Gift of
Prof. VViliiaxii Howard Tatt

c^^^.;"^^^

BY THE SAME AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER.
"The Church for Americans," $1.25; Nineteenth
Edition.
" TTie Crucial Race Question," $1.00; Second Edition.

Copyright, 1910,
BY
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY BROWN.

2)83

THE WEENEK COUPANY
AKSON, OHIO

This Volume is Reverently Dedicated
TO THE MEMORY OF
IGNATIUS THEOPHORUS AND
WILLIAM AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG
the great saints of the
Syrian and Anglo-American Churches
WHO
About A. D. 1 16 and in A. D. 1853
appealed for christian unity
on the only basis possible
A Uniform Christian Ministry.

PRAYER FOR THE UNITY OF GOD'S
PEOPLE.
O GOD, THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,
OUR ONLY SAVIOUR, THE PRINCE OF PEACE GIVE US
GRACE SERIOUSLY TO LAY TO HEART THE GREAT DAN
GERS WE ARE IN BY OUR UNHAPPY DIVISIONS. TAKE
AWAY ALL HATRED AND PREJUDICE, AND WHATSO
EVER ELSE MAY HINDER US FROM GODLY UNION AND
CONCORD ; THAT AS THERE IS BUT ONE BODY AND ONE
SPIRIT, AND ONE HOPE OF OUR CALLING, ONE LORD,
ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF
US ALL, SO WE MAY BE ALL OF ONE HEART AND OF
ONE SOUL, UNITED IN ONE HOLY BOND OF TRUTH AND
PEACE, OF FAITH AND CHARITY, AND MAY WITH ONE
MIND AND ONE MOUTH GLORIFY THEE; THROUGH
JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD. AMEN.

PREFACE.
WITHIN each of the national Churches which
compose the Anglican Communion there is a
large and influential school which makes much
of what is characterized as the prophetic office of the
Christian priesthood, and would close the doors of pulpits
against all who have not received ordination to the Min
istry by a representative of the Historic Episcopate.
This school, which contains many of the most saintly,
earnest and learned among our Ministers and People, is,
I believe, quite right in the importance which it attaches
to the prophetic office. The world is to be saved very
largely by " the foolishness of preaching;" not prosaic
teaching, but prophetic preaching.
I am in complete sympathy with this school in its
contention so far as it relates to the existence and impor
tance of the prophetic mission. Indeed, I am inclined to
go beyond it, by insisting that no one, not even 5
Greek, Roman or Anglican Bishop, should remain in

X THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the Christian ministry unless he feels in his heart that he
has for the world at least some one message, especially his
own; so that, like St. Paul, he can say of it, "my
gospel;" and "woe is me if I preach not this gospel.'
The idea that the Christian faith was once for all
delivered to the Saints in a crystallized form, and that
it is the office of a Minister of the Gospel simply to propa
gate it, by teaching it as it has been formulated by an
ecumenical council, or interpreted in the writings of
some ancient Father or Doctor does not commend itself
to me. A Christian minister does not fulfill his duty by
a restatement of the doctrines of, say, St. TTiomas Aqui
nas. He must, indeed, be a teacher and defender of the
great essentials of the old, the primitive, the Catholic
faith; but he must also be a living voice through which
God, if He does not make new revelations, at least inter
prets His old revelations with reference to the newer de
velopments of His providence.
But while I agree with the representatives of this great
school in the importance which they attach to the prophetic
mission of the Christian ministry, I am fully persuaded
that they are wrong in limiting the right to preach to the
historic or to any official Ministry. I have come firmly to
believe that there are real prophets, inspired prophets,
who are not Christians in the ordinary sense of the word;
and that there are real Christian prophets, inspired proph
ets, in Ministries which have never had any connection
with the Historic Episcopate, or which have broken off
that connection ; and that there are real prophets, inspired

PREFACE. XI
prophets, among Christian laymen and laywomen who
have never occupied a pulpit, and whose congregation
is limited to a Sunday School class.
The conviction grows upon me that prophetic inspira
tion is not the rare, official, limited, little thing that some
among us would make it out to be. It is like the wind
that bloweth where it listeth, and it is quite as likely to
illuminate the mind of a humble mother while teaching
her inattentive child the catechism, as that of an illustrious
Pope in his ex-cathedra utterances to a waiting world.
In the lectures of this book, and in its notable intro
duction and appendix, three representatives of another
great Anglican school preach the Gospel of that Christian
unity which is necessary to the evangelization of the
world; a unity to be accomplished through a Common
Inter-Church Ministry, secured and maintained on the
perfectly level basis of the pure Republicanism which
constitutes the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the
Divine Republican.

The Level Plan for Church Union proceeds upon the
assumption that the Common Inter-Church Ministry, upon
which the carrying out of the plan is dependent, must be
secured without compromise of principle. There are two
theories respecting the origin and authority of the Chris
tian ministry, the Sacerdotal or Priestly and the Repub
lican or Protestant.
According to the Sacerdotal theory, a true Christie^n

Xll THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
ministry is dependent upon a devolutionary transmission
of authority and power by an unbroken series of ordina
tions from the Lord Jesus through the original Eleven
faithful Apostles, or from St. Paul. Sacerdotalists, who
regard ordination by Apostolic Succession as transmit
ting the commission necessary to a valid Christian ministry,
are either Episcopalian or Presbyterian.
There is a very large and influential school in all the
national Churches that constitute the Anglican Commun
ion which holds that the official acts of a Christian minis
ter are invalid unless he has been ordained by a Bishop
of the Apostolic Succession. So important does this doc
trine appear to the representatives of this school that, in
order to establish it, they have tried, some think with suc
cess, to trace our Anglican Episcopate back, by tactual
succession, link by link, to Augustine of Canterbury, and
from him to St. John or to St. Peter.
There is a school in some, if not all, of the Presby
terian Churches which holds to the doctrine of Apostolic
Succession almost as firmly as any among Episcopalians,
but its representatives insist that the succession must be
traced through the Presbyterate, and that Bishops and
Presbyters constitute one and the same order.
The Congregationalists of various names, among them
the great Baptist and Disciple Churches, hold to the non-
Sacerdotal, Republican, Protestant theory of the origin
and authority of the Christian ministry, and count minis
terial succession, whether Episcopalian or Presbyterian,
as of no vital importance. They contend that Christian

PREFACE. Xlll
ministers are simply officers of the Church, elected and
appointed by the people, and that, aside from this, the
all important essential of a true Ministry is the call of the
Holy Ghost and the possession of the spirit of Christ.
Sacerdotalists and Republicans agree that Divine grace
is necessary to efficiency in the preaching and sacramental
ministrations of a Christian minister ; but they differ in that
the former hold that this grace is a transmission of power
from Christ in the Sacrament of ordination, while the
latter hold that it is a transmission of power from the Holy
Ghost, without any necessary connection with the cere
mony of ordination.
I hope to convince the reader of this book that there
is no reason why the representatives of these diverse views
of the origin and authority of the Christian ministry should
not unite in constituting a Common Inter-Church Minis
try, and that I have discovered a way by which they
may do so.

As my gospel of the Level Plan for the unification of
Christendom came to me as a progressive revelation from
my personal experience as a missionary worker, perhaps
the interest in it will be increased if I give a short auto
biographical sketch covering my ministerial life so far
as it has a direct bearing upon this gospel.
Let me say, then, that I became a convert to the Epis
copal Church, as the result of Sacerdotal teaching and
have been in her Ministry for a quarter of a century.

XIV THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
The whole of my ministerial life has been spent in this
Church's mission field, first as a Circuit, then as a Gen
eral missionary in the Diocese of Ohio, and afterwards
as a Bishop missionary in the Diocese of Arkansas. I
have devoted every energy of mind and body to my
Church extension and upbuilding work, much of which
has been of a proselyting character.
I have gloried in this work, and have spent and been
spent in it, because of the conviction that in English-
speaking countries, the Churches of the Anglican Com
munion can make superior claims to the allegiance of
the people; and that these Churches will become the
several rallying points of unity, when it shall please God
to bring together into National churches and Interna
tional Communions all Christians of our race into one fold,
under one ministerial shepherding. In support of this con
viction I preached and wrote a great deal, and not in
vain; for I have been instrumental in establishing many
Churches and in makmg a multitude of converts. Within
the twelve years since I became Bishop over forty Epis
copal Churches have been built in my Diocese, and it
has more than doubled in every element of strength of
which statistics can take account.
If sectarianism is to continue, I should much prefer
to be an Episcopalian sectarian, rather than any other
kind; and so long as it continues, or until my tongue
cleaves to the roof of my mouth, and my right hand forgets
its cunning, I may be counted upon to speak and write
of the superior claims of the Churches of the Anglice^n

PREFACE. XV
Communion to the allegiance of English-speaking people.
But, now that I have made this declaration of loyalty
to the Protestant Episcopal Church in particular, and to
the Anglican Communion in general, let me make the
reader my confessor.
As the years have gone by, the conviction has been
forcing itself upon me, that though, to others, I have
seemed to have had somewhat notable success as a mis
sionary, I, to my own mind, have failed in my distinctive
work as a Christian minister; and the pity of it is, that
under present conditions, there is no way of escape from
the sectarianism which has defeated my highest aim. I
must either quit my missionary efforts, or else continue to
build up a sect at the expense of other sects; and, try
as I will to prevent it, while things remain as they are,
my sectarian work will overlap the work of other sec
tarians; and this, notwithstanding the fact that it scarcely
touches the hem of the garment of the unchristianized, and
of the needy poor who are on every side.
My work is completely typical of nearly all successful
sectarian ministerial endeavors. It is to a great extent
a pulling down and a building up, at a tremendous waste
of energy and money, and in a shameful disobedience
of our Lord's commands: " Go ye into all the world and
preach the Gospel to every creature;" and "Let your
light so shine before men that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven."
If I have learned anything from my experience and
observation as a sectarian missionary, it is that we cannot

Xvi THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
make the real progress that should be made in the con
quest of the world for Christ, unless we get rid of our
sectarianism. A very large proportion of the classes which the Bishops
of the Episcopal Church are confirming, is made up of
Christians from other Churches. Often the majority of
a confirmation class is composed of such, and recently I
had an experience which, notwithstanding my thorough
going sectarianism, made me heartsick. I confirmed a
class, all the members of which had been exemplary
Christians, some among them eminently so, of other relig
ious bodies. For a long time I held the theory that this
process would rightly continue until the Episcopal body
would swallow and absorb all other Christian bodies;
but now I see that such a result is neither possible nor de
sirable. Of course, as a sectarian I welcomed these good people
into the Episcopal Church and would be glad to see
many like them in all the classes presented to me for con
firmation. I always have proceeded, and probably always
shall proceed, upon the assumption that many of the
English-speaking Denominations originally got all of their
members from the Churches of the Anglican Communion
and that, therefore, I have a right to get back as many
as I possibly can of their adherents. Besides, to say
nothing about the superior, or at least prior claims of the
Episcopal Church to the allegiance of English-speaking
Americans, this is the land of the free, where people
are at liberty to follow their convictions, or, if they have

PREFACE. XVll
no convictions, their preferences in the choice of their
Church relationship.
But though it is easy enough, by such considerations, to
justify my proselyting efforts, it is becoming increasingly
more difficult for me to be reconciled to the fact that,
while a large percentage of my confirmation classes are
made up of proselytes from the Presbyterian, Methodist,
Baptist and other Churches, fully fifty per cent of the
adult population of the United States are not faithful
members of any Church. The Good Shepherd rejoiced
over the one sheep that He found in the wilderness more
than over the ninety-nine which did not go astray, and I
have come into the possession of that measure of His spirit
which leads me to prefer that, in making up their con
firmation classes, the Clergy should direct their special ef
forts towards the securing of non-Church members. Not
that I am unwilling to confirm ten times as many proselytes
as I do, but that I want to confirm ten non-Church members
to one proselyte, and that I have come to regard a con
firmation class which is wholly, or even chiefly made up
of proselytes as an evidence of weakness rather than
strength in the Church which should inspire regret instead
of satisfaction. The Rector who presented the class
of proselytes to which I refer, was greatly elated at his
valuable catches from the other Churches, but, notwith
standing his enthusiasm, my heart was heavy because he
had toiled all the year without catching anything from the
great sea of the unchurched world.
I honestly believe that I am an illustration of the power

XVlii THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
of a sectarian leopard to change, by God's grace, some
of his spots. For I have reached the point, when I think
that Christian unity in the United States, by an absorbing
process on the part of the Episcopal Church, would be a
misfortune. The " United Church of the United States " cannot
be an old Church including within its organization all
other Churches. It must be a newly developed, national
institution, resulting from the union on an equal footing
of all the orthodox Churches, ancient and modem. Sacer
dotal and Republican.
This book was written for the purpose of showing that
( 1 ) the unification of Christendom necessary to the evan
gelization of the world is dependent upon a Common
Inter-Church Ministry and (2) that this requisite Ministry
cannot exist except in the case of the Churches which mutu
ally acknowledge that a Church, whether ancient or mod
ern, large or small, which holds to the belief that Jesus is
the God-Man, Saviour of the world and makes provision
for the teaching of this doctrine and the administration
of the Sacraments of Christian Baptism and the Lord's
Supper is a true Church of Christ; that the official
Ministry of every such Church is entirely regular, and
that the acts of its representatives in preaching and ad
ministering the Sacraments are completely valid and effi
cacious. The Sacerdotal doctrines of the origin and authority
of the Christian ministry and of the unnatural super-

PREFACE. xix
natural effects of the two Sacraments, and other sacra
mental ordinances are fully considered with the result of
establishing the conclusion that they will not stand the
test of examination in the light of either Scripture, history
or philosophy.
In this general conclusion I am most ably supported by
two learned writers, the Rev. Dr. George Williamson
Smith, and "Anglican Presbyter," who respectively con
tribute to the book an exceptionally important Introduc
tion and Appendix. They are in themselves such distinct
and finished essays in support of the Level Plan for
Church Union, that I may fairly claim for this book that
it presents to the public in one volume three separate and
distinct works in support of this plan.
In the Introduction, the traditional Sacerdotal claims
respecting the origin and authority of the " Historic " Epis
copate are examined in the light of the evidence afforded
by the New Testament and Patristic literatures, with
the result of showing that it was developed for the pur
pose of securing unity to the church; and that therefore
the use of it as a sectarian asset is wrong. Thus, the con
clusion is reached that I am justified in proposing an Inter-
Denominational, non-sectarian Episcopate which will be
come the center of ecclesiastical unity in the case of each
nation. The primary object of the Appendix is to show by
special references to recognized authorities, that a fun
damental contention which runs through the lectures ol
this book is in exact alignment with the doctrines of the

XX THE LEVEL PLA^T FOR CHURCH UNION.
Anglican Reformers and with the conclusions reached
by scientific experts in the field of ecclesiastical antiquities.
This contention is, that Christianity is essentially Republi
can, or Democratic, and that therefore Republicanism
rather than Sacerdotalism must be made the basis of any
plan for Church union in which can reasonably be cen
tered any hope for success. But the scholarly and brilliant
writer of the Appendix who, like many another Christian
minister of extraordinary gifts and acquirements, is the
pastor of a small but highly favored flock, goes far beyond
this purpose by advancing and supporting independent
arguments against Sacerdotalism, with so much originality
and skilfulness as to render his essay one of the most
powerful pieces of controversial literature that has ap
peared in recent years.
May I suggest that the most advantageous reading of
this threefold book would be to pass from its Introduc
tion to the Appendix; then take up its Lecture III and
afterwards Lectures 1 and 11 in order. This arrangement
for the book was of course out of the question, but,
nevertheless, it would have been logical and effective.
Those who read through the book as it stands are ear
nestly recommended to go back and re-read at least
Section 11 of Lecture II in the light of the information
that they have gained from Lecture III and the Appendix.
This Section II, Lecture II, is the crucial section in which
the Level Plan for Church Union is stated.
In Lecture I, an effort is made to show that the coming

PREFACE. XXI
together of the Churches, upon which the universal exten
sion and full development of Christianity is dependent,
cannot be brought about upon any except the exactly
level ground of pure Republicanism. What is said in
this section is fundamentally opposed by the Sacerdotal
doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Accordingly, it con
tains in Section III, an effort to show the untenable char
acter of that doctrine.
In Lecture II, the plans for Church union, for which
the many Churches stand, are grouped into three general
divisions, on the basis of the chief principles involved, and
shown to be impracticable. As has just been observed,
in Section II of this Lecture the plan which I am advocat
ing is clearly stated and securely supported by historical
facts and arguments. Section III is devoted to the answer
of the chief objections that have been offered to the plan.
Much labour was bestowed upon this section and con
siderable space given to it, because of the conviction that
if the objections which pass under review here can be set
aside, the Level Plan for Church Union may be regarded
as invulnerable against any attack that can be made
upon it.
In Lecture III, the writings of the great Sacerdotal
authorities. Bishop Gore and Professor Moberly of Eng
land, and Bishop Hall, of the United States, are exam
ined. Copious and telling quotations which give support
to the positions taken by me here and elsewhere are made
from the writings of the chief experts in the science of

XXli THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
historical criticism. It is believed that they will generally
be regarded as most interesting, illuminating and conclu
sive. The answer by " Anglican Presbyter," to Bishop
Hall's representations in his recently published and widely
read essay, " The Apostolic Ministry," is in itself worth
the price of this volume. It is printed as a supplement to
the Appendix.
On a recent visit to the home country, one of the Bishops
of an English colony, who is doing work in a difficult
mission field, where he deeply feels the necessity for
Church union, offered the suggestion that the universities
of Oxford and Cambridge should make provision for the
meeting of the great need of an up-to-date restatement, in
the light of the facts established by the science of historical
criticism, of the whole Anglican system of doctrine con
cerning the Christian church, ministry and sacraments,
in-so-far as that system bears upon the subject of Church
union. The authors of this tripartite book, in common with
many others, felt the need for such a restatement long
before eloquent expression was given to it in one of the
stirring missionary addresses of this returned colonial
Bishop; and, though they have no idea that their humble
efforts will render it any the less desirable that the carry
ing out of his wise suggestion to the great universities should
be arranged for by their authorities, yet they humbly be
lieve that no restatement of the kind that might be made
by representative Oxford and Cambridge scholars, would

PREFACE. Xxiii
in any important respect, except in fullness only, differ
widely from that which is here presented as the result of
their combined efforts.
I have chosen to denominate my plan for Church union,
" The Level Plan," though perhaps, " The Inter-Church
Episcopate Plan," or " The Common Ministry Plan,"
or " The National Council Plan " would have been as
good a designation of it. The contents would also justify
the title which Bishop Gore gave to his last book, " Orders
and Unity," or better, " The Christian Ministry and
Church Union."
The Level Plan for Church Union is my individual ,un-
official interpretation of the official plan of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, and of the semi-official plan of the rest
of the Anglican Communion, as set forth in the
fourth article of the so called Chicago-Lambeth Quadri
lateral. I want most thankfully to acknowledge my very great
obligation to some six or eight friends who have been
so kind as to take much interest in this book. They
have allowed me to put them to the trouble of reading the
whole of its first draft, and large parts of the several
revisions that were made before the Level Plan for Church
Union was finally worked out as it is now presented to
the public. Their criticisms have resulted in the improve
ment of many passages throughout the book, and also in
the writing of that important section of it in which the
chief objections to the plan are stated and answered.
The Rev. Quincy Ewing has been of so much service

XXIV THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
to me and has left such a deep impression upon the book
as to cause me to feel that he should be mentioned by
name. I started out with the conviction that the necessary
coming together of the Churches could never be secured
on the uneven ground of Sacerdotalism which, as I had
come to believe, is essentially Jewish and Heathen, and
that, consequently, the perfectly level ground of Christian
Republicanism must be selected as the place for the requi
site reunion. When I had carefully surveyed and staked
off what I supposed to be this ground, Mr. Ewing pointed
out that, according to the bearings which he took, I had
not, here and there, altogether avoided the Sacerdotal do
main. After much correspondence, I became convinced
that he was right and made the necessary changes in my
lines. Without these changes the book would have been
wanting in logical consistency. During the remainder of
my life, I shall thank God upon every remembrance of
Mr. Ewing.
In concluding these prefatory remarks, may I, so to
speak, rise to a question of personal privilege, by making
reference to the painful consciousness of the fact that my
book, " The Church for Americans," is in part irrec
oncilable with " The Level Plan for Church Union."
Indeed, the books differ as a whole in that " The Church
for Americans " is a criticism of Protestantism, written
from the Sacerdotal view point; and that "The Level
Plan for Church Union " is a criticism of Sacerdotalism,
written from the Protestant point of view.

PREFACE. XXV

But I am happy in being able to say that, notwith
standing I was, in the days of its writing, a thorough-going
" Catholic," " The Church for Americans " contains very
few Sacerdotal passages, none of which are of a virulent
type. But such as they are I trust that they will be for
given me by God and man, because of my regret for
them and also on account of the Lecture in that work,
entitled, " Our Controversy with Romanism," which is
an attack on the very citadel of Sacerdotalism that has
never been repulsed.
This section of " The Church for Americans " and
many shorter passages of the same character, have pre
vented the book from becoming popular in -the " Catholic "
school of the Protestant Episcopal Church, so that, though
it has passed through many editions, nineteen, I think, very
few copies have been purchased and circulated, as proselyt
ing instrumentalities, by representatives of that school.
The many Clergymen and Laymen who have used the
book extensively, several among them purchasing twenty-
five, and two or three as many as fifty copies at a time,
have been almost without exception either " low " or
" broad " or conservative " high " Churchmen.
The evening of life is upon me, and it will have to be
longer than I fear it will be, if, before that night cometh
in which no man can work, I accomplish all the undertak
ings that I have planned. It is not likely therefore, that I
shall ever find time to rewrite " The Church for Ameri
cans;" and while sectarianism continues, I shall remain
too much of an Anglican sectarian to withdraw it.

XXvi THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Of course, the next edition of " The Church for Ameri
cans," if another is called for, will, no preventing Provi
dence, contain an additional preface, in which my radical
and happy change of front will be frankly avowed. It
will have a full list of the Sacerdotal passages and a cor
rection of their erroneous teaching. If, however, I should
not be permitted to prepare and publish such a correction
of what there is of the false doctrine of Sacerdotalism,
I here earnesdy request that, in view of the true Gospel
Republicanism of " The Level Plan for Church Union,"
and its recently published predecessor, " The Crucial Race
Question," no man will charge against me the errors of
" The Church for Americans," a book, written at a much
earlier period, which reflects more of the teaching that I
received at the theological seminary than of the results of
my own independent investigation and thinking.
And may I not humbly plead that the inconsistency of
my earlier and later writings is in principle the same in
consistency that St. Paul and St. Peter manifested. For
at first they believed that the only way in which they could
accomplish God's purposes would be by going to the
world with the Gospel through Judaism, but afterwards
they concluded, as the result of experience, that they must
abandon that plan and go directly to the nations.
St. Paul was a strict Jew. He was a Pharisee, a party
in the Jewish Church which corresponds to the " Catholic "
party in the Anglican Churches, and he was also a Rabbi.
He never quite got over his Rabbinism. His interpreta
tion of the Gospel to the end was colored with it. But

PREFACE. XXVU
he left his Pharisaism very far behind. He at last found
himself so immeasurably distant from it that he could say
of the Jewish Church and its ceremonial requirements,
"Christ is the abrogation of the law." From that time
on, St. Paul's preaching and work had reference to Chris
tianity as a world religion, which was to be regarded as
quite separate and distinct from Judaism. Henceforth he
taught that the Gospel included all nations on exactly
the same footing.
My doctrine concerning the essential equality of the
orthodox Christian churches, ancient and modern. Epis
copal and non-Episcopal, a doctrine which constitutes the
cornerstone of the foundation upon which The Level Plan
for Church Union is rested, involves the very same prin
ciple that was involved in St. Paul's doctrine that no
distinction is to be made between the representatives of
Judaism and Heathenism as to their relationship to Jesus
and their standing in the Christian church.
I cannot get away altogether from my Protestant Epis-
copalianism, even, if I may reverently make such a com
parison, as St. Paul could not get away altogether from
his Judaism. He believed until the end that Judaism
had certain great advantages over all other religions, and I
believe this of the Churches of the Anglican Communion,
as compared with any other Christian church. But, as
St. Paul ceased to believe that the world was to be saved
' through a judaized Christianity, so I have ceased to believe
that its salvation is dependent upon an anglicanized Chris
tianity.

XXVni THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Those who may desire to examine the representations
which constitute the basis of the Level Plan for Church
Union, in the light of the great authorities who have
written on both sides, will find a list of their works fol
lowing the Index.
In the preparation of this volume I have devoted every
moment for the last three years that could possibly be
taken from " the care of all the Churches," and I respect
fully invoke for this the first fruit of my assiduous labors
on behalf of Church union, the thoughtful consideration
of the reader.
The Episcopal Residence. W. M. B.
Little RocI(, Arkansas.
St. Bartholomew)' s Da\), 1910.

CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION  I
LECTURE 1.
THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE  73
I. A Notable Prophecy  75
II. Republicanism the Basis  78
III. The Apostolic Succession  110
LECTURE II.
STATEMENT OF THE PLAN  1 59
I. The Various Plans  1 61
II. The Level Plan  167
III. The Chief Objections  232
LECTURE III.
SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES  261
I. Gore and Moberly  263
II. Hall's " Apostolic Ministry "  281
III. The Historical Critics  320
IV. Grace of Sacraments  347
APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES  371
APPENDIX  391

" It IS THOUGHT BY MANY THAT THE TWO CHIEF
CONCERNS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY WILL BE THE
CONQUEST OF THE AIR AND THE CONQUEST OF THE
ETHER. BUT THIS IS A MISTAKE. THE TWO CHIEF
CONCERNS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ARE NOT
AERONAUTICS AND WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY ; THEY ARE
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND THE UNIFYING OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. THESE TWO SUPREME IN
TERESTS ARE CLOSELY ALLIED, TANGENT, NAY, INTER
LOCKED AT MANY POINTS. IT WAS A UNITED CHURCH
WHICH IN OUR MOTHERLAND CREATED OUT OF A HEP
TARCHY A REALM, AND IT MAY YET BE THE ACHIEVE
MENT OF A UNITED CHURCH TO TRANSFORM THE VAST
WELTER OF COMPETING FORCES WE CALL THE WORLD
POLITICAL INTO A TRUE COSMOS, A UNITED SYSTEM OF
STATES AND GROUP OF STATES WHICH SHALL REPRO
DUCE ON A FAR LARGER SCALE THE ANCIENT CHRIS
TENDOM." — The Late Rev. Dr. William Reed Hunt
ington.

The Level Plan for Church Union.

INTRODUCTION.

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT Or THE
HISTORIC EPISCOPATE.

BY THE

REV. GEORGE WILLIAMSON SMITH,
D. D.. LL.D.
SOMETI/nE PRESIDENT OE TRINITY
COLLEGE.

CONTENTS.

I. Peefatoey Note  3
II, Bishops in the New Testament  11
III. The Teansition feom Apostolic to
Episcopal Oveesight  20
IV. View taken of Bishops by the Refoemees. 57
V. Impoetance of the Question in its
Relation to Ecclesiastical Unity  65

THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OE THE
HISTORIC EPISCOPATE-

I.

PREFATORY NOTE.
THE following paper was written at the request of
Bishop William M. Brown, of Arkansas. The
materials were mostly gathered immediately after
the Protestant Churches had so promptly and unanimously
rejected the famous " Quadrilateral " because it made
the retention of the " Historic Episcopate " one of the
conditions of Church Unity. It was frequently asserted
that the acceptance of the doctrine of the " Apostolic Suc
cession," as held by the Protestant Episcopal Church,
was really included in the term, " Historic Episcopate,"
and involved an abandonment of the Protestant position.
Some denied that there was any such succession; or else
they held that the Episcopal system was not essential to
the Being of the Church; that it could be abolished, and

4 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION,
other polities substituted as circumstances demanded.
This summary rejection of the " Quadrilateral " was a
great disappointment to its supporters.
The desire for Christian unity was in the air but if the
" Quadrilateral," with the Jure Divino doctrine of the
Episcopate, presented the lowest terms on which the Epis
copal Church would consent to consider the question it
had with one blow destroyed the possibility of even its
consideration. Now, a theory, or an institution which is
destructive of unity must be established beyond question.
The Episcopate might be apostolical and yet provisional,
or it might be obligatory for all ages. Many Christian
people take the former view, but the overwhelming major
ity, the latter. Again it is possible that an institution de
signed to be permanent may become too rigid and fail to
adapt itself to the varying needs of human society and
require readjustment. In its development its supporters
may gradually grow into the conviction that even the pur
pose for which it was instituted is secondary, or can be
realized only through its instrumentality, and abuses arise
from this conviction. This was the case with the Papacy
and the Reformation was the consequence. Has there
been " too much stiffness " in our attitude towards other
Churches? In the early Church the Episcopate was the
" Bond of Unity." Why should it not be so to-day?
For the study of what was involved in the fourth ar
ticle of the " Quadrilateral " the League of Catholic
Unity was formed on the initiative of the late Rev. Dr.
W. R. Huntington. It was to be under the direction of

INTRODUCTION. 5
twelve Clergymen who represented equally the Congrega
tional, Presbyterial and Episcopal polities. The number
of directors was afterwards increased to twenty. The ob
ject of The League was the formation of groups or circles
of scholarly men in different parts of the country for the
study of the origin and growth of the Episcopate. The
League was dissolved after a few annual meetings, be
cause interest in the subject had waned. But in the mean
time much reading had been done and a great mass of
notes and memoranda accumulated.
In correspondence with Bishop Brown last year it was
learned that he thought the result of the inquiry would be
of value to him in some work which he was doing. Accord
ingly the notes and recollections were gathered together
and put into such order as a migratory life of some months
on the Pacific coast, where the necessary books are scarce,
permitted. In the absence of books to consult much was
done without an opportunity to compare the notes with the
originals. When the work was nearly completed Bishop
Lightfoot's thorough and scholarly essay on the Christian
Ministry was again met with. The gratification at find
ing that his view was substantially the same in many par
ticulars was very great. No doubt it had been, uncon
sciously, a directing thought in the studies. Yet it is only
fair to say that the paper has not been modified in conse
quence of rereading it.
The Church of to-day cannot sever itself from its past.
Its life has been continuous in all the varied experiences
of nearly nineteen hundred years, and it has been enriched

6 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
by the wisdom of saintly men and women who, though
counted dead, still speak in its voice. It is the great ad
vantage which a historic institution cannot be deprived of
that in any emergency it may look back and see what was
done under like circumstances by men who were moved
to action by the same purposes, note the result of their
action, see in what respects it failed or succeeded, and
thus be guided in the path of wisdom to meet the difficul
ties of later times. It is true that there is never an
exact repetition of what occurred before, but in a long
period of history there will be to some degree a corres
pondence between the two. Often both will be found to
arise from the same causes, and often they can be settled
by the same principles. Sometimes there must be a reces
sion from a present position or attitude, sometimes an ad
vance by one party or another in the composition of dif
ferences ; sometimes both must change one way or another
to restore peace. Always a conciliatory, a Christian atti
tude towards each other, is essential to the composition of
differences. One who accepted the doctrine of the Apostolic Succes
sion through, and only through the Episcopate, as the
doctrine was taught by the High Churchmen of fifty or
sixty years ago, is destined to many surprises. He will
find the evidence less clear than he anticipated. It will be
supported by fewer early authorities than its advocates
claim, and there will be more evidence than is conceded
by its opponents. It will be difficult to discover contem
porary evidence of the prescriptive institute of the Epis-

INTRODUCTION.

copate by the Twelve Apostles as an essential accompani
ment of the Gospel, and we feel that if there had been
such evidence in a matter so important it would not have
been permitted to perish. May it not be possible in rea
soning back from accomplished facts to find another cause
for the universal existence of Bishops in the Christian
church in the second or third century than its apostolic
institution? If so, it may open the way to a reconsidera
tion of the rejection of the Episcopate by the Protestant
Churches and it may come to be valued by them, as it is
by the majority of our own people, as divinely appointed
through the agency of the Church itself (and therefore
subject to laws enacted by the Church) for the establish
ment and maintenance of unity, purity of doctrine and
efficiency in doing the work of our Lord.
By what authority, then, were Bishops appointed? If
the Order was created by the Twelve Apostles was it
their intention to perpetuate their Apostleship through all
the ages as indispensable to the Church's existence? Or
were Bishops appointed originally, whether by apostolical
or ecclesiastical authority, rather for " the edifying and
well governing of the Church " as our Ordinal declares?
It may be stated for such as may read this prefatory
note but do not care to read the paper that the conclusion
arrived at is, contrary to the writer's original view, that
the Apostles did not at the beginning of the Church im
pose upon it a ready-made organization but rather per
mitted one to grow up naturally under the operation of
The Divine Spirit. Such an pne would be best suited to

a THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
a voluntary and rapidly growing Society and would be no
less Divinely ordered. When they were appealed to in
an emergency, as when Deacons were appointed, they
associated the disciples with themselves and sanctioned
the conclusion at which they arrived. There are a few
traces of a tentative Episcopate in the New Testament
but no theory of it is propounded. The Episcopate was
apparently instituted by St. John near the end of his life
in Ephesus and its neighborhood in such Churches as re
quested it, and under the apostolic sanction it spread grad
ually throughout the whole Church. It seems not to have
been prescribed by St. John but he approved, sanctioned,
and gave the Apostolic benediction to what had grown
up out of the experiences of the Church during the first
century of Christianity. It met the needs of the Church
at that time and continues to this day as, under his bless
ing, an Apostolic institution.
Yet it should be noted, to prevent misunderstanding,
that there is no contemporary evidence that St. John insti
tuted it and until further evidence is brought forward the
statement is open to question.
When we are theological students we receive such
instruction as satisfies our minds in regard to the
polity of our own Church. The representations are
based upon authorities selected by revered teachers
and are passed along from one generation of students
to another. This furnishes a basis for our future
work. Our active life in the Ministry leaves little time

INTRODUCTION.

for additional study of the question, even if we should
think it desirable, and so we become " set " in our way
of regarding our polity. But if a time comes when we
are called upon to consider the real cause of our separa
tion from those other Churches in which we may have
dear friends who have been trained in methods like our
own, though in a different direction, we find it difficult,
if not impossible, to remain unmoved. Unfortunately,
owing to the multitude of claims upon her, the Episcopal
Church in the United States is weak in universities and
in ripe scholars trained in the methods of to-day to whom
we may turn. Finding that " much may be said on the
other side " we may doubt the sufficiency of our inherited
views and say that " one polity is as good as another if
it makes good Christians," or we may strengthen ourselves
in our position by passing lightly by, or refusing attention
to what our Brethren " on the other side " have found
sufficient for them. In what I shall write I cannot claim
to be disinterested, or unbiased; but only as fairly honest
as the case permits.
If the theory be held that the Episcopate was instituted
by the Apostles to perpetuate their own order, as above
and distinct from the body of the Church itself, possess
ing inalienable powers, rights and privileges and discharg
ing its functions independently of the Church's authority,
and if it be held that this order is " a rider " to the
Gospel so that the Gospel cannot be savingly preached
nor the Sacraments be validly and efficiently administered
without Episcopal authority, then the extension of the

10 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Episcopate is of vital importance. The only possible way
of re-establishing unity is by the absorption of the non-
Episcopal Churches either by their corporate surrender to
the Episcopal Church, or by the gradual transfer of their
members until those Churches cease to exist.
If, on the other hand, the Episcopate was created by
the Church under apostolic sanction, or came into being
in the order of God's Providence as the best means of
securing sound doctrine, order and unity, but was not pre
scribed as perpetual and unchangeable, a departure from
it by some Churches under changed circumstances, would
not destroy essential unity nor prevent later readjustment
for the re-establishment of that uniformity by which
unity would again be manifested and secured. Indeed,
in the Lutheran Church, that part which is in Sweden re
tains the Episcopal Polity while the Church generally is
Presbyterial, but its unity is not destroyed.
This study into the development of the organization
of the Christian church, especially in regard to the origin
and nature of the Episcopate, was undertaken in the hope
of finding some principle to guide us in the effort to arrive
at a basis of ecclesiastical unity. What I had been taught
and had accepted as sufficient no longer satisfied me. It
presented harder problems than those it solved.

INTRODUCTION. 11

II.

BISHOPS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BINGHAM tells us (Bk. II, ch. i. Sec. 3) that the
words of Tertullian imply " That the Apostles, as
they founded Churches, settled Bishops in them."
Without questioning the accuracy of this statement we may
doubt its sufficiency, for we learn from the New Testa
ment that many Churches came into existence by the labors
of others than the Apostles.
In Acts viii, 4, we read that they who were scattered
abroad in the persecution which arose about Stephen went
about preaching the Word. It is certain that not all the
disciples were Apostles. Some of them were, no doubt,
laymen, as Apollos was. So also in Acts viii, 40, we
read that Philip, the Deacon, preached in all the villages
from Azotus to Caesarea. Many Churches, then, must
have had their beginnings in the work of others than the
Apostles. Even many which became illustrious subse
quently, could give no account of their origin. Is there
any account of the beginning of the Church in Great Bri
tain, or in the city of Rome, for example? Milman tells
us that " St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans proves undeni
ably the flourishing state of the Church before his visit to
the city; " nor could St. Peter have been in Rome before
the end of the reign of Claudius, or the beginning of that

13 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
of Nero. " The Gospel had filtered into Rome " long
before any Apostle went there. Ecclesiastical history is
silent on the beginnings of the Church in many cities and
countries. All Christians felt bound to preach the Gospel
wherever they went, and the rapid spread of the Gospel
by the preaching of others than the Apostles compelled
the new disciples in many places to provide for the admin
istration of the offices and sacraments as best they could.
It is worth while to recall that the early Gentile
Churches were generally composed of Greeks, or of those
who used the Greek language, and that the Churches were
voluntary associations and were as readily organized by
the freedom-loving Greeks as if they had been composed
of American citizens. The whole Empire was honey
combed with voluntary associations. Ordinarily one or
more officers were appointed who were called by names
suitable to the nature of the association. When we first
find such a voluntarily organized Christian society we
meet the name, or title Episcopus, or Episcopi. This was
not an ecclesiastical term but is used in the general sense
of " overseer " or superintendent. The Septuagint, in the
Greek translation of Nehemiah xi, 1 4, calls Zabdiel, who
was over certain men who did the work of the House of
the Lord, their Bishop; and in verse 9, Joel, the son of
Zichri, was Bishop of the sons of Benjamin who dwelt
in Jerusalem. And in the Apocrypha (I Mac. i, 51 ) we
read that Antiochus Epiphanes sent Bishops into the Holy
Land to extirpate Judaism and set up idols. The Atheni
ans used to send officers who were called " Bishops " to

INTRODUCTION. 13
exercise a superintending authority in cities of their " sub
ject-allies " and Cicero speaks of himself as Episcopus in
Campania (Ep. to Atticus 7:11). St. Peter uses the term
in its highest application in his First Epistle (ii, 25,) and
again in composition in quite a different sense (iv, 15).
But while the term Episcopus, or Bishop, had not the highly
technical meaning of later ecclesiastical history it was not
incapable of a religious significance. All the collegia or
voluntary societies had some religious background and
worshipped as their Protector some one of the gods.
Whatever may have been the reason of its employment
at first — and it does not seem difficult to account for its
use — the duties of the office in a religious society would
at once give it an ecclesiastical character. The New
Testament generally recognizes more than one Bishop
in a Church, and possibly they corresponded to an execu
tive committee of our day, of which one of them would be
chairman or chief. As the Episcopi were largely engaged
in the care and disbursement of money and are associated
in the New Testament with the Deacons who distributed
the alms, it is not improbable that they received their title
from the nature of their duties. The importance of the
charitable features of early Christianity made the office
a very responsible one and its honor and power rapidly
increased. The Episcopi seem to have gradually ac
quired, if, indeed, they did not possess them from the first.
the ecclesiastical and spiritual powers which were exercised
by the Presbyters of the Jewish-Christian churches (if
there were any such Presbyters, in Philippi for example.

14 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
which we are not told) , and the terms Bishop and Pres
byter became synonymous. Other duties such as the cor
respondence with other Churches naturally devolved upon
them as representatives of their respective Churches.
Take it all in all, such a development of the Episcopate
as occurred was according to the law of human progress.
These nascent Churches chose their Episcopi according to
the custom of otjier associations.* The simplicity of the
early Christian societies where no regular clerical order
had been established is thus described by Tertullian in his
treatise on Chastity :
" The authority of the Church and the honor sanctified
through the establishment (concessum) If of the Order (of
the Clergy) has constituted the difference between the
Order and the people. Accordingly where there is no
establishment of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and
baptize and are Priest alone for yourself. But where there
are three$ there is the Church, though they may be lay
men. Therefore, if you have the right of a Priest in your
own person, in case of necessity, it behooves you to have
also the discipline of a Priest."
 4
* Didache xv. Elect, therefore, for yourselves Bishops and Deacons
worthy of the Lord, etc.
tThelwall translates: "the honor which has acquired sanctity through
the joint session of the Order."
J Some years ago I happened to spend Sunday in a village in Tennes
see. Asking where Divine Service was to be held I was fold that there
was no Church or Clergyman of any kind in the place but that a blacksmith
sometimes called the people together and preached. He had " called the
people together " that day in the school house, where he conducted Services
and preached to the satisfaction of the people. The Baptists have since
built a chapel there and hold occasional services. On another occasion in
North Carolina 1 walked two miles to a rude school house where the people

INTRODUCTION. 15
The Church in Rome seems to have sprung up in this
way. If the statement of the Jews made to St. Paul as
recorded in Acts xxviii be true there could not have
been many Jews in the Church of Rome at that time.
The early literature is Greek and it was several genera
tions before the Church had a Latin at its head. This
had an influence in its primitive organization.
When the Apostles found such Churches I suppose that
they recognized the authority of the officers. Whether
they ordained them as St. Paul had ordained the Pres
byters in Asia Minor, I can find no evidence — probably
they did; but from the different terms of organization
used among the Jews and Gentiles, it came to pass that
there were two names for the Ministers of a Church.
When we read that so and so was the first Bishop of
such a Church we cannot be sure that he was an officer
appointed by an Apostle. He may have been an Epis
copus appointed by the Ecclesia itself. In a century or
two the complete apostolic ministry was generally estab
lished; but those communities of Christians were recog
nized as " Churches " before that, and because they were
" Churches " the Apostle would " impart some spiritual
gift to the end that they might be established." Perhaps
apostoHc orders were such a "spiritual gift," though
Hort says not.

assembled for worship. As there was no Clergyman in charge, and the
people came by agreement among themselves, the school mistress suggested
that one of the Mountaineers who could read and sing " lead the meet
ing." This met general approval and so the service was held. I was told
that sometimes a Baptist preacher happened along and was invited to " lead
the meeting."

16 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
In St. Paul's first missionary journey he gave no
organization to the Jews whb believed, possibly because
they were already members of a synagogue. But the
believing Gentiles, the. acceptance of whom by the Apostle
in the Church at Antioch, in Pisidia, so enraged the Jews,
were not organized by him until his return journey, when
he and Barnabas " ordained them Elders in every
Church," either by his own volition or at their request, t. e.,
he organized them on the plan of a Jewish synagogue.
What time had elapsed since their conversion we do not
know; but during the interval, long or short (the margin
of my copy of the Bible says two years), the Christians
seem to have been left to arrange their own ecclesiastical
affairs like our " Congregational societies." But they are
called " Churches," and not " Christian Bodies," or
" Christians of another Communion." Then " Elders "
were " appointed " and they were still " Churches." So
far as the New Testament record goes, St. Paul never
saw them again but left them " Presbyterian."
The number of Churches soon became too great for his
personal supervision. In a new and rapidly growing move
ment, where no inherited custom or system of defined
doctrines could direct men's actions or thoughts, disorders
or false teachings, must have been frequent. Therefore
he delegated, on at least two occasions, others to act for
him. He left Titus in Crete " to set in order the things
that were wanting, and appoint Elders in every city."
Timothy, also, was to " tarry at Ephesus " when St. Paul
went to Macedonia, to see that certain men should " not

INTRODUCTION. 17
teach a different doctrine." We do not read that St.
Paul was asked to send them but these two were appointed
to act in the place of, and with the authority of the Apostle
himself, and were substitutes, and in a way, " successors
of the Apostle " Paul in Crete and Ephesus. It has been
claimed that their office was intended to be temporary
" till the newly appointed Elders (in Crete) should have
gained some really effective influence under the difficult
circumstances of their new office"; and, in the case of
Timothy, who was appointed by " the laying on of the
hands of the Presbytery," either Lycaonian or Ephesian,
and " by the putting on of " St. Paul's " hands " (Com
pare Acts xiii, 2 and 3), to take the place of Barnabas
" in the temporary mission " of the Apostles. The ques
tion whether the authority conferred was " permanent "
or " temporary " does not obscure the fact that both
Titus and Timothy were superior officers in the Church
for the time being. There may be a question whether
they were Presbyter-Bishops,i.e., Presbyters commissioned
to exercise apostolic authority, or, having received further
consecration, Apostolic-Bishops. In any case they were
a new kind of officer, or " Bishops," as we understand
the word, for the time being, and the Churches in Crete
and Ephesus were, so far. Episcopal.
This showed the trend of events and how St. Paul met
the need. Here was the germ of the Apostolic Episco
pate in the Gentile Churches. It was by no means the
Diocesan Episcopate of to-day, but it contained the prin
ciple from which the Diocesan Episcopate sprang. And

18 THE LElVEL PLAlST FOR CHURCH UNlON.
here the history of the ecclesiastical organization as given
in the New Testament ends.
We have, then. Churches with three different kinds, or
degrees, of organization, corresponding generally with the
present condition of the Protestant Churches. They were
contemporary Churches with different polities, equally par
ticipant of the Holy Spirit, all in communion with each
other, all recognized as parts of the body of Christ by
His Holy Apostles. There is evidence that this dissimi
larity in organization continued till the time of Justin
Martyr, at least to A. D. 1 40, and probably very much
longer. In the apostolic age the offices instituted in the Eccle
sia were, as it appears from the New Testament, the crea
tion of successive experiences and changes of circumstance.
We do not read that our Blessed Lord prescribed any or
dinances on this subject. We have a brief history of
what some of the Apostles did but is there evidence that
they intended from the very first to give the Church an
unchangeable organization or law? That is the question
before us. But in any case the presumption is that the
acts of the Apostles are examples, or guides to subse
quent generations and should not be lightly regarded when
they can be followed.
From this brief statement, taken from the Acts of the
Apostles, it seems to follow that the Congregational
Churches are to be regarded as true " Churches " in an
apostolic estimate; that Presbyterial Churches which
have transmitted their orders " by the laying on of the

INTRODUCTION. 19
hands of the Presbytery " have an Apostolic Ministry ;
that the recognition of these different forms of Churches by
each other in love and fellowship resulted in a short time
in a uniform organization, because it was found that the
dissimilarity weakened the Church, and threatened its
extinction. In studying the question of the origin of the non-
Episcopal Churches of our own day we observe that in
the break up and disintegration of the Church at the time
of the Reformation, the Christians who in the stress of the
times were compelled to organize their Churches without
the time honored and venerated Episcopate, and in some
cases without any Clergyman at all, reverted to the simpler
organizations of the Church in its beginnings. It was
necessary and natural. Circumstances required it. Our
Methodist brethren, whose clergy and people had been
accustomed to an Episcopal form of government, natu
rally desired to continue its form when they were refused
recognition by the English Church and it is said that
Wesley, on the showing of Lord Chancellor King that
Presbyters had ordained Bishops in the early Church,
felt authorized to ordain Bishops for the American Meth
odist Church.

