the West, and also the undisputed ruler of the entire East, his powerful personality as the historic convener of the Nicene Concil in 325, and the builder of the new capital of Constantinople in 326, could not fail to affect the ultimate destinies of both the eastern and western branches of that undivided Catholic Church which he now protected personally. While the existence of the successive bishops of Rome was obscured by the presence of the resident emperors, the ruler of the Roman Church was only one of the coequal heads of the confederated Christian communities constituting the Church of the West; and as long as Rome remained the imperial residence, the pope's ecclesias-
'Y4tical authority was historically subordinate to the prevailing secular power of the Roman emperors. Constantine's transfer of the center of all political authority from the old Rome of the Caesars to the new Rome of Constantinople, on the other hand, could not fail to result in the slow but steady increase of the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Rome, that spiritual ruler now no longer obscured by, and subordinate to, the departed emperor of the East and the West. From this time onward, the rapid rise of the bishop of Rome from the primacy over the city and over the suburbican bishops to the primacy first over the other bishops of Italy, and then successively over all rival primates of the federated but independent Churches constituting the collective Church of the West is historical. The persistent influence of ancient imperial Rome, its traditions, its customs, and its laws all tended to impress, through the power of the bishops of Rome, the subordinate ecclesiastical relation to him of the primates of the several national churches in the West, in marked contrast with the coordinate apostolic equality of all . the primates of the confederated national churches in the East. During the period of the councils, this papal authority of the bishops of Rome became more and more evident, for not only did the invasions of the barbarians from the north, and other favoring events of those troubled times, tend irresistibly toward the accomplishing of the ambitions of these successive rulers of the Roman. Church, but their increasing ecclesiastical influence inspired the confident assertion of their primacy over the East as well.
From this time onward, the eventual separation of the two historic, complementing halves of the one "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" was foreshadowed; and it actually occurred when Photius (q.v.), patriarch of Constantinople, issued, in 866, the.famous encyclical declaring the Latin Church to be heretical, and in the following year, with the concurrence of an assembled synod of Eastern bishops, formally excommunicated 6. The Final Pope Nicholas I. (q.v.). Although the
Schism. two churches were later seemingly reconciled, the controversy was re vived under the Patriarch Michael Caerularius (q.v.), 1054 A.D., and became final through the conquest of Constantinople. in 1204 by the Venetians, fol lowed, as it was, by the intrusion of Latin bishops into the' historic sees of the Eastern Church by Innocent III. (q.v.). All later attempts to reconcile the two historic halves of the one Catholic Church, as at the Council of Lyons (1274) and Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39), have finally failed; and Greek antagonism toward the Latin Church is more uncompromising than ever since the theory of the papal primacy has been expanded into its fullest possible form through the definite Vatican declara tions in 1870, imposing on the entire Roman Church the doctrines of the universal episcopate of the pope, and his official infallibility when he declares ex cathedra any question of faith or morals.The Eastern Church, in the course of its doctrinal development of the conciliar orthodox Christology, suffered the loss of several dissenting parts, most of
|
75 |
historically the national churches of y. Present those ancient countries, although they Positions of reject, under a misconception of mean-
Greek and Latin ing, the Chalcedonian canons (see Christology, IV.), can not be con-
Churches. elusively charged with the error ofmonophysitism (see Monophysites). All these primitive parts of the Christian Church in the East are in communion with each other, and the Syrian Church, which is now represented in the hierarchy of the Western patriarchate, has lately officially denied the imputation of this Christological error. The Greco-Russian Church, now numbering nearly 100,000,000 members, both by reason of its peculiar geographical position in Europe, and its rapid extension throughout the North American continent, seems destined to become more and more the mediating influence between the non-Roman divisions of the Western Church and the federated Orthodox Greek Churches of the East; just as the Syrian Church of Antioch already occupies a similar position toward those other primitive national churches which mutually recognize each other. The Russian Church-deserves great praise, not only for its sturdy stand on the subject of the validity of Western sacraments, especially baptism by effusion, in opposition to those Eastern prelates who doubt or deny their spiritual efficacy, but even more for its earnest efforts to aid, in every way consistent with its traditional orthodox teaching, the future recognition of the non-Roman communions of the West, and their eventual coordinate confederation with the churches of the East; in which it is deservedly the dominating division. The Roman Church, by accepting the dogmatic decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, compelled its many ultramontane, controversialists to prove the asserted apostolic origin of the papal power, and the historical orthodoxy of this modern addition to its preceding contradictory definitions of the papal primacy and irreconcilable interpretations of the traditional apostolic teaching of the undivided Catholic Church.
All these are, however, denounced as erroneous doctrines no less uncompromisingly by the several Orthodox Greek Synods than by the Old Catholic theologians of Europe and by the scholars of the Reformed Western communions. Furthermore, as
a direct result of the Vatican decrees 8. Orthodox of 1870; there are to-day in almost
Catholic every country of Europe, and also inChurch as America, Catholic bishops independa Solution. ent of the Roman Church in both the
Latin and the Syrian successions, presiding over nascent autonomous national Catholic Churches, thus offering equally valid sacraments and orders to all Christians of the Latin rite who can not consistently accept these and previous dogmatic Roman rulings which they regard as additions to the orthodox Catholic faith. The proposed theses of the union conference at Bonn, in 1874, presided over by the great opponent of infallibility, J. J. I. von Döllinger (q.v.), and attended by the Old Cath-
olic leaders and theologians and by clerical and'theological representatives from both the Russian and the Greek Churches, besides clergy from the Anglican communions and other reformed communions of the West, offering, as they do, an orthodox synopsis of the traditional Catholic teaching of. the undivided Church, and also a definite basis of doctrinal union in theological essentials. of dogma, with consistent freedom in all related nonessentials, area determinin;; force in aiding the coming recognition and future coordinate confederation of all nonRoman communions of the West, both with each other, and with the national Orthodox Greek, Syrian, Coptic; and Armenian Churches of the East. These theses, moreover, as an orthodox summary of the fundamental Christian faith of the undivided Catholic Church, can not fail to serve a double purpose. On the one hand, they indicate by contrast in which particular dogmatic declarations the differing reformed confessions of faith are deficient in over or under statement, or are in essential error in their respective interpretations of the traditional apostolic teaching of the primitive Christian Church. On the other hand, they indicate, with more or less certainty, the elements of a common future creed which will ultimately be developed, defined, and accepted, through a coming ecumenical council of the entire Catholic Church, by all Christian communions both in the East and in the West. The restoration, by the reformed non-episcopal communions, of that primitive apostolic hierarchy of bishops; presbyters, and deacons, rejected and repudiated too hastily by their Puritan forefathers, is necessarily a sine qua non of ecclesiastical recognition, not only by the several Orthodox Catholic bishops independent- of the Roman Church in the western patriarchate, but also by the entire eastern episcopate, the Orthodox Russian and Greek churches, the Syrian, the Coptic, and the Armenian. The. unexpected events of the present period foreshadow unmistakably the trend of the times. The continued disestablishment of the Roman Church in the Latin nations of Europe, aided by Modernism (q.v.), may result eventually either in fundamental reforms of its distinctive doctrines, especially the theory of the papacy; of ritual, especially the perversions of the sacraments and the cult of the saints; and in polity, especially the enforced celibacy of the clergy and the suppression of the diaconate; or it may, through the increasing loss of its political power, become eventually resolved into its former components, which were in the past separate and subordinate churches in the several divisions of the Western Empire, but which will be in the future independent and confederated national churches of the historic Western patriarchate, now including the American continent, in communion both with each other and with the .confederated national churches of the Eastern patriarchates.