30 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

III.
THE TRANSITION FROM APOSTOLIC TO
EPISCOPAL OVERSIGHT.
THE PROPOSAL of Bishop Brown to offer to
extend the Episcopate to the Churches which are
without it involves two questions: First, is the
Episcopate in its origin and character such that the Epis
copal Church is at liberty to offer to impart it to Churches
which are without it? Second, is it necessary or desirable
for those Churches to accept it?
The second question those Churches must answer for
themselves. The first is the one that appertains to us and
at this point investigation is important.
One may well shrink from a task which has engaged
the best scholarship of many generations and which is yet
far from completion. But there has been a change in the
religious mind towards toleration; fuller consideration is
now given to the authorities and arguments of those
who differ from us, and we have also some scant addition
to our knowledge from newly discovered documents.
Above all, the new method of historic inquiry, which seeks
to know what the documents and the terms used in them
meant to those to whom they were written, instead of rest-

INTRODUCTION. 21
ing upon what they have come to mean in our day* may
lead one to venture a little way into the wilderness of early
ecclesiastical history in search of facts and principles
which may extricate us from the impasse of our Denomi
national differences. Let us see what the fourth side of
" the Quadrilateral " really involves.
There is not, to my mind, sufficient evidence that in
the year 70 A. D. there was what we now understand by
a diocesan Episcopal government in all the Churches, i. e.,
that all the Churches had Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
All the Apostles except St. John were dead and we read
in contemporary documents i. e., in the New Testament,
of only two orders in the Ministry permanently insti
tuted or recognized by the Apostles, namely, Presbyters,
or Bishops, and Deacons. It may be asserted that Bishops
as a separate order had been appointed in some of the
Churches in Asia, but I have found no satisfactory evi
dence of their appointment at that time in Europe.
In the course of a hundred years or a little more, we
find the institution practically universal, and the question
before us is. How did this come about ? The cause of the
change in Church government, if there was a change,
should not be difficult to discover ; but to trace the succes
sive steps by which it was effected has baffled the efforts of
the most schoFarly. The following view is offered with
such misgivings as are inevitable. ,

* Tertullian: Praesident probati quique Seniores, honorem non pretlis,
sed testimonio adepti. Bingham translates it thus: "The Bishops and
Presbyters who preside over us are advanced to that honor only by public
testimony."

22 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Our Lord had committed the preaching of the Gospel
and the founding of His Church to the Apostles whom He
had chosen, and every act of theirs, especially at the
commencement of their work, is worthy of the most care
ful examination and study. At the very beginning of their
work we are met by a fact of the utmost significance.
We are told in the first chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles that between the Ascension of our Blessed Lord
and the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit de
scended upon the disciples, the " hundred and twenty "
at the instance of St. Peter elected Matthias to be an
Apostle in the place of the traitor Judas and to take his
" Bishopric." The qualification for this office was a con
tinuous association with the Apostles or disciples all the
time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them,
beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day
that the Lord ascended. The gap in the apostolic ranks
must be filled in order that there might be twelve chosen
witnesses of the Resurrection. They must be men whose
personal knowledge of Jesus was such that they could not
be mistaken about His rising from the dead, for upon this
fact the Church, the " Kingdom not of this world " but
of the world unseen, was to be built. This election of an
Apostle was not made by the Eleven, but by the disciples,
through whom St. Peter seems to have believed that the
Lord would make known His will. Matthias, was, then,
the official representative of the disciples to testify to the
fact of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, in which they
believed.

INTRODUCTION. 23
This occurred before the publication of the Gospel on
the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was given and
the Church entered upon her mission of blessing. It was
a special appointment for a special need and it was made
not by the Apostles but by the disciples. After the spread
of the Gospel we do not read that there was a further
filling up of the depleted ranks of the Twelve. When
Herod " killed James the brother of John with the
sword " (Acts xii, 2) we have no record that the martyr's
place was filled in the apostolic ranks. The Resurrection
was then proclaimed by the whole Church of thousands
of believers. So it has been ever since. The date of
every letter, bill, or legal document in Christendom pro
claims it — Anno Domino is written upon them all. The
sovereignty of Him who rose from the dead, to whom
" all power is given in heaven and in earth," is now sub
scribed to millions of times every day throughout the
world. Now it seems proper that the Church which depends for
the justification of its existence upon the fact of the Resur
rection of Jesus Christ should have its official representa
tives to testify to it. St. Peter would have the Disciples,
before Pentecost, choose the man, and being chosen he
was numbered with the Eleven Apostles who had been
appointed by our Lord Himself. The act of the hundred
and twenty disciples in choosing at the instance of St.
Peter, the highest officer known in the Church — than
whom no higher can be found upon earth — seems to imply
that the Church was recognized as the agent of the Lord

24 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
to do after His departure what He Himself had done
while on earth. In the prayer for His guidance in the
election of Matthias the disciples acknowledged their
power and responsibility and besought Him to enable
them to act according to His will. We do not read that
the Apostles " consecrated " Matthias. The election by
the people sufficed. But besides The Twelve we read in
the New Testament of many other " Apostles " who had
not seen the Lord in the flesh. It is not necessary for us
to inquire into the qualifications of Barnabas, Silas, Tim
othy, and others for the apostleship, as the term " Apos
tle " applied to them, has a wider signification than when
applied to those whom our Lord had chosen. In the case
of St. Paul and Barnabas, the Prophets and Teachers at
Antioch laid their hands on them and they were recog
nized as Apostles by St. Peter, St. John and St. James
at Jerusalem. St. Timothy was commissioned by the
" Presbytery " and by St. Paul, and no doubt the others
were appointed in some formal way.
The manner in which the Church was formed has its
bearing upon the question at issue. It was not imposed
upon men by civil authority as a state religion, or by divine
authority as a race religion. The Apostles gathered men
into a Church, as our Lord Himself had gathered them
together, one by one, regardless of race, or affinities or
previous religious status. They came of their own choice
and they formed a voluntary society. Our Lord recog
nized the fact, taught at the beginning of the Scriptures,
of the direct relation of the individual soul to God. It

INTRODUCTION. 35
was so in the case of Adam, and the fact is further em
phasized in the Scriptures by constantly showing us that
this personal relationship continued with Enoch, Noah,
the Patriarchs, and a long line of worthies enumerated
on their pages, and the institutions of Family, State and
Church among men were helps-meet to aid them in this
relationship. This primary fact became obscured by the
institutions of society which in our Lord's day treated the
individual as a mere constituent atom of a sacred whole
and as existing solely for the welfare of the State or the
Church. The primal truth that God cared for the Ark
because Noah and his family were in it is always in
danger of being forgotten; and by upholding institutions
too strenuously and making too much of them, those
charged with the care of the Church may come to act as
if the people had been saved, not because God cared for
them but only because the Ark was precious in His sight.
Had not the Jewish Church fallen into this error in our
Lord's day? This old truth of a man's personal rela
tionship to God was restored by our Lord, and His
Church was built for its realization. He called men to
His service one by one, regardless of tribe, or class, or
race, or family. He healed them of their infirmities by His
personal touch. He taught that the individual man holds
personal communication with God and is personally re
sponsible to Him, and that this responsibility cannot be
escaped even if it cost him his life; and so, too, a man may
receive pardon from God even though he be anathema
tized by man. The true kingdom of God on earth so

S6 THE LfeVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNlOJt.
long and ardently expected, is based upon this principle
of the individual's recognition of his personal relationship
to the Father of the spirits of all flesh, and all its institu
tions depend upon and are subordinate to it. The Mes
siah, the " great King," calls Himself " The Son of
Man." The Kingdom is revealed as a universal com
monwealth — a great Democracy — whose officers are ap
pointed for service and not lordship. As the late Bishop
Litdejohn has said " the Church is governed by the whole
body of the people."
The Apostles gathered men together by preaching the
Resurrection of our Lord from the dead, and organization
followed. We have an account of the beginnings of the
Church in Jerusalem under the care of the Apostles.
While they were able to meet the needs of the believers
by their personal oversight no question arose; but soon
they were overburdened by the increasing demands of
administration and their more sacred work was interfered
with. The people murmured at a neglect. A change of
circumstances called for new officers to meet a need which
had developed. We observe the caution of the Apostles.
They declined administrative work and proposed that the
members of the Church should select the men whom they
desired to serve them and they (the Apostles) would " ap
point " them " over this business." The Church, then,
selected the men who were to be the new officers,
(Deacons) and the Apostles, whose power was not
doubted by themselves nor questioned by the Church
gave the Deacons their commission. It is hardly necessary

INTRODUCTION. 37
to call attention to the fact that the Apostles clearly
treated and regarded the power committed to them by
our Lord not as an exclusive personal asset which could
be pushed to overlordship, but as a stewardship of their
Master for the service of the Church, and they recognized
the " Brethren " as participants in His grace and fellow
citizens in the household of faith. If they did not exercise
their power to organize the Church they left it to the
Church itself to determine the organization.
The fact that the Gospel was first preached to the Jews
has a very Important bearing on the question of the organi
zation of the early Church, for from their organization of
the synagogues we derived our " Presbyter " and the status
and duties of the early Gentile " Bishops " were largely
determined by those of the Presbyters of the Jewish
christians. In Row's book on "The Jesus of the Evan
gelists," Ch. xi, I find the following account of the posi
tion of the Jews in the Empire and its bearing on the
spread of the Gospel :
" While the nucleus of the Jewish nation was in Pales
tine the race was widely dispersed both in the Eastern and
Western worlds. We can hardly overestimate the im
portance of this as a preparation for the preaching of the
Gospel. Whenever its missionaries appeared, they found
scarcely a city of any size in the Roman Empire in which
a congregation of Jews had not been settled for a consid
erable time. The very peculiarities of the race had called
attention to the religion which had originated with them.
All the evidence of history shows that the Jew had made

38 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
a deep impression on the public mind. He had made
numerous converts ; but his Influence extended far beyond
the number of those who actually embraced his religion.
" Wherever Judaism had been domiciled for a consid
erable time the Apostles found a large number of religious
men who, while they had not adopted the peculiarities of
Judaism, were believers in its fundamental truths. These
possessed a more liberal cast of mind than the Jew proper,
and united the nobler aspects of both Judaism and Gen-
tillsm. Among them the Apostles found a numerous
body of men prepared for the reception of Christianity.
A majority of the members of the early Churches were
either Jews, or persons of this description."
A strong Jewish element was at the very beginning in
fused Into the organization of the Church; not, however,
through the Priesthood of the Temple divinely appointed
through Moses to prepare for the coming of the Lord,
but through the more democratic organization of the
synagogue which was not an institution of the Mosaic law.
To the Jewish convert the officers of the new Christian
churches filled the place of the time-honored Elders or
Presbyters of the Synagogue ; to the Gentile Christian on
the other hand they were officers, or Episcopi of the
assembly, congregation, or meeting. The bringing to
gether of the Jew and Gentile Into one Ecclesia, or Church,
made the terms synonymous and kept them both in use
for a considerable time. Where the Jewish element pre
vailed, as in Asia Minor at the beginning. Presbyters had
the precedence, but by the great reversion of the Jews a

INTRODUCTION. 29
generation afterwards the Greeks were left in control and
the Presbyter lost prestige which passed over to the
Bishop. From the New Testament and early authors we gather
that during the era of apostolic government Bishops and
Presbyters were identical (at least both terms are used
for the same officers) ; and that shortly after the death
of St. John the Bishops appear as a different order from
the Presbyters. It is proposed to inquire why this new
order of officers was created ; by what authority they were
appointed, and thus seek to discover whether they were
regarded by the Apostles as their " successors " and as
indispensable to the Church's existence, or were appointed
whether by apostolical, or ecclesiastical authority, rather
for its " better government and administration " as our
Ordinal declares. In either case they are recognized as
divinely ordered and are not to be Ignored in Church or
ganization, except for very grave reasons.
The Jewish churches which were numerous in the
early days, were modelled after the synagogue to which
the members were accustomed, and their officers are called
Presbyters or Elders; and they were, in some cases at
least, ordained by the Apostles as officers of the Churches.
When we come to the Gentiles, the Ecclesia, apparently,
is not consciously modelled on the plan of the synagogue,
but follows the customary form of voluntary associations
in the Empire. In each case the organization develops
on lines familiar to the people. At Philippi, in Crete, and

30 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
In Asia Minor, we find " Bishops " instead of " Presby
ters." (Phil. 1, 1 ; I Tim. iii, 1,2; Acts xx, 28.)
But these officers, though bearing different names, dis
charged practically the same functions as Presbyters in
the Jewish Ecclesia, and the names are used in the New
Testament Interchangeably. We read in the New Testa
ment of " Bishops and Deacons " but not of " Bishops
and Elders." If Bishops had already been appointed by
the several Eccleslae themselves, as suggested above, they
were, 1 think, recognized (and probably ordained) by the
Apostles on an apostolic visitation, the same as were the
Presbyters in the Jewish-Christian Synagogues. When
the Apostles were scattered from Jerusalem the Elders,
or " Presbyters," were left in charge there; at Philippi,
the " Bishops." (Acts xi., 30; Phil. 1. 1 .) Official com
munications were sent to the Presbyters at Jerusalem, and
with St. James they received St. Paul on his return from
his missionary journey. (Acts xxi, 18.) They appar
ently had charge of their several Churches ; for the Apos
tle was not a local nor administrative officer but an " Em
bassador of Christ" to the world at large. (2 Cor. v, 20.)
In both cases the Ministers, though probably elected by
the Churches, may, so far, be traced to apostolic appoint
ment, direction, or approval. These officers. Presbyters
or Bishops, seemed to have administered discipline.
(Titus 1, 5 and 7, uses the first term in the 5th verse and
the second in the 7th.)
St. Paul directs the Corinthian church to correct <«»

INTRODUCTION. 31
offender, and it is done in a very drastic manner by the
officers of the Church who were Presbyters.
It also appears probable that the Presbyters or Bishops
had the power to ordain. (I Tim. iv, 14, "With the
laying on of hands of the Presbytery." Compare Acts
vi, 6. "They [the Aposdes] laid their hands on
them.") The claim that the " Presbyters " who ordained
Timothy must have been Apostolic Bishops, because they
ordained him, assumes the very question at issue and reads
into the Scriptures what we find commanded only by sub
sequent ecclesiastical action. It does not follow that be
cause the Constitution of the United States requires every
State in the Union to have a Republican form of govern
ment that all the Colonies were Republican in form pre
viously. We may gather from the acts of the councils
of Nice, Carthage, and Chalcedon, to name no others,
that it required severe and long-continued action to pre
vent the Presbyters from ordaining ; and finally peace was
effected by the compromise of permitting the Presbyters
to join with the Bishop in the laying on of hands. " All
the Presbyters who are present may lay their hands
equally with, or next to, the hand of the Bishop on the
head of him"* (who is ordained). This permission or
right is still enjoyed in the Protestant Episcopal Church.
If the Churches had remained Jewish the Synagogue
organization among those accustomed to it might have
sufficed, but where it became preponderantly Greek other

•Cbun. Garth. 4, canon 3.

33 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
elements in the Eccleslae called for a less provincial mode
of government and administration.
It is generally conceded by the later writers of Church
History that there were at first no Dioceses, or diocesan
Bishops, as Bingham believed. The individual Eccleslae
were in charge of a council of Elders or Bishops under
the general supervision of the Apostles for a generation
or more. The actual government was practically Pres
byterian or Congregational. Then, after the death of
the Apostles, in a few generations, quite a new order of
officers appears in control. They bear an old name and
it is claimed that they succeeded the Apostles and had
their authority. But we cannot identify them with either
Apostles or Presbyters. They fill an office which had
not been known before, some of the powers of which had
been exercised only by the Apostles while others had
been enjoyed by the former Bishops or Presbyters.
Now that the government of the whole Church, or even
a large portion of it, should undergo a radical change with
hardly a trace of opposition, may well excite astonishment.
This absence of any evidence of resistance affords, it is
claimed, a strong argument in favor of the Apostolic Suc
cession as it is usually taught. And yet there may be
reasons why, if such a change was made, the opposition to
it was small. It does not follow that there was no change
made; for evidence of reluctance to submit to it, or some
of the evidence, if there was reluctance, is likely to have
perished or to have been destroyed. The successful party
would have no interest in preserving documents which

INTRODUCTION. 33
were opposed to it, and when an apostolic claim for the
establishment of the later Episcopate was put forth, It
would be desirable to get rid of any evidence which im
peached the claim. But there are indications of resist
ance ; perhaps the dearth of evidence Itself, on both sides,
for the period of more than a generation during which the
transformation took place — such a dearth of contempo
rary Information as we find nowhere else in the History
of the Church — may give rise to a suspicion of the dis
appearance of documents through neglect or Interest.
Unhappily the destruction and fabrication of documents is
not unknown in Church history. The canons of the early
councils deal so largely with the Episcopal polity and
its establishment that it is difficult to believe that it was
recognized and received everywhere as delivered by the
Apostles from the very first as a necessary part, still less
as of the substance, of the Church. Drastic legislation is
not needed to enforce what is commonly recognized as
the ordinary form of government. So I am disposed to
think that the whole question of Church government was
thoroughly discussed and settled during the first centuries
of Christianity, and to a certain degree we are to-day
threshing over old straw. The recovery of the Didache a
few years ago leads us to hope that other discoveries
may throw additional light on this most interesting period
of Church history.
Such a change could not have been instantaneously
universal and therefore the term Bishop must have been
ambiguous for some years. While it is developing into

34 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
new dignity we cannot determine when we read, e. g., in
later writers that " Clement was Bishop of Rome
whether he was a primitive, i. e.. Congregational, or a
Presbyter-Bishop, or an apostolic Bishop. What we
need is contemporary evidence; and unfortunately we
have very little. The Roman Clement, Ignatius, Poly-
carp, Barnabas and Hermas are about all our contem
porary authors.
While the Apostles were alive all questions of dispute,
all dissensions and questionable doctrines, could be, as
I have said, and were, referred to the Apostles them
selves. We have seen that St. Paul (who was not of the
Twelve), delegated Timothy and Titus to act for him
in Ephesus and Crete. The state of affairs which called
for such action must have been continually arising, and
the Presbyters of the several Churches were unable to
meet the need because they were officers only of individ
ual Eccleslae who formed a council apparently of equals.
If I understand St. Clement's epistle to the Corinthians,
the Church in that city had deposed some of the Pres
byters, and St. Clement who claims to be a Presbyter,
but not an apostolic Bishop, warmly remonstrates. It
may be that as the Corinthians were Greeks they were
only exercising their recognized right of control over their
own officers, retiring them to appoint more gifted men in
their places; while Clement thought the officers of the
Church like the State officers should be permanent. At
any rate, it was evident that some stronger organization
in the Eccleslae than the body of local Presbyters would

INTRODUCTION. 35
be required to maintain sound doctrine and to preserve
the peace and good order of the Church and to take the
place of the Apostles after their decease.
We learn from the New Testament that St. James had
been placed over the Church in Jerusalem. We have
statements elsewhere that St. Peter had appointed Euodus
over the Jewish congregations at Antioch, and that he
appointed a Bishop in Caesarea. At the same time
there are rumors that St. Paul had appointed another to
be Bishop of the Gentiles in Antioch. There are rumors
also of duplicate Bishops of apostolic order in Rome. I
can only understand the conflicting statements by constru
ing these as appointments to meet local or temporary exi
gencies, like the appointments of Sts. Timothy and Titus
to Ephesus and Crete, and it was not until after A. D.
70 that a uniform and general Episcopal organization
was undertaken.
Authorities should be given for historic statements.
Now the fact that while all the Churches were in com
munion with each other in the early days, quotations are
made from contemporary writers in support of the Con
gregational, Presbyterial, Episcopal, and Papal polities
seems to show that there was no one uniform settled polity
anywhere in the first century, and even later, in some
parts. I quote only what little seems to me sufficient to
indicate how, under the Providence of God, the actual
result was reached of a uniform Episcopal regime.
Until the fall of Jerusalem that city was the center of
QiUrch unity. - In certain i>arts of Syria and Asia Mindr,

36 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
it is claimed, the Episcopate had already been instituted
by the Aposdes. But it was especially to St. John, as
the only surviving Apostle, that the need of officers who
should exercise the authority which the Apostles had exer
cised when they were alive, appeared most imperative;
and Tertullian (Adversus Marclonem Bk. iv. Cap. 5),
tells us " The Order of Bishops when traced to its origin
will rest on St. John as its author." The statement
of Clement of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salvetur) is as
follows :
" For when, the tyrant being dead, he (St. John) re
turned from the Isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he departed
on invitation to the neighboring territories of the nations,
(or Gentiles) to appoint Bishops in one place, to set in
order whole Churches in another, and, in a third, to ordain
some one of those Indicated by the Spirit." Other
authorities endorse the testimony of Tertullian and Clem
ent. These definite statements of the two fathers relate
to what St. John did after his return from exile in the
Island of Patmos where he had received the Revelation.
It has been conjectured that the Holy Orders of the
Church took form in his mind in consequence of that vision,
and where opportunity was afforded he instituted the order
of Bishops over individual Churches to secure the ortho
doxy, peace and good order of the Churches after he
should have passed away. Tertullian and Clement evi
dently intend to have it understood that by the action of St.
John a new class of Church officers was created under
the old name of Bishops. There may be a question

INTRODUCTION. 37
whether the testimony of these Fathers Is conclusive.
They lived a hundred years after the events of which
they write and during that time the Bishops had
been strengthening their position by the exercise of
their authority. No element of strength could be
greater than the apostolical institution of their order
and there was a strong temptation to claim such
institution. This is granted. And it is still further
agreed that the testimony of Tertullian and Clement
would have been stronger if St. Ignatius (A. D. 107)
who lived in the period when St. John is reported to have
instituted Bishops had claimed apostolic authority for
the office which he extols. This he does not seem to do,
not even claiming it for himself. Possibly the fact of
St. John's institution of Bishops and St. Ignatius' own
place among them was so well known that it needed no
mention. Unless additional evidence is forthcoming a
doubt must remain, but on the whole the statements of
our two authors have incidental, if not direct, corrobora
tion, and the absence of any claim to universal, exclusive,
and perpetual authority for the order of Bishops as " Suc
cessors of the Apostles," allows for the continued varia
tions in Church government which are met in various
places for a long time after their day, and their statement
may be accepted as probably true.
But here a question. Were the " Angels " of the
Churches in the Revelation, if they were indeed persons.
Presbyters, or Presbyter-Bishops? And were they made

38 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
apostolic Bishops afterwards? Or were they ever
Bishops at all as has been claimed?
As this is the point where Bishops, in our understanding
of the word, emerge into the clear light of history it is
especially important to look closely in order to make
up our minds whether the Episcopate does, and was in
tended to perpetuate the apostolic order. The state
ments of Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, that St.
John established Bishops over Churches in Asia Minor,
are late but positive. Their words have been read into
the Ecclesiastical History of not only the Interval between
the death of St. John (about 100 A. D.) and their own
day (about 200 A. D.) but also into the previous history
of the Church. Yet the fact that neither St. Ignatius
nor St. Polycarp claims apostolic authority, nor appears
to know anything about such action by St. John, weakens
the statements. Ignatius, who wrote a few years after
the Apostle's death and who vehemently insists upon the
authority of Bishops, makes no mention of any such
action by St. John, although no argument could have
served his purpose better had it been true. In his letter
to St. Clement, of Rome, he makes no mention of it
which is accounted for if they at Rome knew nothing of
such an Episcopate. The statements of the two fathers
may represent a growing tradition which had some foun
dation. While it is true that the most powerful interests
in the Church were enlisted in its favor it does not follow
that it has no basis in fact. Yet when one reads St.
Clement's treatise on Quis Dives Salvetur its language

INTRODUCTION. 39
seems to imply that St. John intended, not to establish a
new order of the Christian ministry which had not been
known before, but rather to give his sanction and blessing
to the Churches, set in order what was confused and or
dain their clergy for them. It can hardly be regarded as
" proven " that the Episcopate of subsequent times was
instituted by St. John, or by any other Aposde. So,
whether it be true or not — God only knows — it cannot
justly serve as a basis for the extreme claims of the Jure
Divino theory of the Episcopate. They need a more sub
stantial basis than a " perhaps."
While it is evident from the authors quoted that the
" Bishops " ordained by St. John after his return from
Patmos were placed in a position superior to that of those
ordained by, him before the exile it is to be remembered
that the terms Bishop and Presbyter were both used for the
same officer in the Churches and the ordination of an
Elder was also the ordination of a Bishop. From I Tim.
V, 1 7, we learn that there were two kinds of service ren
dered by Elders; and those who excelled in teaching and
preaching were to be "reckoned worthy of double honor."
The other service may have been that of administration
when the Elder was acting as Bishop. Until the ordina
tions spoken of by Tertullian and Clement we read only
of the ordination of Elders. By Tertullian's day the dif
ference in the nature of the services rendered had produced
a difference in Orders. Instead of Elders who labored in
administration and supervision we have Bishops; while
those who labored in word and doctrine continued to be

40 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
called Elders or Presbyters. Ignatius was, as he calls him
self, a Presbyter by Orders; but as the supervisor or
ruler of a Church he was also a Bishop in the general
sense of the word. It is probable that the work of admin
istration grew in Importance as the congregations Increased
in membership and in numbers. As the Elders who acted
as Bishops kept the rolls and had charge of the corres
pondence with other Churches the maintenance of order
and brotherly relations was largely in their hands and the
Presbyter-Bishop's responsibilities grew accordingly. In
the absence of contemporary evidence we can only con
jecture the course of events and I venture the following
suggestion. After the death of St. John, Ignatius felt that the Pres
byter-Bishops who had been last ordained by St. John,
(the last survivor of the Twelve) ; those whom he ordained
after receiving the Revelation and who were his legacy
to the Church, were best fitted to take up the burden of
oversight which the Holy Aposde had laid down; and
thus the order of Bishops as distinct from Presbyters came
into being. He himself clung to the time-honored tide of
Presbyter to which he had been ordained (probably) by
St. John, but he urges obedience to these Bishops or Pres
byters who had been specially designated for the work of
oversight and administration as essential to the welfare
of the Church. May it not be the case that in view of
the assignment of these Presbyter-Bishops last ordained by
St. John, to the special work and responsibility of over
sight and administration, they are said to have been or-

INTRODUCTION. 41
dalned Bishops instead of Elders, although the ordination
had been the usual one for Elders? From the facts con
nected with their ordination they were counted worthy
above other Presbyters of perpetuating the apostolic Min
istry and by the time of Irenaeus were regarded as suc
cessors of the Apostles. Ordination at their hands was
more sacred than by the laying on of other hands of the
Presbytery, and other consequences followed which need
not detain us here.
Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus are always spoken of
in writings after their day as Bishops appointed by St.
John, or as deriving their authority from him. With them,
and others in the same line, a new or Apostolic Episco
pate, so called, seems to have been developed in Asia
Minor, however it may have originated.
In Europe there had been no such intimate association
with "the Twelve" as in Syria and Asia Minor. St.
Paul and Barnabas, and possibly St. Peter in Rome, had
labored there, but the work attributed to St. John of estab
lishing a more rigid organization in Asia Minor was not at
once extended to that continent. The claim of the New
Episcopal Order to superiority was probably not even in
Asia cheerfully conceded by all the Presbyters, or Bishops
who had previously been in control. I think this may
account for the strong language used by St. Ignatius and
St. Irenaeus. They were insisting upon what even some
of the Asian Churches were reluctant to accept.
This is the place where contemporary evidence is most
desirable, and the nearest to it is the Epistles of St. Ig-

43 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
natlus. (About A. D. 110.) Here I first find the
Ministry described as consisting of " Bishops, Presbyters
and Deacons." It is not necessary to raise any question
about his own Orders in this matter. He himself deriving
his authority from St. John, as subsequent ecclesiastical
History states, though he does not claim apostolic
authority, or commission, must have been disturbed
by the condition of Churches which were in more
or less confusion. His strong language suits an
unsettled state of affairs. The traditions must be
preserved, heretics resisted, and false teachings whether
of Jewish or Gentile origin must be corrected. It
is likely that the persecutions by the civil authorities had
broken up some of the Churches, at least temporarily, and
produced confusion in all. A strong organization was
needed. It was of less Importance how and by what
agency Bishops were appointed than that their authority
be recognized. So he leaves it undetermined whether St.
John or the Churches created the new ecclesiastical order.
At the same time the many versions of his Epistles as we
have them, some long, and some short, deprive them of
some of their evidential value. It looks as though the
letters had been subsequently depended upon to serve a
purpose; and they may have been later " amended" or
" enlarged " or " explained " by Interpolations, In order
to strengthen the new form of government by his saintly
authority. As I have not access here to the originals of the Epistles
of St. Ignatius I have consulted the translations of Arch-

INTRODUCTION. 43
bishop Wake. In all of them, except that to the Romans
where I find no statement in regard to " Bishops. Pres
byters and Deacons," these officers hold a prominent
place. To the Trallians, Ignatius says, " Without
Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons there is no Church."
Again he says to them, " Who does anything without the
Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons is not pure in his con
science." To the Phlladelphlans he says, " I cried with
a loud voice. Attend to the Bishop, to the Presbyters and
to the Deacons." To the Smyrnaeans he says, "Without
a Bishop it is not lawful to baptize, nor celebrate the Holy
Communion." And again to the same, " See that ye
follow the Bishop even as Christ Jesus does the Father,
and the Presbytery as ye would the Apostles. Do ye also
reverence the Deacons, etc." " Let the laity be subject
to the Deacons; the Deacons to the Presbyters; the Pres
byters to the Bishop; the Bishops to Christ, even as He is
to the Father." These are only a few phrases Interspersed
in certain chapters where they do not always seem con
sonant with the context. The recurrence of such phrases,
so different from anything we have met with before, natu
rally gives rise to a suspicion that what the writer is urging
upon the Churches is something new, or that the phrases
are interpolations. It is difficult to reconcile them, whether
they were written by the venerable saint or Inwritten by a
later hand, with the existence of a well established and
accepted polity. To my mind they Indicate the attempt
to enforce something with which his correspondents were,
at least, not familiar. It is unfortunate that he does not

44 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
tell us how the new Order originated and by what author
ity it was created.
Apparently the organization of the Church as described
by St. Ignatius was completed in his own day in some
parts of Christendom to meet the pressing needs of a
rapidly growing, but insufficiently organized society, when
the inspired prophet and evangelist who had been the in
dividual directors of Church affairs were to give place to
the administrator " whose qualifications lay in his rela
tion to the institution." On the earthly side the Church
has no existence apart from the men and women who
form it. Hence there were dissensions, ambitions, and
disorders as in all human societies. Diotrephes loved to
have the pre-eminence (3 John 9) and the Nicolaitanes
taught a doctrine which St. John hated (Rev. 11, 15)
while without were persecutions from the government and
the hatred of the people. Only a strong hand could pre
serve the requisite peace.
It is hardly necessary to call attention to the fact that
the Episcopate extolled by St. Ignatius is not the diocesan
Episcopate but a local or parish Episcopate. St. Irenaeus,
an Asiatic of two or three generations later in the order
of succession ascribed to St. John, severely arraigns those
who deny the apostollclty or refuse to submit to the au
thority of the Episcopate. So It seems that there were
those who were reluctant to accept It even as late as in
Irenaeus' day.
Within the last thirty years some new testimony has
been obtained from Bishop Bryennios' publication of

INTRODUCTION. 45
" The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." The late Dr.
C. Taylor, Master of St. John's College, in Cambridge,
England, assigns this document to the time of Justin
Martyr, about A. D. 1 40 — others place it earlier — while
it is contended by many that it was for several centuries
a standard of instruction and was subjected to many re
visions to meet new exigencies. Dr. Taylor points out,
as any reader of it will see for himself, that at that time
(sometime after St. Ignatius), the "organization of the
Church " was still " in solution."
About the year A. D. 200 Episcopacy in some form
generally prevailed. " In some form;" for I am per
suaded that it was later than this that the apostolic Epis
copate contended for by St. Irenaeus and others, the
new Episcopate ascribed to St. John and deriving
its authority from our Lord through tactual succession
from that Apostle, and not from a congregation, or from
Presbyters, superseded all other forms of Church govern
ment and became universal. I believe that the ambiguity
of the term Episcopus for a considerable period has been
the cause of much controversy. The monarchial form of
state government favored Episcopacy. Episcopacy in
whatever form, had been generally established to meet
the needs of the Church, but In the Chor-Episcopi we still
find traces of the former parity of Presbyters and Bishops ;
and perhaps in the Autokephalae we have traces of the
survival of Sees which maintained their right to appoint
their own Bishops in their own way until a late date.
The following are well known extracts from the Chris-

46 THE LEVEL PLAK FOR CHURCH UNION.
tian Fathers on the original parity of Bishops and Pres
byters in the days of the Apostles, and some early views
of the rise, or institution of the Episcopate. An extract
is also given from Irenaeus (A. D. 198) who takes the
view which has been so largely accepted and which pre
vailed unquestioned for so many centuries that Bishops
were appointed by the Apostles as their successors.
Clement of Rome (A. D. 93-101), seems to have
regarded himself as a Presbyter. The conflicting state
ments as to who was the first Bishop of Rome, Linus or
Clement (and where does Anacletus, or Cletus, come
in?) and other considerations, lead me to take Clement's
word for it, that he was a Presbyter — or, if you perfer it,
a Presbyter-Bishop but not what may be called an
" Apostolic Bishop." It does not appear from his Epistle
to the Corinthians that there was any Apostolic Bishop,
i. e., a Bishop in our understanding of the term, a single
Bishop deriving his authority from an Apostle, in the
Church at Corinth. In the 42nd. Chapter of the first
Epistle he specifies two orders, synonomous with Pres
byters or Elders in the Christian-Jewish Synagogue, and
Deacons. " Therefore (the Apostles) , preaching through
countries and cities appointed the first fruits (of their la
bors) having tested them by the Spirit, as Bishops and
Deacons of those who were about to believe" and in Chap
ter 44 he makes Bishops and Presbyters the same officers.
" For our sin is not small if we throw out of the oversight
(or Episcopate) , those who blamelessly and holily offered
the gifts. Blessed are the Presbyters who having already

intkoductiopT. 47
finished their course have obtained a fruitful and com
plete release."
I venture to recall attention to the fact that Ignatius'
Epistle to the Romans is singularly free from the asser
tions found in his other Eplsdes in regard to the universal
ity, or necessity of three orders In the Ministry. The two
saintly men, Clement and Ignatius, were contemporaries,
but it seems from the documents that while the Episcopal
polity had been established in Asia Minor it had not yet
been definitely established in Rome; or if there was a
Bishop in Rome his position was not the same as that of
Ignatius in Antioch.
Chrysostom Horn, ix, on Ep. ad Tim. " In old times
the Presbyters were called Bishops and the Ministers (or
Deacons), of Christ, and the Bishops Presbyters."
Irenaeus, who came from Asia Minor where the Apos
tolic Episcopate had, it is claimed, been established by
St. John at least a hundred years before his day, and who
is reckoned a Bishop in the Johannean line, does not seem
to have been aware of the former parity of those called
Presbyters and Bishops. He speaks sometimes as though
the Presbyters were the keepers of apostolic tradition;
and then he calls upon the Bishops for the establishment of
the truth. Probably the first were the popular, the sec
ond the official transmitters of the Faith. He is said to
have been the first to promulgate the theory of the Apos
tolic Succession, though it seems to have been intimated
earlier by Clement of Rome. His statement suggests the
manner in which the theory of the Apostolic Succession, if

48 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
it is not historically established, may have grown up as a
necessary inference from the nature and duties of the
Episcopal office as the keeper of the truth.
If the Apostles had provided for the preservation of
our Lord's teachings either by special Instruction of chosen
men or by having them written down for succeeding gener
ations, then the custodians of those traditions or records
would be the successors of the Apostles for maintaining
the Faith in its Integrity. (2 Tim. 11: 2.) Apostolic ap
pointment of such officers seems reasonable and was sooner
or later assumed.
Irenaeus ill, 3. 1 . " In every Church all who wish to
see the truth have before them the tradition of the Apos
tles clearly manifested throughout the whole world; and
we have it in our power to name (or number) those who
were instituted by the Apostles Bishops in the Churches.
and their successors, even to ourselves, who taught no
such thing as they deliriously maintain" (about 198
A. D. ) . Ignatius seems to have been Ignorant of this
claim when he wrote his epistles and so urgently pressed
the acceptance of Bishops on the several Asian Churches.
Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1, v, 5. " Therefore
the Presbyter is the same as the Bishop and before
that by the instigation of the devil factions were made
(or brought into) religion, and it was said among the
people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the
Churches were governed by a common council of Pres
byters. But when everyone began to reckon those whom
he had baptized as his own (disciples) instead of Christ's

INTRODUCTION. 49
it was decreed (by whom?) throughout the world that
one chosen from the Presbyters should be set over the
others, to whom the care of the whole Church should be
assigned, and the seeds of schism be removed. If any
one thinks that it is my own opinion and not the teaching
of the Scriptures that Bishops and Presbyters are one —
this name (presbyter or elder) because of age, that name
(bishop) on account of office — let him read again the
words of the Apostle to the Philipplans, saying: Paul
and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints
in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi with the Bishops and
Deacons, grace be unto you and peace, etc. With the
fathers Presbyters and Bishops were the same. Gradually
indeed, all the care was conferred upon one in order that
the nurseries of dissensions might be rooted out. There
fore just as the Presbyters know that it is by the usage of
the Church that they are subject to him that is over them,
so let the Bishops know that they are superior to Pres
byters rather by custom than by the reality of divine or
dering. " At Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist to Bishops
Heraclas (A. D. 240), and Dionysius the Presbyters
were always accustomed to name one chosen from them
selves and elevated to a higher grade as Bishop,* just as

* Jerome tells us nothing about the consecration of the Bishop of Alex
andria, but Eutychus in the tenth century confirming Jerome's statement adds
that the Eleven other Presbyters placed their hands upon his head in bless
ing and created him patriarch. (Cujus Capiti reliqui undecim manus im-
ponentes ipsi benedicerent et Patriarcham Crearent.) Migne Patr. Graec, CXI.

50 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
an army makes its emperor, or as the Deacons choose from
among themselves someone whom they have known to be
industrious and call him Archdeacon. For what does a
Bishop do which a Presbyter may not do, with the ex
ception of ordination? "
Merely to say that St. John created the Episcopate
does not, to my mind, tell the whole story. Ecclesiastical
or congregational Bishops had, I believe, been appointed
by the first disciples in Europe in the absence of Apostles,
merely, as officers of the Eccleslae, in Alexandria by the
council of Presbyters, and now we have apostolic
Bishops attributed to St. John. Congregational Bishops^
Presbyterian Bishops and apostolic Bishops. Surely the
Bishop was a recognized need of the Church.
Granting that St. John established the Episcopate it was
not the first act of his apostleship, but his concluding work.
It was the summary and completion of what had grown
up and been evolved during the first century, in the way of
Church government. It was not an arbitrary act unre
lated to the actual state of affairs or to what had preceded.
The Eccleslae had Bishops by Congregational or Pres
byterial action, and the venerable Apostle, the Beloved
Disciple, sanctions the office, possibly he enlarges its
powers and consecrates it to be the deposit of the author
ity which was committed to the Apostles. TJie Episco
pate was not imposed by St. John, but already existed and
he sanctioned and regulated it. We read in Acts xv,
23, that the Apostles, Elders and Brethren together ex
pressed the decision of the Church on a certain matter.

INTRODUCTION. 51
So in the establishment of the Episcopate there was the
concurrence of the Democratic (Congregational), the
Aristocratic (Presbyterian) and the Monarchial (Apos
tolic) authority; and by it we have a combination of all
the three forms of government considered by philosophers
as possible and practicable. Neither one is independent
of the others. The concurrence of the people and the
Clergy in St. John's institution of the Episcopate should
not be forgotten when we consider its claims. I do not
understand that he commanded it to be made universal
and perpetually unchangeable; but that he instituted it
where he was requested to do so, accepting, regulating
and sanctioning what had already been done in that direc
tion, and it spread naturally until it embraced substantially
the whole Church.
The trend of affairs from the beginning was towards
the Episcopate. The end was reached in such a way as
to protect the Church from possible abuses such as
the Apostles, according to the Roman Clement, feared;
but it is not probable that they created an irresponsible
oligarchy or an unchangeable caste in the Church in order
to secure the Church from abuses of its offices. They
left the authority with the Church itself.
A word in regard to the extension of the Historic
Episcopate. As time went on the need of uniformity
became more pressing and the greater efficiency of the
Episcopal polity caused its rapid extension. It seems
probable that when many congregations had been formed
in one city, the " Elder " or " Presbyter " in charge of

53 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the Mother Church became by natural development the
Episcopus, or ruling Presbyter of the Churches in that
city. As the Episcopal organization came into fuller
operation this officer took the name signifying the func
tion which he discharged. The word Bishop ceased to
be synonymous with Presbyter and became a Title. I
do not find that another ordination or consecration was
added at first. The Presbyter, or one of the Episcopi,
was elevated above his former peers by the voice of the
Ecclesia as in Alexandria. Soon, however, it would be
felt that there was a difference between the apostollcally
appointed Bishops and those appointed by the Churches
or Clergy and this would awaken a sense of Inferiority on
the part of the latter who would naturally seek equaliza
tion by an ordination at the hands of those in Apostolic
Succession. And here it is to be recollected that it was
several generations after Episcopacy became general that
the provision was adopted which regulated the appoint
ment and consecration of Bishops in one uniform manner,
but I think the Episcopate was originally extended among
the Churches very much as Bishop Brown now proposes.
A strong and uniform organization in the various
Ecclesiae was necessary to prevent the Christians from
falling into warring camps, to establish the unity neces
sary to the perpetuation of the Church in the face of per
secutions, to preserve Christian doctrine, to maintain peace
and order, and when the exigencies of the times called for
it to weld into a great and mighty ecclesiastical State the
scattered Churches of the Roman Empire m preparation

INTRODUCTION. 53
for the time of supreme trial when the Empire would be
shattered into fragments under the blows of the Bar
barians. An institution which by its intrinsic character is fit for
the highest and holiest service and by this fitness secures
universal adoption in the Churches of God and benefi-
clently controls their work for centuries may well commend
itself for voluntary adoption by those who would deny
that it was established by apostolic fiat as uncondition
ally, perpetually and universally indispensable.
It is outside of my line of inquiry to trace the manner
in which the local Episcopate came to absorb the powers
which had been previously divided among the Presby
ters or Bishops, Deacons and Laity and became diocesan.
The process was a natural one. No doubt the ordinary
motives which move men to seek aggrandizement were at
work, but we should remember that care and responsibil
ity were the essential attributes of the office. The circum
stances were such as moved men to put upon the Episco
pate all it would bear. The persecutions, heresies and
distractions of the times made the Bishops the champions
as they were the almoners and representatives of the
Church. It is not strange that after a hundred years of
struggle for the faith, during which time they were prod
igal of their lives, they, as well as the people, should have
come to regard the Episcopate as of the essence of the
Church. As the line of heroic Bishops who had died in
the arena, or by cord, axe or faggot lengthened from year
to year; as captives in the mines were redeemed again and

54 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
again by selling the holy vessels from the very altar, as
the increasing multitudes of the starving were fed from
the Bishop's table from day to day, we are not so much
surprised that Cyprian should write (A. D. 250, Ep. 68),
" You ought to know that the Bishop is in the Church
and the Church in the Bishop ; and if any one be not with
the Bishop he is not in the Church."
This was written in the heroic age of the Church by
one of its great heroes and martyrs who lived in a constant
state of exaltation anticipating the death that he knew
would sooner or later be inflicted upon him because he
was a Bishop, and therefore a representative of the
Church. It is not strange that he should magnify his
office for he knew its full significance to both Christians
and pagans. His words describe the actual state of affairs
at the moment. It is held by some that they express, also,
the fundamental doctrine of the Episcopate at all times;
that the Church is contained in the Episcopate, and that
only by submitting to the Episcopate, can a man enter
into the Church and into covenant relations with God.
If he is saved outside of the Church it is only by " un-
covenanted grace." Yet St. Paul does not seem to have
considered a recognition of his apostolic authority as
necessary to the effectual preaching of Christ. (Phil, i,
15-18.) This is the doctrine so obnoxious to our fellow
Christians and to which attention was challenged in the
fourth article of the "Quadrilateral." The Rubric at the
end of the confirmation office, which was made for quite
a different purpose, is sometimes pointed out in proof of

INTRODUCTION. 55
this claim. It is hardly necessary to say that if Cyprian's
statement means that salvation from sin and eternal death
is conditioned on obedience to some apostolic Bishop it
belongs to another age and to other conditions than those
in which we live. The Church of God was not extinct in
Scotland, or in certain German and Scandinavian States,
when Bishops had been expelled. The rise and develop
ment of the Papacy which St. Cyprian vigorously opposed
was largely due to circumstances and, mutatis mutandis,
the language of Cyprian is its language. Perhaps the
claims of both were justifiable under some circumstances,
but are no longer so.
What persecutions did for the aggrandizement of
Bishops in St. Cyprian's day was completed by the union
of the Church with the State when by the expansion of
the Episcopate they became Princes of the Empire.
Thereafter none questioned the claim of Cyprian for a
thousand years.
Among the Christian institutions none has done more
for the elevation of mankind than the Historic Episco
pate. It sat by the cradles of the nations of modern
Europe and led them in the path of civilization, enlighten
ment, humanity and spiritual life. The part taken by
Bishops in State affairs in Europe, from which many evils
grew, was a necessity of the situation. The Clergy were
the learned men of the times, the only men competent to
deal with laws and civil administration. They rendered
great services to the people to whom their service was due,
by their work in civil affairs. The governments were

56 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
monarchial. The Church had become monarchial. Papal.
Every ecclesiastical question was also a political question,
and every political question had its ecclesiastical aspect.
What must happen from such an alliance of Church and
State? What has happened to non-Episcopal Churches
when their officers became also political placemen? The
Episcopate was not the cause of the evil but the situation
in which it was placed. There is also another side to be
remembered — the services rendered to the poor, the sick,
the weak and the defenseless. The Bishops were for
many centuries the only champions of the oppressed. The
right of Asylum, their Orphanages, Hospitals, Schools —
not too dangerously advanced, it is true — and personal
Ministries stemmed the torrent of horrors, and brighten
the dark pages of a history otherwise full of the welter
of violence, rapine and murder. Many of them paid with
their lives the price of opposing the soldiers of fortune in
their forays, or the violent nobles in their monstrous ex
actions. They were for centuries recognized as the God-
appointed friend of all in need and the Order has no
cause to blush for its record. Men who meet and redress
the evils of our own day as efficiently as the Bishops met
those in the dark centuries of our era soon find the same
power voluntarily placed in their hands.
How came it to pass that the Episcopate is to-day re
jected by the Churches and people of great nations who
are enjoying the fruits of Episcopal toil and teaching? And
why is only a small number of our own people attached

INTRODUCTION. 57
to its cause? Its origin and history promise better things
than we see at present.
In answer to this question we may say in a few words
that the Episcopate, after a struggle, was finally reduced
to a function of the Papacy and became its instrument
for good or evil for many centuries, and where the Papacy
was rejected the Episcopate, save in England and per
haps one or two other places was rejected with it. Their
conduct in regard to the Reformation shook people's con
fidence in their claim to apostolical commission and
authority.

IV.
VIEW TAKEN OF BISHOPS BY THE
REFORMERS.
FOR OVER a thousand years the Western Church
had been governed from Rome mostly through the
Bishops. There was " a coercive sense of in
grained usage " in Christendom. Every inherited thought
made Bishops the channel of Divine authority, and to
question their position or seriously to fault their conduct
bordered upon sacrilege and there does not seem to have
been any intention or desire to attack their order or reduce
their power.
In the following citations I have been obliged to de-

58 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
pend upon Froude (who has been sharply criticised), as
I have not access to the work of Erasmus.
The following extract from his " Life and Letters of
Erasmus " is added as showing that the contention of the
Reformers when they began their work, was for a moral
reformation, not a change in ecclesiastical polity. At
first they were satisfied that It could not be bettered, how
ever it may have arisen. The Protestant Churches with
their non-Episcopal polities (save in a few countries and
especially in England) were brought into being by the
refusal on the part of the Western Church to effect such
moral Reformation. As the Episcopate had been re
garded as of the essence of the Church it was felt at
Rome that if the Reformers had no Bishops among them
the movement must collapse. This made England with
her Bishops In a Reformed Church the Bulwark of the
Reformation in the eyes of Rome.
We read in Froude's 15th Lecture on " The Life and
Letters of Erasmus," that " Luther had at first desired
nothing beyond a reform of scandal and immorality."
And again we read in Lecture XI: "Luther had not
meant to raise such a tempest. He had merely protested
against scandal. If the Pope would have stopped the sale
of the Indulgences and condemned the grossness of Tetzel
and his doings, Luther, much as he disliked the teaching
and practice of the Church in general, would have said
no more and his own share in the revolt would have
ended." In a letter from Luvian, dated January 28th, 1529.