ERNEST C. MARGRANDER.III. Protestant Position: Since the Protestant Reformation repeated attempts have been made to bring about the reunion of the churches.. The Reformers were not at first willingly separatists from the Roman Church; and in England the Nonconformists left the Established Church only after the
|
76 |
z. Efforts hidden in the heart of the Protestant for Re- churches. In the latter part of the
anion with seventeenth century an influential Roman though quiet attempt was made to Catholicism. reconcile the Protestant churches of Germany with the Roman Catholic Church, when a Roman Catholic bishop of moderate spirit, Cristoval Rojas de Spinola (q.v.) was commissioned by the Emperor Leopold to make all practical efforts for the peace of the Church in the empire, and this was sanctioned by Pope Innocent XI. This endeavor was carried on through his ceaseless efforts and through a protracted correspondence between the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (q.v.) and some Protestant theologians and Jacques Bénigne Bossuet (q.v.), the famous French orator, and others, until, after some thirty years, it came to nothing. The political conditions of Europe, as well as theological differences, foredoomed it to failure, and since then no real effort to reconcile Roman Catholicism and Protestantism has been possible, even though the ideal of the one Church includes both.
In the sixteenth century the separation between the English Church and the Reformed churches on the continent was not so pronounced as it has since become, presbyters from the Reformed churches passing over to England being in several instances received without reordination and occasional intercommunion among the churches being also recognized. Two early archbishops licensed certain Scotch presbyters to officiate as priests, s. Attempts without raising the question of the at Anglican regularity of their previous ordinaand Protes- tion. But in the seventeenth century tent Union. the line of division was sharply drawn in an age of civil and religious strife. Two counter-claims were set up, the presbyterial and the episcopal, each at that time claiming that its polity had explicit authority and existed by a certain divine right; and other separations have multiplied since. But in that age there were not wanting also men of more moderate views, such as John Hales (q.v.) of Eton, Lord Falkland, and a succession of scholars known as the Cambridge Platonists (q.v.), who believed in toleration and comprehension of diversities within the Church; and who supported the episcopal order not because they regarded it- as possessed of superior authority by divine right, but because of its antiquity and ap- proved utility. Richard Baxter (q.v.), likewise, and other Presbyterian divines at the time of the Restoration pleaded for reforms and liberty within the Church, and only when their petition had been set aside were they compelled in good conscience by the Act of Conformity (1662) to become Nonconformists. Many individual instances also might be adduced of ideas and projects for church unity, such as Archbishop James Ussher's (q.v.) plan for synodical episcopacy, or the incessant labors of John Darie (q.v.) and his fertile schemes for the reunion of all the churches of the continent and England.
These all have failed, for the times were not ready for them, but they have not been in vain, and they remain for this twentieth century to bring to fruition. The times are favorable now as never before, and this field, where so many have gone forth, to sow, is already ripe for the harvest. The idea of church unity has. taken strong hold of 3. Present all the churches, and it is to be the Protestant future business of the Church to realize
Situation. it. The Christian civilization of the world demands it; political alliances of Church and State no longer perpetuate strife, at least in the United States. Modern historical and Biblical criticism has set aside the claims of any church polity to exclusive divine authority, and has left the historic episcopate to justify itself not only by its undoubtedly natural and early development in the primitive Church, but also by its fitness for administrative use and efficiency in possible adap tations to other church polities. A movement has already been started of far-reaching scope and much promise for some real church unity. The General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, which was held in Cincinnati in Oct., 1910, appointed a commission to arrange for a world convention of all other Christian communions of evangelical faith upon questions of faith and order, to consider their differences as well as their agreements as a first step toward unity (see above, A, 2, § 5). At the same time the National Council of the Congregational Churches, in session in Boston, appointed a com mittee to consider any overtures of this kind from the Protestant Episcopal Church. This movement is receiving assent and support from other denomina tions, and after several years of preparation and conferences, which must necessarily intervene, the proposed world conference will be held. It will as sume no powers of legislation, but the work aims at ultimate results of unity. The ideal of unity has been briefly but nobly set forth in this utterance of the Anglican Convention: "W e must fix our eyes on the Church of the future, which is to be adorned with all the precious things, both theirs and ours. We must constantly desire not compromise, but comprehension, not uniformity, but unity." This ideal involves something more than external union or federation in some good work-a union outside the churches rather than unity of the churches. It aims at a comprehensive unity, in which denomina tional and temperamental diversities may be rec ognized; an administrative unity, by which waste ful competitions may be avoided; and a dynamic unity, through which the force of the whole Chris tian Church may be brought to bear wherever its light and power are needed in the world. Such unity will be organic in the sense of the Lord's words when he compared the relation of the disciples to himself and to one another to that of the branches and the vine; and according to the conception of the great missionary apostle when he described the Church as one body having many members. NEWMAN SMYTH.IV. Roman Catholic Position: Church unity as understood by Roman Catholics postulates not merely an internal or spiritual union of Christian believers, but also an external or visible unity under
|
77 |
Consistently with this principle, rejection of the teaching authority of the Roman see in doctrinal matters is ultimately construed as heresy, while revolt against her ruling authority constitutes ecclesiastical schism. The traditional concept of the Church from the beginning is that of a great visible organization destined to be universal-a vast body of which Christ is the head. But a visible Church should have also a visible head, and, according to Roman Catholic belief, the prerogatives that this implies were bestowed by the Founder on Peter and his successors. In the controversies incidental to the heresies and schisms that marked the early cen- turies of Christianity the dissenting bishops and their followers were constantly blamed by the orthodox Fathers for disrupting the unity of the Church, sad when they definitely withdrew or were cast out, they were looked upon as
Z. Position branches lopped off from the parentRegarding tree and deprived of its life-giving Non-Roman power. Such, indeed, has been the
Commun- constant attitude of the Roman Cathions. olic Church in all subsequent ages toward seceding sects or nations. She sincerely deplores the fact that Christendom is so hopelessly divided against itself, and in her liturgy she prays constantly for unity, continuing the prayer of her divine Founder that all his followers be one in him. But at the same time, this muchdesired unity must be such as Christ himself would have it-a unity the conditions of which must be submitted to her as judge, since she believes herself to be the divinely appointed custodian of his doctrine, the authentic interpreter of his will. If she shows herself rigid and uncompromising, it is because she feels the heavy responsibility of her divine mission. She longs to gather the scattered elements of Christendom under her wings, but however precious and desirable church unity may be, she does not deem herself free to accept it under conditions which in her esteem entail a sacrifice of principle or betrayal of her sacred trust. In matters pertaining to ecclesiastical discipline outside the domain of faith and morals, she is willing to make all reasonable concessions to dissident communions desiring to reenter the fold, but as regards the essential principles above stated she considers compromise to be impossible. That the efforts made in the past, notably in the ecumenical councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438-45), to restore union with the Greek Church were not permanently successful is to be deplored, but Roman Catholics are confident that the impartial historian of these epochs will not make the Church of Rome responsible for the failure. The earnest desire and hope of the Church for Christian unity, as also the conditions under which she considers it possible of realization, are ably and fully set forth by the late Pope Leo XIII. in his encyclical letters " Praeclara Gratu-, lationis Publicae " on the Reunion of Christendom (June 20, 1894) and "Satis Cognitum" on Church Unity (June 20, 1896). JnaEs F. DAIBCOLL.
V. Supplement: The question of the union of churches involves three points: (1) union of those churches which acknowledge the historic episcopacy, as the Greek, Roman, Anglican and Protestant Episcopal, and Orthodox Catholic; (2) union of those churches which do not base the validity of ordination on the historic episcopacy; (3) ultimate union of these two great classes in one.