INTRODUCTION. 69
Erasmus writes: " I know not how Popes came by their
authority. I suppose it was as Bishops came by theirs.
Each Presbytery chose one of its members as President
to prevent divisions. Bishops similarly found it expedient
to have a chief Bishop to check rivalries and defend the
Church against the secular powers."
In another letter dated April 1st, 1529, he says: " I
have wished that the Popes and Cardinals were more like
the Apostles, but never in thought have I desired their
offices abolished."
In his comment on St. Matthew xxiii on the Scribes
and Pharisees, we read, " You may find a Bishop here
and there who teaches the Gospel, though life and teach
ing have small agreement. But what shall we say of
those who destroy the Gospel Itself, make laws at their
will, tyrannize over the laity and measure right and
wrong with rules constructed by themselves? Of those who
entangle their flocks in the meshes of crafty cimning, who
sit not in the seat of the Gospel, but in the seat of Caia-
phas and Simon-Magus — prelates of evil who bring dis
grace and discredit on their worthier Brethren? "
So far were many of the Reformers from desiring a
change in the Polity of the Church that they looked to
the Church dignitaries, and especially to the Bishops to
lead in the work of reform. But on the Continent when
the test came, these latter, although many of them were
favorably disposed towards a Reformation, stood by the
Papal Court corruptions and all. Reading a history of
the councils of Pisa, Constance, Farrara and The Lat-

60 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
eran, one can hardly fail to be impressed with the con
viction that the ecclesiastics feared the loss of their powers
and privileges more than they disliked the corruptions of
the Church. As the strife waxed warm between the
parties the palaces of the Bishops came to be regarded,
justly or unjustly, as the centres of the tyranny and oppres
sion and corruption under which the Church and people
were groaning and the Reformers were compelled to choose
between a Reformed Church without Bishops or Bishops
without a Reformed Church. When this issue became
apparent, many noble men, like Erasmus himself, returned
sadly to their allegiance to the Church as it was in its
deep corruptions. It was the Temple, though fouled with
all uncleanness. But there were sturdier folk than these
who, despairing of any Reformation within the Church,
felt that they " must obey God rather than men," even
though the men were clad in the robes of the Priesthood
and sat in the seats of the angels. They chose then as they
would choose to-day in such a cruel dilemma ; even though
the men, in the blindness of their hearts, like the Jewish
authorities of our Lord's day, spake in the name of God,
and, as they thought, by divine authority. No, it was not
wholly the fault of the Reformers that Bishops were not
found among them on the Continent; and they believed
that God could do His blessed work for men even though
His accredited Ministers should fall Him; and they went
bravely forth.
The attitude of the English Church towards the Episco-

INTRODUCTION. 61
pate is important to us because the Institution came to us
through the English Church and. Indeed, goes by the
name of the " Anglican Episcopate." The English Re
formers were divided in their views. Was it instituted
Jure Divino and made perpetual and indispensable in the
Church? Or was it created by ecclesiastical enactment
for " the edifying and well governing of the Church," or
did it exist subject to the royal pleasure? The general
opinion seems to have favored the Jure Divino theory,
so far as I can judge; but the view that the Episcopate
is an ecclesiastical creation was held by many devout and
scholarly men. The third view, that it is of State estab
lishment, is less wide-spread than it was in the early years
of the last century before the days of Newman and Pusey.
Hallam in a note in his " Constitutional History of Eng
land " 1625-29, says that " Cranmer and some of the
original founders of the Anghcan Church far from main
taining the divine and indispensable right of Episcopal
Government, held Bishops and Priests to be the same
order." " Were the Lutherans for lack of Bishops of
Apostolic Succession, and the Calvinists who had abol
ished the order, aliens and schismatics with whom no
communion was to be held, or were they brethren of the
same faith? "
Bacon says that " some indiscreet persons have been
bold in open preaching to use dishonorable and derogatory
speech and censure of the Churches abroad; and that so
far as that some of our men ordained in foreign parts have
been pronounced to be no lawful Ministers." Natives

63 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
regularly ordained abroad in the Presbyterian Churches
were admitted to hold preferment in England. Bishop
Aylmer seems to have been the first to object to them, but
the practice continued until the act of uniformity in 1662.
Bancroft seems to have been less positive in maintaining
the divine right of Episcopacy in his famous sermon
( 1 588) than we should have expected. Even as late as
1 634 Laud was " reproved " by the University of Ox
ford for maintaining,* or having maintained, that there
could be no Church without Bishops. Previous to his
day Archbishop Whitgift told Cartwright, who main
tained that the discipline of Christ's Church which is
necessary for all times is delivered by Christ and set
down in Holy Scriptures," that " Church discipline and
ceremony are indifferent." It was at a later day that it
was found best to meet the Presbyterian claim of divine
right by reviving the claim of an exclusive Episcopal
polity. Usher and Williams (about 1640) proposed to reduce
the Bishop to the position of president of a college of
Presbyters, differing from them gradu, non ordine, and
acting with their concurrence in ordination and jurisdiction.
Hooker's position is well known. Ritual observances
are variable according to the discretion of ecclesiastical
rulers, and no certain form of polity is set down in Scrip
ture as indispensable for a Christian church. He con
tended for Episcopacy as an apostolical institution and
always preferable, when circumstances would allow its
preservation, to the model of the Calvinistic congregations.

INTRODUCTION. 63
During the whole period of the Reformation in Eng
land till 1662, or perhaps, better, 1688, we are Impressed
with the overpowering influence of the Crown. The
Reformation had been forwarded by the King who de
clared himself head of the English Church. In all sub
sequent legislation the maintenance and strengthening of
the throne seems to have been the predominating factor.
Parker and Bancroft (I think) thought of resigning be
cause the Queen threatened to absorb the ecclesiastical,
not to say the religious, power in the royal. James the
first, it is said, recalling his experience in Scotland with
the Presbyterians, wanted a docile Episcopate to buttress
the throne. Recalling the support of Kings by Bishops
he believed them necessary to the maintenance of his
power, if not his place. " No Bishop, no King," he is
said to have declared. As long as he could appoint the
Bishops he felt secure. There were those like Laud, who
believed in the Jure Divino doctrine of the Episcopate,
others, like Cranmer, who believed it originally of eccle
siastical institution, others that it depended upon the will
of the king whose divine right was acknowledged by all.
But in the Providence of God it has happened that in
England " under the pressure of the Crown and the civil
authorities," as one says, or " by the protection of the
government," as another states it — you choose your point
of view and phrase the fact accordingly — several Bishops,
joined in the Reformation and thus provided a way for
the restoration of the historic order to the Protestant
Churches when the time should be ripe for it. At first

64 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the defect in the Protestant polity seemed likely to be
soon supplied. From political considerations, or from the
feeling that the Reformation of the Church must be
strengthened at all hazards — for a long time Clergymen
from the Continent who had received Presbyterian ordi
nation were permitted to hold places in the Church of Eng
land. There was intercommunion between the English
and the Reformed Churches of the Continent. But there
came a change of policy on the part of the government and
soon a vigorous party grew up which refused to believe
that it was possible to be good Christians and to have an
Episcopal polity in the Church of God : so bitter were the
sufferings which were inflicted through the instrumentality
of the Bishops during the Reformation, first on the Con
tinent and now in England, largely due, I am persuaded,
to an erroneous theory of the Episcopate. This party
was irreconcilable. For its suppression the Act of Uni
formity was passed in 1 662 and it cut off the Church of
England from communion with every other Church in
Christendom. Under the control of the State and the
pressure of its patronage the Church could not act if she
wished to. Now, this act of Parliament does not bind
the Church in America. In fact, about the only Churches
in the world which are free to act with an eye single to
the glory of God, are those of this country, and I believe
we must look to the voluntary action of the free Churches
in this country for the restoration of unity.

INTRODUCTION. 65

V.

IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IN ITS
RELATION TO ECCLESIASTICAL UNITY.
IT WILL be gathered from what has been said already
that I regard the Protestant Churches as in much the
same position as many of the early Churches to which
I have referred which could not have an apostolic Epis
copal Ministry at first and were compelled to organize as
they could. But the problem before us is not the same, for
while the forms in which the Churches appear to-day re
semble in some respects those of the early Churches they
are due to radically different causes. Then they repre
sented different stages in the organization of Elements into
a whole. Now they are due to a violent disruption of a
whole into organized fragments of dissimilar forms. For
their reunion the common elemental life of Christian love
must reassert its supremacy and men must discriminate
between what is indispensable and what is variable, and
of the variables they should choose what is best. On this
ground Hooker would give preference to the Episcopal
polity. It is the Historic polity, but if it be pressed as
essential because of the Jure Divino theory connected with
its historicity and so be made an occasion of separation

66 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
instead of a means of uniting the Churches, we should
examine carefully whether a theory so disastrous in its
effects may not be a mistaken one.
From the time of the Reformation at least, two views
have been taken of the Episcopate by men equally godly,
equally sincere and equally learned. One is that it is
" the indispensable channel of Divine grace " and neces
sary to the being of the Church ; the other that it is simply
best for the well-being of the Church. But while the
two schools differ in their view of the origin and character
of the Episcopate both admit, I believe, that it has proved
to be on the whole the best organization for maintaining
the faith in Its Integrity, for preserving unity, securing
peace and order, and developing systematic activity in
the work of missions and the extension of the Church. In
view of the causes which gave rise to the institution of the
Episcopate originally, and the similar circumstances in
which we are placed, the extreme view which shuts us out
from brotherly relations and intercommunion with our
fellow Christians in a matter on which there can be no
present agreement cannot be insisted upon consistently with
the claims of the supreme law of charity. What is so
manifesriy a debatable claim cannot be made the ultimate
ground of unity.
We who possess the Episcopate should not forget that
the government of the Church as it was finally instituted
by St. John (?) in Asia Minor, and thence extended
throughout Christendom came into being by the ordinary
action of Divine Providence and the officers of the Church

INTRODUCTION. 67
were the organs of its corporate life. The Episcopate is
not then a rigid cast-iron institution which compels every
thing to bend to its supremacy. It is in itself the most
flexible order in the Ministry. It is as adaptable to the
work of the Salvation Army as to that in the Basilica of
St. Peter at Rome. From the time of its institution it
appears in history in every department and detail of
Christian work. In the old British and Irish Churches it
was most purely apostolic because engaged solely in the
work of preaching the Gospel. After the purely evan
gelical Bishops came the formation and care of individual
Churches or groups of Churches where administration and
rule gradually absorbed the Bishop's energies more and
more. When they ascended the thrones of Princes polit
ical cares predominated, and in the Mediaeval Papacy
the exercise of the spiritual office was reduced to a min
imum. It is useless to attempt to ignore the fact that while
all Christians own the need of unity, deploring " our un
happy divisions;" while all confess the need of co-opera
tion for greater efficiency in the work of Christ; while all
agree that the complete historic organization was the
only one which, humanly speaking, enabled the Church
to weather the storms which wrecked the Roman Empire
and reconstruct society on a Christian basis, yet many
pages of subsequent history are a record of evils indis-
solubly associated in the popular mind with the hierarchy.
So for this and other reasons, openly stated, it happens
that while there is little difficulty wdth the first three

68 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
planks of the "Quadrilateral" all the Protestant Churches
have refused to accept that relating to Bishops. Men
who are anxious for unity declare that they fear the
development of arbitrary power as the natural result of
a belief in High Church doctrine of the Apostolic Succes
sion. In reply to the argument from history they allege
that even though Bishops be of apostolic order, the order
has forfeited its right to exist by abuse of power in the
past. It may fairly be urged, however, that the evils com
plained of, were not due to Episcopal organization, but
to human nature and to royal institutions under which it
had to live and work. They are such as any kind of or
ganization may develop.
If we squarely face the question whether the Episco
pate is incompatible with a democratic society, an objec
tion sometimes brought against it, we shall find, I think,
that it was originally rather an evidence of the exercise
of a democratic right. It did not come into being under
the patronage of the Roman Emperor, but it grew out of
the exercise of the free volition of the early disciples in
the absence of all officers. They appointed their own
Episcopi. In retaining the popular name of Bishop, in
stead of the ecclesiastical name of Presbyter for the high
est officer of the Church St. John( ?) seems to have tacidy,
if not avowedly recognized the right in the people to a
decisive voice in the appointment of Church officers.
When the secular authorities took the Church into the
service of the State, Bishops became subject to them

INTRODUCTION. 69
politically, but they themselves were lay members of the
Church. The King of England is to-day like Constan-
tine, " a Bishop outside of the Church." I believe that
the Church has never abandoned its right of participation
in some form in the appointment of Bishops.
The importance of the question of uniformity in Church
organization cannot be easily overestimated. The United
States requires that every State have a Republican form
of Government as the condition of being admitted to the
union. It is a vital necessity. A Federal State composed
of monarchial, aristocratic and democratic units would
soon be in as broken a condition as the Protestant Churches
of to-day. It is true that Episcopal Churches in the East
are not at unity. But they are separated by race, or
doctrine, or political causes. In America the real differ
ences between the Protestant Churches is in Church or
ganization and government, and a uniform government
would do much to bring them together. To-day the
bonds of ecclesiastical exclusion and seclusion are relax
ing. The desire for reunion is in the air. The Reformed
Churches are largely indifferent to our apostolic claims,
or avowedly hostile. Alas, alas ! They who transmitted
the priceless heritage of the Historic Episcopate to our
day have weighted It with such disabilities that it is
regarded as undesirable by those who we believe would
be blessed by its possession !
If, then, it is proposed out of Christian love to our
Brethren and for the unifying and strengthening of the
Kingdom of our Blessed Lord, to offer to extend to them

70 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
our peculiar inheritance in the Church, can we expect them
to receive and hold it rigidly on the lines of the Mediaeval
or of the English State Church whose traditions still linger
with us? Or on a theory which is becoming daily
weaker in the presence of historical inquiry? Or, since
they are Bishopless through the action of the Episcopate
itself in times past, and God has abundantly blessed them
and shown that He is not bound to the Episcopate to
accomplish His blessed purpose, should we not consider
soberly whether it cannot be better adapted to American
life than it is?
Remembering that the Episcopate arose in God's Prov
idence to meet the exigencies of the situation then existing,
as the practical solution of a problem and not as the pro
mulgation of a theory, I cannot believe that although it
were sanctioned by St. John it is prescribed in an unalter
able form, and given unchangeable powers for all time
and under all circumstances.
In seeking the form or pattern for a uniform organi
zation I believe that none can be better than that which in
early days spread over the whole Church, and through
successive generations showed itself efficient and sufficient
to meet the requirements of our Blessed Lord's commis
sion. Democratic in origin, venerable by its authority
(even if it be not apostolic in sanction), and vital by the
power of the Holy Spirit, the Historic Episcopate offers,
I believe, the best center of unity for a divided Christen
dom. But it cannot be the Imperial Episcopate as Con-
stantlne made it for the support of his throne; nor even, I

INTRODUCTION. 71
fear, that of Cyprian ; but rather an Episcopate of Service
as it was at the first, and not of honor and privilege — for
service and not personal rule, is what Christianity must
always stand for. ( Luke xxil, 26. John xiii, 1 4. )
Perhaps the time is come for Christians to " get to
gether " again; but I fear not yet for many a long year.
Nevertheless, a conciliatory attitude, a disposition to share
with our brethren whatever we have which can contribute
to the common good, a readiness to " give and take " can
do no harm. We are the better for having offered the
" Quadrilateral " even if it has not been accepted. Can we
not go further without periling our heritage in the Church
Universal? It will be observed that this paper deals only with the
question of the Apostolic Succession as exclusively in the
Episcopate.

" Our trust in the almighty is, that with us
contentions are now at their highest float,
AND THAT THE DAY WILL COME (fOR WHAT CAUSE OF
DESPAIR IS THERE?) WHEN THE PASSIONS OF FORMER
ENMITY BEING ALLAYED, WE SHALL WITH TEN TIMES
REDOUBLED TOKENS OF OUR UNFEIGNED RECONCILED
LOVE, SHOW OURSELVES EACH TOWARD THE OTHER
THE SAME WHICH JOSEPH AND THE BRETHREN OF
JOSEPH WERE AT THE TIME OF THEIR INTERVIEW IN
EGYPT. OUR COMFORTABLE EXPECTATION AND MOST
THIRSTY DESIRE WHEREOF WHAT MAN SOEVER
AMONGST YOU SHALL ANY WAY HELP TO SATISFY (aS
WE MAY TRULY HOPE THERE IS NO ONE AMONGST YOU
BUT SOME WAY OR OTHER WILL), THE BLESSINGS OF
THE GOD OF PEACE, BOTH IN THIS WORLD AND IN THE
WORLD TO COME, BE UPON HIM MORE THAN THE STARS
OF THE FIRMAMENT IN NUMBER." — Preface to
Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Ch xi, 4.

The Level Plan for Church Union.

LECTURE 1.
THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
I. A Notable Prophecy.
II. Repubiicanism the Basis.
III. The Apostolic Succession.

" This church does not seek to absorb other
communions, but rather, co-operating with them
on the basis of a common faith and order, to
discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of
the body of christ, and to promote the charity
which is the chief of christian graces and the
visible manifestation of christ to the world."
— From the Declaration of the House of Bishops of the
Protestant Episcopal Church at Chicago in 1 886, made in
connection with the promulgation of the " Quadrilateral "
Overture on Church Union.

THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
I.
A NOTABLE PROPHECY.
THE WORLD will never be converted by a
disunited Church." In this generation, no
sentence in any language, has been quoted
more frequently, and in so many tongues, or has burned
itself more deeply into the hearts of the followers of the
Lord Jesus.
This epoch-making utterance did not immediately secure
unanimous consent to the momentous truth to which it gave
expression. On the contrary, like all prophecies of past
ages, which contained the seed of a mighty revolutionary
growth, it was, at first, rejected by the great majority.
But now, there probably is not a single foreign, Protestant
missionary of as much as three years' experience in the
field, who does not often earnestly pray for the unification
of the home Churches. For, as time goes on, all such mis
sionaries realize that one of the greatest obstacles in the
way of the success of their evangelistic endeavors is, " our
unhappy divisions."
Yet the noble, heroic souls who are bearing the burden
and heat of the day in the foreign mission fields, will have

76 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
to wait for the answer to their prayer, until we at home
shall see and remedy the folly of our sectarian divisions.
Thank God, the signs of the time Indicate that the prayers
for unity by the heroes and heroines of the foreign mis
sion field, of whom the world is not worthy, will be an
swered. Everywhere, nowhere more than in the United
States, the leaders in the Churches are seeing and acknowl
edging the unwisdom of the existing divisions of Protes
tant Christians.
The change of attitude, in both theory and practice,
towards sectarianism, which has taken place within the
quarter of a century, since the making of this now famous
prophecy, will be regarded by all future generations as a
most notable event in the progress of civilization. I give
the eloquent passage from which this prophecy is quoted :
" If it be the duty of the Church to represent her Lord
among men, and if she faithfully performs that duty, it
follows by an absolutely irresistible necessity that the
unity exhibited in His Person must appear in her. She
must not only be one, but visibly one in some distinct and
appreciable sense, in such a sense that men shall not need
to be told of it, but shall themselves see and acknowledge
that her unity is real.
" No doubt such unity may be, and is, consistent with
great variety, with variety in the dogmatic expression of
Christian truth, in regulations for Christian government,
in forms of Christian worship, and in the exhibition of
Christian life. It is unnecessary to speak of these things
now, Variety and the right to differ have many advo-

A NOTABLE PROPHECY. 77
cates. We have rather at present to think of unity and
the obligation to agree. As regards these, it can hardly
be denied that the Church of our time is flagrantly and
disastrously at fault. The spectacle presented by her to
the world is in direct and palpable contradiction to the
unity of the Person of her Lord; and she would at once
discover its sinfulness were she not too exclusively occu
pied with the thought of positive action on the world, in
stead of remembering that her primary and most Important
duty is to afford to the world a visible representation of
her Exalted Head.
" In all her branches, indeed, the beauty of unity is
enthusiastically talked of by her members, and not a few
are never weary of describing the precious ointment in
which the Psalmist beheld a symbol of the unity of Israel.
Others, again, alive to the uselessness of talking where
there is no corresponding reality, seek comfort in the
thought that beneath all the divisions of the Church there
is a unity which she did not make, and which she cannot
unmake. Yet, surely, in the light of the truth now before
us, we may well ask whether either the talking or the sug
gested comfort brings us nearer a solution of our difficul
ties. The one is so meaningless that the very lips which
utter it might be expected to refuse their office. The
other is true, although, according as it is used, it may
either be a stimulus to amendment or a pious platitude;
generally it is the latter.
" But neither the words about the beauty of unity, nor
the fact of an invisible unity, avail to help us. What

78 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
the Church ought to possess is a unity which the eye can
see. If she is to be a witness to her Risen Lord, she
must do more than talk of unity, more than console herself
with the hope that the world will not forget the invisible
bond by which it is pleaded that all her members are
bound together into one. Visible unity in one form or
another is an essential mark of her faithfulness.
" The world will never be converted by a disunited
Church. Even Bible circulation and missionary exertion
upon the largest scale will be powerless to convert it,
imless they are accompanied by the strength which unity
alone can give. Let the Church of Christ once feel, in
any measure corresponding to its importance, that she is
the representative of the Risen Lord, and she will no
longer be satisfied with mere outward action. She will
see that her first and most Imperative duty is to heal her
self, that she may be able to heal others also." — Dr.
Milligan, Resurrection of Our Lord, pp. 199-202.
II.
REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS.
I.
THE CHURCHES can never be brought together
on any but a very broad basis of doctrine and
government. Any other basis has been rendered
impossible by the multitudes of converts that have been
made throughout Christendom by the expert historical

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 79
authorities who are working in the field of primitive Chris
tianity. These, with a remarkable unanimity, represent
that the Divine Layman did not teach a formal system
of theology, or appoint a Sacerdotal, or even an official
Ministry, or organize a Church or institute Sacraments.
By the light of the science of historical criticism many
in all the Churches, not excepting even the Roman Church,
are seeing that the Christian ministry, the Christian church,
the Christian scriptures, the Christian creeds, even the
Christian sacraments and, of course, all organizations of
Christians into Churches, with their respective systems of
theology and government, have come into being not as the
result of God the Son's decree, but God the Father's
providence, and God the Holy Spirit's influence.
Christianity, as we know it, is, then, the outcome of
evolutionary processes, due to the co-operative efforts of
God with Christian men and women to meet the require
ments of new conditions, as they have arisen through the
whole course of our era. These efforts with the read
justments and reorganizations, inevitably resulting from
themi, are destined to continue until the end of time.
There must be room in the future national Church, if
ever we are to have such a Church, for many men and
women of many minds, holding to many degrees of
Sacerdotal " Catholicism " and also to many degrees of
Republican Protestantism. The Church of the Future
must be comprehensive enough to include those who, while
holding to the supematuralness of Jesus Christ and of the
effect of His Incarnation, yet insist upon the naturalness

80 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
of the Church, and of the Ministry, and of the SacramenU>
and of the Bible.
Room enough and to spare there certainly must be for
those who in their view of God's mercy are Armenians,
Calvinists, or Universallsts. The Roman, Zwinglian and
Lutheran doctrines of the Sacraments must alike be toler
ated in that Church. This is also true of the distinctive
doctrines of the Baptists, Methodists and Adventists. In
short, the Church of the Future must be comprehensive
enough to contain all the orthodox Churches, that is the
Churches which accept Jesus as the God-Man Saviour of
the world.
No existing system of theology or of ecclesiastical
government can without great modification become the
basis of Church union. The theology and government
of the Church of the United States, as of all national
Churches, will represent a new development of a living
Christianity, even as the theologies and governments of
all other Churches which have attained any considerable
size or age represent such a development.
The Christians of our day and of future generations
have just as much right to a restatement of " the faith once
delivered to the saints," and to a reorganization of Christ's
Church, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail,
a restatement and reorganization that are in accord with
their convictions and preferences, as the Christians of past
generations had to the restatements and reorganizations
which have occurred from time to time.
In all that I have to say in these lectures I proceed

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 81
upon the religious hypothesis that God still lives in
heaven; that there Is a living Divine Jesus at His right
hand ; that the Holy Ghost still proceeds from the Father,
and the Son, and Is just as really present, and just as much
alive in the world to-day as He was on Pentecost; that
the world has never had more Christians who are energized
by an awakened and a developing Christ life than it has
at the beginning of the twentieth century; that the Chris
tians of this generation do not constitute dead Churches,
and that, therefore, since we have, even though in earthen
vessels, the Divine life there is no reason why we should
be bound, hand and foot, by the precedents of the dead
ages. Let us charitably hope that they of past generations did
their duty as best they could. In that state of life unto
which it pleased God to call them, and that, since they
have been gathered to their fathers, light perpetual has
been shining upon them. In the past each generation in
its turn wisely and necessarily built largely upon the foun
dation of preceding generations ; but each built, if it acted
wisely, and worked efficiently, chiefly for its own present
and immediate future, without a slavish reference to what
its predecessors had done.
We too, not only have a perfect right to build in ac
cordance with our judgment and ideals; but this is what
we must do, if we would fulfill the most glorious mission
that has ever been entrusted to any people in all the cen
turies that have come and gone since man appeared on the
earth.

82 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.

II.

It is the object of this lecture to show that the only basis
upon which the Churches can come together into the unity
of which the Lord Jesus prophesied, for which He prayed,
and upon which He hinged the salvation of the world is
the basis of Gospel Republicanism of the purest type,
and that the selection of this basis for Church union is
justified by the history of organic Christianity.
Since the rise of the science of historical criticism, the
history of the doctrines and institutions of the Christian
religion has been largely rewritten. Let me give expres
sion to the conviction that the time will come when the
great biblical and historical critics of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries will by common consent be
placed on the same footing with the illustrious reformers
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as being
among the greatest benefactors that God, in His merciful
Providence, has raised up to our race. These reformers
and critics, having abandoned Sacerdotalism, have now
for several generations been laying the foundation of
Republicanism upon which alone Christianity can be re
formed, reorganized and unified to the degree which is
necessary to its universal extension and complete develop
ment. It would be difficult for the busy man, who has not
traversed the ground for himself, and who by the reading
of three or four hours would know the generally accepted

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 83
facts and prevailing opinions respecting the Christian
ministry, which were held by the leaders among the re
formers and which are held by the chief of modern his
torical authorities, to discover a better statement of them
in the whole of current literature than he will find in the
Introduction and Appendix of this book.
Dr. George Williamson Smith's enviable reputation for
learning and conservatism will, of course, give much
weight to his contribution to this volume.
In the Appendix by " Anglican - Presbyter," which
alone would merit for its anonymous author the distinc
tion of being a learned and exact historical critic, will be
found citations, with the chapter and verse, from the writ
ings of the historical experts which strongly reinforce the
doctrinal and historical basis upon which has been built
the superstructure of the Level Plan for Church Union.
His examination of the authorities on both sides of the
whole vexed question of Episcopacy, as a factor in the
great problem of Church unity, is at once exceedingly
comprehensive and minute, as well as almost resistlessly
conclusive. Bishop Gore, whose praise is in all the
Churches, is by common consent the greatest of living
champions on behalf of Sacerdotalism. " Anglican Pres
byter " not only covers the representations of the distin
guished Bishop's latest book, " The Christian Ministry
and Church Unity," but also even the most noteworthy
among the very scraps of " Catholic " literature as they
have appeared in newspapers to the present date.
If after studying the Introduction and Appendix of

84 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
this book, any reader desires further assurance that the
statements upon which the Level Plan for Church Union
is based will endure the strongest light of modern histor
ical criticism, I refer him to Bishop Lightfoot's " Chris
tian Ministry." This Inexpensive and easily accessible
work is, I hesitate not to say, altogether the most notable
contribution to the subject that has ever been made by a
representative of the Anglican Communion.
I offer a friendly challenge to any Sacerdotalist to show
that the representations of this book concerning the origin
and authority of the Christian ministry are Inconsistent
with those of modern scholarship. Even the concessions
of the greatest authorities on the Sacerdotal side. Bishop
Gore and Professor Moberly, are such as to establish at
least the two chief premises upon which my conclusions
are based : ( 1 ) the universality of the Christian priest
hood, and (2) the evolution, instead of devolution of the
Christian church and ministry.
Some have thought that the use of the words " Republi
can " and " Republicanism," for the embodiment of the
Gospel principle upon which the Level Plan for Church
Union Is based, is not felicitous. They think that some
such word as " Protestant " or phrase as, " the Protestant
doctrine;" or, if a political terminology must be used to
express a religious idea, it should be the more conservative
one, " Democracy," or the phrase, " Democratic prin
ciples." I concede that the terms " Republican " and
" Republicanism," do not fully serve my purpose, but
after carefully considering the question it seemed to me

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 85
that they would do so better than any other words that
could be fixed upon.
The difficulty is not that " Republicanism," stands for
too much of the leveling principle, but that it is not large
enough to express the whole of this many sided truth of
the Gospel. What is needed is a word the contents of
which would be equivalent to all that is contained in the
terms. Republican, Democratic, Protestant and Modern.
Inability to find or to coin such a word, obliged me to
get on as well as possible with a confessedly Inadequate
terminology. If only It will enable me to Impress upon
the minds of those who read this book the utterly Impos
sible and hopeless character of any plan for Church union
which Is based upon the principles of Imperial Sacerdo
talism rather than upon Republican Protestantism, the end
which I have in view will be accomplished.
III.
In all discussions of the momentous question of how
to secure the unification of Christendom that Is necessary
to the evangelization of the world, which, to use the apt
phraseology of the Bishop of New York, Is " the ques-
tion^de profundis," it should be borne in mind that there
are three things relating to it which are settled.
1. The first of these setUed things is the fact that
Church union can not be secured by absorption. The
Churches being organically developed and crystallized,
and being filled with the dominant and growing spirit of

86 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
Republicanism, as they are, the idea that unity will be
brought about as the result of a merging process, by which
one ecclesiastical body will organically associate with it
self all the other Churches, can never be realized. From
the historical point of view the Church of Rome alone
could be looked to with any degree of hopefulness for such
an organic unity; but, instead of advancing towards the
goal of all comprehension set for herself, she is receding
from it with astonishing rapidity. According to the show
ing of the painstaking statistician Joseph McCabe, in his
book " The Decay of the Church of Rome," within the
last one hundred years the Roman Church has lost, by
desertion, at least 80,000,000 of her adherents. This
showing has not been successfully controverted though it
wag made more than a year ago.
There is, perhaps, a sense in which it may be said that
the unification of Christendom will be brought about as
the result of a swallowing and absorbing process. But
in that sense, quite contrary to the program of which we
are speaking. Sacerdotal " Catholicism " will be swal
lowed by Republican Protestantism. It would, however,
be better to abandon the figure, and to express the truth of
which I am speaking, by saying that Sacerdotal " Cathol
icism," which belongs to the darkness of the Mediaeval
ages will disappear before the light of Republican Prot
estantism, as night gives place to day before the rising sun.
It would be contrary to the fundamental principles of
Republican Protestantism to bring about the union of the
Churches by a swallowing and absorbing process, for this

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 87
figure embodies the Sacerdotal or Imperial, " Catholic "
principle. The Protestant principle has its embodiment
in the idea of a Republican federation. While the world
stands, Christendom will never be unified until the Sacer
dotal " Catholic " or Roman program of an Imperial
swallowing gives way to the Protestant program of a
Republican federation.
Sacerdotal " Catholicism " must break down before
Republican Protestantism, because Its basic principle is
contrary to the distinctive, fundamental doctrines of Chris
tianity, such as: the Incarnation, the Fatherhood of God
and the Brotherhood of man.
The principle of Sacerdotal " Catholicism " is also ir
reconcilable with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Our Saviour prophetically prayed that His divided fol
lowers might be one, even as He and the Father are one,
that the world might believe in His mission to it. We do
not know concerning the mystery of the unity of the Tri
une Godhead, but it is not the Christian doctrine that the
Divine Personalities of the Son and of the Holy Ghost
are absorbed in the Personality of the Father.
St. Paul teaches us that the unity of the Church is to
be that of a Republican federation, for it is, according to
his doctrine, the federated unity which is exhibited so
marvelously by the human body.
The sciences of chemistry, geology, biology, and as
tronomy show that the universe, in all its parts and In its
entirety, is constructed on the basis of the unity of a Re
publican federation,

88 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
The very constitution of things, both spiritual and phys
ical, renders It Inevitable that Sacerdotalism in the Church
of which Imperialism in the State is the counterpart, must
give place to Republicanism. The Sacerdotal doctrine of
the Divine right of a devoluted priesthood will not stand
any more securely than the Divine right of a devoluted
kingship. The doctrine of a devolutionary ministerial
authority whether in State or Church is a baseless tradi
tion and superstition ; and It has become a hopeless anach
ronism. Imperialism in civil governments and Sacerdotalism in
ecclesiastical governments are but different embodiments
of exactly the same principle. The principles of Re
publicanism and Imperialism in the realm of government
bear the relation to each other of right and wrong. As
the wrong is destined to give way before the right, so
Imperialism must inevitably be supplanted by Republi
canism. The fall of Imperialism in the State renders
absolutely certain the fall of Sacerdotalism in the Church.
Under the Republican conditions now prevailing, and
still developing, with every prospect of universality and
permanency, the only reasonable hope for the unity which
will enable Christianity to go into all the world, and to
let its light shine, is centered in a federation of the
Churches under the leadership of a Common Ministry
which will unify them. In some such way as the American
Colonies were unified by the federation which resulted
in the creation of the United States. The attainment of

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 89
organic Christian unity in any other way than that of a
federation, on an equal footing, of the racial, national
Churches, has become an utter impossibility.
The federation by which we are to have the requisite
Christian unity, cannot be accomplished by the corporate
surrender proposed by the Roman Church, and by a large
and influential school In the Anglican Church. There
are two reasons for holding to this conclusion, either of
which is in itself sufficient : ( 1 ) There is no sectarian
Church which, by any possible influence, can be brought
to the point of allowing itself to be thus swallowed, and
(2) Upon the assumption that the requisite unity must
be accomplished by a process of absorption, there Is no
Church that would be equal to the occasion.
Bishop Doane recognized the impracticability of unity
on the basis of absorption when in 1908 in his official
address to the Convention of the Diocese of Albany he
said: " To approach the great Protestant Churches of the
world with the statement that their Ministries are unlaw
ful, is to propose not reunion, but absorption; not con
sideration, but contempt. If one may quote not irrever
ently, the rather vulgar saying of the lamb and the lion
lying down together with the lamb inside, it is just this
and nothing more, and leaves us in an attitude of antago
nism and isolation, which is perfectly hopeless and futile."
In order that we Protestant Episcopalians may arrive
at something like an adequate realization of the crass
absurdity of the swallowing and absorbing proposition, let

§0 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
us try to Imagine our beloved little Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States of America with, say, the two
great American Methodist Episcopal Churches, North
and South, inside of it, and, then, to say nothing about
others, add the American Baptist Churches and the Pres
byterian Churches!
In the past even the Roman ecclesiastical leviathan
has signally failed to bring about unity as the result of
a swallowing policy ; and she is cheered by no prospect of
better success in the future. Such being the case, with
the Roman Church, it would seem to be useless for any
other ecclesiastical organization to attempt a similar pro
gram for the unification of Christendom.
2. The second of these settled things is that an Inter-
Church Episcopate is necessary for the organic unity of
Christendom. In this age of centralization, when the
principles of Episcopacy, which are unity and superintend
ence under one headship, are wonderfully consolidating all
other departments of the social realm, it may be regarded
as settled that there is no ground upon which to rest a
rational hope that the Churches will ever be brought to
gether into national and international co-operative confed
erations, without an Inter-Church Episcopate. As well
might the people of a nation hope for efficiency in their
army without generals for its several chief divisions, as
for the Churches of a country and of the world, to expect
to accomplish their mighty twofold work of conversion
and culture without efficient leadership.
I am, however, far from contending that this unifying.

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 91
ministerial embodiment of the Episcopate must be of that
type which, according to the Sacerdotal doctrine, has come
down to us as the result of a devolution of authority from
the Lord Jesus, through His first Apostles and their suc
cessors. In an unbroken series of conveyances effected by
the laying on of hands. On the pure Republican, Protes
tant theory, that which constitutes the indispensable Episco
pate upon which the unification of Christendom is depend
ent, is an efficient, utilitarian embodiment of the eternal,
basic principles of Episcopacy, which principles are unity
and superintendence under one headship. It might there
fore, with entire Indifference, be either a modern Episco
pate of the Methodist or United Brethren type, or a very
old Episcopate of the Greek, or Roman, or Anglican type.
But as both the ancient and modern Episcopates exist,
some way must be found by which they may be united in
a Common Inter-Church Ministry.
It has come to be almost universally admitted that, ex
cept in the case of the great Roman Communion, organic
Christianity, for the lack of an unifying superintending
headship, is far behind other agencies of our civiliza
tion. In the mammoth establishments which have been
created for the purpose of meeting the astonishing demands
for locomotives and automobiles, there are assembling
rooms in which all parts of the machines are gathered and
put together, until they are, like the bodies of highly or
ganized animals, perfect pieces of mechanism, that may
be used with marvelous efficiency in accomplishing the
purposes for which they are respectively designed. Prot-

92 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
estantlsm is in imperative need of something that will do
for it what is done in the assembling rooms of great manu
facturing concerns, and It is my firm belief that the one
and only thing that can do this is a Common Inter-Church
Ministry of the Episcopal type.
It appears therefore that the importance which in my
Plan for Church Union, I am attaching to the Episcopate
does not exceed the importance which is attached to the
same thing under different names in other departments of
the social realm. The Father of a Family, in his necessary
administrative prerogatives, is a Bishop. The King or the
President of a State is a Bishop. The Superintendent of
a Public School, or of a Railway system is a Bishop. It
is really impossible to overestimate the important and Indis
pensable character of the Episcopate, for it is by the very
constitution of the social realm an absolute and universal
necessity. Thus it appears that no great organization such as is
contemplated in the coming together of the Churches into
all comprehensive national ecclesiastical organizations, and
international communions and confederations, could be
brought about and sustained without some embodiment of
the principles of unity and superintendence under one
headship. The Episcopate is historically the ecclesias
tical embodiment of these principles.
There is. Indeed, a great deal of really excellent and
highly efficient organization in the several divisions of
Protestantism. But speaking of Protestantism as a whole,
it can hardly be said to have any organization at all.

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 93
Among people from whose eyes the scales of sectarian
prejudice have fallen, the marvel of the age is that the
unassoclated Protestant sects are accomplishing so much.
Hence it has come about that the leaders, both among
the Clergy and Laity, in all our Protestant Churches are
insisting that the ecclesiastical fragments must be in some
way gathered together and united into one harmonious and
co-operative body. The Level Plan for Church Union
is a definite and practical suggestion as to how this may
be done.
3. There is at least one more item among the settled
things that must be taken account of by those who would
make any contribution towards the solution of the problem
of problems created by the divisions among Christians:
All questions having an important bearing upon the prob
lem, such as those connected with the Ministry, govern
ment and doctrines of the Church In New Testament and
sub-apostollc times, will be settled, not by reference to
traditions and theories, but by the results of the science
of historical criticism. I say science, because historical
criticism, in the course of the nineteenth century, reached
the degree of certitude which entitled it to recognition as
one of the sciences ; and it has now taken its place among
them as securely as, for example, the science of geology,
or the science of biology.
We live in an age which is as pre-eminently scientific
as it Is Republican. Our age is scientific because It is
Republican. The reverse of this is also true. Science is

94 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
the very soul of Republicanism in State and Church, as
tradition is of Imperialism in the State and of Sacerdotal
ism in the Church.
He who now stands out against a conclusion that pre
vails among those who are expert historical critics, occu
pies precisely the same relative attitude as does one who
denies a concensus of opinion, as it is held by expert geol
ogists and biologists.
Therefore in all attempts to solve the stupendous and
insistent problem arising from the unhappy divisions among
Christians, it may be taken for granted that the solution
lies in the line : ( 1 ) of a preliminary. Republican federa
tion and ultimate reorganization, resulting from evolution
ary processes rather than of an Imperial absorption: (2)
of Episcopacy rather than of non-Episcopacy, and (3)
of Historical Criticism rather than of Tradition.
IV.
May I ask the reader kindly to note the sense in which,
throughout this book, I use the term "Catholic." "Ca
tholicism " is, according to my use, a synonym of " Sacer
dotalism " or " Priestism." There are two conceptions of
Sacerdotalism, the official conception and the caste con
ception, of which conceptions Protestant Sacerdotalism is
the, former, and Roman or Greek Sacerdotalism is the-
latter. Their office of Institution is authority for Protestant
Episcopalians to speak of the Christian ministry as being
Sacerdotal in the official sense of the term, but no such^

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 95
Episcopalian will contend, certainly he will not do so
successfully, that the doctrinal statements of his Church
justify him in holding the Ministry to be a Sacerdotal
caste in the sense in which the representatives of the Greek
and Roman Churches generally hold their Ministries to
be a caste.
References to the Ministry of the Anglican Churches
as being Sacerdotal, in the right, Protestant, official sense
of the term are so rare in their legislative and doctrinal
literatures, and such references are so very apt to be mis
understood, that the propriety of making them at all is
doubtful, and, for one, I avoid doing so. In limiting the
term " Catholic " chiefly to the Roman and Greek
Churches, I follow the example of Lightfoot, Hamack
and Ramsay. These distinguished authorities and others,
of their rank, never identify the Churches of the Anglican
Communion with Catholicism. In their writings these
Churches are always spoken of as Protestant.
I am anxious to make it clear that what I say in this
book against Sacerdotalism is not in opposition to Prot
estant, that is official Sacerdotalism, but against Roman,
caste SacerdotaHsm.
There are " Catholic," Sacerdotal, Priestly parties in
all the Churches which constitute the national branches
of the Anglican Communion to which the Episcopal
Church belongs.
Nor are the great Lutheran, Congregational, Presby
terian and Methodist Churches without " Cathohc "
parties. Wherever Sacerdotalism is found associated with

96 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
primitive Christianity, investigation will show it to have
been brought over either directly from Heathenism, its
native habitat, or indirectly from Judaism, not from the
Gospel religion of the New Testament.
It is generally supposed that during the Dark and
Middle ages, the principles of Sacerdotal, Imperial
" Catholicism " as embodied in the Greek and Roman
Churches prevailed universally and exclusively. This
is a mistake. During the greater part of those periods of
transition from the pagan to the Christian civilization, the
non-Sacerdotal, Republican principle of Protestantism
had a powerful embodiment in monasticism. So true is
this that I would much prefer to undertake to support the
contention that the Protestant Churches are a continuation
of the monasteries than that the Sacerdotal, Imperial
Greek and Roman Churches are a continuation of the
New Testament and sub-apostolic Churches. The great
movement in the Roman Church which the Modernists
have set on foot and which is gradually gathering force is
a Protestant movement.
The essential characteristic of all forms of " Catholi
cism " is its Sacerdotal, or Priestly, or caste conception of
the Christian ministry and the unnatural character which
it attaches to the Christian sacraments and to the benefits
annexed to them. The essential characteristic of Prot
estantism is its Republican conception of the Christian
ministry and the natural character which it attaches to
the Christian sacraments and to the benefits annexed to
them.

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 97
Our plan for this book provides for the special consid
eration of the Sacerdotal doctrines concerning : ( 1 ) the
origin and authority of the Christian ministry; and (2)
the unnatural conception of the character and benefits of
the Christian sacraments. The first of these cardinal doc
trines of Sacerdotalism will be treated in the following
section of this lecture under the title, " The Apostolic
Succession;" and the second, in the last section of Lecture
111 which is entitled, " Grace of Sacraments." Here we
are especially concerned to make it appear by facts and
arguments of a more general character that the Republi
can, Protestant doctrines respecting the institutions of
Christianity afford the only basis possible for Church
union; because this basis is perfectly level and there is no
reasonable hope that the Churches will ever come together
on any except such a basis.
Both Episcopalian and Presbyterian Sacerdotalists hold
that the successors of the Apostles are such on account of
an unbroken series of ordinations, through which minis
terial authority has been handed down, and the historic
continuity of the Church has been preserved from age to
age. The consistent Sacerdotal " Catholic " maintains
that without such successors of the Apostles there could
be no true Church or Sacraments of Christ, and conse
quently no covenanted Gospel salvation.
Protestants generally admit that, in a broad sense, the
Lord planted a Church, but they insist that, not the Apos
tles only, but all His disciples, whether Ministers or

98 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
People, constitute its seed, the humblest layman or lay-
woman being essentially and potentially just as really and
truly a seed, or the seed of the Church as the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the Pope of Rome, or St. Peter himself.
The Lord Jesus promised that whenever, and wherever
two or three of His faithful followers, being of one accord,
find themselves together in His name, then, and there He
would be in the midst of them. Many, probably the ma
jority among Protestants interpret this promise to mean
that any two or three godly Christians, men or women,
could start a Church, which would be just as real, and,
other things being equal, just as good a Church of Christ
as the one which St. Paul himself founded at Corinth;
and that those whom they selected and appointed as
Ministers to shepherd them, and to conduct their worship
might celebrate all the Sacraments as validly as any which
the great Apostle administered.
In whomsoever, then, faith in Christ as God Incarnate
exists, in him is the seed of the Church. Such an one,
even though he had not been baptized might, if necessity
required, administer the Sacrament to himself and to
others as converts were made. Such an Apostle and his
disciples might constitute a Church, which would be just
as good a Church as any that has ever existed, and in
which all the Christian sacraments would be administered
as regularly and validly as they have ever been adminis
tered in any Church. This is the pure Republican,
Protestant doctrine concerning the Christian church,
ministry and sacraments; and it is the only doctrine that

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 99
can endure the light of historical criticism. The Church
of the Future must have plenty of room for those who hold
to this doctrine; and it constitutes the basis of the Level
Plan for Church Union.

V.

According to the Protestant theory, then, the seed of
the Church and its continuity are in the People as a whole,
not in the Ministry alone. The Protestant doctrine makes
no essential distinction between Ministers and People.
What difference exists is purely of an official character,
corresponding exactly to the difference between a citizen
and an officer of a State.
Christian ministers cannot properly be distinguished
from the people, as forming a separate and distinct part
of the Church, having, by reason of ordination, inherent
powers which are different from any which the people pos
sess. In reality Christian ministers are only the servants
of Christian people. They do not represent God to the
people, but the people to God. God's representatives to
the people, whether collectively or individually, are the
Holy Ghost, and Prophets, not Priests.
According to the Republican theory of the Christian
ministry. President Taft, and Bishop Tuttle occupy ,
essentially the same relationship respectively to the people
of these United States and the members of the Anglo-
American .Church.. Both men are by common consent.

100 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
unique personages, but, still, only ordinary men, good and
great, but, yet, mere human beings. Moreover, God works
through both the President of the United States, and the
Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
But while both are endowed with extraordinary talents
and clothed with great authority and honor, there is noth
ing supernatural about them, either as to their persons or
their official acts. In both cases the people can if they
will take away what they have given them. The doctrine,
" once a Bishop always a Bishop " is quite as fictitious as
would be the doctrine, " once a President always a
President." We hear a great deal from those of the Sacerdotal
way of thinking about different orders in the Christian
ministry. There may be three or more orders in the sense
of grades in the official Ministry of any Church. But the
ministerial character is an universal possession and there
fore cannot be said to belong to the official any more than
to tlie unofficial Ministry. There being only one ministerial
character, which is common to all representatives of
Christianity, there is, of course, but one order in the sense
of character in the Ministry. Every representative of the
human race is potentially a member of it and every bap
tized, if not Indeed every believing man, woman and
child, is actually a member. Bishops, Priests and Dea
cons therefore do not constitute the entire Christian minis
try, but are only representatives of the several grades in the
official Ministry. Many Greek, Roman and Anglican
theologians hold that Bishops and Presbyters do not

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 101
constitute different ministerial offices, but only grades of
the one office. A Bishop or a Presbyter does not differ
from a Deacon except only that he Is a servant of the
people of higher grade.
It Is essential to right conclusions concerning the origin
and authority of the Christian ministry that the important
fact should be noted that In the New Testament the word
" Priest " does not occur in connection with a Christian
minister of any grade. The chief names employed in
reference to the Ministry are Apostles, Prophets, Evan
gelists, Pastors, Teachers, Bishops, Elders and Deacons.
The titles, Aposde, meaning, " one who Is sent," and
Elder, meaning, " an old and honored man," refer to the
different grades in the Ministry. The term Bishop, mean
ing, " a superintendent," and the term Deacon, meaning,
" a server," were not at first titles of settled offices in the
Ministry, but designations of duties, or commissions, or
functions, that might be performed quite indifferently by
either an Apostle or a Presbyter, but which generally ap
pertained to the Presbyterial office.
It is of the utmost Importance to the great cause of
Christian unity that it should be clearly realized that,
quite contrary to the Sacerdotal doctrine, the Church is
inherent in the People, not in the Ministry. The Church
is not exclusively in any Minister or Ministry of the Apos
tolic Succession, whether that succession be Episcopal or
Presbyterial, but is equally inherent in every individual
who accepts the Divine-Human Saviourship of the Lord
Jesus.

102 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of
Arkansas can no more truly be said to be in the Bishop of
Arkansas, than the State of Arkansas can be said to be in
the Governor of Arkansas. The Bishop Is, In every sense
of the term, as truly the servant of the people of the Prot
estant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Arksmsas, as
the Governor is the servant of the people of the State of
Arkansas. There is no other conception of the Church
and her Ministry, even as there is no other conception of
the State and her Officers, that can stand in the light
of historical criticism, or that will not be swept aside by
the advancing Republican civilization. Both the Ministry
of the State and the Church are " of the People, by the
People, for the People."
An officer whether in State or Church is a Minister
or servant of the People. It is true that both are alike
the Ministers and servants of God ; but only as they fulfill
their functions as servants of the People are they truly the
servants of God.
In so far as the official acts of Ministers are in opposition
to the will of the People, they are usurpers and morally,
they are as irregular as would be the same acts performed
by an ordinary citizen of the State or member of the
Church concerned. The official acts of a ministerial
officer in State or Church should represent the people.
The Holy Ghost represents God in the conscience of
every man.
God's human representatives are the Prophets whom
He makes for Himself. God is as likely to make one

kEPUBLlCANISM THE BASIS. 103
of His Prophets out of a shoe-cobbler as out of a Bishop.
The prophetic office and the ministerial office do not, as
Sacerdotalists would have us believe, generally unite in
the same man. Indeed, it seldom happens that a high
officer in State or Church Is a great civil or religious
Prophet. There is something about officialism that stifles
the spirit and freedom of the Prophet, and it Is seldom
that a political or religious Prophet of first rank is elected
to the Presidency or the Episcopate.
The representatives of the official Ministry of a Church
are, then, servants owing their distinctive honor, privileges
and authority to the people, just as the officers of a State
are such servants. Protestants will not tolerate the idea
that the followers of Christ are divided into two parts by
a ministerial caste, the representatives of which are the
inheritors of a devoluted, independent, personal authority,
upon whose ministrations the people are necessarily de
pendent for covenanted salvation. There Is no Minister in
the person of any human being, not excepting the President
of the United States or the Pope of the Roman Church,
who possesses any official authority or power which is
derived from a higher source than the will of the people ;
except in so far as Divine providence determines the
will of the people. According to the doctrine of consist
ent Protestants there is no assurance of covenanted salva
tion except a conscience void of offense towards God
and man on account of obedience to God's requirements,
and beyond the mediatorship of Christ every man is his
own Priest.

10-4 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
Upon the Protestant theory of the origin of the Chris
tian church and the authority of her ministry, all the
Ministers of every branch of the Church in the whole
world might completely die out and yet the continuity of
the Church would not be interrupted. Each of the
Churches would in the event of such a catastrophe proceed
to create a new Ministry; and, this having been done.
Churches now claiming to have a Ministry which has been
derived by devolution from the Lord Jesus and His first
Apostles would then have as good a Ministry as they
ever had.
That Sacerdotal " Catholicism " of the Greek and
Roman type is wrong and that Republican Protestantism
is right in their respective tenets will be evident from the
following facts:
1 . Historic " Catholicism " of which, in our part of
the world, the Roman Church is the chief exponent, has
for its basis a Sacerdotal ministerial caste and there is not
a trace of such a Ministry in the New Testament. If any
Catholic should demand proof for this sweeping state
ment, 1 refer him to Bishop Lightfoot's essay, entitled,
" The Christian Ministry."
2. Sacerdotalism was brought into the Christian
church from Judaism and Heathenism. Even Judaism
imported its Sacerdotalism from Heathenism, and it is
probable that Heathen Sacerdotalism was a development
due to degeneration and corruption, for it is not at all
likely that any religion started out with Sacerdotalism as
its basis.

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 105
Indeed the founding of all new religions and the re
forming of all old religions necessarily were Republican
movements. For, on the one hand Republicanism in the
State and Protestantism in the Church, which In both cases,
in the last analysis, represent the will of the whole people,
is the embodiment of the principle of development; and
on the other hand. Imperialism in the State and Sacer
dotalism in the Church, which in both cases, in the last
analysis, represent the will of the ruling caste, is the
embodiment of the principle of crystallization. Both the
Jewish and Christian religions, between which there Is
in history and in principle a very close connection, began,
not as Sacerdotal, but as Republican or Protestant move
ments. Even to the latest day the Jewish religion was in its
essential character an ethical, not a Sacerdotal religion.
Sacerdotalism had to do with the outside rather than the
inside of the Jewish religion. The truth of this observa
tion is established by the fact that the religion as a whole
was so little affected by the destruction of the Temple, the
cessation of its elaborate sacrificial system, and the conse
quent rapid decline of its hierarchy. The Sacerdotalism
of the Jews was the outward rather than the inward part
of their religion. It may be likened to the garments which
clothe the human body rather than to the flesh and blood
and bones which are constituent parts of the body.
All this is even more true of Christianity than it was
of Judaism. Sacerdotalism is something quite exterior
to its essential nature. Even in the case of its most com-

106 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
pletely sacerdotallzed sect, the Church of Rome, the
great Cathedral of St. Peter with all the heads of the
Roman hierarchy, from the lowest to the highest, who in
habit the Eternal City, might, either by a sudden revolu
tion, or gradual evolution cease to exist, as the Temple
and hierarchy of Jerusalem ceased to exist, and yet even
the Roman part of Christianity would reorganize Itself
and continue on almost as if nothing had happened.
3. Sacerdotalism in the Church has its counterpart in
Imperialism in the State. In the State Imperialism is
dying out. This being the case, it may be almost infal
libly concluded that Sacerdotalism will die out in the
Church. For in their government Churches have always,
in the long run, conformed to the government of the
States in which they have flourished. The few exceptions
that may be cited are neither numerous nor persistent
enough to disprove the rule.
If, as we have shown, Roman Sacerdotalism cannot
maintain Itself, what ground for hope is there that Angli
can, or any other Protestant Sacerdotahsm, can do so?
In view of the fact that Romanism is rapidly losing ground,
how short sighted it would be for the Protestant Episcopal
Church to allow herself to be led by her Sacerdotal party
to go with Roman " Catholicism " rather than to continue
on with Protestantism. Why should we identify ourselves
with a lost cause?
The Christians of the United States are divided into
two sections. On the one hand we have the Roman Cath
olic Church and on the other the Protestant Churches,

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 107
The division to which the Anglo-American Church, as
an ecclesiastical organization, belongs is clearly deter
mined by her doctrinal standards and also by her very
name. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States of America, not "The American Catholic Church."

VI.
If the people of the Roman Church, in which the Minis
try seems to be everything, were to rise up in their might,
they could sweep the whole Imperial Hierarchy out of
office and put a Republican Ministry in its place. The
doing of all this would not, as Sacerdotalists so persistently
contend, interrupt the historical continuity of that Church ;
for in the case of Churches, as In that of States, continuity
is dependent upon the people, not upon their ministerial
officers. It is as impossible to establish the thesis that a
Church's continuity is dependent upon its Ministry, as to
maintain successfully that the continuity of a great family
depends upon the steward of its household.
Christian churches and ministries have their root in
the will of the people to organize and to provide for the
realization of Gospel Ideals. The chief object of a Chris
tian church is to enable its membership to make provision :
(1) to build up in themselves Christhke characters; (2)
to let their light shine in Christian lands by philanUiropic
works and (3) to preach the Gospel In all the world.
For the accomplishment of these great purposes we have

108 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
ancient and modern Churches. Some among the former
are older than others, but all Churches, as is clearly shown
by the science of historical criticism, with their Ministries,
whether old or new are developments, not devolutions.
The Church is the religious department of the great
social realm, even as the Family is the domestic and the
State the civil departments of that realm. The Church
is an indispensable. Divine institution, but It is not a whit
more so than the Family and the State. If there be any
difference between these three great social institutions, in
respect to their indispensability and Divineness, it is in
favor of the Family rather than of the Church or State.
There can be no doubt that, in the natural order, the
Family comes first and the Church last.
All States have sprung from a Family, or from a chain
of States the first link of which connected it with a Family.
All Churches have sprung from a State or from a Church
the first link of which connected it with a State. TTie
Family then is the social unit. It is the seed of both the
State and the Church.
If an individual starts a Church or State he generally
does so upon the principle of unofficial association. This
is the Family principle, the seed of all social Institutions.
Hence the founder of a Church or State is held in vener
ation as Its father or patriarch. There Is a sense in which
the individual rather than the family may be regarded as
the unit of society, but only because of the assumption

REPUBLICANISM THE BASIS. 109
which credits him with the power of associating others
with himself.
It will be asked, "What of the family? It is, accord
ing to your showing, the unit of all society. It is not a
fact that the family government is of the Imperialistic
and Sacerdotal character? " We answer. No. The
family exists and is held together by the marriage rela
tionship, which is dependent upon the consent of both the
man and the woman concerned. The necessity for this
mutual, nuptial consent proves the Republicanism of the
marriage relationship and of the family.
One family whether large or small, old or new is just
as really a family as any other. It may be a defective
family in that it is without children, or because the children
are not brought up as they should be, but nevertheless
where there is husband and wife, or even one parent and
child, there is a real family.
Now, Inasmuch as the family is the ultimate unit of
the whole social realm, it follows that if all families
occupy the same basis in respect to their reality, this must
likewise be true of all states and churches; and conse
quently that the Sacerdotal thesis which places one Church
and Ministry above another, on account of an alleged
inherent superiority, cannot be sustained.
Republicanism is, then, the embodiment of the principle
upon which all government in Family, State and Church
should rightfully be based. This truth is now so generally
received, and the Republican form of government has

110 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
become so widely prevalent that there is no chance for
the coming together of the Churches which is necessary to
the evangelization of the world on the basis of Sacerdotal
Catholicism. The only basis possible is Republican Prot
estantism, or Modernism.

III.
THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.
I.
NO MEMBER of one of the national Churches of
the Anglican Communion can go deeply into the
question of whether Republican Protestantism or
Sacerdotal Catholicism is to be the basis of Church union,
without seeing how natural it would be for those Churches
to refuse the leadership of their " Catholic " membership.
In the great world-wide movement toward Christian unity,
which is gathering force every day, the representatives of
the Anglican "Catholic" school would have the Churches
of this Communion line up with the Roman and Greek
Churches, rather than with the Protestant Churches. But
why should the leaders of the Anglican Protestant hosts,
who, as they believe, have on their side the Gospel of the
Lord Jesus, the doctrinal standards of their Churches, the
facts of their ecclesiastical history, the conclusions of mod-

The APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Ill
ern scholarship, the signs of the times, the outlook for
Christian unity in particular and for civilization in general,
allow their well-meaning but utterly deluded brethren of
the same Lord and in the same household of faith, beloved
though they be, to succeed in an undertaking which would
inevitably issue in everything in the way of loss and
nothing of gain? Much as we love and respect our
" Catholic " brethren we cannot follow them. We should
not allow their plans to be carried out. The thing they
have in hand must not be done. The Anglican Churches
are reformed, Protestant Churches, or rather they are
reforming, protesting Churches quite as much so as, for
examples, the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches. Our
Churches are in the right way, the Gospel way of Repub
licanism. They must and they will be kept In that way.
The most notable difference between the Protestant
Churches of England and Germany was, that they came
out of the Reformation with, respectively, the Episcopal
and Presbyterian forms of the Christian ministry. This
difference, on account of which, since the time of Arch
bishop Laud, Anglican " Catholics " have been pluming
themselves so ostentatiously, is correctly accounted for by
providential circumstances, which at the time were uni
versally believed to concern primarily other questions,
rather than those relating to the regularity and validity of
the acts of the representatives of the Episcopal and Pres
byterian Ministries. One thing is certain that the English
reformers claimed no superiority for their work over that
of the German and other national reformers because they

113 the only BASIS POSSIBLE.
saved the Episcopal institution, and their Protestant
brethren of other countries lost it.
With their theory of Episcopacy, a theory which they
held in common with nearly, if not quite all, of their
contemporaries not only In the Reformed Churches but
also In the Roman Church, a theory which Is still held by
many theologians In the Greek, Roman and Anglican
Churches, It would have been impossible for the English
reformers to h^ve set up and sustained a claim of superi
ority over the German and other reformers on the ground
of this difference; for It was believed among them that
there were only two separate and distinct orders in the
Christian ministry, the Priesthood and the Diaconate;
and that the Episcopate was merely a higher degree
within the one order of Priesthood.
No doubt the majority among Roman theologians then
held, as they now hold, that to a great degree, the Papacy,
and in a lesser degree the Episcopate as a whole was sepa
rate and distinct from the Priesthood. But ever since
the rise of the Papal institution, Roman theologians gen
erally have stood alone, because regard for consistency has
compelled them virtually to contend that St. Peter was
the only Apostle and that the Bishop of Rome is the only
Priest; that the other Apostles and the other Bishops,
Priests and Deacons were and are simply representatives
of St. Peter and the Pope.
The High-Churchman among the Reformers may have
contended, as I do, that the well being of the Church was
dependent upon Episcopacy. In later times this was the

the APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 113
contention; but no one, in any reformed Church, before
Laud, maintained that Episcopacy was necessary to the
existence of a Church.
In the preceding section of this lecture we contended
that the origin and authority of the Christian ministry
is correctly accounted for on the theory of evolution
rather than upon the theory of devolution. The doctrinal
history of the Anglican Episcopate since the Reformation
fully justifies this contention. A very brief statement of
three interesting facts will, I am sure, confirm this repre
sentation to the satisfaction of all who are open to
conviction. 1. The English reformers and theologians held that
Episcopacy owed its existence and authority to human en
actment and that it was instituted because it was found to
be desirable for administrative purposes. This was the
doctrine held by Archbishop Cranmer, the greatest of all
English reformers, who framed the service by which An
glican Bishops have been consecrated from his day to this.
Cranmer was burned at Oxford March 21,1 556.
2. Next, Archbishop Bancroft advanced the idea that
Episcopacy in the Church, like royalty in the State had
for its basis the Divine Instead of the human will. Ban
croft died November 2, 1610.
The greatest theologian that the Anglican Communion,
if not indeed Christendom, has produced since the Refor
mation, Hooker, held a doctrine regarding Episcopacy that
might quite accurately be designated as the Cranmer-Ban-

114 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
croft doctrine according to which Episcopacy is made to
rest upon both the Divine and the human will.
But Hooker held that the will of God was manifested
through the entire Church, not exclusively through the
ministerial part of it, and that therefore the Christian
ministry had for its ultimate basis the will of the people.
He asserts in the plainest possible terms that " the whole
Church visible " is the " true original subject of all
power." I quote the passage in which this statement
occurs both because it is very much to the point here, and
also because I am entitled to regard it as a justification by
the very highest Anglican authority of the Republican
theory of the origin of the Christian ministry which con
stitutes the basis of the Level Plan for Church Union. I
think that the candid reader will agree with me that the
passage is utterly Irreconcilable with the Sacerdotal doc
trine of Apostolic Succession ; and that I have not so far
said anything in this book which is out of line with it.
Hooker says:
" There may be sometimes very just and sufficient rea
sons to allow ordination made without a Bishop. The
whole Church visible, being the true original subject of
all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than
Bishops alone to ordain; how be it, as the ordinary cause
is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be
in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the
ordinary way. Where the Church must needs have some
ordained, and neither hath, nor can have possibly, a
Bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 115
institution of God hath given oftentimes and may give
place. And therefore we are not simply without excep
tion to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles
by continued succession of Bishops in every effectual or
dination." — Ecclesiastical Polity VII, 14.
The irrefutable argument advanced by Hooker to es
tablish the theory that Episcopacy exists by Divine sanc
tion was of an historical and utilitarian character. It was
to the effect that the institution would not have come into
existence so early and universally, nor would it have
existed so long, if it had not been found to be, from a
practical point of view, the best governmental arrangement
for the Church. An Institution which had developed into
being so early and generally and which had existed so
persistently, because it was found to be so indispensably
useful, cannot be satisfactorily explained upon the hypoth
esis that it is a man made institution. It must then be
assumed that its basis is the Divine rather than the human
will. Hooker died November 2, 1600.
3. Finally, Archbishop Laud, taking up Archbishop
Bancroft's theory, which was not irreconcilable with the
principles of Republican Protestantism, added to it the
theory of devolution by Apostolic Succession. This theory
took the institution of Episcopacy out of the realm of
Republicanism and placed it in that of Sacerdotalism.
Laud was beheaded January 10, 1645.
In justifying the basis upon which I rest the Level
Plan for Church Union, I advance a theory of the Epis
copate which may be characterized as the Cranmer-Ban-

116 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
croft-Hooker theory. With Bancroft and Hooker I hold
the Episcopate to be a Divine institution and with Cranmer
a human institution. To Hooker's historical and utilitarian
arguments for the Divineness of this institution, I add the
philosophical argument that the principles of unity and
superintendence under one headship, which have their
ecclesiastical embodiment in Episcopacy, are basic prin
ciples running underneath all the departments of the whole
social realm, which departments are the Domestic, the
Civil, the Ecclesiastical, the Educational, the Industrial
and the Commercial. Not one of these departments, each
of which is indispensable to civilization, could exist with
out some embodiment of the principles of Episcopacy.
While, however, these principles are essential parts of
the very constitution of things and, therefore. Divine in
the very highest conceivable sense of the term, yet their
embodiment is of human rather than of Divine ordering.
In the ecclesiastical realm there are atpresent several widely
differing embodiments of the Episcopal principles, the
Greek, the Roman, the Anglican, the Parochial, the
Diocesan, the Provincial and the International.
All these different Episcopal institutions may be held
to be Divine by reason of the nature of the principles they
embody and human by reason of the nature of the embodi
ment. Though these institutions embody different degrees
of the Episcopal principles, they are nevertheless equally
both Divine and human in their respective degrees. The
Pope of the mighty International Roman Church, and the
Pastor of the most obscure among the almost wholly iso-

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 117
lated Churches of the intensely Congregational Baptist
Communion, stand on essentially the same basis as to their
official Episcopate and therefore also as to the validity of
their preaching and sacramental administrations; and, if
the Roman shepherd be unfaithful to his trust while the
Baptist Pastor is faithful to his, before God, the first will
be last.
The Level Plan for Church Union provides for a new
embodiment of the Episcopal principles, which will bring
the Churches of Christendom together into National, Re
publican federations and International communions. This
proposed embodiment of the principles of unity and super
intendence under one headship, if ever it Is consummated,
will constitute neither a more human nor less Divine Epis
copate than the embodiments of them which we have in
the widely differentiated Episcopates of the Greek, Roman
and Anglican Churches. Nor will the proposed national.
Inter-denominational Episcopate differ more widely from
the Greek, Roman and Anglican Episcopates than they do
from one another.
The Sacerdotal pretension, to which our " Catholics "
adhere so tenaciously, that Episcopacy Is what It Is be
cause It Is an embodiment of the mysterious. Intangible,
Indefinable, miraculous something characterized as the
grace of Apostolic Succession, and that on account of this
embodiment the Greek, Roman and Anglican Episcopates
are alike or at least closely allied, and that they are by
reason of it widely differentiated from the Methodist
Episcopate, Is, from every modern point of view, seen to

118 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
be fictitious. Among the many strange things about it
all is that our " Catholics " hug the delusion as to the
Anglican Episcopate, while, so far as that Episcopate is
concerned, Roman Catholics, reject it with scorn and
Greeks look askance at it although they both hug the same
delusion which is based upon the same Sacerdotal assump
tion. The concern of Anglican " Catholics " to secure
the admission by the Greek and Roman Churches that the
Episcopate of the Churches of our Communion has the
grace of Apostolic Succession is as humiliating as it is
pathetic and irritating.
But the fact to which, in this connection, I wish to
give special emphasis is that the English reformers, in con
tinuing the Episcopate, and in formulating the Service
for the consecration of the new line of Protestant Bishops,
who took the place of the old line of Sacerdotal Bishops,
were concerned, on grounds of expediency, about contin
uing an administrative office, and not at all about perpetu
ating, on Sacerdotal grounds, an ApostoHc Succession.
Nor did it occur to them that in the retention of the Epis
copate they were securing to the official acts of the repre
sentatives of the English Ministry a regularity and validity
which was wanting in such acts of the Presbyterian Min
isters of the Continental Churches.
It is true that with some of the Bishops, notably Laud.
the Sacerdotal ideas came back to a part of the Anglican
Episcopate, and that ultimately the influence of those of
this way of thinking among the Clergy and Laity led to
a discrimination against the Clergy who had not received

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 119
Episcopal ordination. But this discrimination was not
intended to cast any reflection upon the Presbyterian
Ministries of the sister Churches and no change was made
in the ordination service. There was an addition to the
Preface of the Ordinal, but this was a simple provision
for securing uniformity in ordinations to the Ministry of
the Reformed Church of England and it had a political
rather than a doctrinal significance. This important fact
is well stated by Professor Briggs, in his Illuminating
work. Church Unity. He says :
" It is evident that those who composed the Anglican
Ordinal did not think that the consecration of a Bishop
conferred any special character or had anything of the
nature of a Sacrament connected with it. The Preface to
the Ordinal does not claim any Divine right for the Epis
copate, but appeals solely and alone to historical fact:
" 'It is evident unto all men diligently reading the Holy
Scriptures and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles'
time there have been these Orders in Christ's Church:
Bishops, Priests and Deacons.'
" Furthermore, it does not venture to make a rule for
other Christian churches but only for the Church of Eng
land, when it says:
" 'And therefore to the Intent these Orders should be
continued, and reverently used and esteemed in this Church
of England; it is requisite that no man (not being at this
present Bishop, Priest or Deacon) shall execute any of
them, except he be called, tried, examined and admitted,
according to the form hereafter following.'

130 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
"It does not pronounce upon the kind of ordination
required by the Reformed Churches of the Continent with
whom the Church of England was in fellowship during
the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth centuries. It
was not until the Revision of 1661, after the Civil Wars
had embittered controversy as to Orders, that the addition
was made : ' or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration
or ordination ' with the intent of ruling out those who had
received Presbyterian ordination in Great Britain. But
this addition did not make any essential change in the
Ordinal, or go any further than make the rule more specific
with reference to the Church of England and that
Church alone, except so far as daughter Churches have
followed in its footsteps.
" It seems clear from Cranmer, the chief composer of
the Ordinal, and Barlow, the chief consecrator of Parker,
and the influence of Bucer and other Reformation divines
at the time, that there was not any other thought or in
tention than of consecrating an officer of the Church
giving him authority to exercise his office and appropriate
jurisdiction. They had no intention of imprinting any
special Episcopal character, and there is nothing whatever
in the formula Itself to suggest any other intention than
that of Cranmer, Barlow and their associates at the time.
" The change of opinion in the Church of England on
the part of the Anglican Episcopate and Priesthood,
however extensive it may have been, first from the human
right of the Episcopate to the Divine right first expressed
by Bancroft, and then to a special Apostolic Succession

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 131
for Anglican Bishops with special Episcopal character Im
printed in consecration which seems to be the opinion of
the Laudian school, cannot change the original intent of
the Ordinal upon which the Anglican Episcopate is based ;
because that change of opinion has never been expressed
in any revision of the Ordinal, and if it had been, it would
be too late, for it could not restore a succession which
had already lapsed, if the Anglo-Catholic theory of the
Episcopate be correct." II.
Perhaps the most convincing proof of the correctness
of my representations against the Sacerdotal doctrine of
Apostolic Succession that can be made here is the follow
ing statement of facts :
1. For a long time the world at large classed the
followers of the Galilean as a Jewish sect. The Chris
tians of the first generation were Jews or proselytes to
Judaism, and they regarded themselves as a sect In the
Jewish Church, very much as John Wesley and his fol
lowers originally held themselves to be a society In the
Church of England. So long as this conception of their
relationship to Judaism was in the ascendency, it was Im
possible that the Churches should consider that their un
official or at most semi-official colleges of Elders-Bishops
constituted a Priesthood.
2. It is essential to the Sacerdotal, "Catholic" con
ception of the Priesthood that there should be a Church
the Ministry of which constitutes a differentiated class, or

133 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
caste. But, to say nothing about a ministerial caste, the
Christians of the New Testament times were not even
aware of the organic existence of a Church. They looked
forward to the founding of a Church, but they identified
it vwth the Kingdom of their Master; and it was, during
the first two generations at least, the universal belief that
the organization and establishment of this Church or King
dom would follow His Second Coming.
There can be no doubt that St. James, the so-called
first Bishop of Jerusalem, died with the impression that
Christianity, from an ecclesiastical point of view, was not
to have a separate existence from Judaism ; and it is equally
indubitable that the last of the Apostles, the Beloved Dis
ciple, passed away at the beginning of the third genera
tion of Christians with a strong expectation that the Lord
was about to appear in glorious majesty to found His
everlasting Kingdom of universal dominion.
Sacerdotalists try to set aside this representation respect
ing the inorganic character of the New Testament Church,
so far as it is based upon the assumption that the followers
of Jesus for two or three generations had little or no
interest in any organization, because they lived in a fervid
expectation of an immediate Second Coming and the pass
ing away of the existing order of things. They admit
that this expectation prevailed until Pentecost, but contend
that from that day of illumination the disciples knew by
the revelation of the Holy Ghost that the Lord's coming
was in the distant future, and that He intended what He
had to say about the establishment of the Kingdom of

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 123
Heaven to be understood of a Church, the foundation
of which He had laid and the superstructure of which
they were to build. But, to say nothing about the general
trend of the New Testament literature, all of which was
written long after the day of Pentecost, the Book of the
Revelation which is one of the latest of our Sacred
Scriptures is utterly at odds with this contention of Sacer
dotalists. 3. Moreover, with the New Testament Christians,
the Messianic Kingdom involved the idea of a restoration
and increase of the glory of the Jewish Theocratic King
dom. These three facts in themselves afford a short cut proof
of the most conclusive character that, to the death of St.
John, about A. D. 1 00, the Sacerdotal doctrine of Apos
tolic Succession by an uninterrupted series of ordinations
is entirely without the foundation of either Scripture or
history. The Jewish expectation of an universal and all-power
ful Messianic Kingdom and the Roman hope of world
wide dominion were realized in the Papal Church, which
during the period of its greatest ascendency, was much
more of a political than a religious institution. The truth
would seem to be that the omniverous Church of Rome
gradually took over to itself the Jewish Theocracy, the
Heathen Polytheism, and the Roman Empire. After
the removal of the Imperial throne from Rome to Con
stantinople and until the Reformation, the Pope was much
more really a successor at once of the Jewish High Priest,

121 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
of the Heathen Pontlfex Maxlmus, and of the Roman
Augustus than ever he was of the Apostle St. Peter.
The first concrete expression of the ideal of Christianity
as a resistless and unlimited civil dominion was the prim
itive monarchial Episcopate the representatives of which
were in reality laymen. This institution was the organic
basis, or embryonic germ, of the whole vast evolution
which culminated in the Roman hierarchy and Church.
It is one of the most striking facts of the Dark and
Middle ages that when the monarchial Episcopate had
reached its complete development in the Papacy of the
Roman Church, the occupant of the reputed chair of St.
Peter was much more of a King than a Bishop. Innocent
III. who flourished as Pope from 1 198 to 1216, as King
of Kings and Bishop of Bishops was the most universal
and powerful sovereign that the world has ever known.
Thus it appears that the doctrine of Apostolic Succes
sion is without Scriptural foundation. It follows, then, as
by a logical necessity, that the whole Sacerdotal superstruc
ture is without the support of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
and that, therefore, it is a non-chrlstian edifice, built upon
the sand of heathen superstition. Hence it must inevitably
be concluded that it Is as undesirable, as It would be im
possible that Sacerdotal Catholicism should furnish either
the doctrinal or the governmental basis for the necessary
federation of the Churches of Christendom.

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 135

III.

All the Christian churches of which we read in the
New Testament were congregational Churches. During
the first two or three generations of Christians there were
as many Churches as there were congregations of the Dis
ciples of Christ and there were no confederations of
Churches of a provincial, diocesan or national character.
During this period the Christian ministry was rudi
mentary as to its official character, so much so that its
representatives were hardly officers at all, but rather only
leaders. They owed this semi-official relationship and
leadership in the congregations of which they were mem
bers, to their prominence, on account of some natural
cause, or to their recognized claim to spiritual gifts be
stowed at their Baptism by the Holy Ghost, which spe
cially qualified them for the work of leadership in the
Christian community. The Christian ministry of the period
during which this condition prevailed, which is practically
synchronous with the New Testament, had these grades.
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers and
Bishops or Elders,
Apostles and Prophets did not confine their ministra
tions to single localities, but went from place to place
establishing new Churches, or more properly speaking,
associations or brotherhoods, and building up those already
established. During the first two or three generations the
relationship of Christians to each other Was of an associa-

136 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
tlve rather than of an organic character. This must be
borne in mind by all who would reach right conclusions
on the Important subjects of the origin and authority of
the Christian ministry, and of the practicability of carry
ing out any such plan for Christian unity as is proposed
in this book.
While the Church was an association rather than an
organism there was only a rudimentary embodiment of the
Episcopal principles. The little there was of this embodi
ment was chiefly in the peripatetic Apostles and Prophets
and in the resident chairmen of the local colleges of
Elders. Each city, in which the Church had been planted,
had one of these colleges. Before the development of
ministerial officialism, which was not until the third or
fourth generation of Christians, the Elders were Laymen,
not Clergymen in the Roman, Anglican or even Denomi
national acceptation of the term. Their position corre
sponded almost exactly to that of the lay eldership of the
Presbyterian Churches of our day.
In speaking of the Apostles in this connection, I have
of course no reference to successors of the Twelve or
rather the Eleven; for the ministerial relationship that
those original disciples sustained to the infant Church,
was not, as the devolutionary theory postulates, continued
by successors. In the strictest possible sense of the term
the Eleven were leaders, not officers, and so in the very
nature of things they could have no official successors
by an unbroken series of tactual ordinations. Leaders
are endowed by God. not ordained by man.

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 137
Leadership is, quite contrary to popular estimation, far
above officialism. It is at least theoretically conceivable
that a man might be at one and the same time the Father
of a Family, the Governor of a State, and the Bishop of a
Diocese. In the last two of these relationships he would
be an officer; in the first a leader. In each of the three
relationships he would be the head. Who does not see
and acknowledge that the unofficial headship of a Family
is more exalted than the official headship of a State or a
Church? How it would belittle and degrade the first of
these threefold relationships of this man to place it on the
level of the other two, the level of officialism. Leader
ship is as high above officialism as the heavens are above
the earth.
The Priests of the Old Testament were officers and
the Prophets were leaders ; but the High Priest never lived
who, notwithstanding the dignity and glamour of his offi
cial position, impressed his generation and shaped the des
tiny of the nation and the world as did Isaiah. The field
of history presents many similar illustrations of the com
parative superiority and importance of leadership over
officialism. Coming home to our own country and time. President
Taft is occupying the loftiest official position that exists
anywhere in the world. Mr. Bryan has failed again and
again in his effort to reach this position of tremendous
opportunities for the doing of great things and of securing
imperishable renown. Yet even Mr. Bryan's pohtical
opponents will concede that, notwithstanding he is without

138 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
the prestige of office, his influence as one of the greatest
among political prophets and leaders completely over
shadows any influence that he could exert as President of
the United States, if he were without his gifts of prophecy
and leadership.
Prophets are leaders, and, though their influence may
be increased by official position, the leadership of civil or
religious prophets is far from being wholly or even chiefly
dependent upon officialism.

IV.
Any one who, for the first time, enters upon the in
vestigation of Christian Sacerdotalism will be greatly sur
prised that its chief doctrines are paralleled so closely by
the doctrines of Heathen Sacerdotalism.
Bishop Lightfoot asserts that Sacerdotalism was carried
over from Judaism and Heathenism to Christianity, and
as for the doctrine with which we are here concerned.
Apostolic Succession, he might have gone on to say that it
was not changed much after its arrival.
The following observation of the anthropologist. Dr.
Farnell, in his late book. The Evolution of Religion,
should cause some thinking on the part of those who sup
pose that the idea of a devoluted Church and Ministry, as
presented in the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is pecu
liar to Christianity :
" In considering the history of the hierarchy in Chris
tendom," says this author, " we are often obliged to turn

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 139
our eyes back upon the pre-Christian period. For instance,
the insistence on the Apostolic Succession in the various
churches, a primary article of faith with many at the
present time, is entirely in keeping with a very old Medi
terranean tradition: for we find it not Infrequendy main
tained In Hellenic paganism that the Priest should descend
directly from the god whom he serves, or from the first
apostle who Instituted the particular cult or mystery; we
hear of the Priest being qualified ' by descent and by
divine appointment.' But in earlier religious periods the
succession or descent was regarded in the lineal and
physical sense : this has become refined into the idea of a
spiritual succession, maintained however by a continuity
of physical, though mystic, contact." — Farnell's, The
Evolution of Religion.
One of the results of the scientific study of the Old
Testament literature, having an interesting, if not indeed
a fundamental bearing upon the whole subject of Sacerdo
talism, is the fact that the Jewish Priesthood, as it existed in
New Testament times, was a very different institution from
what it was before the Babylonian captivity, so much so
that it may perhaps be rightly said to owe its establishment
to Nehemiah and Ezra, rather than to Moses and Aaron.
The Apostles other than the Eleven and St. Paul,
such as Barnabas and Apollos, were legion. They based
their title to recognition as the Apostles of the Messiah or
of the Christ, not upon any devolution of authority derived
from Him through His first Aposdes by ordination, but
to a commission received direct from the Holy Ghost.

130 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
The Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers and Pastors made
the same claim the basis of their right to be heard and fol
lowed as Christian teachers and leaders. In the course
of time all these Ministries, like the Ministry of the original
Apostolate, died out. They constituted what may be
designated as the unpremeditated provisional, unofficial
Christian ministry of leadership.
The basis of the permanent Christian ministry was the
local Eldership-Episcopate. I make one hyphenated
word of Eldership and Episcopate, because it is identically
the same institution under two exactly synonymous desig
nations. For the same good reason I am hyphenating
Elders and Bishops making both plural. This Ministry
was contemporaneous with the Ministries of which we
have been speaking, but it differed from them, not only
because it was a local establishment, but also because it
possessed a semi-official character whereas they were
migratory and unofficial Ministries of leadership.
Moreover the representatives of this developing Minis
try owed their relationship to their respective Churches,
not so much to any supposed special Baptism of the Holy
Ghost, which distinguished them from the rest of the
membership, as to their venerable character and standing
in the community. It was, like the Apostolate, collegiate
rather than individualistic. In the larger Churches a
college of Elders-Bishops usually numbered thirteen. At
celebrations of the Lord's Supper, twelve were reckoned
as representing the Apostles, and one, the chairman of
the college, as representing the Master Himself.

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 131
While the provisional Ministry was in the ascendency
a representative of it, if present, took precedence of the
chairman of the local college of Elders-Bishops in leading
the people in their worship and prophesying, and especially
in presiding at the common, daily, evening meal, or as we
now say, at celebrations of the Lord's Supper. But if this
itinerant Ministry was not represented at a gathering of
the Church, the chairman of its college of Elders-Bishops
presided. The college sat at a table apart from the rest
of the Church for the purpose of impersonating the Master
and His twelve disciples, thus dramatizing the memorable
scene on that momentous occasion when the memorial
feast was instituted.
As the Churches grew, and as time went on the college
of Elders-Bishops naturally assumed more and more of a
corporate, official character. But the first real officers of
the Church were the chairmen of these colleges, who
became the basis of the monarchial or the " Historic "
Episcopate. The monarchial congregational Episcopate
was coming to the front, at least in some Churches, as early
as Ignatius A. D. 1 1 7. This institution was well and all
but universally established in the time of Cyprian, about
A. D. 250. Cyprian may be regarded as the founder of
the Imperial hierarchy and of the Catholicism which went
with it.
Even upon the assumption that the Apostolate was an
office, an assumption which the facts bearing upon the
subject vsall not warrant, there is no sufficient evidence
that the Twelve, or any of them, ever executed an

133 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
ordination by the laying on of hands to that office. It
will be claimed that the probabilities favor the conclusion
that they did so set apart St. Matthias but this is not stated
in the sacred record and history is against it.
Historical criticism has conclusively shown that Igna
tius gave expression to the popular belief, when he repre
sented that the colleges of Elders-Bishops, were successors
of the Apostles. There is not, however, the slightest evi
dence that the representatives of these colleges generally
received ordination of any kind from anybody.
We are far from the truth when we think of the college
of Elders-Bishops, of one of the New Testament
Churches, as corresponding with the corps of Clergy in
a large Parish of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The
position occupied by them was much more closely analo
gous to that of vestrymen in one of our Churches. None
of the Elders-Bishops had ordinarily anything to do with
the conducting of the Services, except their chairman
whose position would correspond very nearly with that of
the senior warden of a vestry, much more so than that of
the rector of a parish.
The chairman of the college of Elders-Bishops was a
layman on exactly the same footing as the other members
of the college, and in this respect the college was on
precisely the same level as the rest of the Church. The
chairman was elected by his fellow Elders-Bishops to the
headship of the college. This chairmanship did Indeed,
carry with It the privileges of conducting public Services
of worship and prophesying, and especially of presiding

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 133
at the common memorial meal, when there was no Itinerant
Apostle, Prophet, or Evangelist present to assume this
leadership. But In the exercise of these functions he acted
more in the capacity of a lay reader than of a rector of
a parish. In the New Testament Church there was no local
ministerial officer corresponding to the modern rector or
pastor. What there was of such ministerial rectorship,
or pastorship, or headship, was exercised by the college
of Elders-Bishops as a whole. But their influence or
authority was strictly, at least in the beginning, of the un
official, leadership sort, like that exercised by a vestry or
board of elders, rather than of the official, dictatorship
kind, such as some of our younger clergy seek to exercise.
The idea of an official Christian ministry which was
in any essential. Sacerdotal respect separate and distinct
from the laity had not, in New Testament times, entered
the mind of anybody. That idea did not begin to come
in until the third or fourth generation of Christians, and
then it was carried over by undigested converts from Juda
ism and Heathenism with their priestly conceptions of a
religious Ministry. These conceptions were not only for
eign to Christianity, but also originally to Judaism.
V.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is essentially doctrinal, not
institutional. He taught doctrines. He did not found
a Church. In discussing the question of whether or not Jesus

134: THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
founded a Church, a question which has a fundamental
relationship to the Level Plan for Church Union, we
should bear in mind the facts that the word " Church,"
like that of " State," is exceedingly indefinite as to the
character of the institution to which it refers, and that
from the beginning there has been a strong tendency to
carry the ideas of the fourth, fifth, sixth and even much
later generations back into the third, second and first gener
ations. At least in popular and general usage we, with one
breath, speak of inorganic Quakerism as a Church, and
with the next of organic Romanism as such. There is no
doubt that, according to the root meaning of the word
" Church," both of these ecclesiastical institutions are
equally entitled to use it as a designation; and yet the
difference between them is greater than the difference
between the mighty British Empire and one of the feeble
little Republics of Central America. Thus, in our use of
the word, " Church " we may, as to the degree of organi
zation in mind, mean almost everything or nearly nothing.
The experts in the field of ecclesiastical antiquities are
quite unanimous in the opinion that the Church, down to
at least the third generation of Christians, was of the
Quaker type, that is to say, a Church in the inorganic
sense of the term, an informal association or brotherhood.
The passages in the New Testament and early patristic
literatures which give the impression that Christianity
started out as a formal organization with an official Minis
try and a sacramental system are explained on the

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 135
hypothesis that they are so many evidences of editings, by
which later developments and doctrines were carried back
into primitive conditions. The simplicity of Christianity,
both from its doctrinal and institutional sides, during the
first two or three generations can scarcely be realized by
those who read these literary remains through the spec
tacles of the prepossessions which are furnished to its
members by any of our Churches except perhaps the most
out-of-the-way Quaker associations.
There are certain striking and illuminating parallelisms
between the institutionalism of primitive Christianity,
about which people generally know very little, and modern
Methodism which is well known to all. I have some
hesitancy in drawdng these parallelisms, because of the
difficulty in doing so without giving a shock to the reader's
sense of propriety, or laying myself liable to just censure
for irreverence.
The Lord Jesus Christ and His disciple, John Wesley.
were adherents of the established Church of their respec
tive nations. Wesley was devotedly so. Jesus and His
Apostles continued in their Church and Wesley claimed
to the last that he remained in his.
Both Christianity and Methodism started out as very
simple, unpretending, religious associations. Afterwards
they became more formal societies, then sects, and finally
Churches. Both Jesus and Wesley had aposdes. Jesus was a
Layman and without exception His Apostles were laymen.
Wesley was an Anglican Presbyter but the great majority

136 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
of his apostles were laymen. Jesus and Wesley appointed
their apostles without any reference to the people; but
they made these appointments as leaders not as officers.
Jesus never said anything or did anything in an official
capacity; for a long time, if not indeed always, this was
true of Wesley.
Wesley was the leader and founder of the inorganic
Methodist association, or brotherhood and he lived to
guide its comparatively rapid development until It reached
the very threshold of organic ecclesiasticism. Jesus did
not live to have anything to do with the direction of the
tendencies which finally separated the associations or
brotherhoods of His followers from the Jewish and
Heathen Churches into the Christian, ecclesiastical or
ganizations of which we have accounts in the early Chris
tian writings. Of course He had nothing to do with the
increasingly large confederations of those primitive Congre
gational Churches which were consecutively formed with
the development of the mighty Catholic Church.
In the nature of things the founders of associations or
Churches cannot have the successors which the Sacerdotal
doctrine of Apostolic Succession postulates. So far as this
observation concerns Wesley, it is about as self -evidently
true as any fact of history can well be. Yet, in his case,
there is an essential feature of the doctrine that is true of
him that is not of Jesus. The Bishops of the Methodist
Churches, throughout the world, have been ordained to
their high offices by the laying on of the hands of Bishops,
who, in turn, received such ordination back in an uninter-

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 137
rupted succession to Coke and Asbury who were ap
pointed and ordained by Wesley. It is not true of the
representatives of any branch of the " Historic " Episco
pate that they received such ordination from the first Apos
tles who were appointed by Jesus. It Is not likely that
Jesus laid hands on the Twelve at all, and It Is certain
that He did not lay hands on St. Paul.
The conception of God the Father or God the Son as
being either in Person or by His representatives the
founder and ruler of an organic civil or religious kingdom
is really non-religious In character. The doctrine of the
freedom of the human will Is one of the fundamentals of
religion, and It excludes the idea of the imperial, official
ruling of man by God. The world is indeed governed by
God, but His government is by the sway of leadership.
Jesus was neither King nor Priest In the Imperial and
official sense of the terms.
There are some things which the religious conception
of God denies even Him the power to do. So far as God
the Son is concerned, among such moral Impossibilities is
the power to assume the office and to exercise the functions
of an official Priesthood. Being Divine, Jesus could not,
or at least would not, fulfill the expectations of those who
would have Him become supreme Priest, any more than
He could or would fulfill an analogous expectation re
specting the over-Kingship of the world.
If Jesus could not be King and Priest in the Imperial
sense of Kingship, or In the official sense of Priesthood
it was because it is against the very constitution of the

138 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
moral universe that He should be such, and this being the
case He could not delegate to the Apostles such authority
and prerogatives as the Sacerdotal conception of the
Christian ministry affirms Him to have' given them.
Jesus did indeed, say to His most trusted Apostles, "As
My Father hath sent Me even so send I you." Sacer
dotalists interpret this to mean that the Father exercised
authority in sending the Son, and that, therefore, the
Apostles were sent by the Divine authority of Jesus. But
God exercised love; not authority in sending Jesus, and
He was sent as a Prophet, not Priest.
When the Pharisees asked Jesus, " By what authority
doest Thou these things? " the answer was to the effect,
" The authority of a great love and of ability to do
what love demands for the world's saving." In the moral,
religious sense there is no arbitrary Divine authority.
One among the several learned and independent
thinkers who was kind enough to read critically the
manuscript of this book, made a comment respecting this
conclusive point against the Sacerdotalists of such perti
nency and excellency that I am taking the liberty of
quoting it. " I wish that I felt free to connect it with the
critic's name, but unfortunately, I do not. However, the
comment will stand on its own merits and I hope that
it will be read more than once by many a Sacerdotalist.
" The mistake of the Church has been in supposing
that it had authority in realms in which its ' writ does not
run.' It has no authority to do anything but proclaim
the Gospel of salvation; no authority outside the realm

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 139
of spiritual appeal. Surely no other authority was ever
exercised by the Christ during His earthly Ministry; and
He could hardly have meant to convey to His Apostles
what He Himself furnished no evidence of possessing in
His relation to men. It should never be lost sight of
for one moment that Jesus was sent to the Cross by an
authoritative Church; a Church which supposed itself
acting for God and in the service of true religion, the only
true religion, when it exercised authority to define the limits
within which truth should appeal to the souls of men.
" Scribes and Pharisees undoubtedly had authority to
submerge and silence Jesus, if they could, by teaching
a better Gospel than His ; by rendering to humanity more
effective service than His; but the moment they declined
to match their truth and their service against His, they
denied themselves all authority to deal with Him in any
way whatever, all authority save the authority of evil
to war against good, of hell to defy Heaven.
" The modern Sacerdotal Church joins hands with
the Sanhedrin, whenever it says to any other Church:
' I have authority to command your obedience, which is
something quite apart from the question as to whether
or not the essential Gospel I proclaim is better than the
essential Gospel you proclaim, or the redemptive service
I am rendering more or less effective than the service you
are rendering.' To lay claim to such authority is to lay
claim to what can by no possibility be conceived of as
within the limits of the moral or spiritual realm. And

140 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
what business has any Church outside this realm? Cer
tainly no Christly business."
It is true that John and Charles Wesley, and some
others who joined them, were Priests in the established
Church, and it is also true that, before the close of the
New Testament period, several Priests of the Jewish
Church identified themselves with the associations that
had been formed by the followers of Jesus. But neither
did these Anglican Priests nor those Jewish Priests exer
cise their Ministry, as Jewish or Anglican Priests, in rela
tionship to the new society with which they respectively
identified themselves.
The Ministries which soon developed in the case of
both the Apostolic and Wesleyan religious associations
were, at the beginning, in the strictest sense of the term,
lay ministries, the representatives of which performed no
priestly function. They preached, but in doing this they
did not consider that they were usurping priestly pre
rogatives. We read of at least one instance of a layman who
in apostolic times preached the Gospel more eloquently
than it was preached by even the great St. Paul. This
man was Apollos. His is an Interesting and instructive
case. It is In Itself quite sufficient to prove that the laity
have a right and are, therefore, expected to preach the
Gospel according to their ability and opportunity ; for we
have In this narrative two laymen, Apollos and Aquila,
and also one lay-woman, Priscllla, who preached, or
what is the same thing, taught the saving truths of Christ's

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 141
Gospel. Really every Sunday School teacher in the land
is a preacher, and some among them are very able
preachers. When certain of the Apostles found a man who was not
of their number, or even a professed follower of Christ,
casting out devils and healing the sick, they reported it to
their Master with disapproval. Instead of sympathizing
with them in their narrowness. He said, " Forbid them
not; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in My
Name that can lightly speak evil of Me." " For he that
is not against us is on our part." " For whosoever shall
give you a cup of water to drink in My Name, because
ye belong to Christ, verily, I say unto you, he shall not
lose his reward."
Nor did the representatives of the primitive Christian
ministry of leadership and service think that they were
performing priestly acts in baptizing. In administering the
Lord's Supper, or in sending out preachers of the Gospel
by the laying on of hands in ordination. Originally, all
this was done by laymen.
A proof that a Sacerdotal Ministry is not native to
Christianity and that it was not derived from the Old
Testament is the fact that organic Christianity owes its
existence to the Gentiles rather than to the Jews. Jesus
had nothing whatsoever to do, and His original Apostles
not much with these ecclesiastical developments. The real
organizers of the followers of Jesus into Churches were
St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, Ignatius, Cyprian,
Constantine and the Popes.

143 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
St. Paul occupies much the same relationship to organic
Christianity as a whole that John Wesley does to the
Methodist Church in particular. Jesus' relationship was
and is to all His individual followers and even to all those
who are trying to be obedient to the heavenly voice, as
heard through their consciences whether or not they be
long to any Church.
How far St. Paul, the organizing genius of Christian
ity, was from adopting the Old Testament Sacerdotal
system may be judged by the fact that he openly pro
claimed that " Christ is the end of the law." There can
be no doubt that " end " is used here as a synonym of
abrogation, and " law " of the Sacerdotal requirements.
I am among those who hold that the many efforts which
are happily being made to bring together the Protestant
Churches, will demonstrate the absolute indispensability
of the headship of the Episcopate. But the Importance
of this institution is due to the fact that it has been prov
identially developed from the people, for the meeting of
exigencies requiring a ministry of natural service, not con
stituted by Christ as a means for the perpetuation of a
supernatural officialism. It will be clearly perceived by
all who approach the subject from a scientific point of
view, that an institution which can serve a imifying pur
pose could not be based upon the caste hypothesis of the
Christian ministry; but that it must be a development
according to the Republican theory of that Ministry.
We want unity for missionary purposes; but the coohng
down of the marvelous missionary enthusiasm of the

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 143
early Church was contemporaneous with the ascendency
of the imperial or caste idea of the Christian ministry.
Let that idea secure the ascendency in the Episcopal
Church, and as certainly as the sun rises and sets she
will be switched to one side as a useless little antiquated
sect. The Republican spirit is, in essence, the spirit of
the Christ, and it will more and more take possession of
men's hearts and minds until it covers the whole earth
as the waters cover the sea. "One is your Master and
all ye are brethren; He that is greatest among you shall
be your servant." This is the glorious Gospel that will
finally triumph. The world, the flesh and the devil will
not forever be able to withstand the pure, imadulterated
Republicanism of the Gospel.