In the first class, union is conditioned, first, by an adjustment between the Greek and the Roman churches by differences centering on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, on the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, and on the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary. The question concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit may be solved either by the Roman Church returning to the earlier ecumenical position which
|
78 |
In churches of the second class, union is actually in process of realization. Since the gheat majority of these churches accept the first three positions of the "Quadrilateral," there is no fundamental impediment to their ultimately coming together. A union is therefore possible either by voluntary association for the prosecution of particular interests, as Bible and Tract Societies, Young Men's and Young Women's Christian Associations, and worldwide missionary conferences, in which even the first class may heartily cooperate. There may also be federated union (which is indeed taking place) first. among churches having the same general source and name, as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, where the branches become reunited to the parent stock, or where the religious sympathies are closest and the common spirit and aims are more nearly identical. In case, however, the doctrinal differences prevent the sort of union contemplated in the "Quadrilateral," the basis would have to be broadened so as to include Jewish congregations, Unitarians, Universalists, and Independents, and this might be defined by the general religious aim and the conduct of life. To many persons the actual difficulties confronting this class of religious communions seem not unsurmountable. This would require not necessarily uniformity of external organization, or abolition of denominations, but comprehension, each emphasizing the distinctive content of its faith. The problem presented by vested interests, as missionary societies, publishing-houses, and denominational colleges, is susceptible of satisfactory adjustment.
The union of the first and third classes offers a different problem. From the Anglican side a solution appeared in sight about 300 years ago. At that time:
"The Church of England recognized in various ways, directly or indirectly, the validity of Presbyterian ordination, and held communion with Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches on the Continent from the Reformation down to the Restoration in 1662, when the Ordinal was introduced in its present form.
"Archbishop Cranmer, the greatest Anglical liturgist, called Martin Butzer, a mediator between the Lutheran and the Swiss Reformers, from Strasburg to the chair of systematic theology in Cambridge, and Peter Martyr, a strict Calvinist, in the same capacity, to the University of Oxford, and consulted them freely in the preparation of the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer. The Elizabethan bishops, who, during their exile under Queen Mary. had
sought refuge in Zurich, Basel, and Geneva, wrote letters overflowing with gratitude for the hospitality and kindness received from the Swiss Reformers and preachers, and addressed them as spiritual fathers and brethren. Bullinger's Decades and Calvin's Institutes were the highest authorities in the universities of England, and the influence of Beza's editions of the Greek Testament, his text and notes, is manifest in the Authorized Version of King James. The ` judicious' Hooker, the standard writer on Church polity, expressed profound veneration for Calvin se `the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy' (Preface to his Ecclesiastical Polity); and he expressly admitted an ` extraordinary kind of vocation where the Church moat needs have some ordained and neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give, place. And therefore we ate not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination' (Ecclesiastical Polity, book vii. 14). Even James L, who hated the Presbyterians, sent flue delegates, including three bishops (George Carleton, John Davenant, and Joseph Hall), to the Calvinistic Synod of Dort, who raised no question about the necessity of the episcopate for the being or the well-being of the Church " (Philip Schaff, The Reunion of Christendom, pp. 21-23, New York, 1893).
The open door indicated in the above citation being now closed, the situation involves a radical contention all along the line. The problem presented is that of those who affirm and those who deny the exclusive divine legitimacy of particular organization and orders of the ministry. On the one hand, the double claim is advanced, that those only are validly ordained ministers whose ordination rests on the basis of the historic episcopacy, and that such a succession can be traced historically to its authentic source in the apostolic college. On the other hand, it is maintained that valid ordination consists in the immediate and orderly setting apart of suitable persona to the Christian ministry in a manner agreeable to the spirit and aim of particular churches. If, then, union between these two opposed camps is to take place, it can be effected only by coming to an understanding on this vital issue; either the episcopally ordained will have to revise their position as to the historic basis of episcopacy, or broaden their interpretation of ordination to include those of non-episcopal communions who are consecrated according to the usage of their denomination, or else the non-episcapal ministers and churches will have to confess that their ordinations are invalid, and so seek from episcopal sources "authentic" ordination. So far as these two views embody ultimate convictions, expectation that either party will surrender to the other appears to be utopian. The question of the existing parity of ministers is fundamental; it can not be postponed with the view of arriving at a different conclusion as result of further historical inquiry. At the same time one can not even imagine conditions in which non-episcopally ordained ministers will discredit and therefore nullify their ordination. Moreover, one does not nee how a discussion is even conceivable between the two parties except on tile basis of the equality of episcopal and non-episcopal orders; and this signifies that while there is something to adjust, there is nothing to adjudicate.