VI.
The custom of ordaining to the Christian ministry by
the laying on of hands, as an institution of general ob
servance and recognized importance arose with the monar
chial Episcopate. The representatives of this Institution,
who constituted the first official Christian ministry, owed
originally, their position to election by their fellow Elders-
Bishops to the chairmanship of the unofficial college.
At first, and for a considerable period, when the election
was followed by ordination, which was not generally the
case, those who did the electing also did the ordaining to
the Episcopal office.

144 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
This office started out as strictly a congregational in
stitution, so much so that a representative of it had not
only no official position outside of the congregation of
which he was the head, but he had no relationship to
the Episcopal heads of other congregations. There was
unity between the New Testament Churches, but it was
spiritual, not organic. It was the Inorganic unity, so much
lost sight of in our day, of " the Communion of Saints."
The representatives of the various unofficial, peripatetic
Ministries, in their pilgrimages among the brotherhoods,
did much to promote this spiritual unity. The imperative
necessity for co-operative works of brotherly love and
mercy, and also the dire necessity for standing by each
other in times of persecution, had much to do with bring
ing about the organic unity which by the beginning of the
fourth century had everywhere become such a marked
characteristic of the rapidly multiplying followers of the
crucified Nazarene.
After a time the congregational Episcopal heads
formed associations or colleges of their own, which,
though at first purely unofficial in character, soon came
to bear a semi-official relationship to the congregations
which were represented in them by their heads. Cyprian, a
man of high character, and great ability, who flourished,
as the Episcopal head of the African Church at Carthage,
from A. D. 248 to 258, was the genius of organization
who, so far as the province of the Roman government
to which Carthage belonged was concerned, carried out
the idea of consolidating the representatives of the Epis-

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 145
copate into colleges, which, respectively, would bear a
relationship to the Churches of the several provinces such
as the colleges of Elders-Bishops bore to their congrega
tions. This institution gradually became universal.
The Episcopal heads of congregations in their colle
giate conferences passed resolutions which naturally had
great weight with the people. Among such resolutions
was one which reserved to representatives of that body
the right of ordaining to the Episcopate.
With the development of officialism in the Christian
ministry there came a time when the representatives of
the Presbyterial and Diaconal grades of it were also or
dained. The right of Elders or Presbyters to ordain by
the laying on of hands, which was exercised by them
before the rise of provincial councils, has never been
quite given up, at least not in theory, by any of the
Churches. Nor was the ordination of Bishops by Pres
byters wholly discontinued until long after Cyprian's time.
The Church at Alexandria was notoriously slow, and the
Church of Rome was not far ahead of her, in abandoning
the custom of ordaining their Bishops at the hands of the
local college of Presbyters.
TTie intercessory prayer upon which the benefit, or
grace of sacramental ordinances is chiefly dependent, is
the prayer of the Church as a whole, not of the officiating
Minister alone. In the case of the prayers connected with
the administration of the Sacraments, whether it be the
baptism of an infant or the ordination of a Bishop, the

146 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
Minister is simply the servant of the people, appointed
by them in order that they might have a leader.
Baptisms, Confirmations, Holy Communions, Marriages
and Ordinations, are then in reality administered by the
people. It is true of every prayer and act of the whole
system of worship that it is the people's prayer and act.
In so far as the Minister prays and acts on his own re
sponsibility, he does so as one of the people. Except only
in matters of administrative function, the Ministers through
whom the People administer their sacramental ordinances,
or perform any other acts of worship, are on exactly the
same level with themselves.
The sacramental rite of Ordination to the Christian
ministry has, like the sacramental rite of Baptism, the
effect of changing the relationship of the recipient. The
Sacrament of Baptism changes the receiver of it from a
place outside to one inside the Church. This change is
baptismal regeneration. The Sacrament of Ordination
changes the receiver of it from the common unofficial
Ministry to the official ministerial office.
The Lord Jesus Christ, in becoming Incarnate, divini-
tized human nature, of which every representative of man
kind is an equal partaker with any and all odiers, making
such a differentiation between men as that which is sup
posed by Sacerdotalists in the Church and Imperialists in
the State to be created by a consecration or a coronation,
or an inauguration, to be beyond the range of possibilities.
It has been objected that if a supernatural effect be
denied to the sacramental rite of Ordination, there is no

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 147
reason why it should not be denied to all other Christian
rites, not excepting even the two great Sacraments, Bap
tism and the Lord's Supper.
My answer to this objection, so far as It makes against
the doctrine of the universality of the Christian priest
hood, is that I do not deny supernatural effects to any
sacramentaf ordinance. On the contrary, I admit that
all such ordinances are supernaturally efficacious. But to
say that the efficacy or benefit annexed to a Sacrament Is
supernatural is by no means necessarily to postulate
that the Sacrament Itself is supernatural, or that the ad
ministrator of it requires a supernatural endowment, ex
cept in the general sense In which the supernatural must
be associated with all things, and acts. There is so much
of supematuralness connected with this life, and with all
that contributes to make it what it is, that the difficulty
is not to find where the supernatural is, but where it is not.
Mrs. Browning gives expression to a profound truth where
she says: " Earth is crammed with Heaven, and every
common bush afire with God." The subject of the super
natural in the Sacraments will be considered more fully in
Lecture III.
The laying on of hands which was a part of the cere
monial connected with the sending out of St. Paul and
St. Barnabas as missionaries from the Church at Antioch
had nothing to do with ordination to an official Ministry
of any grade. This observation is equally true of that
laying on of hands by which, according to Sacerdotal
tradition, the colleges of Elders-Bishops were established

148 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
in the several Churches, and Sts. Timothy and Titus
were set apart to the Episcopate.
That these Instances of the laying on of hands were
in no way connected with the institution of ordination to
the several grades of the official Christian ministry, as
ultimately established in all branches of the historic
Church, is proved by the fact that the ordinations of
which we have accounts did not give the ministerial char
acter which the ordinations after the time of Cyprian were
generally supposed to give.
This is perfectly evident in the case of St. Paul; for
no Sacerdotalist contends that, so far as ministerial char
acter is concerned, ordination put anything into or upon
him which he did not already possess. And if this be
admitted of St. Paul's ordination, the same admission must
be made of St. Barnabas. For, though there is no evi
dence that he had been, like St. Paul, directly appointed
to the Apostleship by the Lord Himself, yet there is no
ground upon which it can be claimed that ordination by
the Church of Antioch did more for him than was done
for St. Paul.
No Sacerdotalist pretends that St. Paul received
ordination at the hands of the Eleven or any of them.
Even Bishop Gore, with all his erudition and ingenuity,
has utterly failed to produce so much as a scrap of evidence
in support of the contention that St. Barnabas was or
dained by them. This being the case, it is not at all
likely that any one will succeed in setting aside Dr. Hort's
most conclusive showing to the effect that St. Barnabas

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 149
was a layman, and that the Antiochlan Elders who or
dained him and St. Paul were laymen. He also shows
with a crushing conclusiveness, that Ananias of Damascus
who baptized St. Paul was a layman.
This conclusion holds also in the cases of any ordi
nations for which St. Paul may have been responsible, or
In which he may have taken part. For surely it will not
be pretended that in the laying on of hands by which he
set apart candidates to the Ministry, he did more for them
than was done for him at the Antiochlan ordination. The
Elders of St. Paul's Churches and his co-laborers, Tim
othy and Titus, like the Eleven, Barnabas and himself,
were Laymen.
No one who, with an open mind, has attentively read
Professor Hort's " The Christian Ecclesia," after reading
Bishop Gore's " The Church and the Ministry," will fail
to perceive the hopeless futility of the Bishop's strenuous
effort to make it appear that the representatives of the
colleges of Elders, of whom we read in the New Testa
ment, had received ordination to the Apostolate, or
Episcopate by the Eleven or by St. Paul. Scientific
historical criticism has completely exploded the traditions
upon which he rests this Sacerdotal contention, and proves.
beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt, that the New
Testament Elders were laymen, even as the representatives
of all other branches of the Ministry of the Divine Lay
man, Aposdes, Prophets, Evangelists, Teachers, Pastors
and Deacons, were laymen. They were laymen, quite
as really so as the representatives of a vestry in the Protes-

150 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
tant Episcopal Church, or as a board of elders in a
Presbyterian Church, or as a board of trustees in the
Methodist and other Protestant Churches are laymen.
It is impossible to state the fact that Jesus and His
Apostles were Laymen, more strongly or confidently than
the revelations of the scientific experts in the field of ec
clesiastical antiquities fully justify; and I for one feel
it to be my bounden duty, by line upon line, and precept
upon precept, to give this fact all the emphasis that the
words at my command will admit of; for I am fully con
vinced that in its general recognition, which, thank God, to
all appearance is an inevitable event of the twentieth cen
tury, lies, humanly speaking, the only hope for that unifi
cation of Christendom of which not only the world, but
also Christianity Itself, stands in such great need.
The religion of the Gospel was at the beginning a Lay
men's Movement; and, if ever the world is to be evan
gelized we must return to first principles. The most hope
ful sign on the thoughtful, discerning Christian's horizon
at this time Is the Laymen's Missionary Movement.
Not that the official Christian ministry is to be aban
doned; for that is no more possible or desirable in the
case of a Church than Is the abandonment of official minls-
teriallsm on the part of a State; but that the Sacerdotal
conception of the Ministry as a mediatorial caste, the
representatives of which are lords over God's heritage,
the custodians and dispensers of the Christ-life and grace,
must give place to the Republican conception of it as a
Ministry of brotherly service and leadership in the works.

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 151
of love, on a natural basis which leaves room for the
recognition of the leader as a master workman, but still
only a worker, on essentially the same level as the fellow
workers whom he serves and leads.
VII.
It is an interesting fact, one that is wholly irrecon
cilable with the Sacerdotal theory of the origin and au
thority of the Christian ministry, that the only doctrine
of Apostolic Succession of which the primitive Church
knew anything, did not involve the idea of an unbroken
series of ordinations, upon which the right to rule the
Church and the power to validly administer the Sacra
ments are dependent.
It was held that the college of Apostles bore witness
to the teaching of Christ, and that, after that college had
died out, this witness was borne In each Church by a
college of Presbyters. This Presbyterate was regarded
by the Church of every city as occupying a position which
was entirely analogous to that of the Apostolate in the
Church of Jerusalem. This idea was a sub-apostolic
growth. The development of a monarchial official Episcopate
out of the college of unofficial Elders or Bishops, of which
college the first representatives of the Episcopate were
the first among equals as chairmen, carried with it a
strong and, indeed, inevitable tendency to transfer in the
case of each Church, the Apostolic Succession over from
the unofficial college of Presbyters to the official Indi
vidual Bishop.

153 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
For several centuries after the New Testament times,
Christianity was in great jeopardy on account of a strong
tendency to corrupt its doctrine. During, say, the first two
hundred years of this period an Apostolic Succession was
Insisted upon by means of which the true doctrine of Christ
was held to have been preserved and handed down. But
afterwards, when a centralized authority was felt to be of
paramount necessity. Apostolic Succession came to be re
garded as also a channel through which the Congrega
tional Bishops derived an official authority from Christ
through His Apostles to rule the Church of God.
Down to the middle of the second century the Bishops
were supposed to receive all their authority from the people
by election and appointment, as do the Presidents of our
United States. No one had any more thought of a tactual
succession from the Lord and His first Apostles bemg
necessary to constitute Apostolic Succession, than we have
of such a succession from George Washington being
necessary to our presidential succession.
Mr. Taft is a successor of George Washington, not be
cause he and his predecessors were inaugurated as Presi
dents of the United States by an unbroken series of cere
monies corresponding to ordination, in which a surviving
President or the surviving Presidents took part, but be
cause he was elected by the people. Inaugurated by their
representatives and because he holds the same relationship
to the people that George Washington did. The Presi
dent has always been inaugurated by the Chief Justice of
the United States; but if, by the will of the people, a

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 153
justice of the peace, or a policeman, or even the humblest
private citizen, had inaugurated Mr. Taft, he would
be none the less the successor of George Washington than
he now is, notwithstanding his Inauguration by the head
of the Supreme Court.
Thus we see that succession In any office, whether that
of a Bishop of a Congregation, or of a Diocese of confed
erated Congregations, or that of the Governor of a State,
or of the President of a confederation of States, depends
upon the people, even as the continuity of a social insti
tution whether Family, State or Church is dependent upon
the people.
But in the course of time the Idea that the succession
was derived from Christ through the Apostles from one
Bishop to another by ordination took root and prevailed.
This is the Sacerdotal idea of the origin and authority of
the Christian ministry. This doctrine, like all other
Sacerdotal doctrines, has failed to endure the light of
historical criticism which reveals it to be fictitious.
As Republicanism is the most consistent expression of
the Gospel on Its institutional side, and as Republicanism
Is here to stay, nothing could be a greater misfortune
to the Anglican Communion than the triumph of the large
and Influential party, which stands for the Mediaeval
theory of the origin and authority of the Christian ministry.

154 THE ONLY BASIS POSSlBLEl.

VIII.

The Level Plan for Church Union has among its under
lying postulates the affirmation that the organic imification
of Christendom, of which the world stands in such great
need, must be the result of its reorganization by an evolu
tionary process. If the theories respecting the origin of
the primitive Church as a Catholic organization and of
the Christian ministry as an official institution which Tam
advocating are in line with the facts of history, it has been
made to appear that, should the Churches want to get
together they are perfectly free to set on foot the requisite
reorganization movement. No doubt, such a movement
would encounter many and great obstacles, but, contrary to
the representations of Sacerdotalists their character would
not be such as to render them insuperable. The barriers to
reunion are, as to their character and magnitude, neither
essentially different nor any greater than those which pre
vented the American Colonies from getting and keeping
together in order that in the United States we might have
a great nation.
That our representations to this effect are in exact align
ment with the revelations of the science of historical criti
cism will be evident from the following summary and
quotation from Professor Hatch's great work on The Or
ganization of the Early Christian Church. The masterly
character of this work may be judged by the fact that it
has stood as a Gibraltar of Republican Protestantism
against every attack of Sacerdotalism. Professor Har-

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 155
nack, the prince among the authorities In Church history,
was so Impressed with this original and brilliant attack
upon the Sacerdotal position that he thought it worth
while, so to speak, to make it the peg upon which to hang
some of the most important results of his own great labors
in the field of ecclesiastical antiquities. Accordingly, he
was at the pains of translating and annotating the work,
in order that the Germans might have the benefit of its
light upon the origin of Christian institutions.
In Lecture V, entitled, " Clergy and Laity," Professor
Hatch shows from references to the ancient authorities,
that, in the minute accounts of the admission to the office
of Bishop given in the Apostolic Constitutions and by
Cyprian, A. D. 258, and Jerome, 420, no mention what
ever Is made of the imposition of hands and then proceeds
to say:
" It follows from this that the rite was not universal ; it
is Impossible that if it was not universal it can have been
regarded as essential.
" The conception of office was that of order: by vir
tue of their appointment the officers of the Christian
communities were entitled to perform functions which in
themselves were the functions of the whole Church or of
individual Christians. Ecclesiastical office existed, no
doubt, by Divine appointment, but by Divine appointment
only ' for the edifying and well-governing ' of the com
munity. Of the existence of the idea that ecclesiastical
office in itself, and not as a matter of ecclesiastical regu
lation and arrangement, conferred special and exceptional

156 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
powers, there is neither proof nor reasonable presumptipn.'
Professor Hatch then states the three causes which led,
" in the slow course of years " to the conception that or
dination does confer " special and exceptional powers "
and that the Christian ministry Is a Priesthood:
" 1 . The wide extension of the limits of Church mem
bership. Professing Christians adopted the current mo
rality. And there grew up a distinction between clerical
morality and lay morality which has never passed away.
" 2. The second cause was the Intensity of the senti
ment of order. The conception of civil order under the
Imperial regime was very different from the conception of
it in modern times, and In Teutonic societies. The tend
ency of our own society is to have the greatest amount of
freedom that is compatible with order; the tendency of
the Empire was to have the greatest amount of order that
is compatible with freedom. Civil order was conceived
to be almost as divine as physical order is conceived to be
in our own day. In the State the head of the State
seemed, as such, by virtue of his elevation, to have some
of the attributes of a divinity ; and in the Church the same
' Apostolical Constitutions ' which gave as the reasons
why a layman may not celebrate the Eucharist, that he has
not the necessary dignity, call the officer who has that
dignity ' a god upon earth.' When, in the decay of the
Empire, the ecclesiastical organization was left as the only
stabje institution it was almost inevitable that those who
preserved the tradition of imperial rule should, by the

THE APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. 157
mere fact of their status, seem to stand upon a platform
which was inaccessible to ordinary men.
"3. The third cause was the growth of an analogy
between the Christian and the Mosaic dispensations. The
existence of such an analogy in the earliest times was pre
cluded by the vividness of the belief in the nearness of
the Second Advent. The organization of the Christian
Churches was a provisional arrangement until ' the Lord
should come.' There was a keen controversy whether
Christianity was Inside or outside Judaism; but there is
no trace of a belief that the ancient organization was to
be replaced, through a long vista of centuries to come,
by a corresponding organization of the Christian societies.
But after the Temple had long been overthrown and its
site desecrated — after the immediate return of the Messiah
to a temporal reign In Judea had passed from being a liv
ing faith to be a distant hope — after the Christian Churches
had ceased to circle round Jerusalem and had begun to
take the form of a new spiritual empire wide as the Roman
Empire itself, there grew up a conception that the new
Ecclesia Dei, whose limits were the world, was the exact
counterpart, though on a larger scale, of the old Ecclesia
Dei whose limits had been Palestine.
" With an explanation in the one case — which shows
that the conception Is new, with a hesitating timidity In the
other case — which shows that it had not yet established
itself, Tertullian and Origen, speak of Christian ministers
as Priests. . It was a century and a half after the time of
Tertullian and Origen before the analogy came to be

158 THE ONLY BASIS POSSIBLE.
generally accepted, or before the corollaries which flowed
from it found general expression in literature; but, when
once established, it became permanent, and in the course
of those weary wastes of years which stretch between the
ruins of the Empire and the foundation of the modern
kingdoms of the West and North it became not only per
manent but universal.
" But In earlier tgnes there was a grander faith. For
the Kingdom of God was a Kingdom of Priests. Not
only the ' four and twenty elders ' before the throne, but
the innumerable souls of the sanctified upon whom ' the
second death had no power,' were ' Kings and Priests
unto God.' Only in that high sense was Priesthood pred-
icable of Christian men. For the shadow had passed;
the Reality had come ; the one High-Priest of Christianity
was Christ."

The Level Plan for Church Union.

LECTURE II.
STATEMENT OP THE PLAN.
I. The Various Plans.
II. The Level Plan.
III. The Chief Objections.

" Throughout the mission field there is an
EARNEST and GROWING DESIRE FOR CLOSER FELLOW
SHIP, AND FOR THE HEALING OF THE BROKEN UNITY
OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. WE DESIRE TO EXPRESS
OUR WHOLE-HEARTED AGREEMENT WITH THOSE WHO
TOOK PART IN THE GREAT CONFERENCE AT SHANGHAI,
IN HOLDING THAT THE IDEAL OBJECT OF MISSIONARY
WORK IS TO PLANT IN EVERY NON-CHRISTIAN NATION
ONE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST. WE SHALL NEVER
GET EVERYONE TO AGREE REGARDING ANY ELABORATE
STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE, OR ANY ONE FORM OF
CHURCH POLITY. IF WE WAIT FOR THIS WE MUST WAIT
FOREVER. THE UNITY TOWARDS WHICH WE MUST
STRIVE MUST BE ONE WHICH ALLOWS THE LARGEST
POSSIBLE ROOM FOR DIVERSITY. ALL THAT WE CAN DO
IS TO RECOGNIZE THE ESSENTIAL UNITY UNDERLYING
THE DIFFERENCES OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM, AND TO
UNITE IN FREE INTER-COMMUNION THE CHURCHES
PLANTED BY THE DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN BODIES, RE
SERVING TO EACH SECTION THE RIGHT TO ADHERE TO
ITS OWN FORM OF DOCTRINE AND POLITY. IN THE
MEANTIME THERE IS MUCH THAT WE CAN DO OF A
PRACTICAL KIND TO PREPARE A WAY FOR THE LARGER
UNITY THAT IS TO COME. IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF
ALL MISSIONARY WORKERS AND ORGANIZATIONS TO OB
SERVE TO THE UTMOST DEGREE POSSIBLE THE PRINCI
PLES OF COMITY AND CHRISTIAN COURTESY." — From
the Report of the Committee of the World's Missionary
Conference on Co-Operation and Promotion of Unity.

STATEnENT OE THE PLAN.

M

THE VARIOUS PLANS.
I.
Y vision of Christian unity may be compared to a
great Cathedral. In the course of the quarter of a
century during which I have been dreaming of
the coming together of the followers of the Lord Jesus into
one all-inclusive, comprehensive. Catholic communion, this
Cathedral has been radically modified. At first it was a
Sacerdotal Institution; now it is a Republican institution.
So far as it concerned this country, according to its original
design, provision was made for all the People in one
great Nave and for all the Clergy in one Chancel. There
was only one Pulpit from which all would hear the preach
ing of the Gospel, one Font and Altar to which all would
come for the Sacraments.

163 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
This, in general outline, was the plan of my Unity
Cathedral while 1 was of the Sacerdotal way of thinking.
Some years ago I abandoned Sacerdotalism for Repub
licanism, and my Unity Cathedral as it now stands, is
modeled after the Heavenly mansion, in which there are
many rooms; and after the noble conception of the great
ecclesiastical statesman, Henry Codman Potter, which
is being materialized in the unique, cosmopolitan Cathedral
of St. John the Divine, New York City.
In this magnificent structure there is to be an immense
Nave, in which all Christians, Irrespective of nation, race,
language or denomination, are to have an equal right.
This Nave represents the unity of " the Communion of
Saints." There are also Chapels to be built round about
this Cathedral and connected with it, in which only the
representatives of the nation, or of the race, or of the
family of the race for which they are respectively erected,
are to be on the same footing. These Chapels, connected
as they are with the Cathedral, represent the Christian
unity of organic federation, which, as I now believe, is
the only organic unity that can reasonably be hoped for
that will enable Christians to accomplish the great two
fold mission of preaching the Gospel abroad to all the
world and of letting their light shine at home in philan
thropic works.

THE VARIOUS PLANS. 163

II.

This lecture outlines a plan for the unification of Chris
tendom which, in my judgment, indicates the only way by
which the Churches can come together into the unity of
confederated co-operation that is necessary to the evan
gelization of the world. In order that this plan may be
contrasted with other plans I will here give a condensed
statement of them all.
It could perhaps be shown that there are almost as
many plans for securing the requisite unity among Chris
tians as there are Churches; but if we make three groups
of the Churches the principles Involved In all plans will be
sufficiently covered for our present purposes. They are
then : ( I ) the Denominational or Inter-Church Federation
Conference Plan; (2) the Roman Plan; and (3) the
Anglican Plan.
1 . The Denominational, or Inter-Church Federation
Conference Plan for union, is a co-operation in philan
thropic, missionary and reformatory undertakings, which
would not necessarily interfere with organic sectarianism,
but would probably crystallize and perpetuate it. From
the organic point of view, this plan is diversity without
unity. It is an abnormal body without a normal head.
2. The plan of the Roman Church for unity is a sub
mission to and incorporation by the Papacy, which in
volves the total surrender of their existence on the part
of all other national, racial and sectarian Churches. From

164 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
the organic point of view, this plan is unity without di
versity. It is an abnormal head, without a normal body.
According to my conviction, this plan for Church
union, by amalgamation or absorption, is so utterly out
of the question as to be undeserving of serious attention.
It is not only based upon imperlahstlc and Sacerdotal prin
ciples which are hopelessly antiquated, but it is entirely
aside from the whole drift of things as observable in every
department of the social realm. Yet I am sorry to say
that it is the plan of Roman " Catholics " and also of not
a few among our Anghcan " Catholics."
3. The plan of the Anglican Communion for Chris
tian unity is the so-called Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.
This plan has been the center of more interest and
discussion than any other plan for Church union that has
ever been proposed. It was formulated and promulgated
by the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States in the year 1886, and ac
cordingly has been before the public for very nearly a
quarter of a century. Its introductory resolution, with the
four articles from which it derives the name, "Quadrilat
eral," by which it is popularly known, in the slightly
changed form in which it was adopted by the Pan-Angli
can Conference of Bishops in 1 888, reads as follows :
" Resolved that, in the opinion of this (Pan- Anglican)
Conference, the following articles supply a basis on which
approach may be, by God's blessing, made towards Home
Reunion :
" 1 . The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testa-

THE VARIOUS PLANS. 165
ments, as ' containing all things necessary to salvation,'
and as being the rule an(4 ultimate standard of faith.
"2. The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal symbol,
and the Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the
Christian faith.
"3. The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Him
self — Baptism and the Supper of the Lord — ministered
with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution, and of
the elements ordained by Him.
" 4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the
methods of its administration to the varying needs of the
nations and peoples called of God Into the unity of His
Church." This is, on the part of the Protestant Episcopal Church,
an official, and on the part of the other Churches of our
Communion, a semi-official promulgation of the basis upon
which the Churches of this communion have expressed a
willingness to enter into negotiations with other Protes
tant Churches, with a view of promoting spiritual and
organic unity. The plan of union and even the char
acter and the degree of the union are open questions to
be decided by the negotiating Churches.
Really the Quadrilateral Is a proposed basis rather than
a plan for Christian unity. The unexplained phrase,
" the Historic Episcopate locally adapted " prevents it
from being a plan.
What does " the Historic Episcopate locally adapted "
mean ? A large part of the Christian world has been ask
ing this question for nearly a quarter of a century. We

166 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
have never had the courage to answer it. The reason of
our timidity is found in the fact that any answer, which
can be given, would commit us against either Romanism
or Protestantism, so we have stayed on the fence. All
realize that we must get down sometime, on one side or
the other, or else make room for both. Our " Catholics
have been strenuously insisting that we ought to go over
with the Roman and Greek Churches. Our " Protes
tants " have been as earnestly contending that we should
identify ourselves with the Protestant Churches.
The question of the Interpretation of the fourth article
of the Quadrilateral Is being pressed upon us by the
" Catholic ' Memorialists against " the Open-Pulpit "
Canon xix. They have placed this question before us
and kept It there In such a way as to compel an answer.
Upon the whole, I am glad of it ; because. It seems to me,
that in doing this, the Memorialists have rendered a great
service to the cause of Protestantism. The 1910 Session
of the General Convention, in view of this action, must
explain the phrases, " Historic Episcopate," and " locally
adapted." The explanation will inevitably identify us
with Protestantism rather than with Romanism.
The proposition which 1 am recommending is a Plan
for Church union on the Quadrilateral basis, because it
points out a way, I think, the only way, the level way,
by which the local adaptation of the Episcopate provided
for in the fourth article of that document may be accom
plished. This plan. The Level Plan for Church Union,
will be outlined and commended in the following section.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 167
The Lecture will then be concluded with a statement of
and the reply to the most noteworthy among the objections
that have been urged against the plan.

IL
THE LEVEL PLAN.
I.
REALIZING the absolute necessity of the Epis
copate to the requisite unification of Christendom,
the wise leaders in our Anglo-American Church,
at the General Convention of 1886, offered to locally
adapt the Historic Episcopate, in, 1 take it, any way that
would contribute most towards bringing about the pre
liminary confederation and ultimate reorganization of the
Churches, of which the cause of Christ and the good of
the world stand In such great and imperative need.
There are, so far as I have been able to see, three,
and only three, ways In which .the Historic Episcopate
can be locally adapted. They are these :
1. We might, if our sister and daughter Protestant
Churches would have it so, denominatlonalize our Historic
Episcopate by reordalning the Bishops of the Protestant
Churches which already have the Episcopal institution,
and by creating an Episcopate for the Churches which
are without it.

168 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
But, for one, I have reached the conclusion that those
Churches cannot be brought to the point of consenting to
such a one-sided arrangement, for it would imply an
Inherent superiority in our Ministry which, I think, will
never be acknowledged.
In support of this belief, I cite an occurrence at a
recent meeting of the New York Church Federation Asso
ciation at which Bishop Greer presided. This distin
guished representative of our Anglo-American Episco
pate, who ably administers one of the most Important Sees
in Christendom, is exceptionally broadminded and tactful.
Unless for twenty-five years I have been misinterpreting
his utterances, many of which have been generally re
garded as being very timely and weighty, he is Protes
tant to the very core. If circumstances required that he
should make a choice between Republican Protestantism
and Sacerdotal " Catholicism " he would not, in my
opinion, have a moment's hesitation in casting his lot with
the former. He voted for the " Brady-Gailor, Repub
lican Open Pulpit " Canon, and if in God's good Provi
dence he is living, he will no doubt promote, by his elo
quent advocacy and by his vote, the adoption of the
Huntington, Republican Preamble to the Constitution.
It might be supposed that one of Bishop Greer's stand
ing and well known proclivities could say almost anything
he pleased to a gathering of Protestant Ministers of the
Metropolis. But the criticisms of his speech, upon taking
the chair on this occasion, show how very far this is from
being the case. Whether seriously or playfully, I do not

THE LEVEL PLAN. 169
know, he suggested that it would contribute greatly to
wards bringing together the Protestant Churches of New
York City, if the Ministers who are without ordination by
a representative of the " Historic " Episcopate would
come to him for reordinatlon.
The newspaper reports Indicate that this suggestion
created a general and in many cases even a hot resentment
in the Ministers to whom it was made.
Dr. Parkhurst, one of the most distinguished Presby
terian Ministers in America, took the suggestion so much
to heart that he wrote Bishop Greer a letter, in which he
gave him to understand that there was just as much reason
why the Bishop of the Madison Square Presbyterian
Church should reordain the Bishop of the Protestant Epis
copal Church of the Diocese of New York, as why Dr.
Greer should reordain Dr. Parkhurst.
Dr. Price, a prominent Methodist Minister of New
York City, devoted a sermon to Christian unity in which
he discussed the question, " Shall Bishop Greer ordain
our Ministers?" From which sermon the Tribune quotes
the following spicy passages:
" The truest idea will yet be realized, and all eccle
siastical bodies will be organized into friendly co-opera
tion, with resultant economy of power. The chief obstacle
to this is the arrogant claim of the Protestant Episcopal
Church based on the so-called Historic Episcopate.
This claim is comparatively recent, and history is squarely
against it. The Anglican Bishop, Burnet, tells us that
up to i662. Ministers from the non-Episcopal Churches

170 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
abroad, who entered the Anglican Ministry were not re-
ordained. " The Protestant Episcopalians are narrower than their
creed. Their attitude is out of harmony with the twen
tieth century. The Apostolic Succession that the Christian
world cares most about today is the spirit and power of
the Apostles — the courage and faith of Paul, and the
love of John.
" The theory of an Historic Episcopate as a basis of
union is well enough as an ecclesiastical curiosity to be
preserved in a theological museum. A mummy is a good
enough thing in its place, but this mummy must not be
brought to the banquet table, when the King's children
have assembled to celebrate the feast of reunion."
The Rev. Dr. Oscar Haywood, the well known Pastor
of the Metropolitan Baptist Church of the Covenant,
spoke to much the same effect. According to the report
published in the Nete York World, he said :
" The invitation issued to evangehcal Ministers by a
distinguished Bishop of the Episcopal Church to come
forward and receive the laying on of hands in ordination,
if taken seriously. Is an affront to all self-respecting Min
isters. It implies an assumption of ecclesiastical superiority
which has repeatedly blocked the recurring efforts to con
solidate the Denominations."
There can be no doubt that such utterances are repre
sentative of the feeling which prevails almost universally
in the Churches which are without the Historic Episcopate.
They show how wholly worthless is any plan for the uni-

THE LEVEL PLAN. 171
ficatlon of Christendom which is based upon the assump
tion that the Ministry of the Churches having the so-called
" Historic " Episcopate has something to give by ordi
nation to the Ministers of other Churches, which justifies
its representatives in making such offers as Bishop Greer
is reported to have made.
2. We might, if all concerned on both sides would
have it so, denominatlonalize our Anglo-American Epis
copate, and at the same time denominatlonalize all other
Ministries, by an all round, reordinatlon of a reciprocal
character, by which we would avoid the insuperable diffi
culty connected with a one-sided reordinatlon.
But even this, at first thought, comparatively unobjec
tionable plan for the denommatlonallzatlon or local adap
tation of our Episcopate, would be strenuously objected
to by many on both sides. The representatives of the
Sacerdotal " Catholic " School in the Churches of the
Anglican Communion could not, 1 fear, be brought to
make the requisite acknowledgment respecting the ex
change of benefits ; for their contention is, that our Ministry
alone has anything to give, and, this being the case, a re
ciprocal reordinatlon would, to our Sacerdotal brethren,
have the character of a farce.
As for the Protestants among us, and as for all those in
the other Protestant Churches, we do not favor either
a one-sided or a reciprocal reordinatlon as a plan for secur
ing the requisite Common Ministry, because of Its Sacer
dotalism, or Priestism. We wholly reject the Idea that
ordination to the Ministry bestows grace in the sense of

172 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
character, so as to make the Ministers of say, the Episco
pal Church, essentially different from the Ministers of the
Presbyterian Church, and to render any representative of
one or both of them capable of conveying this character
by means of an ordination.
3. From the position to which I have been driven,
as the result of my long and earnest study of how the req
uisite unifying, Inter-Church Episcopate may be secured,
it appears that the only way open for the denomination-
alizlng, or locally adapting of the Episcopate, and the
attainment thereby of the necessary Common Ministry, is
the mutual, level way of pure Republicanism.
If this way were adopted, each non-Episcopal Church,
following the example of some among the Methodist
Churches, would create its own Episcopate without refer
ence to any other Church.
This way would necessarily be level up to the point
where the Denominational Episcopates are created, but it
must also lead to a national, ecclesiastical council in
which all the Bishops will meet, as representatives of their
respective Churches, on exactly the same footing. In the
case of our country this council might be legally incor
porated and known as, " The United Church of the
United States," of which Church the various Denomina
tional Bishops would be the charter members, even as the
Apostles were the charter members of the Church of Jeru
salem, and in fact of the Church of the world.
The proposed incorporation of the Denominational
Bishops into a National Church would not at the begin-

THE LEVEL PLAN. 173
nlng reduce, or in any way interfere with, denominational-
ism. It would constitute a holding body to which('^''Qnte?P-
erty Intended for Interdenominational uses, suchC. 'Hos
pitals, orphanages and homes might be deeded. Moreover
it would constitute the core about which all the Churches
would federate themselves, when in the Father's own
good time He answers the prayer of His dear Son for
that visible organic unity of Christians, by which the world
is to be convinced that God so loved it as to provide for
its salvation by the sending of His only begotten Son.
As the result of a large correspondence and much con
versation with representative men, I have become fully
convinced that no plan for Church union will be adopted
that does not rest upon the bed rock of pure Republican-
Ism, or Protestantism. This rock alone can afford a per
fectly sure and level basis for the creation of the required
Common Ministry. Hence I am advocating a plan which
might properly be called, " the Square Deal Plan," for
securing this Ministry. This exactly level and square
proposition is the interpretation of the fourth article of
the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral which I am calling
my plan for Church union; and which in season and
out of season, I am trying to commend to all who will
read my writings or listen to my conversations and lectures.
I want to make it perfectly clear that, in advocating
the Inter-Church Episcopate or Level Plan for Church
Union, I attach no importance whatsoever to the so-called
" Historic " Episcopate in itself, or for that matter, to

174 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
any other official grade in the Christian ministry of any
CbCHi. The plan does indeed hinge upon a Common,
InteKvthurch Christian ministry of the Episcopal type;
but it does not involve the claim that, because of some in
herent superiority, the Episcopate must necessarily be
" Historic." When, therefore, I speak of the Episcopate as consti
tuting an indispensable instrumentality for bringing the
Churches together, 1 must, to prevent the misunderstand
ing of the Level Plan, be understood to be referring, in a
general way to the embodiment of the principles of Epis
copacy, unity and superintendence under one headship,
and not to any particular form of that embodiment.
If any one interprets me as saying that the unification
of Christendom is dependent upon the general acceptance
of the Anglican embodiment of these principles, he will
miss my whole meaning. I have no idea that any existing
Episcopate will ever become the Inter-Church Episcopate
which is the basis of the Level Plan for Church Union.
That Catholic Episcopate remains to be developed and
it is likely to be as widely different from any of the
Denominational forms, Greek, Roman, Anglican, Meth
odist, and the rest, as these are from each other.
One of my fundamental assumptions is that Episcopacy
in all forms Is but the Providential embodiment of the
eternal, basic principles of unity and superintendence under
one headship upon which federation and co-operation in
every department of the social realm is dependent. My

THE LEVEL PLAN. 175
main contention, my thesis, is that, if ever the Churches
come together it must be under some national, inter-
Church, ministerial headship embodying these principles.
If, according to my theory, the solution of the stu
pendous problem growing out of our unhappy divisions is
not found in a Providential development which will give
to the Churches a common, modernized Republican form
of the Episcopate, that problem Is unsolvable. But our
Saviour's prophecy, and the hope which has taken posses
sion of His Disciples, the manifest necessities for Christian
unity, and the whole drift towards unification in every other
department of the social realm, render it impossible that
things are to continue as they are in the religious depart
ment of that realm, where unity is supremely important.
II.
It is an essential part of the Level Plan for Church
Union that the proposed Inter-Church Episcopate upon
which it is dependent shall not be regarded as establishing
any immediate organic relationship between the Churches
which adopt the plan. A Denomination after the crea
tion of this Episcopate is, according to this plan, to be
organically as Independent of all other Churches as before.
Spiritual unity having been restored through a Common
Ministry, organic unity is to be left to Providential de
velopment. In the proposed Inter-Church national coun
cil the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church are
to be recognized on all hands as occupying exacdy the

176 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
same footing as the Bishops of the other Churches.
When, as the result of the adoption of this plan, organic
union does take place, it will not have for its center the
Protestant Episcopal or any other sister Protestant Church,
but the legally Incorporated national council of Bishops
of all the Protestant Churches. At first this council will
be unofficial, but gradually it will take on an official
character. The Level Plan for Church Union is then no scheme
for sectarian aggrandizement. It is Catholic in the truest
and broadest sense of the term. If it is carried out, the
Church of the United States will be a new organization,
as different from any of the existing Churches as they are
different one from another. But the United Church of the
United States will not be a new Church; for it will con
tain all the members of the old Churches which enter into
the confederation, and it will also contain the survival of
the fittest of all the institutions of the old Churches. In
other words the proposed national Church will bring forth
out of its treasure things both new and old.
There should be no objection to the proposed ultimate
reorganization of American Christianity into a national
Church upon the ground of the interruption of continuity.
For continuity is not broken by reorganization. If it were
there could be no such thing as continuity in the history
of organic Christianity for all the ancient Churches have
been reorganized more than once, and all live Churches,
ancient and modern, are in process of reorganization.
The Denominational Episcopate, in the case of each

THE LEVEL PLAN. 177
college of Bishops, is to be wholly independent and auton
omous, except only in its relationship to the other colleges
of Bishops in the embryonic national Church. To the
association effected by the first Denominational Episco
pates the Bishops of all other Denominations will be
added as they create Eplsc6pates, and form colleges of
Bishops. To this incorporation of Denominational Bishops would
be deeded all ecclesiastical property Intended for the use
of the Christian public. For instance, if the Christians
of a city should build a hospital, the property would be
deeded to " The United Church of the United States,"
and all Christians of that place would work through com
mittees of their respective Churches for the establishment,
equipment and development of this highly desirable philan
thropic institution.
The Inter-Church National council of Bishops would,
no doubt, as the result of their conferences, plan and carry
through the legislative bodies of the several Churches an
equitable arrangement for the division of the foreign mis
sion fields between the Denominations represented in the
council by an Episcopal college. In the course of time
there would be brought about in this way a consolidation
of Churches in rural communities and small villages in the
home country, so as to afford them better pastoral care and
more regular services.
While our divisions are kept up the Pastors of the
Churches are not able to minister satisfactorily to the peo
ple. There is a great demand for good preaching and many
of our Churches are almost empty because this demand is

178 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
not met. But how can a Clergyman who is expected to
be a preacher, pastor and Sunday School superintendent,
do the work that is necessary for the production of great
sermons, especially if he is expected to preach twice on
Sunday, conduct a Bible class, and perhaps have two or
three addresses in the course of a week? It is simply out
of the question that one so burdened with distracting rou
tine work should be able to make the most of the pulpit.
In business concerns, it would be considered absurd to
expect so much of any one person. Great businesses are
divided up into departments, with their heads and corps
of workers. Christian teaching and work Is a great busi
ness, and yet this most important of all businesses is now
conducted along lines that could not possibly succeed in
ordinary undertakings. As has often been pointed out,
among the proofs of the Divinity of Christianity is the
fact that It accomplishes so much under such a poor
system. If one is to be a great preacher, he must devote his time
to his sermons. He must be encouraged in his work by
large congregations, which will give him inspiration while
he is preparing his sermons and delivering them. He must
have comfortable surroundings, new books, and the oppor
tunities for travel and seeing something of the world, which
can only be had by those who have a comfortable living.
No man ought to be expected to preach more than one
sermon a week.
There is also a great demand for pastoral work, fre
quent house to house visiting, and attentive and comfort-

THE LEVEL PLAN. 179
ing ministrations to the sick. The average Pastor who is
obliged to do all the preaching on Sunday and make two
or three addresses at week day services, and who has the
details connected with the organization of the Parish to
look after, cannot adequately visit all the members of a
large congregation and minister to its sick.
The children of Protestants are being sadly neglected
in the matter of systematic, comprehensive instruction.
The religious part of their training is largely confined to
an hour or an hour and a half a week in Sunday School ;
and many of the Sunday Schools, as compared with
public schools, are very poor institutions. There is, there
fore, great need of a Sunday School expert connected with
every large Parish. He should be a Clergyman who has
made a special study of Sunday School work, and who is
unusually qualified to attract and hold the attention of
children, and to organize and develop a great religious
school. Not only should such a man be at the head of
every school, but he should have an adequately large corps
of efficient helpers, with whom he could have at least one
meeting every week for the purpose of preparing them
to teach effectively and carry out his system.
The concentration of Christian educational undertak
ings that would result from Church union would be a
great advantage over the present system of doing this most
Important work. Perhaps this would be more especially
true of the theological education of men for the Christian
ministry. Instead of having in each state many incom
pletely equipped, poorly supported and slimly attended

180 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
"Schools of the Prophets," we would have groups of states
combined in the support of one great, completely endowed
seminary of sacred learning, with a full corps of high
grade professors, and with ten times as many students as
are now attending any one of the sectarian seminaries of
the same territory. Moreover, the professors and stu
dents would represent all orthodox Churches; and such
a coming together would have beneficial results of great
value in many directions.
As time went on, our Denominational Churches would
gradually lose interest in themselves, and center it on the
national Church, which would Increase while they would
decrease. Thus it will be seen that the United Church of our
country would be organized on strictly Democratic or
Republican principles, so that there would be no more
danger of the repetition of the evils of Sacerdotalism in
the Church than there is danger of the repetition of the
evils of Imperialism in our government.
One of the fundamental assumptions of this plan is that
Christian unity in the twentieth century must commence
at the top and work down, as it did in the first and second
centuries. Christianity would have been sectarian from
the beginning without the unifying influence in turn of
the colleges of the Apostolate, Presbyterate and Episco
pate. And Protestant Christians, it seems to me, must
continue sectarian, unless we create an Inter-denomina
tional college of Bishops which will take the place of

THE LEVEL PLAN. 181
the successive colleges of Apostles and Presbyters and
Bishops in the early Church.
I feel certain that, when the proposed national Church
is once inaugurated, the heads of its Common Ministry,
the Denominational colleges of Bishops, in council as
sembled, will find and indicate ways by which it will be
possible to organize a mighty Inter-denomlnational conven
tion of the Protestant Churches of the United States, in
which all the Bishops and a multitude of representative
Pastors and Laymen will take part. Then will follow
an unofficial International Congress of National Churches,
and next, in comparatively quick succession an official
Ecumenical council, the one folding, one shepherding and
one united, successful effort for the conversion of the
world. The Quadrilateral and the Level Plan are alike, in
that they look to the Protestant Churches, rather than to the
Roman "Catholic" Church, for setting on foot and sus
taining a progressive and successful Church unity move
ment. Anglican " Catholics " would begin the work of
unification at the Roman end of the line, while I, follow
ing the lead of the Anglican Communion in her Quadri
lateral enactment, would begin at the Protestant end of it.
The two plans, the Quadrilateral and the Level, are
in principle the same also, in this Important respect that
they recognize the fact that the Churches can come to
gether neither on the basis of a Sacerdotal system of doc
trine, such as is held by the Greek and Roman Churches

182 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
nor upon . the Protestant, non-Sacerdotal confessions of
faith. If Christians ever come together into that spiritual and
organic unity for which the Lord prayed and upon which
He made the conquest of the world for Him to depend,
it will be upon an Institutional, not a doctrinal basis; and
the only institution which can afford the basis for such
unity is a national council of Inter-Church Bishops. If
Protestants generally were to add a national Episcopate
to their Ministries, and if Rome were to imcover her
national Episcopates by eliminating the Papacy, the
federation of all the orthodox Churches of Christendom
into great national Churches, and into one stupendous
International Communion, might easily take place before
the close of the twentieth century.
The Level Plan contemplates the confederation of all
the Protestant Churches of every country into one national
Protestant Church; and ultimately for the entrance into
this confederation by the republicanized or modernized
Roman Church. This being done we would have through
out Christendom mighty national, Catholic Churches.
These national Churches would be bound together by an
inter-communion through a great world council, or con
ference, such as now exists between the different Churches
of the Anglican Communion.
If, then, the common, Inter-Church Episcopate is the
heart of The Level Plan for Church Union, its body is
the National and International Council of Bishops.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 183

III.
Since leaving the Sacerdotal ranks, I have insisted that
ecclesiastical unity must have the rock of RepubHcanism
for its foundation. I thought I had discovered this abso
lutely requisite basis, when, in 1904, while studying the
Afro-American problem, I conceived the Idea of denom-
inatlonalizlng the Anglican Episcopate by a one-sided
ordination. But there was something about this arrange
ment with which I grew more and more dissatisfied.
The cause of my dissatisfaction was the fact that the
idea of one Church being able to give something to another
Church, say the " Historic " Episcopate, which it could
not otherwise possess, is, so far as the underlying principle
is concerned, as really Sacerdotal in character as the
belief that Gospel grace, and even salvation Itself, is in
some way inseparably connected with a Priesthood which
historically has been devoluted from the Lord Jesus and
His Apostles.
My plan for Church union has always hinged upon a
Common Inter-Church Ministry. From the first I saw
that this Ministry must be of the Episcopal type. But
for several years I supposed that it must be of the " His
toric" Episcopal type. While endeavoring to prove this
to be the case, my Investigations and reasonings gradually
forced upon me the conviction that 1 was fundamentally
wrong in this assumption, because the basic principle of
Gospel Republicanism is, that all men are essentially equal

184 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
and that the same is therefore necessarily true of all socie
ties of men, whether domestic, civil or ecclesiastical.
Having been forced to this point of view, I was grad
ually driven to another position from which I saw that
the vastly predominating constituency in nearly all the
English-speaking Protestant Churches believe that the
Ministry of their respective Churches is as good as that
of any other Church whatsoever, ancient or modern; and
that, therefore, if Church union is dependent upon a one
sided reordinatlon by which all Protestant Churches will
be given the same Ministry of the " Historic " Episcopal
type by the Anglican Churches, the doctrines of Chris
tianity and the facts of Christian history being what they
are, and human nature being what it is, hope for the
unification of Christendom must be abandoned forever.
Since things have gone so far in the direction of Re
publicanism, the opinion that the Ministry of one Church
is in any respect to the slightest degree essentially superior
to that which is either already possessed by other Churches
or may be created by them for themselves will never again
prevail. Therefore, there was nothing for me to do but
to give up the idea that the chief problem of my plan for
Church union, which problem is how to secure a Common,
Inter-Church, unifying Ministry, can be solved by a one
sided reordinatlon.
When this became a settled conviction, I took up with
the idea of the Archbishop of Melbourne, as presented by
one of the most able among my many sympathetic critics,
that there was no way by which the goal of Christian

THE LEVEL PLAN. 185
unity could be reached, except that of a reciprocal reor
dinatlon. But ultimately I reached a point where I saw
that. In principle, there really was no difference between a
one-sided reordination and a reciprocal reordlnation, for in
both cases the assumption would be that ministerial char
acter of some kind and degree is given by ordination ; and
this Is the assumption of Sacerdotalism, not of Republican-
Ism, having for Its basis tradition, not history.
The realization of the Identity of the one-sided re
ordinatlon and the reciprocal reordination methods of
securing the Common Ministry which from the beginning
was the essential feature of my plan for Church union, was
a growth which did not reach full development until I
had worked nearly through the first draft of this book;
but from the time that It began to take possession of me,
I commenced to see more and more clearly that an Inter-
Church Ministry could never be secured by a Sacerdotal
reordinatlon of any kind.
The Level Plan for Church Union as I have finally
worked it out, does not rest on either the clay of a one-sided
reordination, or on the shale of a reciprocal reordinatlon,
both of which were found to be insecure Sacerdotal foun
dations; but upon the solid rock of a purely Republican
Inter-Church National council In which the Ministry of
every orthodox Church will be represented on an exact
level. This council, according to the plan would make
provision for a representative Ordaining Committee,
through which all the Churches, without compromise of
principle, would in the course of a single generation have
the same Ministry.

186 STATEMENT OS* THB PLAN.
According to this plan as it now securely stands on the
rock of pure Gospel Republicanism, if, for example, the
Presbyterian Church desires an Episcopate like that of
the Methodist Church, her official representatives will not
ask the Methodist Church to consecrate such Bishops for
her, but she will elect and consecrate them for herself.
It Is true that when this Episcopate has been created it
will not be the Methodist Episcopate. It is equally true,
however, that the consecration of its representatives by
Methodist Bishops would not have made it a Methodist
Episcopate. Organic Methodism is non-transferable.
The Episcopate of the Methodist Church has a history.
As far as it goes, its history is just as historic as that of
the oldest Episcopate in the world. But the historicity
of the Methodist Episcopate could not by ordination be
conveyed to a newly created Presbyterian Episcopate.
The Presbyterian Episcopate would have a history begin
ning with the day of its creation ; but it would be its own
history. The quality of historicity is like the quality of
personal identity. As no two persons can have the same
identity, so no two institutions can have the same history.
Now there is no more reason for believing that the his
toricity of the Episcopate of any branch of the Anglican
Communion can be conveyed to the Episcopate of any
other Church, than that the historicity of the Methodist
Episcopate can be conveyed to the Episcopate of the
Presbyterian Church. The truth is that the Anglo-Amer
ican Church does not possess the same " Historic " Epis
copate as that of the mother Church of England. The

THE LEVEL PLAN. 187
claim that two institutions like the Episcopates of the
English and American Churches can, in any real sense,
have the same history is as fictitious as would be the claim
that the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States have the same history.
Indeed, even in the same Church, historicity cannot be
conveyed from one Bishop to another by consecration.
Each Bishop has his own Episcopal history which, under
the guidance of Divine providence, he makes for himself.
Every Bishop has a history but no Bishop ever receives
Episcopal historicity at ordination. Strictly speaking then,
there is no such institution as the " Historic " Episcopate
in a collective sense, any more than there is an historic
Presbyterate, or an historic Diaconate. Historicity, like
personality, is non-transferable.
The Historic Episcopate is not in itself, as Sacerdo
talists would have us believe, a treasure or asset of some
kind on account of which a claim to superiority can be set
up and sustained for either the institution as a whole or
for the Individual representatives of It In particular. His
toricity in a Church and its Ministry constitute no better
claim to superiority over Churches which are without it,
than does historicity in a family and its servants constitute
a basis for such a claim.
With the growth of Republicanism, utility, rather than
age, is becoming more and more the standard by which,
in all departments of the social realm, claims to superiority
are judged. It is to the discredit of an old Family, State
or Church, if it does not do more for its representatives and

188 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
the world than is done by a comparatively new institution
of the same kind; for the old should have acquired an
ability to do things which would place it above the new.
But the Interest of the Lord Jesus was in the new rather
than the old. The very word Gospel is gilded with new
ness. He came to proclaim the gospel of " the good
new," not the Gospel of " the good old." And the key
word of the good news of Christ's Gospel is " regenera
tion, " the root meaning of which is a renewal of the old.
The world's salvation depends upon its regeneration or
renewal. Old things must become new. There must be
a new heaven and a new earth. All this newness, regen
eration, reorganization, renewal, is necessary to save the
world. Thus there is no superiority in the old " Historic "
Episcopate, as such, any more than there is in the historic
heaven and earth, as such. If they may be replaced by
the new, there is no reason why the Historic Episcopate
may not give place to a new Episcopate. The fatal mis
take of Sacerdotalists Is that they attach a value to the
old that does not belong to It and is contrary to the
teaching of the Gospel. The future is with the new.
The Episcopate as an official institution has existed for a
long time, longer 1 think, than the Presbyterial or Diac
onal office. According to my theory the Episcopate was
the first development of ministerial officialism in the Chris
tian Church. There were an Episcopate, Presbyterate
and Diaconate in the New Testament Church, but they
were largely of an unofficial character.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 189
So far as the Church of Jerusalem is concerned we
know who were its first Bishops and Deacons. We also
know some of the Elders of that Church. But the Epis
copate of the Church of Jerusalem, of which we have an
account in the New Testament, was not an official insti
tution. The Apostles, the first Bishops, were not officers
but leaders. This is also true of Presbyters and Deacons.
The Presbyterate and Diaconate as official institutions
did not come into existence until after the Episcopate had
assumed a monarchial and official character, and this was
not in New Testament times.
Ignatius was the father of official Episcopacy. But
such an Episcopate was not in existence in his time. In
his celebrated epistles, Ignatius, who was martyred, prob
ably in the year 1 1 7, almost vehemently prophesied the
necessity of a Congregational Episcopacy to that unity of
the Church which was felt to be necessary to its preserva
tion and extension. But historical criticism has shown that
the Congregational Episcopate of which Ignatius prophe
sied in his epistles was not in existence any more than is
the Inter-Church Episcopate, the necessity of which to
the universal extension and full development of the Chris
tian civilization I am prophesying in this book. The
Congregational Episcopate as an official institution was not
fully developed and firmly established as such until the
time of the great Cyprian, who also died as a martyr more
than one hundred years after the time of Ignatius.
No doubt there was an embryonic semi-official Congre
gational Episcopate in many Churches at the death of Ig-

190 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
natius, but there is a vast difference between an embryonic
institution and one which is fully developed. I now hold
in my hand an acorn. It Is an embryonic oak ; but a hun
dred years hence no man will hold in his hand that mon
arch of the forest which will owe its existence to this
embryo. The Inter-Church Episcopate for which I am pleading
as earnestly and persistently as Ignatius pleaded for a
Congregational Episcopate, and as Cyprian pleaded for
an Inter-Congregational Episcopate exists in a more or
less fully developed form in every Church in Christen
dom. The Baptist Church is perhaps the largest among the
Congregational Churches, and it is probably the most in
tensely Republican of them all. But even the Baptist
Church has the Congregational Episcopate for which Ig
natius pleaded. The Baptist Church also has an institu
tion, or at least custom, resembling the Inter-Congrega
tional Episcopate which was secured in precisely the same
way as the Inter-Congregational Episcopate was secured
by Cyprian, that is, by the union of the official representa
tives of local congregations in particular sections of a coun
try into Associations. In forming such Associations, the
Baptists recognized and Indorsed not only the principle, but
also the method of the Level Plan for Church Union; for
in this way they unified the separate independent congre
gations. TTie Level Plan proposes to do essentially the
same thing for the separate, independent Christian De
nominations.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 191
The conclusion of the whole matter, then, is that if the
Inter-Church Episcopate and Common, unifying Ministry,
upon which so much is dependent, is secured in the twen
tieth century, it will be by the same method by which It
was secured in the third century, that is, through coun
cils and not through ordinations.

IV.

In the light of what has now been said, I believe that
the following statement covering three points will make
my Inter-Church Episcopate Plan for the reunion of
Christendom perfectly clear.
1 . The work of unifying Christendom must begin with
Protestantism. In interpreting the fourth article of the
Church's Quadrilateral plan, I have proceeded upon the
theory that the future of every department of civlHzation
is with Republicanism or Protestantism and not with Im
perialism or Sacerdotalism.
In the realm of religion, Protestantism stands for Re
publicanism, and Romanism for Imperialism. Therefore,
until Romanism becomes modernized by republlcaniza-
tion, it will continue to be a divisive rather than a unifying
force. Hence, those who are hoping for the unity of
Christendom through union with the Roman Church, are
doomed to disappointment. Romanism will Inevitably be
republicanized, or what is the same thing, modernized,
but not until Protestantism forces Republicanism upon it;

193 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
and this Protestantism will do as soon as it is Itself suffi
ciently unified.
The unification of Christendom, according to my plan
for Church Union, must be begun, continued, and ended
with pure, unadulterated Republicanism.
2. Having determined that the movement looking
towards the unification of Christendom, must be of a purely
Republican, Protestant character, it remains to decide
which among the Protestant Churches will or should take
the lead in this movement? It is my conviction that this
leadership naturally belongs to the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States of America, and that, if we
are wise, we may have it. I hold to this conviction for
three reasons.
( 1 ) This country is naturally the place for the be
ginning of a world-wide Republican movement, such as is
necessary for the bringing of the Churches together.
(2) The Episcopal Church is the American branch
of the Mother Church of the English-speaking race, which
race is the great republicanizing and unifying power of
the world.
(3) The Anglican Communion, of which our Prot
estant Episcopal Church is a branch, occupies the middle
ground between the extremes of Romanism and Prot
estantism, and, therefore is the most eligible mediator
between them.
It would really seem that the English-speaking people
have been raised up, in the Providence of God, for the
purpose of serving as the link which is to bind together

THE LEVEL PLAN. 193
the nations and Churches of the world. This is pre
eminently the Republican era in the history of mankind,
and this people is almost everywhere above all others, the
most conservative and efficient exponent and promoter of
Republicanism. The English-speaking people are rapidly spreading
all over the face of the earth. In the year 1800 the
world's English-speaking population was twenty millions;
in 1900, it was a hundred and twenty millions, showing
the astonishing increase of one hundred millions within a
single century. There never has been anything like
this growth in the case of any race. In the same period
the Germans, the next most rapidly growing people. In
creased from thirty to seventy-five millions, a net gain
of only forty-five millions, as against the one hundred mil
lions of the Enghsh. The French gained about thirty
millions, and the Spanish sixteen millions.
The whole movement toward Church unity has for its
goal the evangelization of the world. I believe that God
has raised up the English-speaking people to take the
leadership in this work. Of all the money spent in foreign
mission fields, eighty-five per cent is given by this people.
But, all the gold and silver In Christendom would
not evangelize the one thousand millions who have
not heard the Gospel as long as the Church remains di
vided; and undoubtedly, for the reasons just stated, we
may look to English-speaking Christians more hopefully
than to any others for thc^t federation of the Churches

194 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
which is necessary for the christianization of the heathen
nations. As It seems to many, both In and out of the Anglican
Communion, of all the English-speaking Churches, the
Anglican are providentially in the best position to take
the leadership in the Church unity movement. The
Anglican Churches constitute the Mother Church of the
English-speaking race, and, other things being at all equal,
the children will, in the long run, gather back around
the Mother, rather than one of themselves.
The English-speaking adherents of the several Churches
are in round numbers as follows : English-speaking Meth
odists, all branches, 1 8,000,000 ; English-speaking Roman
Catholics, 15,000,000; English-speaking Presbyterians
all branches, 12,000,000; English-speaking Baptists, all
branches, 9,000,000. But the Anglican Churches which
are so closely bound together as to practically form one
veist co-operative, international federation have 29,000-
000 of English-speaking adherents.
Therefore all the Providential indications seem to point
to the Churches of the Anglican Communion as the natural
leaders, in their respective countries, of the great movement
which has for its goal that bringing together of the
Churches which is necessary to the universal and complete
evangelization of the world.
We conclude then, that the Church unity movement,
must begin with Protestantism, and that the beginning
should rightly be made by overtures on the part of the
Protestant Episcopal Church. This obligation rests upon

THE LEVEL PLAN. 195
her, partly because of the fact that having no connection
with the State, she is freer than other national branches
of the Anglican Communion to take the initiative.
3. How is the Protestant Episcopal Church to make
the beginning and so do her duty in becoming the leader
in the great Church unity movement? In the fourth ar
ticle of her Quadrilateral overture to her sister and daugh
ter Protestant Churches, which was made in the hope of
bringing about a unity of federation between them and
herself, we have an official answer to this question. I
quote the article : " The Historic Episcopate locally
adapted in the methods of its administration to the vary
ing needs of the nations and peoples called of God into
the unity of His Church."
But how shall we thus adapt the Historic Episcopate?
My answer to this is the Level Plan for Church Union,
and briefly stated it is simply this:
( 1 ) Persuade the Churches which are without a gen
eral Episcopal form of government to create a Denom
inational Episcopate of some kind for themselves, as the
Methodists and a few others have done.
(2) Unite the Historic Denominational Episcopates
which the ancient Churches have inherited, with the un-
historic Denominational Episcopates which the modem
Churches have created, through an Incorporated, national
coimcil of Denominational Bishops, in which all the Epis
copates, ancient and modern, will be represented on a
perfecdy level and equal footing.
In this way we may secure to the Protestant Churches

196 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
the necessary Common Inter-Church Ministry, which,
under present conditions, is the only possible Institutional
basis for the federation of the Churches.
Note well that the union of the old and the new Epis
copates is, according to this Level Plan, provided for,
not by reordination or even by the exchange of the right
hand of fellowship, but by the joining of all the Bishops
of both the ancient and modern Churches, whether dioc
esan like the Anglican, or non-diocesan like the Metho
dist, on exactly the same footing in the national incor
porated council of Denominational Bishops.
(3) Incorporate this National Council of Bishops
into an unofficial association, or embryonic Church to be
known in this country as the United Church of the United
States, and in other countries by analogous names.
Until that day of unity, for which the Lord prayed and
for which His disciples of every name are praying, dawns
each separate Denomination may, in accordance wdth the
Level Plan, retain its distinctive name and organization.
There would be no organic connection between the sev
eral Protestant Churches except an embryonic, national or
ganism at the top, created by the unofficial association on
an entirely equal footing of the Episcopal representatives
of the several completely autonomous. Denominational
Churches. This embryonic unofficial association of autonomous.
Denominational Episcopates would no doubt, with time,
take on more and more of an official character; but the
whole trend of things in every department of the social

THE LEVEL PLAN. 197
realm in this age, and especially in this country, should be
a sufficient guarantee that whatever legislative and ad
ministrative rights were ultimately accorded to the pro
posed national Inter-Church Council of Denominational
Bishops would be administered along the lines of extreme
Republican principles, and that all developments which
would come about as time went on would be along those
lines. The proposed Denominational Episcopate would, at the
beginning be almost exactly analogous to the Congrega
tional Episcopate which commenced to take form in the
sub-apostolic period and developed so rapidly that within
two hundred years from the Ascension it prevailed almost
if not quite universally. The trend of that Congrega
tional, Republican Episcopate was, owing to the age in
which it arose, and the government under which it flour
ished naturally and almost Irresistibly in the direction of
Sacerdotal Imperialism. The trend of the Denomina
tional Episcopate which I am proposing would, with equal
inevitableness, be toward non-Sacerdotal Republicanism.
In view of the underlying principles by which the social
realm in all its departments Is governed and of the con
sequent history of officialism, 1 am quite ready to admit
that the logical result of the creation of the Common In
ter-Church Ministry in accordance with the provision of
the Level Plan for Church Union would he, after a long
period of development, a highly concentrated government
under one headship, in outward form closely resembling
the Roman Church with its Papal head.

198 STATEMENT OP THE PLAN.
But there is no prospect of such an issue which affords
any secure basis for an objection to the plan. For it is
the heart, not the head and body of Romanism that is
wrong. The carrying out of the Level Plan for Church
Union would convert the old imperialistic heart, and then,
this conversion having taken place, we should have in the
Roman Church the best conceivable body and head for
the new Catholicism.
The difficulty with Romanism is not the unity of its
headship, but the Imperialism thereof. Of course, if
Christendom is to be unified, it must have an official head,
and 1 am strongly inclined to think that the ultimate form
of that headship must bear some outward, general resem
blance to that of the Roman Church. In any event, it
must be a headship which is nearly, if not quite, as much
a center of unity to Christendom at large, as the Papacy is
to the Roman Communion.
If then the Papacy itself were a Republican Institution,
and if it were Identified with the dominant Christian peo
ple of the world, it might with much show of reason, be
held up as the logical center of the ecclesiastical unity
of which the Klndgom of Christ stands in such great need.
But the future of every department of civilization, domes
tic, civil and religious, is with Republicanism; and the
English-speaking peoples are the great exponents and
champions of Republicanism. Therefore until this spirit
of Imperialism gives place to that of Republicanism, the
Papacy and its hierarchy vsall be useless or worse as an
instrumentality for the unification of Christendom.

the; level plan. 199

V.

The creation without reordinatlon of an Interdenomi
national Episcopate for each country through a national
council to which the representatives of the Inherited Epis
copates of the ancient Churches and those of the newly
created Episcopates of the modern Churches would be
admitted without distinction between them, has an immense
advantage as a unifying measure over the proposal to de
nominatlonalize the Anglo-American Episcopate, by a
one-sided or even a reciprocal reordinatlon; for it would
attain the same ends and yet do away with the embarrass
ing necessity for making a claim of any kind In favor of
the Episcopate of the Anglican Churches, which would
be sure to be called in question by the other Protestant
Churches and so hinder, rather than promote, unity.
If, however, the older Episcopate, in accordance with
the claim of Sacerdotalists, has a conveyable gift which the
newer Episcopates have not, the Chicago-Lambeth Plan,
as interpreted and applied by me, provides for the exten
sion of it to all, not by a reordination of the Bishops already
consecrated, but through the ordination of future Bishops
by an ordaining committee or commission in which would
be represented both the old and the new Episcopates.
Such an arrangement ought to be acceptable to our
sister and daughter Protestant Churches, for it would be
perfecdy level and square. It should also be satisfactory
to the "Catholic" school of the Anglican Communion; for

200 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
it is in exact alignment with primitive precedent, and if
adopted, it would give the Anglican strand of the Apos
tolic Succession, if there is any such strand, to the whole
of American Protestantism, and to the Protestantism of
every English-speaking country, within a single generation.
From the point of view of " Catholics " this should appear
to be a most happy consummation, for it would, on their
theory, with the least possible delay, secure valid Sacra
ments to millions upon millions who are now suffering, if
not indeed perishing, for the lack of them.
When the relationship is consummated which the Level
Plan for bringing the Churches together contemplates, the
reciprocal benefits that will accrue, as the result of the
union of the old with the new Churches, will be analogous
to the reciprocal benefits of the marriage of an old with a
new family. Such unions have often proven to be of in
estimable benefit to both families, increasing their influ
ence, and issuing in a new family of much greater vitality
and power than either of the families concerned in the
union could otherwise have attained.
A coming together of the Churches on the basis of the
marriage relationship would be Christian unity of the Re
publican type, and there Is no other basis upon which the
unification of Christendom can take place. Unity on the
Sacerdotal or Priestly basis, that is, upon a theory which
makes the ancient Churches the givers exclusively and the
modern Churches receivers only, would be no more pos
sible or satisfactory than would be the union through mar
riage of an ancient and modern family upon such a basis.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 201
I hold to the conviction that the Common Ministry, upon
which the unification of Christendom is dependent, must
be of the Episcopal type. But I do not hold that it must
or can be exclusively of the "Historic" Episcopate type.
I regard the Episcopate as being Divine and indispen
sable, not because of its historicity, but because it is the
embodiment of the essential principles of unity and super
intendence under one headship, without which embodi
ment, under one form and name or another, no great
social organization of any kind can exist.
As the very constitution of the social realm proves the
Divineness of the principles of Episcopacy, there is no
necessity for showing that any particular embodiment of
the Episcopal principles such as the Greek, Roman or
Anglican is a devolution from the Lord Jesus through His
first Apostles. And not only so, but in view of the fact
that all other embodiments of these principles in the do
mestic, civil, ecclesiastical and commercial departments of
the social realm, of which embodiments there are many,
are known to be due to evolutionary developments, it
weakens, if not indeed belittles, any particular ecclesiastical
embodiment of them to claim for it a devolutionary origin.
Sacerdotalists insist that the Lord Jesus was a King and
a Priest in the Imperial and Sacerdotal sense of the terms,
and that His Kingship and Priesthood were representa
tively conferred upon His first Apostles and their succes
sors. So far they are in practical alignment, but they are
not agreed as to the successors of the Apostles who in
our own time represent the Divine King and Priest-

202 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
The Greek Church, which is very largely Sacerdotal
in character, teaches that the successors of the first Apos
tles are the Bishops of the orthodox Churches who have
handed down the faith once delivered to the Saints and
bear a continuous unbroken witness to it. They question
the orthodoxy of the Roman and Anglican Churches.
The Roman Church which is wholly Sacerdotal in char
acter, teaches that the successors of the first Apostles are
they who as Popes of Rome have succeeded to the place
of primacy held by St. Peter. In reality this doctrine is
that none of the Apostles, except St. Peter, had successors.
The Sacerdotal party in the Churches of the Anglican
Communion teaches that the successors of the first Apos
tles are all Bishops who have been ordained as such
by Bishops who can trace their succession back in an un
broken series of ordinations to any among the original
Apostles. The Sacerdotal party in the several Presbyterian
Churches say that the successors of the first Apostles are
the Elders or Presbyters who can trace their ordination
by an unbroken series of ordinations to the Elders-Bishops,
that is, to the Presbyters who existed before the rise of the
monarchial Episcopate.
That all Sacerdotalists, Greek, Roman, Anghcan and
Presbyterian, are wrong in their whole conception of a
delegated representative Priesthood, is manifest from the
fact that their primary assumption respecting the Kingship
and Priesthood of Christ will not stand in the light of His
own teaching. There is no truth in the whole realm of

THE LEVEL PLAN. 203
Gospel truths that can be more confidently affirmed than
that, as an essential part of His teaching, Jesus proclaimed
the right of every sinful man and woman to go direct to
God for pardon, peace and salvation.
How evidently this is the case will appear from the
Lord's Prayer. On the Sacerdotal hypothesis the prayer
should have been so framed that it would have been of
fered in the Name and for the sake of Jesus, so that His
mediating Priesthood would have been recognized; but
it was not constructed on that principle. This prayer,
which might properly be regarded as the summary of the
teaching which Jesus gave to His disciples, most evidently
proceeds upon the assumption that man's redemption and
salvation are dependent upon his own will and power to
draw near to God, so that In securing reconciliation with
God, every man is his own priest. The same Gospel of
pure. Republican Individualism is taught also by the Lord
in the greatest of His parables, the Prodigal Son, and in
His Sermon on the Mount.
Since Sacerdotalists do not agree as to the successors
of the Apostles through whom we must go to God for
Gospel salvation, and as their doctrine concerning the ne
cessity for a mediatorial Priesthood is utterly irreconcilable
with the teaching of the Lord, we cannot accept their rep
resentations concerning the devolutionary origin and au
thority of the Christian ministry.
And let me in the name of common sense ask, why
should we fly in the face of modern intelligence and ac
count for the Christian ministry on a theory which takes

204 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
It out of the realm of the normal and diminishes rather
than Increases its chances for being held in high estima
tion as a Divine and indispensable institution ?
Educated men, almost without exception, consider that
the doctrine of evolution is established and that it cor
rectly accounts for the existence of the whole of creation in
both the spiritual and physical realms. " Under the laws
of evolution, " says an interesting writer of a book en-
tided. The Scientific Achievements of the Nineteenth
Century, "have been brought the stellar universe and
solar and planetary systems, no less than the species of
plant and animal creation. " He might have gone on, with
equal truthfulness, to say that the existence of the Family,
the State and the Church are Hkewlse held by practically
all scientists and philosophers to be due to evolutionary
processes. To account for the Christian Episcopate upon the ra
tional theory of evolution is not, as Sacerdotalists repre
sent, to degrade it as a human rather than Divine institu
tion. No one could sing Cowper's majestic hymn on the
witness of " The spangled Heavens to their great Orig
inal, " with more heart than an intelligent evolutionist who
believes that the universe as we know it, is a Providential
working out of eternal laws.
Nor can any one take a higher view of Episcopacy than
that which enables him to say that it is for organic Chris
tianity a Providential embodiment of the underlying indis
pensable principles of unity and superintendence under
one headship, some embodiment of which is necessary to

THE LEVEL PLAN. 205
the existence of every form of social organism which con
tributes anything towards the existence and development
of civilization. If we are to have a common Inter-Church Episcopate,
each Denomination must create its own Episcopate, and
it must be given an Inter-Church character by union on
an equal footing with all other Episcopates in a National
Inter-Church Council. Nor Is this all. The fact must be
recognized that there are different kinds of Episcopates.
There is the primitive, Ignatian Episcopate which the
Congregational, Presbyterian, Baptist and many other
Churches have. In fact every Pastor settled over a con
gregation of Christians is a representative of this Episco
pate. Before the time of Cyprian, the middle of the
third century, there was no other Episcopate in any
Church. There is the diocesan Episcopate of the Anglican
Churches. Among these Churches the Protestant Epis
copal Church stands somewhat alone, because it is with
out the archieplscopal system in addition to the diocesan.
There is the more complicated diocesan, and patriarchal
Episcopate, with Intermediate Episcopal grades, such as
the Greek Churches possess.
There is the oligarchal Episcopal system with the Pre
siding Elder Bishops of the Methodist Church.
There is the monarchial Papal Episcopal system of
the Roman Church with its simple diocesan and compli
cated archieplscopal systems.

206 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
All these Episcopal systems and many others besides,
such as the Moravian, Lutheran and Swedish are in ex
istence. All Churches which make provision for a settled
Pastorate, and for domestic and foreign missionary Secre
taryships have Episcopates of some kind. The Level Plan
for Church Union recognizes this to be the case and pro
vides, or may provide, for the representation of every
Church in the proposed national incorporated council of
Bishops. The attainment of an uniform Episcopate must be a
development brought about through the national Episcopal
council, even as the attainment of an uniform national
Church must be a development through that council. All
that can be hoped for in the way of uniformity at the be
ginning is, that the Churches represented in the council
will have their candidates for the Ministry ordained by a
representative committee of the council so that, after the
first generation, the confederated Churches will have a
Common Ministry, so far as it may be had by ordination.
Such a Ministry could be created in this way without
the sacrifice of any principle, and it would mark a long
step towards the unification of Christendom. If a Church
should, on principle, or even strong preference, refuse to
create a Denominational Episcopate to which the right to
ordain candidates to the Ministry is restricted, and yet
should desire to be represented in the national council, it
might be allowed to come in with the understanding that
its candidates for the Ministry will be ordained by a com-

THE LEVEL PLAN. 207
mittee of its Congregational Bishops the members of which
have been ordained by the ordaining committee of the
central council or embryonic National Church.

VI.
There can, I think, be no doubt that there never would
have been such an institution as the Catholic Church, which
flourished from the middle of the second to the middle
of the sixteenth century, except for the Provincial coun
cils of Congregational Bishops, the first of which appears
to have been organized by Cyprian, in which the Bishops
whom the Congregational Churches had respectively
elected, and ordained for themselves, were equally repre
sented, without reordination, or even the exchange of the
right hand of fellowship. And such an institution as a
national. Catholic Church, cannot, I think, be brought into
existence under present conditions, without national coun
cils of Denominational Bishops, in which the Episcopates,
of whatever kind, of all the Denominations, whether an
cient or modem, congregational, diocesan or papal, mon
archial or oligarchal, will be represented on the same level.
It is an open secret that the negotiations looking towards
the coming together of the Presbyterian and Episcopal
Churches, in which at one time so much of hope was cen
tered by both sides, were broken off by the committee of
the Presbyterian Church, because the committee of our
Church would not proceed with them upon the assumption
of the essential equality of the two Ministries.

208 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
This happened about twenty years ago. Since then the
study of the origin and authority of the Christian ministry
in the light of historical criticism has advanced apace.
The position that had been taken by Bishop Lightfoot and
Professors Hatch and Harnack, as to the non-Sacerdotal,
non-Episcopal, and even non-official, character of the
New Testament Ministry has been so completely fortified
by Professors Ramsay, Wernle, Lindsay, McGlffert, Al
len, Gwatkln, Moeller, Sabatier, Briggs, and others too
numerous for mention, that it probably would now be im
possible to get a representative committee of the Protestant
Episcopal Church that would have the assurance to ap
proach one of our sister or daughter Protestant Churches
except on the level.
One reason why any attempt to secure a common Inter-
Church Ministry on the basis of Sacerdotalism, or Priest
ism must fall in this country, is found in the fact that such a
system of government is contrary to the spirit and genius
of the American government and institutions. The ver
dict of history is that in every nation the form of Church
government is largely influenced and determined by the
form of the national government.
Now Priestism in the government of a Church is what
Imperialism is in the government of a State. And as in
the government of states. Imperialism is everywhere being
supplanted by Republicanism it follows, as if by some
reslsdess law regulating the relationship of civil and relig
ious governments, that Priestism must give way and there-

THE LEVEL PLAN. 209
fore cannot afford a basis for the requisite Common, In
ter-Church, unifying Ministry.
That which is necessary in the Episcopate is unity and
superintendence under one headship. These principles
may be embodied quite as efficiently in a modern head
ship of a Republican as in an ancient headship of an Im
perial character. The essential, basic feature of the
Level Plan for Church Union is a Common Min
istry of the Episcopal type, and it really makes no dif
ference whether the necessary Episcopate is historic or
un-historic, but as both are in existence some way must
be found for uniting them.
The twofold problem of the Inter-Church Episcopate
Plan is how to persuade the non-Episcopal Churches to
follow the example of some among • the Methodist
Churches, and a few others, in creating Denominational
Episcopates for themselves, and how to unite the Episco
pates of the ancient and modern Churches. The adoption
of my suggestion as to how to make the fourth article of
the Quadrilateral effective would solve this problem.
The Sacerdotal or Priestly contention, that the Epis
copate is an institution which has come down through cer
tain Churches from the Lord Jesus and His Apostles, so
that other Churches can have it only from them, has be
come as unreal and impracticable as would be the analo
gous idea that, if a nation with an oligarchal form of
government wants a kingship or a presidency it must obtain
it from a nation having a king or president. The only way

210 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
for a nation to change the headship of its government is
by a revolution or an election.
It goes without saying that Episcopacy v^dll never be
established in the Protestant, non-Episcopal Churches as
the result of a revolutionary usurpation. There is then
only one way in which a non-Episcopal Church can be
come an Episcopal Church, that is, by the election and
consecration of Bishops for itself, upon its own authority.
And the only way by which the ancient and modern Epis
copates can be united is the level way, that leads to na
tional and international ecclesiastical councils in which all
the Churches will be represented by their Bishops on a
perfectly level plane.
This would be true even if an Inter-Church Episcopate
were to be created by the ordination of Denominational
Bishops for the non-Episcopal Churches by the representa
tives of the Anglo-American Episcopate ; because, in that
case, our Bishops would have to rest their authority to act
ultimately upon the authority of the Church for which the
service was performed.
The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral plan, of which
mine is only a reasonable interpretation, in the light of an
cient history, and in the light of modern conditions, must
fall in line with Republicanism or else be abandoned. In
this age, and especially In this country, any plan for Church
union which has not Republicanism for its basis is doomed
to failure.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 311
VII.
The Inter-Church Episcopate interpretation of the
Quadrilateral Plan for the national and international con
federation of the Churches of Christendom, is in exact
alignment with the ancient plans for bringing about eccle
siastical unity which issued In the Catholic Church, as it
existed from the middle of the second century to the
middle of the sixteenth century. Of these plans there were
three: (I) the Ignatian; (2) the Cyprianlc, and (3)
the Constantinian.
But for the conception and inauguration of these plans
there could have been, from the organic point of view, no
Christian Catholicity ; and Indeed Christianity as we know
it, whether in its doctrinal or institutional form, could not
have been developed and perpetuated. These plans were
alike in that they had Episcopacy for their basis, and in
this essential feature my version of the Quadrilateral Plan
is exactly the same, not in principle only but also in fact.
The unifying Episcopate, of which Ignatius was the
father, was Congregational. The unifying Episcopate
which I want the Protestant Churches to create is De
nominational. The Level Plan or rather the Quadrilateral
Plan as interpreted by me, and the Ignatian Plan are there
fore the same in principle.
Nor are the plans as different in form as might be sup
posed at first sight ; for, after all, a Denominational Church
is but a large congregation. In respect to their separate-
ness the Denominational Churches of the twentieth cen-

212 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
tury in the United States, are on essentially the same basis
as were the Congregational Churches of the first and sec
ond centuries in Syria, Asia Minor and elsewhere.
The object which Ignatius had In view was the preser
vation of unity in the local Church. His motto may be
said to have been, " One Church for each city." There
were in his time two or more congregations in the larger
cities, and a general tendency to form separate associa
tions known as household Churches. These In the case of
every place were to be confederated Into one local Church
to be known, for example, as the Church of Antioch or
the Church of Corinth.
The thought of confederating the Churches of Antioch
with those of Corinth did not cross the mind of Ignatius.
The idea of confederating the local city Churches of each
Province in the Roman Empire was the next great step in
the way towards organic catholicity, and the credit of its
conception belongs to Cyprian, not to Ignatius. The basic
principles upon which both acted were, however, the
same, that of confederation under the Congregational
Episcopate. Through a city Episcopate, Ignatius sought to bring to
gether the household Churches or associations into city
Catholic Churches. Through an Inter-urban Episcopate,
Cyprian sought to create Provincial Catholic Churches.
Through an Inter-denomlnational Episcopate the Level
Plan would create national Catholic Churches, first of
the Protestant Churches, then of the Protestant and Ro
man Churches.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 213
The plans of Ignatius and Cyprian for the accom
plishment of their respective purposes were also alike in
that both provided councils for the Episcopates. It is
true that the councillors which Ignatius associated with
the local city Bishops were unofficial, or at least only
semi-official. Presbyters; and that the councillors which
Cyprian associated with these Bishops were their fellow
official Bishops. But the plans were in principle identically
the same, for both sought to bring together the Churches of
Christendom through Bishops and councils, not through
one or the other alone. Therefore in principle these
plans for Church union were exactly the same, and the
Level Plan is Identical with them.
Note that the plan of Ignatius was concerned with the
confederation of the Christian associations of places into
what are known as city Churches, one Church for each
city. The plan of Cyprian was concerned with a con
federation of city Churches into Provincial Churches, one
Church for each province. Both plans were based upon
the Congregational Episcopate. The Diocesan Episco
pate, which in the fourth article of the Chicago-Lam
beth Quadrilateral is called the Historic Episcopate, is
indeed an outgrowth of the Provincial Episcopate, but it is
not related to it as closely as the Provincial Episcopate was
to the Congregational Episcopate. The Provincial Episco
pate was composed of Congregational Bishops associated
in an unofficial conference to which all the Bishops, or as
we would say. Rectors, or Pastors, were admitted. The
" Historic " Episcopate was, and is in fact, a quite dif-

314 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
ferent Institution from this primitive Congregational Epis
copate. Constantine reorganized Christendom by supplanting
the Congregational Episcopate with a Diocesan or " His
toric" Episcopate and by adding to the Provincial Coun
cils an official General Council with legislative powers,
such as the Provincial Council was slow in acquiring.
It appears then, that the phrase, the "Historic" Episco
pate is simply a high sounding nomenclature for the Dioce
san Episcopate. It is a modern American, sectarian, termi
nology which is very little used by accurate writers, be
cause it is so apt to give mistaken impressions as to the an
tiquity of the Institution to which it refers. As a matter
of historical fact the diocesan Episcopate is not the " His
toric " Episcopate in the sense of being prior to other Epis
copates. In that sense the Congregational Episcopate is
the " Historic " Episcopate. In the Episcopal Church
the Rectors rather than Diocesans are entitled to the dis
tinction of recognition as representatives of the " His
toric," that is, the primitive Congregational Episcopate.
Ignatius created the City Church, Cyprian the Provin
cial Church, Constantine the National Church. Later the
Pope created an International Church.
Thus as the need for them arose, there have been at
least three or four reorganizations of ecclesiastical Chris
tianity ; therefore no reason can be based on principle why
the Churches should not, if necessity required, be reor
ganized again in accordance with the Level Plan.
A reorganization of Christianity is absolutely necessary.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 315
and the only way given under Heaven in which it can be
accomplished is the exactly level way of Republicanism
which will lead to a Common, Inter-Church Episcopate,
the Denominational representatives of which will consti
tute National Councils in which the Bishops of the old
Episcopates and those of the new will stand on precisely
the same footing.
Up to the time of Cyprian, and in the case of some
Churches for nearly a century afterwards, each Congre
gational Church or local Presbytery elected its own
Bishop, and appointed or consecrated him without appar
ently any reference to any other Congregation or local
Presbytery. During all this period, after the development of the
Episcopate, when the Bishop of a congregation died, the
people elected his successor and its own local representa
tives ordained him. Note well, that the congregation did
not call in the Bishops of other congregations for the
ordination. This purely congregational and entirely non-Sacerdotal
arrangement continued to be the general rule until the insti
tution of the Cyprlanic Provincial Councils of Bishops.
In the course of time these councils took over the right
to ordain the Congregational Bishops by a committee
appointed for the purpose ; then, when the people of a con
gregation whose Bishop had died made an election, the
Bishop-elect was no longer consecrated by the local Pres
byters, but by neighboring Congregational Bishops.
There is, from the historical point of view, no reason

216 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
why, at the beginning of the proposed reorganization for
the purpose of unification, there should not be several kinds
of Episcopates, such as the Papal International Episcopate
which the Roman Church has, the Monarchial Diocesan
Episcopate which the Anglo-American Church has, the
Oligarchal Denominational Episcopate which the Metho
dists have and the local Congregational Episcopate, a
primitive form which is still common to all Churches. Such
Episcopates would have common principles for their basis
and they would not differ in form much more widely than
do the Greek, Roman and Anglican Episcopates as at
present existing.
Barring the comparatively mild infusion of Sacerdotal
ism which Cyprian introduced with his plan, the princi
ples involved in the Level Plan are the same as those of
the plans of Ignatius and Cyprian. It is doubtful whether
any plan for the federation of the Congregational
Churches, which was without the Sacerdotal and Imperial
features of Cyprian's plan would have succeeded in the
third century. That was an age of Imperialism. It is
absolutely certain that no plan for the federation of the
Protestant, Denominational Churches which is not purely
Republican will succeed in the twentieth century. This
is an age of Republicanism.
If it be asked, why the necessity of attaching so much
importance to the precedents established by Ignatius and
Cyprian, I reply that if their precedents could not serve
the purposes of unification in the twentieth century that
they did in the first and third centuries, there would be no

THE LEVEL PLAN. 817
reason why we should not proceed without reference to
them. But there is hardly any use of solving problems
which have already been solved, especially if we have
good reason for believing that the solutions were worked
out along the basic principles of everlasting and universal
application. We have every reason for believing that we can bring
our Denominational Churches together into National
Catholic Churches, and Into International co-operative fed
erations of such Churches, by the same way which was
taken by Ignatius in federating the several household
Churches into one Catholic Church for each city ; and by
Cyprian in confederating the city Churches into Provin
cial Churches; and by Constantine, in federating the Pro
vincial Churches into the great Catholic Church of the
Roman Empire.
Of course in so far as our conditions are different we
must establish new precedents. In any such necessary
departure we would have the justification of Cyprian's ex
ample; for he did not slavishly follow Ignatius. Not to
mention other variations, there was the important one
involving the difference between Republican and Sacer
dotal principles. Ignatius' plan for confederating the
household Churches into city Churches was based upon
Republican principles. This was because he lived so
near the time of the great Republican and also because
the cities, paradoxical as it may seem, were really Republi
can wheels within an Imperial wheel.
Ignatius would not, if he could, and could not if he

318 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
would, have established Imperial City Churches. Exactly
the reverse was true of Cyprian. Not only was the govern
ment of the Roman provinces imperialistic in his time, but
the pure Republicanism of the original household and
city Churches had become considerably changed by the
large accessions from the Sacerdotal Jewish and Heathen
Churches, which overtaxed the digesting capacity of or
ganic Gospel Christianity. Under such conditions it was
impossible that Cyprian, the great organizer, should pro
vide for the larger unity, which the exigencies of his time
demanded, by a purely Republican plan, such as that
which had been formulated and carried out under the
leadership of Ignatius a century before.
The more the subject is studied the more clearly it
will appear that all plans for the unification of the
Churches must follow the lines of the government of the
country and the governmental drift of the age for which
they are intended.
The Sacerdotal conception of organic religion is funda
mentally wrong. It presupposes the freedom of religion
to organize and govern itself without any reference to the
State. But Churches live and move and have their being
in States. As all the leading States are Republican, and
as Churches and States must have essentially the same
government, it follows- that whatever else the Church of
the Future may be. It will be Republican in character.
Therefore, no program for Church union which does not
proceed by the level way of pure Republicanism can ever
be carried out.

THE LEVEL PLAN.

319

i

i'ti

T

M

DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
The outer circle, over which the flag floats, represents the limits of the
American Republic, the natural stage for every world-wide Republican move
ment, such as is contemplated in the Level Plan for the unification of Christen
dom. The inner circle, in which the chief emblem of Christianity stands,
represents a proposed incorporated Inter-Church council of Denominational
Bishops which may be known, in this country, as the United Church of the
United States. The spaces into which the large circle is unevenly divided
represent our many orthodox, national, Denominational Churches, great and
small, ancient and modern, Protestant and Sacerdotal. In the course of time
all these Churches are to be represented in the small circle on an entirely
equal footing by a delegation of Bishops. This Inter-Denominational council
will be unofficial in character. It will, however, arrange for the ordination of
all the candidates for the Ministries of the Churches which it represents, by a
committee which shall be equally representative of the three types of Christian
Churches, Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational. This Plan is purely
Republican and entirely on the level. The carrying out of it would, within a
single generation, give to the national, Denominational Churches represented in
the council, the Common Ministry upon which the unification of Christendom
and the evangelization of the world are dependent. Yet the adoption of the
plan would involve no sacrifice of principle on the part of any Church or party
or individual.

330 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
VIII.
I have thought of another method of carrying out the
Level Plan for Church Union which would Involve even
less of officialism and more of Republicanism to begin
with than the one which I am recommending In this book,
as being in my judgment, upon the whole, the best
method which 1 am at this time capable of formulating.
Speaking especially of the United States, in briefest out
line, the alternative plan is this:
I. Let the ministerial associations of each city and
town of the country form a Church confederation organi
zation and elect one of their number a chairman, superin
tendent or Bishop for the work of the organization. Pro
vision should be made for the holding of this Episcopal
office by the same person as permanently as possible.
This organization would be closely analogous to that
proposed by the Apostolic father, St. Ignatius, for securing
the unity of the city Churches. The Ministers of the
several Churches represented in this urban organization
would, in their unofficial, corporate capacity, correspond,
so far as the principle Involved is concerned, almost exactly
to the college of Elders which existed in the places where
Christianity had been planted in the time of Ignatius;
and the chairmen, presidents or Bishops elected by them
would, so far as the work of the confederation is con
cerned, correspond to that of the Ignatian Bishops.
2. Let these urban Bishops meet, say, once a year in
unofficial, state councils for the purpose of talking over

THE LEVEL PLAN. 331
the great business of Christians, the extension and develop
ment of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus, so far as it can
be furthered by confederated efforts. These state councils
would elect permanent chairmen, presidents or Bishops.
This organization in its work and aims would find a very
close analogy in the provincial councils of the urban
Bishops organized by Cyprian.
3. Let these state Bishops with chosen representatives,
say four, of the city and town Bishops meet trlennlally in
a great national council; and let the first work of this
council be the making of provision for securing to all the
Churches a Common Inter-Church Ministry.
To this end let the council form a great Ordaining
Committee consisting of the Bishop of each State. In
order that, to the satisfaction of both Sacerdotalists and
Republicans, the representatives of this committee may be
qualified for their work of ordaining, let them, as a
concession to the weaker brethren, be ordained by a chosen
committee representing every Church connected with the
federation. The Roman, Greek and Anglican Churches
should be duly invited to send a representative to act upon
this committee.
4. Finally, let it be arranged as far as possible,
through the efforts of national and state conventions, to
have these reordained, state chairmen, presidents or
Bishops, all should be free to call them what they please,
take part in every future ordination to the Ministry of each
Church in their respective States.
This plan, like the one to which I have given preference.

222 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
would, also within a generation, secure to all the
Churches connected with the movement looking towards
organic confederation, the Common Ministry upon which
is dependent the unification of Christendom into national
Catholic Churches and an International communion of
such Churches.
The national councils, provided for in the alternative
plan, would have their historical analogy in the ecumenical
councils of the Roman Empire organized by the Emperor
Constantine. The state chairmanships, superintendencies
or Bishoprics would correspond to the diocesan Epis
copate which also owed its existence to Providential de
velopments under the influence of Constantine.
Perhaps this alternative plan would have this advantage
over the one which I especially recommend to the con
sideration of the Churches, that it would stand a better
chance of securing adoption by the national Inter-Church
conference on Federation already in existence.
IX.
I must not fail to make it clear that the Level Plan
for Church Union does not necessarily stand or fall
with either of these methods for carrying it out. On the
contrary, the plan is not inseparably bound up with any
method for its Inauguration and operation. It stands or
falls with the principle upon which it is based, not with
any method for rendering it efficient. In fact, the method
may vary in different countries and ages, but the plan re
mains the same for all nations and generations.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 333
I reiterate, the Level Plan for Church Union stands or
falls with the principle involved, and as it rests squarely on
the principle of equality or of Republicanism, which is
one of the most distinctive or fundamental principles of
the Gospel, it will stand unshaken against the attacks of
the promoters of any plan for the unification of Christen
dom which is based upon Sacerdotalism.
If, then, at any time, I have so far forgotten myself as
to write as if I thought that the Level Plan for Church
Union, as worked out in this book, constitutes the only
way by which the bringing of the Churches together may
be accomplished, I wish to be understood as having refer
ence to the principle of ecclesiastical equality which is
the basic assumption of the plan, rather than to the
method of embodying that principle which I am advocat
ing. I am fully conscious that, so far as methods are
concerned, the fact of Providential development must be
reckoned with in every such vast undertaking as the con
federation of the Churches.
Neither I nor anybody else can draw in accurate detail
the ultimate form of the ecclesiastical ship that is to carry
the precious cargo of Gospel salvation to all the world.
No finite hand can do this, any more than the hand of
Robert Fulton could have drawn in detail a modern trans
atlantic liner while sitting in the cabin of the little steam
boat by which he first navigated the Hudson River.
But as Fulton could have affirmed with confidence that
any and every steam craft for water navigation, whether
great or small, in all ages to come, must embody the prin-

324 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
clples which were first materialized in the Claremont, so I
humbly claim that no plan for bringing the Churches to
gether will ever be materialized which is not an embodi
ment of the principle of entire equality involved in the
Level Plan for Church Union.
Therefore, even though it may be shown that my
method of carrying out the plan is utterly impracticable,
it will not at all follow as a necessary conclusion, that
the plan itself is at bottom wrong and worthless.
Objectors to the Level Plan for Church Union should,
in case they reject the principle upon which it is based,
show its unsoundness in an argument which I cannot
answer. In all humility and friendliness I respectfully
challenge such a showing ; and while I know that the time
for boasting is when the armour is being taken off rather
than when it is being put on, yet I venture to say that
such an argument will never be forthcoming. If objectors
to this plan accept the principle, but reject the method
for giving it practical, efficient embodiment, it becomes their
privilege to discover and point out some better way.
The Level Plan for Church Union will stand forever,
because it is based upon the eternal Gospel principle of
Republican equality. The method of carrying out the
plan should command respectful attention, until a more
practicable one has been formulated. X.
The Churches are being kept apart by their Ministers.
If only the shepherds would get together the sheep who

THE LEVEL PLAN. 235
know their voices would follow into one fold without the
least hesitancy or delay.
The great obstacle in the way of the Ministers coming
together is the claim of some among them that they alone
possess a regular ministerial commission. But the truth re
specting this whole vexed question of ministerial regularity
is that, in our day, there is no Catholic, regular Ministry.
We have nothing but sectarian ministerial regularity.
Therefore the Ministry of one orthodox Church, must be
regarded as being as regular as that of any Church, ancient
or modern; and hence, also every Ministry in its own
Church must be acknowledged to be more regular than any
other would be in that Church. The Level Plan for
Church Union would in the course of one generation give
to Christendom a Catholic ministerial regularity.
Under present conditions the official acts of any sec
tarian Minister, in administering Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, are regular only in so far as they are confined to
the membership of the sect of which he is officially a minis
terial representative. If, to take an extreme example. Pope
Pius X were to come to Little Rock, and administer the
Holy Communion to the congregation of the Winfield Me
morial Methodist Episcopal Church, it would not, so far
as the membership of that parochial branch of the Metho
dist sect is concerned, be a regular or valid administration
of the Sacrament, but so far as the Church Universal is
concerned, it would be as valid and as regular as any
Eucharist that he has administered in St. Peter's Church
at Rome.