Bibliography:
F. W. Newman,
Catholic Union,
London,
1854; W. White, Rrinciplea of Christian Union as laid
deem in the Ward of Gad, ib.
1883; E. S.
Foulkes, Chria
tendorn's Divisions, 2 vols.,
ib.
1$B5-87; G. William, Tha
79
Orthodox Church of the East in the 18th Century: a Correspondence between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjuring Bishops. With an Introduction on Various Projects
of the Reunion, ib. 1868; E. B. Pussy, Eirenicon, part
III., ib. 1870; H. Bannerman, Essays on Christian Unity,
ib. 1871; J. J. I. von Döllinger, Lectures on the Reunion
of the Churches, ib. 1872; H. P. Liddon, Report of . .
Reunion
Conference . . . at Bonn, 2 vols., ib. 1875-76;
T. H. Vail, The Comprehensive Church; or, Christian Unity
and Ecclesiastical Union in the Protestant Episcopal Church,
New York, 1879; W. J. E. Bennett, Foreign Churches in
Relation to the Anglican, London, 1882; F. Myers, Catholic
Thoughts on the Church, ib. 1883; B. Franklin, The Church
and the Era, New York, 1884; J. Tulloch, Unity of Christendom, London, 1884; R. I. Woodhouse, What is the
Church? ib. 1886; J. Justus, Freie Gedanken zur Beurtheilung der Kirche, Stuttgart, 1884; P. Schaff, Christ and
Christianity, New York, 1885; D. G. Bannerman, Scripture Doctrine of the Church, Edinburgh, 1887; J. H.,
Christianity versus Ecclesiasticism, London, 1887; C.
Wordsworth, Public Appeals on Behalf ojChristian Unity,
Edinburgh, 1887; H. Forrester, Christian Unity and the
Historic Episcopate, New York. 1889; R. Govett, What is
the Church? Norwich, 1889; C. Gore, The Mission of the
Church, London, 1891; idem, Orders and Unity, ib. 1910;
T. S. Hamlin, Denominationalism versus Christian Union,
New York, 1891; 11I. Watson, Christianity and the Church,
London, 1891; W. J. Dawson, The Church of Tomorrow,
ib. 1892; E. Naville, Le T_moignape du Christ et funitk
du monde chretien, Geneva, 1893; T. Rohleder, Polilischreligiose Grundlage für das einipe Christentum, Esslingen,
1893; A. H. Bradford, The Question of Unity, New York,
1894; J. Hammond, The Christian Church, Oxford, 1894;
W. B. Carpenter, Some Thoughts on Christian Reunion,
London, 1895; D. Dorchester, The Problem of Religious
Progress, New York, 1895; Eastern Church Association,
Russia and the English Church during the Last Fifty Years,
London, 1895; C. W. Shields, The United Church of the
United States, New York, 1895; W. Earls, The Reunion
of Christianity made Practicable, London, 1896; H. H.
Jeaffreson, The Church of the Living God, ib. 1896; A. J.
Mason, The Principles of Ecclesiastical Unity, ib. 1896;
T. Richey, Five Lectures upon the Church, New Haven,
Conn., 1896; V. Staley, Plain Words on the Holy Catholic
Church, London, 1896; V. Charbonnel, Le Conpres des religions et le Suisse, Geneva, 1897; T. Fallot, Quest-ce
qu'une epliset Paris, 1897; F. J. A. Hort, The Christian
Ecclesia, London, 1897; E. Montero RSoy, ..Restablecimiento de la unidad religiosa en los pueblos cristiareos,
Madrid, 1897; E. A. Litton, The Church of Christ, London,
1898; W. R. Huntington, A National Church, New York,
1891; C. Bigg, Unity in Diversity, London, 1899; P. F.