336 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
This would be quite as true of a celebration of the
Mass by the Pastor of the Winfield Memorial Methodist
Episcopal Church in St. Peter's, Rome. So far as the
membership of that parochial branch of the Roman sect
is concerned, it would not be a regular or a valid admin
istration of the Sacrament, but so far as the real Cathohc
Church is concerned, the Church which is constituted of
all those who accept the Lord Jesus Christ as the God-
Man Saviour of the world. It would be as regular and
valid as any Eucharist that he has administered in the
Winfield Memorial Church at Little Rock, or as regular
and valid as any Eucharist that any human being has
ever administered anywhere.
In speaking of validity In this connection, I have ref
erence only to the effect of the Holy Communion in se
curing and preserving outward organic unity among the
followers of Christ. So far as the spiritual benefits are
concemed the validity of a Sacrament is not to any de
gree dependent upon the ordination of the person who
celebrates it, but upon the prayers of the members of
the congregation of believers. The prayers of the cele
brant who stands at the Altar or Holy Table, whether
Roman Priest or Methodist Minister, may contribute
no more to this validity than is contributed by the prayer
of the Sexton who humbly kneels at the door.
It was, I believe, Athanasius, the illustrious Saint, de
fender of the faith and Bishop, who in childhood was
baptized by a little playfellow and never rebaptized,
because the Doctors of his day held the act to be valid.

THE LEVEL PLAN. 327
But in those days, the early part of the fourth century,
the invisible Church of Christ, which has always been, is
now, and ever shall be one, and the visible Church of
Christ which always has been and probably always will
be to some extent divided, coincided much more nearly
than they do now.
One of my critics of the Sacerdotal way of thinking
says: " My view of the lay Priesthood is that it is like
the government of the United States. President Taft
is nothing more than a representative officer for the
whole people, and his acts are the people's acts; but how
silly would an individual citizen be if he attempted to act
on the idea that he was a lay president. Nor do I accept
the theory, that because the custom of the Church has neg
atively acquiesced in admitting the validity of lay Baptism,
therefore a layman has the same right and authority to
celebrate the Holy Eucharist. "
Ever since reading the clear cut statements just quoted,
I have been wondering whether the learned and influential
writer of them, a Bishop, would not admit that, if we
were to have a revolution in the United States which
would place some " silly Individual citizen " usurper in the
Presidential chair and enable him to hold it for say
four years, his official acts would be valid?
Were not the official acts of Jefferson Davis while Pres
ident of the Confederacy valid, and would not his official
acts have been valid on a wider scale if the issue of the
Civil War had enabled him to supplant Abraham Lin
coln in the Presidency of the United States? Were not

338 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
the official acts of Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon Bona
parte valid? Or, to put the same question in another
form, was Cromwell or Bonaparte in the period of his
triumph, a " silly individual citizen " whose official acts
were without validity, null and void? Now if the acts
of this Dictator and Emperor, and if the acts of the
President of the Confederacy were valid, why are not the
acts of the alleged usurping ecclesiastical officers valid?
The celebration of the Holy Communion was, in the
primitive Church, regularly reserved for the President,
Bishop-Presbyter, because he was the center of the
Church's unity. Ordinary Presbyters were, at times, al
lowed to celebrate that Sacrament, not, however, on ac
count of any inherent right to do so connected with their
Priesthood. Bishop Lightfoot has shown and even Dr.
Moberly is forced to admit that the early Church, the
Church of the first and second centuries, apparently had
no conception of a Christian priesthood, official or other
wise, the chief function of which was to celebrate the
Sacrament of the Eucharist.
According to the testimony of Tertullian, who flour
ished at the beginning of the third century, even as late
as his day the privilege of presiding or officiating at a cel
ebration of the Holy Communion was sometimes accorded
to a layman. This privilege seems at first to have been
regarded very much like that of presiding at the celebra
tion of the Passover, being one which might be enjoyed by
the head of the family or by otherwise the most honorable
person present. Hampered as we are by our preposses-

THE LEVEL PLAN. 339
sions in favor of later and more seemly customs, it is diffi
cult for us to realize what a comparatively simple cere
monial the celebration of the Lord's Supper was in apos
tolic and sub-apostolic times. In those formative periods,
it partook much more of the character of a social meal,
which we might imagine as following a Methodist prayer-
meeting, than it did the formal and stately service with
which we are happily so familiar.
Bishop Hall In his notable pamphlet, " The Apostolic
Ministry, " page 40, seems to admit that Baptism must
be regarded as a greater Sacrament than the Eucharist,
and on the Sacerdotal theory It certainly is. For the one
gives life while the other only sustains It. Now, If a lay
man may baptize validly in extreme sickness, why may he
not also as validly administer the Eucharist in such cases?
When the only doctrine of the Church, and of the Min
istry, and of the Sacraments that can endure the light of
modern scholarship is followed down to its logical con
clusion, it will appear that every Christian family might
constitute a Church of which the father, by reason of
his participation in the lay Priesthood, and by reason of
his being the head of a family, would be the High Priest.
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with thou
sands of others, were, so to speak, family Priests. This
Priesthood still might, and potentially does, exist. We
have a linguistic memorial of it in the word " Elder " or
" Presbyter, " and in the title " Pope " or " Papa. "
A distinguished critic, who is not nearly as much of a
Sacerdotalist as his language would naturally imply, writes

330 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
me that he would consider that he was committing a
sacrilegious act in receiving the Holy Communion at the
hands of one who had not received Episcopal ordination
by a Bishop of the Apostolic Succession. With my view
of the Church and Ministry, I am relieved from the em
barrassing necessity of feeling and saying such a really
outrageous thing. For I can easily imagine circumstances
under which I could receive the Holy Communion at the
hands of a Presbyterian Elder with much benefit, and
certainly without feeling that I was doing wrong; but I
would not consider, nor would 1 have any one regard my
act as identifying myself with the Presbyterian Church.
I would think of my communion as with the Church uni
versal; or as It is spoken of in the Creed, "the Communion
of Saints. "
The Incarnation of God in the Person of the God-
Man, Jesus Christ, is the fundamental doctrine of Chris
tianity and therefore the Gospel in its last analysis is ( 1 )
the revelation of the communication of a new infusion of
Divine life of which every member of the human race is a
partaker and (2) the revelation of the potentialities of
that life In the case of every soul who wills to make the
most of it.
The Divine potentialities which are inherent in the case
of every human soul are compared in our sacred Scriptures
not to a little keg of wine jealously presided over by a
Sacerdotal and intermediatory Priesthood, established by
the Lord to take His place, but to a great and exhaustless
spring sending out through the whole world a stream of

THE LEVEL PLAN. 331
life sustaining water, cool and sparkhng, to which all may
go directly and help themselves without necessary refer
ence to any mortal man whomsoever. "And he shewed
me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceed
ing out of die throne of God and of the Lamb. And the
Spirit and the bride say. Come. And let him that heareth
say. Come. And let him that is athirst. Come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."
The Lord Jesus stood for Republicanism. His oppo
nents, who put Him to death, stood for Imperialism. The
concensus of conviction is that He was right and that
the High Priest, Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees were
wrong. Beneath all variations In forms of social organization,
whether domestic, civil, ecclesiastical or commercial, there
is the inherent principle, not, as the Sacerdotalists would
have us think, of Imperial coercion, but of Republican un
official leadership, without which no government of a
constructive character could survive. The great keynote
of evolution, "the survival of the fittest," operates un
erringly In all forms of government. Only such Republi
can governments, or leaderships, survive as are of maxi
mum service to the common welfare of humanity.
From the showing that has now been made. In this and
other connections. It appears that 1 have a scientific as well
as a moral right, to make an appeal to my Church for the
adoption of a purely Republican Ministry as the basis of
efforts looking towards the unification of Christendom.
1 point to the God-Man, to His Gospel, to the revelation

333 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
of the sciences, to the Divinely constituted order of every
department of the social realm, and to the Providential
facts of current history in support of this appeal.
The problem involved in bringing the Churches together
is after all the ancient problem of how to unite the new and
the old, in periods of transition from a lower to a higher
level of civilization. And it would be well for Sacerdo
talists to remember, that in all such unions the new has
dictated the terms to the old, not the old to the new. In
the proposed marriage of the Churches, let those of us
who represent the ancient Churches bear in mind the fact
that the modern Churches are the bride which must be
won, not by blunt dictation, but by tactful wooing.

III.
THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. I.
THE OBJECTION has been made to the Level
Plan for Church Union that it has primary refer
ence to union with the modern rather than with
the ancient Churches.
But the same objection could be raised against the
Quadrilateral for It Is an overture to the Protestant
Churches. Evidently it must have appeared to the minds

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 233
of the promoters of the Quadrilateral movement that the
modern non-Episcopal Churches, rather than the ancient
Episcopal Churches could be looked to with greater hope
fulness at the beginning of any endeavor to secure ecclesias
tical union, for otherwise the appeal would have been
made to either the Roman or Greek Church. The Level
Plan does not exclude our ancient sister Churches, but
we begin where there seems to be the greater promise of
success, hoping that the end will be the organic unity of
Christians into national and racial Churches and into the
unity of international Interracial communion of such
Churches. The only exclusion possible will be self-exclu
sion. Under present conditions the federation of the Anglican
national Churches with the Roman international Church
is an impossibility. Even if it were not, the casting in of
our lot with that Church would be to no such great pur
pose as identification with our sister Reformation Churches,
and with our own Denominational children and grand
children. If communion could be consummated between
these Churches and those of the Anglican Communion the
advantage to civilization would be inestimable.
The great Roman Church may be likened to a gigantic
iceberg, majestic, compact, unyielding. But it is drifting.
And its drift is southward into milder waters and warmer
airs. The Roman Church does not yield until it is com
pelled to do so. American institutions. Republican gov
ernment and common schools have changed and are
changing her. Modernism will not down. The Roman

234 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
Church is a different institution in this country to-day from
what she is in many parts of Europe. But she is chang
ing there and everywhere. How long could this ecclesias
tical iceberg survive if exposed to the constant and increas
ing heat radiated by an united and aggressive Protestant
ism? Our union with the Greek or Roman Church before
its republlcanlzation would set civilization backward
rather than forward.
If it seemed to me that there were the least prospect
of the triumph of the unreformed Greek or Roman
Churches, my faith in the future of Christianity would
collapse, and I would sink down into a pessimistic scep
ticism which would not permit me to see a ray of light for
the future of civilization. But, thank God, the signs of
the times, as I see and interpret them, enable me to believe
that Romanism will be republicanized. I can, however,
see no hope of such a happy event, until Protestantism has
been unified.
Therefore, any step which our Anglo-American Church
may take in an effort to make progress towards the goal
of unity, either Romeward, or Greekward, before she has
gone as far as possible Protestantward, is in the wrong
direction. It is not only that the coming together of the
Mother Church of England with her sister Churches of
Europe, and her daughter and grand-daughter Churches
at home and throughout the English-speaking world, would
result in Infinitely more good than would union with the
Roman and Greek Churches; but it is as evidently true

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 235
that, only in this way, can there be any hope of arriving
at unity with the latter Churches.
Paradoxical then, as the statement may seem, the so-
called " Catholic " Churches, Roman, Greek, and An
glican, will never come together until the Greek and
Roman Churches have been protestantized or republican
ized, that is, modernized.
The English-speaking Protestant Churches for the most
part came out of the Anglican Churches. Naturally there
fore, the first step towards union Is to remedy the disrup
tions for which we are partly, perhaps largely, or even
chiefly, responsible.
Again, the social relations of Anglican Protestants,
throughout the world are with Denominational Protes
tants, rather than with Romanists. Our people visit
their Churches and their people visit our Churches.
Anglicans feel much nearer to Protestants than to Roman
ists. If an Episcopalian settles In a place where there Is
no Episcopal Church, but where there are both a Protes
tant and a Roman Church he will, except in very rare
cases, identify himself with the Protestant and not with
the Roman Church.
Investigation has shown that, in this country, ten Protes
tants come into the Episcopal Church for every Romanist.
Whatever our " Catholics " may think about this, it is
simply a matter of fact that Anglicans generally regard
themselves as Protestants, and they have the best of his
torical warrant for so doing. So far as this country is
concerned, our official name, " The Protestant Episcopal

236 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
Church in the United States of America " justifies this
opinion. If the question, "in which direction shall we
seek for union, with Romanism, or with Protestantism? "
were submitted to a vote of our people, the overwhelming
suffrage would be for Protestantism.
Yes, my Anglican " Catholic " brother, whether you
like it or not, you are in a Church which is unquestionably
Protestant in principle, doctrine, custom and sentiment.
Moreover, the future of Christianity is with Protestantism ;
and, this being the case, it would be nothing less than
disastrous to all the many and great interests concemed, if
your program which provides for an alliance with the
Roman and Greek rather than with the Protestant
Churches could be carried out.
It is a constant and increasing occasion of wonderment
to me, that Anglican " Catholics, " do not see the utter
impossibility of the Roman program for Church unity.
The United States and the twentieth century would
afford a strange stage and time for the production of such
a scene. In order to find a suitable environment for the
carrying out of this program in any part of Protestant
Christendom, it would be necessary to go to some Euro
pean country and even there to turn back the hand that
marks the progress on the dial of civilization at least
four hundred years.
The Church which accomplished the conversion of the
Roman Empire was successful in its mighty and momen
tous endeavor, very largely, if not indeed chiefly, because
it occupied an antagonistic position in relation to Sacerdo-

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 337
tallsm and Imperialism which was essentially the same as
that which Protestantism has been occupying since the
Reformation. The history of Christianity justifies. Indeed,
it necessitates, the conclusion that zeal and success in
missionary undertakings are inseparably bound up with
Protestantism, and that the abnormal phase of Christianity
which has been erroneously stamped " Catholic, " when
left without the Protestant example is soon sapped of ex
panding fife by formalism and corruption.
It is difficult for one who has not gone into the subject
quite fully, to realize how Intensely Protestant Christianity
was from its beginning down to the development of Sacer
dotalism in doctrine, and of Imperialism In government.
Monasticism was a mighty and persistent protest of this
character and it was the missionary force from the rise
of Sacerdotal and Imperial ecclesiasticism, until its cor
ruption and absorption by Sacerdotalism.
Then came the Reformation period and with it the rise
of the Protestant Churches and the great missionary move
ment which they have set on foot and sustained; a move
ment which in our own day is gathering to itself an en
thusiasm and a power which give promise of almost limit
less results in both the extension and development of the
Christian civilization.
That Protestantism must take the leadership in efforts
looking towards the unification of Christendom seems as
I read the signs of the times, next to a self-evident proposi
tion. To me it seems equally certain that the first step in
the way to unity is to be by the creation of a com-

238 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
mon Protestant Ministry; and that the Level Plan for
Church Union suggests a practicable, if not the only way,
by which such a Ministry may be secured.

IL

A Protestant Episcopalian "Catholic" friend objects:
" your plan for Church union makes no distinction be
tween the Catholic and Protestant bodies of Christians or
between the Episcopal and non-Episcopal Ministries. "
I reply, if in my Plan for Church Union any such dis
tinction had been made I could not consistently have de
nominated it the Level Plan. But any plan for the unifica
tion of Christendom which cannot be given this title, or its
equivalent, would under present conditions be worthless.
The Churches will never come together on any except
level ground. This fact is the known quantity in the great
and difficult problem of Church union.
My " Catholic " critic would have been better pleased
if 1 had made the distinction, which has grown so common
among Anglicans, and which is so objectionable to other
Protestants, of calling the ancient organizations. Churches,
and the modem organizations. Sects ; and, if I had spoken
of the Episcopal Church as "The American Catholic
Church." The truth of the matter is, that, so far as the United
States is concerned, we have no national Church, no or
ganization of Christians that can properly be called, in

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 239
an exclusive or inclusive sense, "the" Church; and this
is true of all Christian countries. All our Christian bodies
are in reality sects. Moreover no one of them, to use a
common but expressive phrase, stands " a ghost of a
chance" of ever becoming, on present lines, "the" Church
of this country, "The American Catholic Church."
The Church of the United States Is a thing of the
future. It must be developed by a gradual reorganization
under the headship of a Common, Inter-Denominational
Ministry. I am unable to get rid of the opinion that our
future, national Church will have more features in com-
m-on with the Protestant Episcopal Church than with
any other Church, but I am no longer so deluded as to
entertain the hope that our Church is destined to absorb
the other Churches and so give us the United Church of
the United States. And I am now glad of that for
which I was at one time sorry, that the Protestant Episco
pal Church, in the promulgation of the Quadrilateral over
ture to her sister and daughter Protestant Churches, has
officially repudiated such a hope.
Romanists resent references to their Church as a sect,
or even as the " Roman " Church. They constantly dis
tinguish their Church from other bodies of Christians by
the distinctive title "Catholic. " They do all they can
in every way, to pre-empt the use of this title to themselves.
Greek and Anglican Christians alike, dispute with them
the right to the exclusive use of the term. In countries
where these, respectively, have the historical precedence in
canonical jurisdiction and racial preponderance in num-

240 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
bers, Greeks or Anglicans, claim to be " the " Church
having exclusive right to allegiance.
Greeks, Romans and Anglicans speak of one another
as sects. Their separate existence, rivalries and lack of
intercommunion, would make Christendom sadly sectarian,
even if the modern Protestant Churches were not in exist
ence. I, myself, believe that, as a rule, in every country, one
Christian sect is possessed of superior claims to the al
legiance of the representatives of the race of which it is
historically the Mother Church.
I maintain that, under present sectarian conditions, the
Protestant Episcopal Church is that sect in this country.
But I have long since abandoned the idea that the Anglo-
American Church is the Church for Americans in the
sense of being the only true Church among all our national
Churches, having as her exclusive possession a tide to
recognition as " The American Catholic Church."
It is true that in the Preface to the Ordination Services
in our Book of Common Prayer there is the expHcit dec
laration, " No man shall be taken or accounted to be a
lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in this Church or suffered
to execute any of the said functions, except he be called,
tried, examined and admitted thereto, according to the form
hereafter following or hath had Episcopal consecration or
ordination." But as the venerable and learned Bishop of
Albany is reported to have said at the ordination of the
Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of Virginia :
" We do not presume to define the methods, or the au-

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 241
thorlty of sending, in other Churches ; or to refuse to count
as lawful Ministries, in other religious bodies, those who
have not been Episcopally ordained."
It is time for those of our critic's way of thinking to
recognize the fact that the invidious distinction between the
Anglican and other Protestant Ministries upon which this
criticism of The Level Plan for Church Union is based,
and by which the proposition to change the name, " The
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of
America," to "The American Catholic Church" is jus
tified, will not stand in the light of historical criticism, or
in the face of Gospel and modern Republicanism. The
making of such a distinction is at once unscientific, un-
American, un-Angllcan and un-Christian. All Churches
and Ministries are alike sectarian and therefore the
Ministries now established, in the several Churches, are,
in each case, the regular Ministries for those Churches
respectively. III.
Another Sacerdotal critic asks : " If the doctrine of the
Apostolic Succession, in the Catholic, tactual sense of the
phrase, is abandoned, how can the continuity of the Church
be maintained? "
Historical continuity, whether in Church or State, does
not really depend upon an uninterrupted succession of any
particular type of ministerial officers, or for that matter,
upon any such officers.

242 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
The Patriarchs had no successors; yet the people of
Israel have had a continuous history, through more than
three thousand years, from the time of Joseph and his
brethren, to the present day.
There are few if any among the European peoples,
which now have the same dynasty of kings that reigned
five hundred years ago; yet nearly all of them have a
national history covering twice or thrice, that stretch of
time. The Colonial Governors, who once flourished in that
part of the North American continent, which is the scene
of the government of our great Republic, have no suc
cessors. Yet the states, which originally had such govern
ors, have had a ^continuous history from the time of their
first permanent white settlement to the present day.
The first of the Anglo-American Bishops was conse
crated in 1 786, only one hundred and twenty-four years
ago. But the Episcopal Church is reckoned as having had
a continuous existence, in the United States, ever since the
landing of the Jamestown Colony, in 1 607, and, accord
ingly, at our last General Convention, which met in Rich
mond in 1907, we celebrated the tri-centennial of the
founding of this Church. Such facts prove that it is the
continuous life of the people, and not the uninterrupted
succession of their ministerial officers which determines
the question of historical continuity.
The contention, that this continuity is dependent upon
the London Episcopate, the representatives of which were
the Bishops of the Colonies until 1 786 cannot be sustained.

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 243
The American Church was officially organized and it
elected its first Bishops without any reference to that
Episcopate. Our Church is not the Church of England in the United
States, any more than our people are the people of
England. Doubtless there Is both a relationship, and continuity,
between the Churches of the two countries, as there is
between the peoples. Whatever these may be they do not
partake of the character of a religious or civil organism.
The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States
is no more a continuation of the Church of England, in
the sense of historic continuity, than the government of the
United States is a continuation of the English govern
ment, in that sense.
What is true of these Churches is equally true of their
Bishops. The Anglican and the Anglo-American Epis
copates are so widely differentiated and wholly distinct in
stitutions that it is impossible to make them the basis of his
toric continuity.
The truth is that there is no Church in existence that
has, by reason of its Episcopate, a connection with the
Churches of which we read in the New Testament and
sub-apostolic literatures. Christianity has indeed had a con
tinuous history from the New Testament times until now;
but its continuity is due to the men and women who In suc
cessive ages have accepted Jesus Christ as their Divine
Lord and Saviour ; not to Ministers or to Sacraments, not
even to the Bible itself. When we get to the bottom of this

244 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
question of continuity which is a source of so much concern
to our " Catholic " brethren, we find that it is faith in
and submission to Christ. Wherever this exists in any
soul there is the seed of the Church, and the guarantee
of continuity, both as to the past and future.
The Inter-Church Episcopate Plan for Church Union
proceeds upon the basic assumption of Republican Protes
tantism, which is that there is no essential difference be
tween Christian churches or between Christian ministries.
In dealing with the status of the non-Episcopal
Churches, it should be remembered that an irregular insti
tution may exist so long, and flourish so greatly, as to en
title it to recognition as regular. The older and greater
among the Churches, with Presbyterian, or Congregational
Ministries, such as, for instance, the Lutheran Church
of Germany, or the Presbyterian Church of Scotland,
could base a very strong claim to regularity, upon the
ground of long life and great usefulness. This is scarcely,
if at all, less true of the Congregational, Methodist, Bap
tist, and others among the older and larger Protestant
Churches in the United States.
Schism in the Church is what revolution is in the State.
All intelligent and rational people concede the ecclesias
tical Reformation or Revolution of the sixteenth century.
to which the modern Protestant Churches owe their exist
ence, to have been one of the greatest and most far reach
ing blessings that is recorded in any chapter of the whole
immense volume that contains the unabridged history of
mankind.

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 345
If the advance guard, in the upward way that leads
to the higher planes and mountain peaks of Christian civ
ilization, had unhappily supposed that the Religion and
Church of Christ are Inseparably connected with a regular
Ministry, of which the " Historic " Episcopate Is the basis
there could have been no sixteenth century Reformation
except on a comparatively small scale. In that case the
highly developed and wonderful twentieth century civili
zation, with all Its glorious outlook, would have been an
utter impossibility.

IV.

A frequent objection to the unification of Christendom
on the basis of the Level Plan is that, at the beginning,
there would be overlapplngs of Episcopal jurisdictions.
Upon Anglican principles this objection will not stand,
for the Anglican Communion Is responsible for many over-
lappings of Episcopal jurisdictions in all parts of the
world. This objection is based upon a long established idea that
the jurisdiction of a Bishop is necessarily geographical;
so that it is not permissible for two or more Dioceses to
cover the same ground. As a matter of fact the theory
upon which this idea is based is not fully realized in any
Qountry, and it is utterly Impracticable in the United States.

246 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
In this country, Roman and Anglican Dioceses overlap
everywhere, and the jurisdictions of their Bishops, not
withstanding the pretentious, and exclusive claims of their
titles, are limited by souls, not by geographical boundary
lines. Take for example the state of Arkansas. It contains
two conterranean, completely overlapping Dioceses, one of
the Roman, the other of the Anglican Communion. The
Rt. Rev. Dr. Morris is not the Bishop of the territory
covered by the Roman Diocese of Little Rock. His
pastoral care and authority are confined to the adherents
of the Roman Catholic Church in Arkansas ; and I am not
the Bishop of the same territory covered by the Diocese
of Arkansas, but only of the members of the Protestant
Episcopal Church. 1 am not the Bishop of Arkansas'
Romanists; and he is not the Bishop of Arkansas' Epis
copalians; and neither of us is the Bishop of the Pres
byterians, Methodists, Baptists or of any among all the
Christians who belong to the many other Churches repre
sented in Arkansas.
Bishop Morris probably claims that, whether the Chris
tian people of Arkansas know it or not, he is the rightful
Bishop of them all; and while 1 was a "Catholic" I
sometimes made a similar claim on behalf of myself. But
I have come to see that there is no practical reality in such
pretentions, whether made by him or by me. They are
founded upon the sands of fictitious idealism, and of sec
tarian vanity.
If, as " Catholics " hold, the Aposdes were Bishops,

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 347
there was a great deal of overlapping of Episcopal juris
dictions in the New Testament times. Even the Roman
Church boasts of having had two Apostles as its founders.
In the issue of The Churchman of August 1 4th, 1 909,
there are two letters from the then recently deceased
father Tyrell, who was one of the leaders In the momentous
propaganda of Republicanism which is going on in the
Roman Communion, and which is technically known as
the " Modernist Movement. " One of these letters con
tains the following paragraph which, coming from such a
source, should be Interesting reading to those who object to
the Level Plan for Church Union on what they suppose to
be "Catholic" principles:
" The law of territorial jurisdiction was made for a
united Christendom. For a divided Christendom It is
an absurdity. When principles issue in midsummer mad
ness, it Is time to criticize and revise them. Are Anglicans
in France to set aside the Divine respect of communion in
deference to an absolute ecclesiastical law? Could It ever
have been the intention of the law-giver to Interfere with
a higher law? The only hope of reunion is a firm dis
regard of that which Is merely positive and disciplinary,
when it interferes with what is Divine and fundamental,
a determination to distinguish gnats from camels.
" What authority has an ecumenical law beyond that of
registering the universal practice or convention? And
when that universality is broken up and Is no longer one
government recognized by all, cannot each government
make its own convention? The mere fact that Roman

348 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
arrogance refuses to recognize you or the Greeks or the
old Catholics as part of the ecumenicity, proves that the
ecumenicity to which you appeal is not a govemment rec
ognized by all Christendom. It is a government in retro
spect, in prospect; but it does not exist. The Greeks do
not respect the territories of the Romans, nor conversely.
It is mere fetish-worship to let such legality stand in the
way of the very possibility of ecumenical law. '

V.

It is objected by Anglican " Catholics " that the carry
ing out of the Level Plan for Church Union would Involve
the reorganization of Christianity.
Reorganization Is a necessity of life. If the law of
gravitation is the centripetal force which makes the or
ganism of the universe a possibility, the law of reorgani
zation is the centrifugal force which makes life and devel
opment possibilities. But for the law of reorganization,
the world and all that therein is, would quickly turn to
dust and ashes. Death is a cessation of the reorganizing
process. Animal bodies are said to be so completely
reorganized within the comparatively short period of seven
years that at its end they do not contain one atom of the
matter which they had at its beginning. There is a close
analogy between the animal body and the institutions of
man. St. Paul called attention to this analogy for the

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 349
purpose of illustrating the necessity and nature of the or
ganic unity which should exist in the co-operative re
lationship between Christians.
In these days of the general acceptance of the evolution
ary hypothesis as the explanation of all completed or
ganisms. It need hardly be said that, if ever, in answer
to our Lord's prayer and In fulfillment of His prophecy,
we have a Catholic Church, It will be the result of a
reorganizing development. The Level Plan for Church
Union provides through an Inter-Church Ministry and
National Councils for the beginning of a development
which would reorganize Christendom giving to it first a
united Protestant Church and ultimately, through the
union of Protestantism and modernized Romanism, an
united Catholic Church.
In the period Intervening between the crystallization of
unofficial mlnlsteriallsm Into official minlsterlalism, which
crystallization was, properly speaking, the birth of the or
ganic Christianity, which is known In history as the Catho
lic Church, there were several more or less complete re
organizations of the Church:
1 . The Church was reorganized when the Republican
congregational Episcopate gave place to the Imperial
monarchial Episcopate.
2. The Church was reorganized when the parochial
Episcopate gave place to the diocesan Episcopate.
3. The Church was reorganized when the diocesan
became subject to the metropolitan Episcopate.
4. The Church in western Christendom was reorgan-

250 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
ized when the metropolitan Episcopate became subject
to the Papacy.
5. The Church, of the West, was reorganized when
the Emperor Constantine practically became the Pope by
assuming the headship of the Church.
6. The Western Church was radically reorganized
when the Pope practically became the Emperor of the
State. 7. The Western Church was reorganized, at the
Reformation, when the Pope ceased to be the Bishop of
Bishops and King of Kings.
8. The Roman Church was reorganized when the
doctrine of Papal Infallibility became a fundamental ar
ticle of her faith and the triumph of the Society of Jesus
was completed; for then that Church really gave place
to the Society.
A similar showing, to a less extent, could be made In
the case of the Greek and Anglican Churches. Confining
ourselves to the Anglican Church, she was reorganized:
(1) by the planting of the Roman mission; (2) by the
merging of the Heptarchy into the EngHsh nation, and
(3) by the Reformation.
In view of this showing, what objection, that will stand,
can be raised against the proposition to reorganize the
Christianity of the United States by bringing the Churches
together, on the basis of a Common Interdenominational
Ministry of the Episcopal type ? No new principle would
be involved In such a reorganization. The proposed De
nominational Episcopate would be in principle the same

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 251
as the Congregational Episcopate, which was the first crys
tallization of the unofficial Ministry into the official Minis
try; and the proposed incorporation of this Episcopate into
an embryonic national Church, " The American Catholic
Church," would Involve the principle which underlies the
diocesan, provincial and national ecclesiastical systems.
Dean Freemantle, in his splendid Bampton Lectures,
" The World, the Subject of Redemption," confirms the
representation which I am here making in the following
words :
" The more we study the history of the early Christian
communities, the more clearly these two things stand out;
first, that their organization Is adapted to their needs with
entire freedom. . . It is sufficient to note that the
Episcopate, like the other offices, was due, not to any
formal appointment which it would be impious to alter, but
to providential necessity; and that a similar necessity has
constantly changed its- form. Thus necessity and the Spirit
of Christ, that is of sound judgment, have throughout
been guides in the organization of the Church which is
not bound to any one type, but has power to adapt its
Institutions to the needs of mankind and its own position
in the world."
The evolutionary hypothesis requires us to suppose ( 1 )
that as the Churches of the present came out of the Church
of the past, so the Church of the future will come out of
the Churches of the present; and (2) that the character
of the Church of the future is to be conjectured from the
character of the religious movements of the present. These

352 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
reasonable suppositions and many facts and signs of the
times indicate that the Church of the future will preserve
the Episcopate of the past and present, while it will take in
the liberty of the Denominational Churches and the world
wide aim of the Roman Cliuich.
It Is indeed true that the future can never reproduce the
past; but on the other hand it Is equally true that the
future cannot be entirely different from the past. The
past reorganized constitutes the present and the present
reorganized will constitute the future.
My plan for Church union is strictly scientific for it
proceeds upon the evolutionary hypothesis that the Church
of the future will exist as the result of the reorgani
zation of the Church of the present.
Neither Papal nor Protestant sectarianism has under
present, or will have under future conditions, any useful
function to perform in the ecclesiastical department of
the social organism. The law of evolution Is doing its
work of readjusting and developing, and when this law
has finished with them, it will be found that Papallsm has
been republicanized and that Protestantism has been uni
versalized, and that the functions of both have been carried
over into a new, evolved, national, ecclesiastical organism
which will make it possible for Christianity to live and
fulfill its mission under modern conditions.
Anybody who does not shut his eyes to the light of
the facts of history must see that at the present time Ro
manism has exhausted its tremendous resources in an effort
to give to the world organic unity of the Imperial type;

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 253
and that Denominationalism has exhausted itself in an
effort to give to the world spiritual unity of the Repub
lican type.
I am fully persuaded and I cheerfully admit that both
Romanism and Denominationalism, in their respective ages
and fields, have served Providential purposes of the great
est importance to the furtherance of Christianity and civil
ization. But when can Romanism give us more of her or
ganic unity than she did in the Dark Ages ; and when can
Denominationalism give us more of spiritual unity than
it did in the Reformation period? The force of both
Romanism and Denominationalism has manifestly abated.
They have performed their destined purposes. Their work,
which in both cases was no doubt, in the Providence of
God, of great magnitude and importance, is done. The
world now needs and in God's own good time will have,
the unity which is a combination of the unities of Roman
ism and Denominationalism. The combining of these uni
ties involves some reorganization of Christendom, such as
is provided for in the Level Plan for Church Union.
According to a contention of the experts among scien
tific, historical critics, the vision of St. Paul and St. Peter,
and probably even of Jesus Himself, was widened by
their missionary experience, so that they were more Catho
lic at the end of their respective ministries than they were
at the beginning.
If this contention of the critics will stand, and there is
every reason to believe that it will, it proves that the very
idea of a Christian church, which should be a separate and

254 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
distinct institution from the Jewish church was an evolu
tion and that, therefore, the Sacerdotal system of doctrine
concerning the Christian church, ministry and sacraments,
which accounts for them and their importance upon the
theory of a devolution that would prevent the reorganiza
tion which I am proposing, cannot be true.
Now, If the Christian church with her ministerial and
sacramental institutions were so many developments, they
were such because they were felt to be necessary by the
followers of Jesus to meet certain needs as they arose.
And if, for the purpose of making the most of their oppor
tunities and of overcoming difficulties, the Christians of
the first and second centuries were free to organize them
selves into city, congregational associations, brotherhoods
or Churches, and those of the third century were free to
reorganize those city, congregational Churches into pro
vincial Churches, and those of the fourth century were
free to reorganize the provincial Churches into diocesan
Churches, surely there is no reason why the Christians of
the twentieth century may not reorganize their denomi
national Churches in order to meet the needs which con
stitute their problem.
The great need of the twentieth century is Church union.
In the light of such facts of ecclesiastical history which
have been securely established by the science of historical
criticism, it appears that Christians always were, still are,
and ever will be free to meet the needs of their respective
generations by a reorganization of their Churches, and
that, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever why we may

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 255
not proceed on the Level Plan for Church Union, or any
plan that will be generally acceptable, to such a reorgani
zation of our Churches as we feel to be necessary to the
evangelization of the world.

VI.

" Your Level Plan for Church Union," says one of
my Catholic critics, " is out of fine with the conclusions
reached by the great Protestant thinkers and writers, of
whom Dr. Newman Smythe Is a popular exponent. The
title of his representative book, ' Passing Protestantism and
Coming Catholicism,' justifies the inference that the recog
nized leaders of the Protestant hosts are, at last, beginning
to see that the permanent elements of Christianity have
their embodiment In the Catholic or, as you would say,
Sacerdotal Churches, rather than in the Protestant or Re
publican Churches.
" If Dr. Newman Smythe and his many followers are
right, you are wrong, and there will be few to follow
you. Indeed, as their comparatively conservative utter
ances have secured general acceptance among Protestants,
and even elicited much sympathy from Catholics, candor
and friendship compel me to say, that I cannot understand
how you can reasonably hope that the extreme radicalism
of your plan will have any serious consideration. Let me,
therefore, strongly advise a careful review of the plan with
the idea of making such modifications in it as are necessary

256 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
to bring it into alignment with the plans of leading Prot
estants who are working, as it seems to me, with more
success than you, upon the problem created by sectarian-
ism. The title which Dr. Smythe has given to his great book
is unfortunate, for, by reason of it, Sacerdotalists evidently
get and try to convey the impression that he endorses their
contention that Protestantism has been a failure, that the
future is with Sacerdotalism and that consequently, no plan
for Church union which is not based upon Sacerdotalism
can be a real contribution towards the solution of the prob
lem of how to secure the necessary organic unity to Chris
tians. But If the title is capable of such a construction
the book is not. Nor is it necessary for Sacerdotalists to be
at the inconvenience of reading the book in order to
see their mistake. The headings of its three great essays
wall be sufficient to make this perfectly manifest.
It is true that the first essay is entitled, " Passing Prot
estantism," and that the word " passing," when used in
reference to Protestantism, is fraught with comfort to the
Sacerdotal heart. But what of the other titles? "Media
ting Modernism " and " Coming Catholicism?" Think
of it! A Catholicism that is "Coming" on the wings of
a " Mediating Modernism." It would really be impos
sible for the average SacerdotaHst to Imagine anything
more terrible than such a Catholicism.
Dr. Smythe and I agree in the conviction that, if ever we
are to have a truly Catholic organic Christianity, it must
be the result of a development which will issue in a new

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 357
ecclesiastical institution. Accorditig to our conception,
the Church of the future will be an up-to-date organiza
tion, as different from anything of the kind that now exists,
or ever has existed, as the most advanced among modern
States is different from the States of Mediaeval and
Ancient times.
The difficulty with the older and greater Churches is
that they are, as compared with the States and other insti
tutions of civilization, antiquated. All the great States of
the world have renounced Imperialism, the Divine right
of Kings, and have been or are being reorganized on a
RepubHcan basis. If the Churches are to keep abreast
with the States they will have to give up their Sacerdotal
ism, the Divine right of Priests, and reorganize on the
foundation of Republicanism, the Divine right of the
People. The State has been saved by Gospel Republicanism. Or
to put the same great truth in other words, the State, hu
manly speaking, has been or is being saved by the people.
If the Church is to be saved, and it is in as great need of
salvation as the State ever was, its saviour will be the
principle of Republicanism. The soul of modem civiliza
tion is Republicanism and this soul has for its body the
people, not kings nor priests.
In the Churches this saving principle of Republicanism
is known as Protestantism or Modernism. The Sacerdotal
or Priestly or Imperialistic principle has dominated in
Churches for ages. Hence, the Sacerdotal principle con
stitutes Catholicism. Dr. Smythe sees the time, in the

258 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
no distant future, when the Republican principle will have
attained the ascendency in the Church as it has in the State,
and when Catholicity will be Identified with Republican
ism, not with Sacerdotalism.
The mediator, or influence, or instrumentality by which
this tremendous transition from Sacerdotalism to Repub
licanism is to be brought about, is the new Protestantism
upon which the reigning Pope by a famous encyclical
fastened the name, " Modernism."
This Modernism, this new Protestantism, this ecclesias
tical Republicanism Is by no means confined to the Roman
Church. Indeed, there is much more of it in the Anglican
and other great Protestant Churches than there is in the
Roman and Greek " Catholic " Churches.
When Dr. Smythe speaks of a " Catholicism " that is
" Coming " through a " Mediating Modernism," he means
exactly what I mean in speaking of a Church union that
is to be brought about on the level basis of Republicanism.
According to Dr. Smythe's very true conception. Protes
tantism is "Passing." But quite contrary to the representa
tion of my Sacerdotal critic. Protestantism is not "Passing"
into Sacerdotalism. Protestantism is expanding into Mod
ernism, or neo-Protestantism which gives promise of being
a much larger and more permanent movement than the old
Protestantism, a movement of which the goal is the new
earth and the new heaven of Gospel Republicanism.
It appears, then, that Dr Smythe and I have taken our
stand upon the same great, fundamental. Gospel principle.
Republicanism. Consequently, our plans for Church

THE CHIEF OBJECTIONS. 259
union, however widely they may differ as to practical de
tails, are nevertheless essentially similar. The superficial
variations in them do not prevent their being Identical at
bottom. It may, indeed, turn out that none of the practical
details of either his nor my plan will be adopted ; and yet,
because of the identity of their underlying principles,
they are one and the same plan, the only plan, which, in
view of the whole drift of things away from Sacerdotalism
towards Republicanism, offers any ground upon which to
base a reasonable hope for securing to Christendom that
organic unity which. In some way, must be secured, if the
followers of the Lord Jesus are to let their light shine in
christianized lands.
Though not nearly so catchy, a much more accurate
title for the book would have been, " Passing Sacerdotal
ism and Coming Republicanism." No one who has read
this masterpiece, which at once took first rank in the
growing literature on the subject of Church union, will
be able to understand how any person of average intelli
gence could, with due care, so much as examine its title
page, and yet suppose, as my critic does, that Dr. Smythe,
who is a loyal and highly honored Minister in one of the
most intensely Protestant of all the Churches, is expecting
the time to come when Sacerdotal " Catholicism " will
have swallowed and absorbed Republican Protestantism.
Dr. Smythe's eminence in the Congregational Church,
which has maintained a very high standard of education
for its Ministry and degree of enlightenment for its
People, should protect his work from the superficial and

260 STATEMENT OF THE PLAN.
erroneous interpretation which my Sacerdotal critic bases
upon the title, not the text, of it. For if the book does
support this critic's contention, it must be regarded as a
confession on the part of its distinguished author, that the
mission of the Divine Republican has failed, and that
hope in the future must be centered in the triumph of
principles which are diametrically opposed to, and hope
lessly irreconcilable with His Gospel. How far Dr.
Smythe is from the making of such a confession, and from
centering his hope for unity in Romanism rather than
Protestantism, may be judged of quite accurately from
the following words quoted from the book's third essay,
entitled, "Coming Catholicism: "
" Church unity is not to be attained by following some
among the Anglicans, who would find a way around the
Papacy back to the conditions of faith which were left
finished and fixed by the first Ecumenical Councils, prior
to the separation between the Eastern and Western
Churches. Such Churchmen remind one of Dante's mis
taken prophets, who were doomed to walk with their
heads reversed on their bodies, so that, when they would
go forward, their eyes could see only what lay behind
them. To be pro-Roman is not to be pro-Catholic."

The Level Plan for Church Union.

LECTURE III.
SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
I. Gore and Moberly.
II. Hall's Apostolic Mi>iiSTRY.
III. The Historical Critics.
IV. Grace op Sacraments.

" There is no doubt whatever but that all
the protestant churches about us conform to
the other three requisites laid down in the
quadrilateral: acceptance of the bible, ac
ceptance of the two great creeds, the use of
the two sacraments, with the words of our
lord. the one point about which there is
division is the episcopate. now, if the
protestant episcopal church in the united
states of america, and the church of
england and the anglican communion in
general, as represented by its bishops, are
honest and sincere in what they have said, it is
their business to seek to find a way of removing
this one obstacle, and if they do not do so they
lay themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy.
what is the objection to your inter-church
episcopate plan.^ it does not surrender any
thing which is inherent in our episcopacy. on
the theory of anglican " catholics " it would
furnish all the protestant churches with the
historic episcopate of apostolic succession and
that according to the quadrilateral which our
bishops have set forth, is the only thing they
LACK. THEN, WHY IN HEAVEN's NAME SHOULD WE
NOT ADOPT SOME SUCH PLAN FOR UNITY AS THE ONE
YOU OUTLINE." — Extract from a letter by the Reverend
John P. Peters, D. D., Ph. D., Sc. D.

SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT
DOCTRINES.