Jalaquier, De f.4glise, Paris, 1899; J. B. Nichols, Evangelical Belief. Essay on the Conflict between Evangelicalism and Sacerdotalism, London, 1899; R. Palmer, The
Catholic and Apostolic Church, ib. 1899; H. Symonds,
Lectures on Christian Unity, Toronto, 1899; J. Boehm,
Die Wiedervereinigung der christlichen Confessionen,
Mainz, 1900; E. T. Green, The Church of Christ, in J. H.
Burn, The Churchman's Library, London, 1900; E. H. A.
Scherer, What is Catholicism! ib. 1900; N. Dimock, Christian Unify, ib. 1902, new ed., New York, 1910; A. J.
Harvey, The Coming Unity. The Problem of the Churches,
London, 1902; H. H. Henson, Godly Union and Concord,
ib. 1902; idem, Anglicanism and Reunion. Sermon
Preached in Westminster Abbey on Trinity Sunday, June
14. 1908. ib. 1908; idem, The Road to Unity, ib. 1911;
S. J. Jones, England and the Holy See, ib. 1902; A. T.
Turberville, Steps toward Christian Unity, ib. 1902; The
Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo Xlll., New York, 1903;
B. W. Archer, The Question of Reunion with Rome, London, 1903; W. R. Carson, Reunion Essays, ib. 1903; C.
Harris, Christian Reunion from the Nonconformist and
Church Point of View, etc., ib. 1903; J. Hunkey, A Plea
for Christian Unity Atchison, Kan., 1903; F. X. Kiefi,
Der Friedensplan des Leibniz zur Wiedervereinigung der
getrennten christlichen Kirchen, Paderborn, 1903; Earl
Nelson, Home Reunion, London, 1905; A. Campbell, The
Christian System in Reference to the Union of Christians,
Birmingham, 1905; Father Paul James Francis and S.
Jones, The Prince of the Apostles, Garrison, N. Y., 1907;
A. Tanquerey, Synopsis theologicm dvgmatica· fundamentalis, Tournai, 1907; N. Smyth, Passing Protestantism
and Coming Catholicism, New York, 1908; F. Spence,
Christian Re-union. A Plea for the Restoration of the
"Ecclesia of God," London, 1908; C. A. Briggs, Church
Unity: Studies of its most important Problems, New York,
1909; W. M. Brown, The Level Plan for Church. Union.
With an Introduction
on the Origin and Development of the
Historic Episcopate by G. W. Smith, and an Appendix on
the Chief Barrier to Christian Unity, by "Anglican Presbyter," New York, 1910; F. J. Firth, Christian Unity in
Effort: Something about the religious Faiths, Creeds, and
Deeds of the People of the United Slates and Elsewhere in
their Relation to Christian Unity in Effort, Philadelphia,
1910; R, de Bary, A New Rome. A Study of Visible
Unity among Non-Papal Christians, London, 1911; Church
Unity: A Criticism and a Correspondence, ib. 1911; A. C.
A. Hall, The Sevenfold Unity of the Christian Church, New
York, 1911; Lord Kinnaird (editor), The Problem of Unity,
London, 1911; W. Sanday, in Contemporary Review, 1911;
Report of the Commission appointed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury . . on theReZationoftheAngLieanCommunion
to the Church ·of Sweden, London, 1911; G. M. Williams,
The Church oJSweden and the Anglican Communion, Milwaukee, 1911; J. Wordsworth, The National Church of
Sweden, London, 1911; for a general popular survey from
the Swedish point of view see N. Soderblom, " Canterbury
oeh Upaala," in Det nya Sverige, vol. iii.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 08/11/06. Contact the CCEL. |  |