I.
GORE AND MOBERLY.
I.
THE chief cause of the principal divisions among the
followers of the Lord Jesus, by which His King
dom has been Impeded, is Sacerdotalism. The
great obstacle in the way of the reunion of Christendom is
Sacerdotalism. The cause of the modern indifference to
wards Christianity and the falling away from the Churches
is Sacerdotalism. What was the source from which Chris
tianity derived this Sacerdotalism? Undoubtedly, it was
carried over from Judaism and Heathenism.
By common consent the two greatest among the expo
nents and defenders of Sacerdotalism in this generation are,
from the historical point of view, the Rt. Rev. Charles
Gore, D. D., Bishop of Birmingham, and from the philo-

264 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
sophlcal point of view, the Rev. R. C. Moberly, D. D.,
sometime Professor of Pastoral Theology at the Uni
versity of Oxford. A promoter of any Republican plan
for the bringing of the Churches together has ground upon
which to base a rational hope of success only to the extent
that he levels the stately superstructure of these champions
of Sacerdotalism, by removing its buttresses and digging
out the foundations.
Bishop Gore's book is, " The Church and the Minis
try," and Professor Moberly's Is, " Ministerial Priest
hood." The reader will, of course, not expect a system
atic review of these modern classics of Sacerdotalism be
cause he will realize that an attempt to meet such an ex
pectation would carry me far aside from the purpose of
this book.
The question at issue between these authors and myself
must be settled in the light of the facts of history which
have been established by the great expert authorities in the
field of ecclesiastical antiquities.
Let me, in passing, call attention to the important
fact, that in the whole course of the history of Christianity,
there has not been anything Hke the candor which now
prevails among the representatives of the great bodies of
Christians who have attained general recognition as expert
historical critics. In our day, such men, thank God, do
not look at the facts of Church history through sectarian
glasses, and with rare exceptions could not possibly be
induced to do so. In their work of investigation they use
the axe of science, and they hew to the line of truth, with-

GORE AND MOBERLY. 265
out the slightest reference to Denominational markings.
These experts constitute a brotherhood ; and they are held
closely together by the strong bond of perfect candor.
The Christian world does not realize its indebtedness
to the experts who are investigating the Scriptures, insti
tutions and doctrines of Christianity. The time will come
when it will be seen that they have Inaugurated a ref
ormation of Inestimable value to civlHzation; and when
they will be ranked with the illustrious reformers who com
menced and carried on the sixteenth century Reformation.
Indeed, the leading Biblical and historical critics who
have worked so assiduously and courageously, are suc
cessors to those reformers, as really and truly as was ever
a Bishop the successor of an Apostle ; and 1 may add that,
quite contrary to the representations of Bishop Gore, they
have shown that what is known as the Apostolic Succes
sion, and what well might be called the Reformation Suc
cession, are essentially the same in kind, a succession
in service to the Church in particular, and to the world
at large.
When the vexed question of ministerial succession has
finally been fully threshed out and every grain of truth
separated and sifted from all its straw and chaff, it will
be found that each kernel of the golden heap that remains,
is one of service. The Encyclical of the 1 908 Lambeth,
Pan-Anglican Conference of Bishops is a notable docu
ment, chiefly on account of its first section, on the supreme
importance of service on the part of all Christians, and
especially of the representatives of the several orders of

266 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES;
the official Christian ministry. The moment one begins
to rub his eyes of the dust with which sectarianism, es
pecially " Sacerdotal " sectarianism, has filled the air, he
finds that, after all every institution, not excepting the
Christian ministry really stands or falls according as it is
valuable or worthless as an instrumentality of service, in
meeting some great and permanent need.
It is not therefore without great significance, that the
officers of the Christian church are in popular usage re
ferred to as Ministers ; and this fact is of fundamental im
portance to all discussions of the Christian ministry in
relation to Christian unity. Representatives of the Greek,
Roman and Anglican Communions may as well realize
first as last, for sooner or later it must be realized, that if
they would commend any form of the Historic Episco
pate to Protestant Christians, they must be able to show,
not that it is, by reason of an unbroken series of tactual
ordinations, a continuation of the Apostolate, but that it is,
so far as organic Christianity is concerned, the best embodi
ment of universal, eternal and indispensable principles
by which may be secured the most complete and effective
co-operation of the followers of the Lord Jesus in obeying
His commands, " Go ye into all the world and preach
the Gospel to every creature," and, " Let your light so
shine before men that they may see your good works, and
glorify your' Father which is in Heaven."
There can be no question but that the world, and indeed
the Church at large, is from year to year taking less and less
Interest in the so-called " Catholic " doctrine of Apostolic

GORE AND MOBERLY. 267
Succession; and this because the doctrine is without a
practical, utilitarian basis. It is of no avail at all that its
advocates point to its Sacerdotal aspects; for the great
living, growing, throbbing world, the Christian as well
as the non-Christian part of it, is done with all Priests,
excepting ministering, serving, useful Priests; that is.
Priests who do things that are practical; things which
assist men, women and children to be more Christ-like in
their personal character and more helpful in their relation
ship to all with whom, directly or indirectly, they come in
contact.

n.
Judging from their books. Bishop Gore and Professor
Moberly occupy about the same high plane as to their
natural endowments and scholastic attainments; for the
works are about equally meritorious as literary productions.
But the Bishop and Professor, in dealing with the same
subject have gone about their work in quite different ways.
The Bishop has built his towering and shapely superstruc
ture chiefly on a foundation of tradition, while the Professor
has erected his equally attractive building on principally
a philosophical basis. If these gifted authors had worked
together, they might well have entitled the result of their
co-labors, " The Origin and Authority of the Christian
Priesthood;" and they might have divided it into two
parts. In that case. Part I, would have been by Bishop

268 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Gore, and might have been headed, "The Sacerdotal
Priesthood from the Traditional Point of View;" and.
Part 11, by Professor Moberly, " The Sacerdotal Priest
hood from the Philosophical Point of View."
It is claimed by Bishop Gore and Professor Moberly,
as I Interpret their books, that one of the great objects
of the coming of Jesus Christ was the founding of a King
dom and that, unless it be conceded that the Aposdes were
clothed with authority to continue their own office, and to
institute, fill and perpetuate subordinate offices. He left the
world on the day of Ascension without fulfilling a very
Important part of His mission. This is the main thesis in
all writings on behalf of Sacerdotalism, so far as they
concern the Christian ministry, and the arguments which
are offered in support of it are both so numerous and
plausible, that we need not greatly wondet at its wide
reception as a doctrine.
Bishop Gore and Professor Moberly contend that it
was generally, if not Indeed universally, expected, that the
Messiah, the Christ whom Jesus claimed to be, was to
found a Kingdom ; that when at last in the fullness of time
the expected Saviour had come, the great event which had
been waited for so long with such hopefulness, was an
nounced by His forerunner in the declaration, " The King
dom of Heaven is at hand;" that the Messiah Himself
began His public career by the same announcement; that
the character of the work to be accomplished was such as
to necessitate a highly organized effort ; that all the govern
ments with which the Jews were familiar were Kingdoms,

GORE AND MOBERLY. 269
not Republics ; and therefore Christ must have founded a
Kingdom, whose chief officers were to govern on the Im
perial lines on which the Kingdoms of those days were
governed, and to perpetuate their offices ; that, as a matter
of fact, in the creation of His Church, and the calling and
commissioning of His twelve Apostles, He actually did es
tablish such a Kingdom, appointing its chief officers; that
the Church which He thus created has been perpetuated to
our day through a continuation of the Apostolate in un
broken continuity; that the covenanted relationship on ac
count of which God becomes a man's Father and Christ
his Elder Brother is entered Into by identification with His
Church, it being otherwise Impossible to establish this
relationship, which is of the essence of Christianity; and
that the grace without which an adopted child of God the
Father and adopted brother of God the Son cannot live
and develop the Christ life, is received only from God
the Holy Ghost, chiefly through the Sacraments of Bap
tism, Confirmation and the Eucharist, as administered in
the Church of the Lord's own founding, and by the Min
istry of His owm institution.
It is true that the teachers of this Sacerdotal doctrine
concerning the way in which a man may attain unto
Gospel salvation, generally admit the validity of Lay Bap
tism ; but Professor Moberly does this very grudgingly and
Bishop Gore none too freely. These concessions are forced,
evidently because of one of the fundamental doctrines of
Sacerdotalism, which affirms that the Divine hfe, without
which a man cannot become a participant in Gospel sal-

270 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
vatlon, is communicated only in Baptism. Therefore,
without this concession which Bishop Gore and Professor
Moberly come so near to withholding, the conclusion
would be unavoidable that none of the millions of all the
adherents of the Churches which are without the Apostolic
Succession, are entitled to regard themselves, or to be re
garded, as true Christians, or entitled to salvation.
This really monstrous doctrine of Sacerdotalism ac
counts for the shock that many received by the reference
to the membership of the Churches which are without the
" Historic " Episcopate as " so-called Christians," in the
Memorial against Canon xix; and it is, no doubt in large
part, the explanation of the opposition to the proposed
Preamble to the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, which has been so earnestly advocated by the
late Rev. Dr. William Reed Huntington.
But while this concession is reluctantly made concern
ing Baptism, when administered by laymen, the validity
of the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood, by which
the Christ life which is on the Sacerdotal theory given in
Baptism may be preserved and developed, is not allowed.
Even among the most moderate of the Sacerdotal or
Priestly school, it is held that the Ministers of the
Churches which are without the Apostolic Succession,
commit the sin of sacrilege as often as they administer this
Sacrament ; and that those who receive it at their hands are
partakers with them of this great sin. Be it said to their
credit, however, that they charitably admit that this other
wise soul-destroying sin is happily committed in ignorance;

GORE AND MOBERLY. 271
and, therefore, God in His mercy does not permit it to
have its full fruitage of evil ; and, moreover, in His over
flowing mercy He even permits it to be to some degree a
means of grace.
As the theses of the Bishop and Professor are practically
the same, I shall not go out of my way to indicate as
I proceed which author I have in mind. This course will
enable me to make my necessarily brief reply to them
much more comprehensive, connected and readable than
It could be otherwise.

III.

In dealing with the subject of the Ministry, no doubt
Bishop Gore and Professor Moberly have the cause of
Church union at heart quite as much as I have; but
we are trying to reach a common goal by different paths.
We see with equal clearness that the Christian ministry
presents altogether the greatest difficulty connected with
the whole problem of the unification of Christendom, and
in our doctrine concerning it we agree in at least two points
of first magnitude. Bishop Gore and Professor Moberly
acknowledge with me the fact that one Christian Is po
tentially as much of a Priest as another; and I acknowl
edge with them the necessity of an official Ministry.
Here is Bishop Gore's acknowledgment, and it is in
exact alignment with the position I have taken in these
lectures. " In all departments of life we are dependent

272 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
one on another. There is a priesthood of science, minis
tering the mysteries of nature, exercising a very real au
thority and claiming, very justly, a large measure of def
erence. There is a priesthood of art, ministering and in
terpreting to men that beauty which is one of the modes
of God's revelation of Himself in material forms. There
is a priesthood of political Influence, and that not exer
cised at will, but organized and made authoritative in offi
ces of State. There is a natural priesthood of spiritual in
fluence, belonging (whether they will it or not) to men
of spiritual power. It is to this natural priesthood that
God offers the support of a visible, authoritative com
mission in sacred things — ' to feed His sheep.' "
And here is Professor Moberly's acknowledgment:
" Now I have insisted that what Christ is, the Church,
(that is the whole Christian People), which is Christ's
mystical Body, must also be. If Christ is Prophetic, the
Church is prophetic. If Christ is King the Church is
royal. If Christ is Priest, the Church is priestly. And
if Christ's Priesthood is, in relation to men, fundamental
even to His royal and prophetic aspects, then, whatever
tends to suppress or undervalue the essentially priestly
character of the Mystical Body of Christ, obscures a most
fundamental conception of the truth."
The admissions of these champions of the Sacerdotal
hosts logically lead to the conclusion that all Christians
are Ministers of the Lord Jesus, and that whatever dif
ference there is between them, in respect to their Ministry
in its relationship to the Church, is of an official not of an

GORE AND MOBERLY. 373
essential character. It is a difference which is exactly
analogous to that which exists between the President of
the United States and an ordinary citizen.
Before President Taft's election and Inauguration to the
Presidency, he and Mr. Bryan were, at least so far as
that office is concerned, on essentially the same footing.
Until Mr. Taft's election, and Indeed until his inaugura
tion, whatever of difference there was between them was
purely of a Providential character. But now he has the
imperishable honor of being the President of the United
States, and Mr. Bryan remains a private citizen.
What happened at Mr. Taft's inauguration? Did it
make him something essentially different from what he
was before, while Mr. Bryan still remained what he had
been, so that they no longer stand on the same footing as
formerly? Not at all. No such change has taken place.
What then has happened? Only this, that Mr. Taft
while yet remaining a citizen and as such on exactly the
same level as Mr. Bryan, or any other man born in the
United States, has been made a public official.

IV.
The Sacerdotal doctrine of the Christian ministry has
for its basis a tradition respecting the origin of the Epis
copate which was never thought of until after the rise of
monarchial Bishops ; there being no trace of it in the New
Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

274 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
An historical investigation covering the whole ground of
this assertion would here be both tedious and confusing,
and, therefore, I have concluded to confine myself to
one notable Church, that of Corinth. I have less hesi
tancy In imposing this limitation upon myself, because
it will be conceded on all hands that the developments
which took place in that Church are typical of what, v«th
slight variations due to special circumstances, occurred in
all the other Churches.
The choice of this Church has been made because it
is the Church of the New Testament times, the history
of which is by common consent most fully covered by
documentary records of unexceptionable character. The
convenient, poorly lighted tunnel, of which we read
so much in the controversial writings of Sacerdotalists, in
their desperate efforts to carry the doctrine of Apostolic
Succession back of A. D. 150, does not exist here; for
the historical light of trustworthy documents shines with
sufficient brightness clear through it.
At the beginning of our era, Corinth was to the Roman
Empire, in respect to her commerce, very much what
New York is to the United States, the great distributing
point. The Church was planted there by St. Paul him
self, in the prime of his life and influence, about A. D.
54, as the result of what he considered to be a direct rev
elation concerning his duty, and after he had the benefit
of nearly twenty years of experience as a missionary.
No Sacerdotalist dates the beginning of the Christian
church later than the day of Pentecost, which occurred

GORE AND MOBERLY. 275
about the year 33, and so, as a generation is reckoned at
30 years, the Church was planted at Corinth when Chris
tianity was nearing the end of the first generation of its
existence. Now as the Corinthian Church came into
being under such exceptional and favorable conditions,
by the command of the Holy Ghost, and through the in
strumentality of the greatest man that Christianity has
ever produced, who gave at least eighteen months of
his precious time to the work on the ground, and after
wards took an unusual interest in it, sending to it on various
missions such men as Titus, Silas, Timothy and Luke, and
writing more epistles to its converts than to any other, it
may reasonably be supposed that, if in any Church exactly
the right thing was done, in respect to the placing of the
proper Ministry for the carrying on of the work so auspi
ciously begun, it would have been in the Church of
Corinth. If, then, the assumption of Bishop Gore and Professor
Moberly, that our Lord founded the Episcopate, be true,
we shall not look in vain for the historical proof of it in
the Corinthian Church. But how extremely unfortunate
for the cause of Sacerdotalism it is that, if tradition be
left to one side, as it must be, for the ground is quite suffi
ciently covered by authentic documentary history, the
Church of Corinth affords no support to this assumption.
The following unimpeachable documents cover the
history of the Corinthian Church down to about the
middle of the second century, A. D. 150; (1 ) St. Paul's
own writings, the First and Second Corinthians, (2) the

276 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Acts of the Apostles, (3) the Letter of Clement Ro-
manus to the Corinthian Church, and (4) the testimony
of the historian Hegesippus as reported by the father of
ecclesiastical history, Eusebius. These authenticated
documents, the dates of which, by the common consent of
the experts, are fixed with sufficient accuracy, reveal the
inner life of the Church of Corinth during a full century
after its planting. So far, as this Church is concerned,
these documents constitute what ecclesiastical antiquarians
technically call " the sources " of our knowledge con
cerning her origin, and of her development to the end of
the period of which we are speaking.
Now, it is an indisputable fact, which no writer on
behalf of Sacerdotalism has ever been able to success
fully controvert, that these documents, all of which are
within quite easy reach of English readers, render it ab
solutely impossible to believe that the Episcopal form of
government at Corinth was a devolution from the
Apostolate rather than an evolution from the People. The
evidence which is full and complete shows that, in the
course of the nearly one hundred years, covered by the
authenticated documentary sources of information, well
marked developments took place which made the form of
the Christian ministry at Corinth a very different institution
in the year A. D. 150 from what it was in the year 54;
for it started out a loosely organized, unofficial Presbyt
erate and wound up a quite highly organized, official,
monarchial Episcopate. But in principle it was still es
sentially the same Ministry, for, through all the cheuiges

GORE AND MOBERLY. 277
of the period it remained in every sense of the phrase,
a strictly Republican institution, owing its existence, func
tions and authority, in short, all that it was at any time
recognized to be, wholly and entirely to the people.
It is not even necessary to qualify this statement by
the fact that throughout this period the Holy Ghost was
supposed to be responsible for the personnel of the Chris
tian ministry, because of the special endowments which
He vouchsafed to Its representatives, and on account of
which they were singled out for the particular services
which as Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists and Teachers
they rendered; for the Church reserved the right to deter
mine whether or not those who claimed a place in this
charismatic Ministry were entitled to It. Anyone who
was supposed to be especially anointed by the Holy
Ghost for the performance of one or more of the ministerial
functions was given his or her rightful place In the Minis
try; but the recognition by the people was as necessary
as the anointing by the Holy Ghost ; and, what is fatal to
the Sacerdotal doctrine of Apostolic Succession, neither
the anointing nor the recognition had any reference to the
Apostles, being as Independent of their branch of the
Ministry as it was of that of the Prophets or of the
Teachers or of the Evangelists.
The sources of Information which are in all respects
as satisfactory as could reasonably be vwshed for, show
most conclusively that, so far at least as the important
Corinthian Church is concerned. Bishop Gore's hypothesis
that the Presbyterate started out as a college of official

278 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Bishops, owing its existence to the Apostolate, instead of
to a college of unofficial Elders which in turn owed its
existence to the people, had not been entertained by any
body. If such a conception existed from the beginning.
It would almost Inevitably have found some expression in
all extended passages of New Testament and sub-apos
tolic documents having a direct bearing upon the subject
of the Christian ministry; and it is next to inconceivable
that there should be no trace of it in the epistle of St.
Clement, one of the Apostolic Fathers. He was the chief
representative of the Christian Brotherhood of the Church
in Rome, and through him this Church proffered its good
offices in the capacity of a peacemaker between opposing
factions of the Corinthian Church, which had come to
hate each other so bitterly that they threw Christian char
ity and consistency to the v«nds, and were guilty of
quarrelsome conduct so scandalous that it gave the enemies
of Christianity an opportunity for just criticism, and filled
its adherents at other places with regret and sorrow.
The population of Corinth, as we have seen, was cos
mopolitan in character, like that of New York City. The
difficulty of the Corinthian Church may, therefore, have
had its tap root in the race hatred which existed between
the Jews and Gentiles. It is quite likely that the repre
sentatives of the ministerial Eldership were chiefly Jews,
and that the depositions in which the trouble culminated,
and which was the particular occasion of St. Clement's
letter, were due to the fact that the Gentiles were now in
the majority, and having determined upon a change of

GORE AND MOBERLY. 279
ministerial administration, proceeded to accomplish their
purpose by turning out the old Elders and electing a
new set.
It is important to note that Clement wrote his epistle to
Corinth at this crisis of the trouble, not on his own author
ity, but in the name of the Roman Church. Scholars
seem to be generally agreed that the date of the epistle
was the year 96, a full half century after the planting of
the Corinthian Church, and more than a generation after
St. Paul, and probably St. Peter, had visited Rome.
If at this time, about A. D. 96, in the second genera
tion of Christianity, an Episcopate deriving its authority to
rule the Church from the Apostolate, was in existence, an
effort of the great Church of Rome to settle a difficulty in
the equally great Church of Corinth by securing the res
toration of Ministers who had been deposed by the domi
nant party, would furnish just the occasion for reference to
it. For upon the supposition that an Episcopate existed in
these Churches, the Bishop of Rome would have written
in his own name to the Bishop of Corinth; or If that bish
opric was vacant, he would have recommended the filling
of it by someone upon whom the opposing parties could
agree, under a concordat which provided that all should
abide by the new Bishop's decisions.
Human nature being what it is, and the fundamental
Instincts by which social organizations are governed being
what they are, Clement's failure to take such a course
proves conclusively that in two widely separated Churches,
as late as A. D. 96, sixty years after the Ascension, the

280 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Episcopate upon which the Sacerdotalists build their
whole . doctrinal superstructure concerning the Ministry,
Church and Sacraments, was not in existence.
It was probably about fifty years later, that is A. D.
145, when Hegesippus, the historian, of whose writings
scanty but valuable fragments were preserved by Eusebius,
visited Corinth on his way to Rome. At that time the
Church was peacefully and prosperously governed with a
monarchial Bishop of the congregational. Republican type
at its head.
We have now shown that as late as A. D. 96, the Epis
copate could not have been in existence at Corinth or
Rome. Bishop Lightfoot in his essay on " The Chris
tian Ministry " and his work on " The Apostolic Fathers,"
has made a similar showing in respect to the whole Church
to the end of the sub-apostollc age. Professor Hort in
his book, " The Christian Ecclesia," has specialized in
the case of the Syrian, Antiochlan Church, as I have here
done in the case of the Corinthian Church, and vnth the
same result. Professor McGlffert has shown that the
special features of the Mother Church of Jerusalem were
not perpetuated, and that the chief doctrines and institu
tions of Christianity, so far as they have an apostolic
origin, must be traced to the Apostle St. Paul, rather than
to the original twelve Apostles.
Thus it will be seen that the Sacerdotal doctrine of
Apostolic Succession is without any basis in historic fact,
and that consequently, notwithstanding all that Bishop
Gore and Professor Moberly have done to buttress it, the

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 281
whole superstructure of Sacerdotalism is tottering to its
inevitable fall.
The books of Bishop Gore and Professor Moberly
were in mind while writing the section of Lecture I on
" The Apostolic Succession," and they wall be kept there
throughout the following sections of this Lecture entitled,
respectively, " Hall's ApostoHc Ministry," " The His
torical Critics," and " Grace of Sacraments."
II.
HALL'S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY.
THE learned Bishop of Vermont, Dr. Hall,
recently pubHshed a notable essay entitled, " The
Apostolic Ministry." Bishop Hall is, by common
consent, the most capable and influential champion of
Sacerdotalism in the American branch of the Anglican
Communion. His position here corresponds to that of
Bishop Gore, or Professor Moberly in the Mother
Church. He wrote this essay with special reference to
the burning questions which are now agitating the
Anglican Communion, in their relation to the problem
of Church union.
As Bishop Hall and I occupy widely separated points
of view and as he criticizes my position, this reply to the
great Anglican Sacerdotalists would be incomplete with
out some reference to his effort in " The Apostolic Minis
try " to give support to the immense but rickety building

282 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
which Bishop Gore, Professor Moberly and other Sacer
dotalists have built on the sand of exploded traditions.
Many of Bishop Hall's contentions, which, if allowed
to stand, would make most strongly against the Level Plan
for Church Union, have received sufficient consideration in
the answers to the objections which have been raised to
the plan, and in the reviews of the chief Sacerdotal doc
trines. I believe that I shall be able to claim that the es
say of this American champion of Sacerdotalism has been
fully covered if attention is given here to : ( 1 ) the quo
tations from the Apostolic Fathers in support of the Sac
erdotal doctrine of Apostolic Succession; (2) the quota
tion from Bishop Gore concerning the interpretation of
the earlier by the later ecclesiastical history, and (3) the
summary of conclusions which are alleged by Bishop Hall
to have been established by the array of facts and argu
ments presented in his essay.
1. The Quotations from the Apostolic Fathers : One
of Bishop Hall's quotations from the Fathers is taken
from Tertullian and, as it is the strongest to be found
In all Patristic literature down to the middle of the third
century and as my space is limited, I shall confine my
self to its consideration. This Is a quotation which, taken
alone. Is well calculated to deceive the very elect among
those who hold to the Republican, Protestant, Modern
theory of the origin and authority of the Christian ministry.
It is from Tertullian's animadversions against those among
the professed followers of the Lord Jesus who had de
parted from the faith once delivered to the Saints, as it

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 283
was commonly held towards the close of the first half of
the third century, and reads as follows :
" Let them show the origins of their Churches, let them
unroll the line of their Bishops, running down in such a
way by succession from the beginning that their first
Bishop shall have had for his ordainer and predecessor one
of the Apostles, or of the apostolic men, one who continued
to the end in their fellowship. This is the way in which
the apostolic Churches hand down their registers; as the
Church of the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was
placed therein by John, as the Church of Rome relates
that Clement was ordained by Peter. So in like manner
the rest of the Churches exhibit the names of men ap
pointed to the Episcopate by Apostles whom they possess
as transmitters of the Apostolic seed." The Prescription
of Heretics, xxxii.
I would be giving the Bishop of Vermont an advantage
to which he is not entitled, if I omitted to direct attention
to the fact that, in introducing his quotations, he speaks
of establishing the Sacerdotal doctrine concerning the ori
gin and authority of the Christian ministry by " the testi
mony of the Apostolic Fathers;" but, altogether the most
Important of his quotations Is from the writings of Tertul
lian, who was not one of those fathers. No doubt, we
here have a slip of the pen and I would not feel justified
In even referring to it, except perhaps in a private com
munication, but for the fact that I have frequently main
tained in this book that no Sacerdotal doctrine can be
fastened upon Christianity by New Testament texts, or by

284 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
references to passages In the extant writings of the Apos
tolic Fathers. I do not consider that Tertullian In this or any
other passage really gives the least support to Sacerdotal
ism. Still, he occasionally does speak of Christian minis
ters in such a way that, if the context and general tenor of
his writings are disregarded, as they have been by the
Bishop of Vermont, it might be contended with some show
of reason that the position of such Ministers was held by
him to be somewhat analogous to that of Jewish Priests.
The effort of Bishop Hall to support the Sacerdotal
doctrine of Apostolic Succession by this passage from the
writings of Tertullian is futile because, as the context and
the book from which it is taken show, Tertullian was not
here speaking of any such doctrine, and in fact there is
no evidence anywhere that he held to it, or even knew
of it.
The first doctrine of Apostolic Succession, the only one
that down to TertulKan's time had been advocated by
anybody, was not at all concerned with " the transmission
of the ministerial commission," but with the preservation
and perpetuation of the apostoHc faith.
As quoted apart from its immediate and general con
text, the passage under consideration might leave the im
pression that Tertullian represents that the extension of the
Apostolate, through an uninterrupted series of ordinations
by the laying on of hands, secures the preservation of
the seed of the Church to posterity. Tertullian was very
far from intending to make any such representation.
According to Tertullian, the seed of the Church was

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 285
not an apostolic ministry, but an apostolic faith. Apos
tolic Succession consisted, then not in a continuous series
of ordinations by the laying on of hands, through which
ministerial authority and power were perpetuated, but in
an uninterrupted line of witnesses by which the saving
truths of the Gospel were handed down from generation
to generation. The Bishop's quotation Is taken from
Chapter xxxn of TertulHan's " Prescription against Here
tics." In Chapter xx of that work we have a clear state
ment by its author as to what he meant by the phrase,
" the apostolic seed."
" Having on the authority of prophecy, which occurs
In a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the
twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the prom
ised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracle
and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the
faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judea and founding
Churches, they next went forth into the world and
preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the
nations. They then in like manner founded Churches in
every city, from which all the other Churches, one after
another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds
of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they
may become Churches. Indeed, it is on this account only
that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic as
being the offspring of apostolic Churches." Press. Hcsret,
c. XX. Here Tertullian asserts, In the clearest terms possible,
that the Doctrine of Christ and not the Ministry of the

286 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Apostles constitutes the Seed of the Church. This seed
is the germ from which the Church of Christ springs. The
doctrine Is the seed, the Church Is the outgrowth of the
doctrine. The true Church of Christ Is to be identified
then, by its doctrine; not by its Ministry.
The interpretation which the Bishop of Vermont puts
upon his quotation from Tertullian is, therefore, altogether
erroneous. Tertullian did not have in mind an Episcopate
which was created for the purpose of continuing, through
a tactual succession by the laying on of hands in ordination,
a Ministry which Christ had instituted, and to which he
had given extraordinary powers, in order that the preach
ing and sacramental ministrations of its representatives
might have supernatural effects. The Episcopate of
which he speaks was created for the purpose of passing
on, through a verbal succession, maintained by competent
witnesses, whose lives overlapped each other, the saving
doctrines of the all sufficient Gospel which Christ had
preached. Tertullian's contention in the passage quoted by Bishop
Hall, as elsewhere, is that they only teach the true doc
trine who have received that doctrine by succession from
the Apostles. Polycarp received the doctrine from St.
John. Irenaeus received it from Polycarp. Only those
who have received the Christian teaching through such a
succession from the beginning can witness authoritatively
as to the true doctrine of Christ. " Transmitters of the
apostolate seed," means, as the context clearly shows, the
transmitters of the apostolic doctrine,

hall's APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 287
It is surpassingly strange that one of Bishop Hall's repu
tation for learning and candor should lay himself so liable
to just criticism as to represent that Tertullian gives sup
port to the Sacerdotal conception of the Christian ministry.
For the truth is, that so far was he from teaching the
doctrine of the transmission of the ministerial commission
through Bishops of the Apostolic Succession that he made
no essential distinction between the Clergy and Laity.
" Vain," he says, " shall we be if we think that what
is not lawful for Priests is lawful for Laymen. Are not
even we Laymen Priests? It is written 'a Kingdom also
and Priests to God and the Father hath He made us.' It
is the authority of the Church, and the honor which has ac
quired sanctity through the joint session of the (ministerial)
Order, which has established the difference between the
Order and the Laity. Accordingly, when there is no joint
session of the ecclesiastical Order you offer (celebrate the
Lord's Supper), and baptize, and are Priests alone for
yourself. But where three are, a Church is, albeit they
be Laymen. For each individual lives by his own faith,
nor is there exception of persons with God. Therefore,
if you have the right of a Priest in your own person, in
cases of necessity, it behooves you to have likewise the
discipline of a Priest." Exhortation to Chastity, Chap
ter vii.
" But," says Bishop Hall, " Tertullian had become a
Montanist when he wrote this treatise."
If this passage, which virtually declares that there is

288 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
no essential difference between the Clergy and Laity stood
alone, and it were conceded that Tertullian wrote it after
becoming a Montanist, it would still have decisive weight;
for he was to the end the same scholar, the same de
fender of the faith, the same champion of purity of life.
One of the great services rendered by Tertullian to the
Church was his defense of the faith as contained in the
most voluminous of his extant writings, the five books en
titled, " Against Marcion." Marcion was the Gnostic
arch-heretic whom, Irenaeus tells us, Polycarp called to
his face " the first born of satan." It is the commonly
accepted opinion among scholars that this Inestimably valu
able work was written after its author had embraced
Montanlsm. One of the causes of Tertullian's becoming a Montanist
was the tendency of the Church towards a Sacerdotal
Ministry. Montanlsm was a protest against this, and
against the usurpation by the official Ministry of the pre
rogatives of Prophets and Teachers which had been exer
cised by the Laity.
Drs. Hall, Gore and Moberly are very far from the
tmth when they characterize Montanlsm as a heresy and
Tertullian as a heretic. The relationship of Montanlsm
to the rest of the Church was essentially the same as
that of the Anglican Churches to the Roman Church.
Montanlsm was no more of a heresy than Anglicanism,
and Tertullian was no more of a heretic than was
Archbishop Cranmer.
The eminent scholar. Professor Moeller, says, " Mon-

hall's APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 289
tanlsm was not a new form of Christianity, nor were the
Montanists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanlsm was
really a reaction of the old, the primitive Church against
the obvious tendency of the Church of the day to strike
a bargain with the world, and arrange herself comfortably
in it. The passage, on the rights of the laity, is not Tertul
lian's only writing to the same effect. The teaching occurs
also in his tract, " Concerning Baptism," which scholars
generally assign to the pre-Montanlst period of his life.
" On giving it (Baptism) the Chief Priest (the Bishop)
has the right; in the next place, the Presbyters and Dea
cons, yet not without the Bishop's authority. Beside these
even Laymen have the right ; for what is equally received
can be equally given. Baptism which is equally God's
property can be administered by all." Chapter 17.
Historical criticism renders it certain that in the New
Testament and sub-apostollc periods of primitive Chris
tianity, the dally evening meal of a Christian family
was regarded as the Lord's Supper and that every head
of such family, or, if absent, his representative, was held
to be entirely competent to preside at the celebration of
that meal and ordinance.
The purpose which the quotation from Tertullian is
made to serve by Bishop Hall presents a striking illustra
tion of the ease with which current beliefs and teachings
may be read back into ancient writings in which they
have no place and of the utter worthlessness of the
whole system of pseudoscoplc traditions which is the basis

290 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
of Sacerdotalism. Tertullian's object was to show that
the true Christian doctrine had been transmitted by a con
tinuous line of trustworthy witnesses. He was a man of
sense and knew that a knowledge and understanding of
apostolic doctrine could not be transmitted by the laying
on of hands, quite as well as we know that a knowledge
and understanding of astonomical theorems can not be
so transmitted. The apostolic doctrine was, according to
Tertullian's theory, transmitted by what a great historical
authority aptly calls " a tactual descent of tradition
from the Apostles by the living voice."
Irenaeus, from whom Bishop Hall quotes his next most
important passage, is in agreement with Tertullian in this
interpretation of Apostolic Succession. In his Treatise
against the Heretics, he speaks of the " tradition which is
preserved by means of the succession of the Presbyters;"
and of the " truth which has come down by means of the
succession of Bishops. By this succession, the ecclesias
tical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the
truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant
proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which
has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until
now, and handed down in truth." Book III, Chapters
2 and 3.
II. The Quotation from Bishop Gore: Bishop Hall,
pages 20-22, says: " It is not of course supposed that as
definite and clear a scheme of the Ministry is to be found
in the New Testament as is manifest later. Names cer
tainly were not fixed; offices were gradually constituted.

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 291
Light is thrown back on what is obscure in the New
Testament by what we find as the established order In
the next age." This statement Is supported by a quotation
from Bishop Gore : " The earliest history must be inter
preted in the light of what emerged from it as the regular
and universally accepted order."
The position which Bishops Hall and Gore take here
was almost universally occupied by the theologians of the
Dark and Mediaeval ages; but it was abandoned by the
Reformers, and it would be difficult to find a single great
name among the modem expert authorities In the field of
Christian antiquities who occupies it.
It is often claimed that the science of historical criticism
is in its infancy and that therefore the conclusions of its
devotees cannot be accepted with safety.
The same objection might be urged with almost equal
plausibility against any other science. This Is largely true
even of the ancient sciences of astronomy, chemistry and
medicine and it is eminently so of geology, biology and
psychology. One hundred years ago psychology was a department
of abstract metaphysics. What little there was of biological
Investigation was conducted by theorists under the high
sounding name of natural history. The progress that has
been made in this so-called science of natural history may
be judged of by the fact that, as late as the middle of
the nineteenth century, the greatest among EngHsh natural
ists maintained that fossils afforded no evidence of the
antiquity of the earth, because they are simply " appear-

292 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
ances " which were created six thousand years ago with
the rest of the earth and universe.
If this naturalist had been a Sacerdotal theologian, he
probably would have attributed these fossils, " sports of
nature, created, dead and petrified," to the devil who
wanted to use them, at the psychological moment, to de
ceive men, by leading natural historians to reject the
theory that the universe was created in six days of twenty-
four hours each by the direct commandments of God.
There are many Sacerdotalists who seem to feel quite jus
tified in rejecting facts of history as deceptions of the devil,
if they make against the idea that when the happy angels
drew the Lord of Glory up into Heaven on one end of
their golden rope, they let down on its other end a Bishop,
gorgeously attired and fully equipped with mitre, cope,
staff and key, to establish a Church with hierarchial and
sacramental systems, in accordance with complete specifi
cations which were handed to him midway as the ends
of the rope with their precious burdens passed each other.
Whenever Sacerdotalists are hard pushed by those who
are acquainted with the results of modern historical criti
cism, they claim that the critics have gone wrong because,
in their efforts to arrive at the truth respecting primitive
Christianity, they refuse to recognize the generally ac
cepted traditions which have come down through the ages,
as being of equal value with the statements of reliable
historical records. They argue, with much show of rea
son, that doctrines which have been believed at all times
in all places by all orthodox Christians are just as trust-

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 293
worthy as they would be if a chapter and verse could be
cited in favor of them from the New Testament, or from
the writings of an early Church father. This is what
Bishop Hall means when he speaks of " Hght thrown back
on what is obscure." The same thing Is meant by Bishop
Gore when he says, " The earliest history must be Inter
preted in the light of what emerged from It as the regular
and universally accepted order."
But in this assertion Bishops Hall and Gore, the great
est among American and English champions of Sacerdo
taHsm, beg the whole question. For the contention of the
expert critics is, that the result of their historical investi
gation proves that there Is no universally accepted order
or tradition which can be cited in support of a single Sacer
dotal doctrine or custom.
The doctrines of which It can be said that they have
been believed at all times, in all places, by all orthodox
Christians are very few, and none of them has a Sacer
dotal character. Indeed, almost the only doctrine on
behalf of which this claim of support by an universal
tradition can be made, is the Messlahshlp of Jesus. The
most primitive confession of faith was very short, even
when compared with the so-called Catholic Creeds, which
were formulated in the fourth and later centuries, to say
nothing about modern confessions of faith. In New Tes
tament times, the Christian Creed really had but this
one article, or its equivalent, " Jesus is the Messiah."
That great theological thinker, Alexander Campbell,
rendered a much needed service to Christianity, by calling

294 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
attention to and ably emphasizing the fact that the faith
of the first generation of Christians, of whom we have an
account in the Gospel narratives, was, compared with
that of succeeding generations, exceedingly simple, both
as to the number and character of its articles. As he
correctly represents, the confession, " Jesus is the Mes
siah," or " Jesus is the Christ," constituted about all there
was of the creed which differentiated Christianity from
the Jewish religion.
Historical criticism has shown that the Messianic con
ception, quite contrary to what Bishops Hall and Gore
would have us believe, was not at all Priestly or Sacer
dotal in character. It was, in fact, a civil rather than
a reHgious conception, more in line with the idea of royalty
than priesthood. The first followers of Jesus as the Mes
siah thought of Him as an Over King not as a High
Priest. The High Priesthood of Jesus was a much later
conception than His Over Kingship.
Jesus was a Layman. His first Apostles were laymen.
Neither He nor they were seriously, if at all, thought of as
Priests, until after the New Testament times. This is a
fact not a theory, which In Itself proves that no Sacerdotal
doctrine can be fastened upon Christianity as something
which has been believed always, everywhere and by all.
All the claims of Bishops Hall and Gore and of Pro
fessor Moberly to the contrary notwithstanding, the Sacer
dotal conception of the Christian ministry, which accounts
for it upon the devolutionary hypothesis of an Apostolic
Succession, is a theory, quite as much so as the Republican

HALLS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 295
theory, which accounts for it upon the evolutionary hy
pothesis. Both conceptions rest upon theory or philosophy.
In view of all that Sacerdotalists have to say in dis
paragement of philosophy. It is well that they should
be reminded that the whole doctrinal system of Sacer
dotalism may be compared to a river which was formed
by the confluence of the Jewish and Heathen systems of
philosophy; and that, but for this coming together, the
mighty Roman Church, with all that it did for the world.
by carrying Christianity through the Dark and Mediaeval
ages, would have been an impossibility. Professor
Wernle, the eminent historical critic, states the truth re
specting the indispensable relationship to Christianity of
philosophy where he says:
" The Apostle Paul would have nothing to do with
philosophy. He was still an apologist of the Layman's
religion. Human wisdom and divine revelation were en
tirely opposed to each other in his view. Long before
his time, however, an alliance had been concluded between
these two opposites in Alexandria and even in Palestine.
As Clement of Alexandria so beautifully expresses it,
the divine reason did not merely educate for Christianity
the Jews through the law but the Greeks through philoso
phy. Philosophical and religious ethics, had met and had
discovered, to their astonishment that they were near rela
tions. Had it not been for this alliance, Christianity had
not conquered the world."
The' difference between the Sacerdotal, devolutionary
and the Republican, evolutionary, doctrinal, philosophical

296 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
theories Is as to the foundation upon which rests the al
leged facts, by which they are respectively supported.
The system of alleged facts upon which Sacerdotalists
seek to support their philosophical, devolutionary theory
concerning the origin and authority of the Christian min
istry rests upon tradition. The system of alleged facts
upon which RepubHcans seek to support their philosophical
evolutionary theory of the origin and authority of the
Christian ministry rests upon history. The real difference
between Sacerdotalism and Republicanism, so far as the
Christian ministry is involved, is then the difference be
tween tradition and history.
In the unscientific Mediaeval times, history and tradition
were mixed as wheat and chaff; and the chaff was gener
ally supposed to be wheat. In this scientific age, historical
criticism is winnowing the chaff of tradition from the wheat
of history with the result of discovering that the whole
Sacerdotal system of doctrines is chaff.
Historical criticism has shown that so far as the Chris
tian church, ministry and sacraments are concerned.
Sacerdotalism is the embodiment of a twofold fiction.
There is first the fictitious theory by which these institu
tions are given a supernatural, devolutionary origin and
character. Then there is the fictitious tradition by which
the theory is justified.
Sacerdotalists pursue an inverted order in their doc
trinal Inventings and buildings. First they invent and
build the superstructure, a veritable castle in the air.* Then
they invent and lay the foundation of tradition for their

HALLS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 297
castle. Finally, they furnish it from cellar to garret with
invented furniture of the most unique and marvelous de
signs. Republican Protestantism on the evidence afforded by
the scientifically established facts of the history of primi
tive Christianity, proves that the monarchial Episcopate
camfe Into existence as a Providential, but nevertheless
perfectly natural development. Sacerdotal "Catholi
cism " on the purely fictitious assumption of a superstitious
tradition, which took its rise from the seeds of cormptlon,
brought mto Christianity by imperfectly converted Jews
and He fhen, makes it out that the monarchial Episcopate
is, by an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, a continuation of
the Apostolate, to the representatives of which, and to
their successors by tactual ordination. He is alleged to
have entrusted the founding and ruling of a visible, organic
Church or Kingdom, which was established in fulfillment
of an important, if not the chief part of His mission;
and that, therefore, this institution, the monarchial Episco
pate, is of a supernatural and devolutionary origin.
There is not a passage in the literary remains of primi
tive Christianity upon which this tremendous assumption
of Sacerdotalism is rested more heavily than the one
quoted by Bishop Hall from Tertullian's writings which,
as we have seen, does not relate to the succession of a
devoluted apostolic office, but to the succession of a devo
luted apostolic faith.
The testimony of Tertullian is to the effect that the
faith was established at Smyrna by a succession of wit-

298 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
nesses to St. John's teaching, of which succession Poly
carp was the first connecting link wdth the Apostle, and
that this faith was established at Rome by a succession
of witnesses to St. Peter's teaching of which succession,
Clement was the first connecting link with the Apostle.
Neither here, nor anywhere else does Tertullian's testi
mony give the least support to the essential basic assump
tion of Sacerdotalism, that is, the existence in the persons
of monarchial Bishops of tactual successors to the Apostles
which successors are the official representatives of Christ,
and, as such, mediatorial Priests, in whom alone exists the
seed from which can spring a true Christian church, or a
Christian ministry whose official acts are valid.
Respecting the tradition of the establishment of such a
succession of monarchial Bishops at Rome by St. Peter
through Clement, I assert most emphatically and unquali
fiedly that historical criticism has shown it to be utterly
baseless. . The monarchial Episcopate was not founded
at Rome until long after the death of St. Peter; and,
when it did come into being. Its first representatives
were ordained by local Elders who were really Laymen,
not by men who were Apostles by reason of the laying
on of hands in an unbroken series of ordinations.
St. Peter died before A. D. 70. One hundred years
later, the Episcopate had not yet reached the monarchial
and Sacerdotal stages in its development. What there
was of this institution even then, was, as to its personnel,
an undifferentiated part of the Presbytery. Down to
very nearly the beginning of the third century, the Epis-

HALLS APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 299
copate was not a distinct office, but only a Presbyterial
function. An elder was requested, or elected, or appointed to per
form some important service for the Christian brotherhood,
and, if he accepted the commission, he was, while engaged
in the performance of the duties expected of him, a Bishop.
No doubt. Deacons and Laymen sometimes assumed the
responsibilities connected with such commissions and so
became Bishops.
Having discharged their respective Episcopal functions,
such as the superlntendency of an Important work of
charity, or of a building operation, or of a diplomatic
correspondence, or of a missionary expedition, or of the
establishment of a burying ground, or of the collection of
a set of the Gospel narratives, these Bishops sank back to
the level which they had formerly occupied. Probably,
some among these functionary Bishops, whose services
were exceptionally important, long continued and often
repeated, permanently retained the title as an honorable
distinction ; so that some of the larger Churches may have
had proportionately as many Bishops as Kentucky has
colonels. As the Christian communities or Churches grew and
their eleemosynary and missionary undertakings Increased,
both in number and magnitude, there was of course a
corresponding tendency in the Episcopate to permanency.
The progress of this natural tendency carried with it an
ever increasing accumulation of honors, and so It inevitably
culminated in placing the monarchial Episcopate above

300 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
the oligarchal Presbyterate, as a separate and distinct
institution. But this stage or development, though prog
ress towards it was greatly accelerated by the increase
of proprietary Interests, the rise of heresy and the bursting
of storm after storm of decimating and otherv\ase terrible
persecution, was not reached until two hundred years after
the Roman executioner had sent St. Peter to his rich
reward. Even then, and for a long time afterwards,
the Episcopate was Congregational and Republican in
character. The historical critics are showing, by an ever accumu
lating array of scientifically established facts, that still
another long century of evolutionary development was
required for the production of the sacerdotal, caste,
monarchial Bishops who collectively constituted the insti
tution which we are calling the " Historic Episcopate."
Bishops Gore and Hall and Professor Moberly would
have us believe, on the evidence of traditions, that this
" Historic " Episcopate was instituted by Jesus In the
persons of the twelve Apostles, and perpetuated through
them, in accordance vsdth His directions, by the laying on
of hands in ordination by an unbroken series of ever mul
tiplying successors from generation to generation. The
science of historical criticism has shown these traditions to
be so many fabrications of undigested Jewish and Heathen
converts to Christianity. But the point upon which I am
here insisting is, that St. Peter took no part in the estabHsh-
ment of the monarchial or of any Episcopate.
It is barely possible, though highly improbable, that the

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 301
institution of the monarchial Episcopate, in its most primi
tive form, may have come into being, in some of the more
highly developed Churches, before the death of St. John.
The little space which remains will be devoted to a con
sideration of the more interesting, though, as I believe,
equally baseless tradition relating to his part In its found
ing. Unless we have it at Jerusalem in the person of St.
James, the monarchial Episcopate did not exist In any
Church until very late In the apostolic age. If, however,
St. James was the first representative of this institution,
it certainly is not of apostolic authority, for he did not
owe his unique position to the Apostles, but to the acci
dental, or rather Providential circumstances that he was
the brother of the Lord, and that the reins of leadership
were taken up by him, either on his own responsibility or
by common request, when they had been dropped by the
Apostles, upon their fleeing from Jerusalem to escape the
Herodlan persecution. The reins thus acquired were not
relinquished upon the return of the Apostles.
In the associations, brotherhoods or Churches of other
places, no one occupied a position corresponding to that
of St. James in the Jerusalem brotherhood, until near
the end of the apostolic period. If, in accordance with
tradition, St. John survived to the extreme age of one
hundred years, if Ignatius and Polycarp were monarchial
Bishops and owed their office to his appointment, or if
the angels of the seven Asia Minor Churches were real
personages, and if St. John wrote the Book of the Reve-

302 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
latlon, all very big " ifs," there would perhaps be no
insuperable chronological difficulty in the way of supposing
that he lived to see the first microscopic, protoplasmic
germs of the monarchial Episcopate, and that he may
have given some encouragement to their culture.
Here and there an historical critic of first rank does
indeed hesitatingly venture out upon the shaky ground
of tradition far enough for the making of the suggestion
that St. John did live to see some of these germs and that
he was so pleased with them that he gave them his apos
tolic blessing; but such scholars are few and far between
who make this suggestion without completely encasing it
with qualifications to the effect, that the Beloved Disci
ple had nothing to do with the organization of the germs,
that he was not alive when they reached maturity and
that he made no formal provision for a regular succession
of the adult specimen in the several Churches, such as
the Sacerdotal hypothesis postulates.
1 must seriously and strongly insist that the admission
that St. John may have lived to see some of the primordial
germs of the monarchial Episcopate, and that he may have
given them the encouragement and sanction of his prayers
for their future welfare, marks the iftmost limits to which
the most elastic of imaginations could be stretched in
confirmation of the Sacerdotal doctrine of Apostolic Suc
cession, without breaking away altogether from the re
straints of the established historical facts having a bearing
upon the subject of the origin and authority of the Chris
tian church and ministry.

hall's APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 303
The tradition respecting St. John constitutes, so to
speak, the last ditch of the Sacerdotalists in which they
can take refuge, while continuing the desperate struggle
to maintain their doctrine concerning the apostollclty of
the monarchial Episcopate, with all the non-Christian
enormities, Jewish and Heathen, that they rest upon it.
It is really no longer within the range of possibilities
that any scholar should maintain, without qualifications
which are tantamount to a nulHfication of his arguments,
that the other Apostles had anything to do with the es
tablishment of the monarchial Episcopate. This being
the case, even if the altogether improbable tradition re
specting St. John's connection with the institution be true,
it cannot be consistently claimed that It is among the
Gospel essentials.
For, if in accordance with the representations of Sac
erdotalists, Jesus ordained that the Twelve and their
successors should take His place, making the existence
of the Church and the efficacy of the sacramental means of
grace, and in fact, covenanted Gospel salvation itself to
depend upon them, how is the palpable lack of interest in
such a vital ordinance of His to be given a reasonable
explanation? And even if some ingenlus Sacerdotalist should hit upon
a reason for this hitherto inexplicable neglect of such an
important matter by all the Apostles, save one, and by
him until he was extremely old, how could the representa
tives of the several Historic Episcopates, in any literal,
proper sense of the phrase, be said to be the tactual

304 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
successors of the Apostles? The best that could be
claimed for them is that they are successors of St. John.
But where is the Divine commission by which any one
of the Apostles was authorized to establish a monarchial
Episcopate, and make provision for its perpetuation? The
only Apostle on behalf of whom a claim to do such a
thing could be made, with any show of reason, is St.
Peter. But it is no longer claimed by any first rate
scholar that the monarchial Episcopate was established
before his death.
The theory respecting the origin of the monarchial
Episcopate that finds most favor among the expert workers
in the field of ecclesiastical antiquities is that which makes
St. Paul, rather than Jesus or any of the Twelve responsi
ble for its doctrinal germ. But St. Paul was not an
original Apostle and therefore a Pauline Episcopate,
whether of early or late development, could not, I think,
be made to serve as the basis of the Sacerdotal doctrine
of Apostolic Succession. However this may be the repre
sentative Sacerdotalists, with whose writings we are here
concerned, have as yet made no really serious effort to
press it into this service, and as neither they nor any of
their successors, as Sacerdotal apologists are likely ever to
make a successful attempt to do so, there is no occasion
for entering here upon so large and difficult a subject.
That which is absolutely certain, that which really
settles the whole question respecting the devolutionary or
evolutionary origin of the monarchial Episcopate is the
simple, undeniable fact that Episcopacy is but the eccle-

hall's APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 305
slastical embodiment of the principles which lie at the
basis of every social organism, and exist quite independ
ently of Christianity. These principles, as we have re
peatedly had occasion to observe, are unity and superin
tendence under one headship. Thfey are Divine forces
which belong to the very constitution of things social, and
consequently, their manifestation in the Christian associa
tions or churches was an inevitable necessity.
The Episcopal principles organized themselves. They
did not need a human organizer, any more than the
principle of gravitation, which holds the universe together,
or the principle of conservation of energy, upon which
its continuance is dependent, needs such an organizer. If
there was to be a Christian church of any age and size,
with anything to do, the principles of unity and super
intendence under one headship would, of course, have in
due time some embodiment in a monarchial Episcopate.
The institution of the monarchial Episcopate did not
then require a St. Peter or a St. Paul or a St. John to
organize it, any more than the sun, moon and stars require
a lamp-lighter. As these Heavenly bodies shine of them
selves on account of the very nature by which God en
dowed them, so the monarchial Episcopate exists of itself,
because of a Divinely appointed necessity, inherent in all
social organisms, whether domestic, religious, civil, indus
trial or commercial.
Everywhere, throughout the whole social realm, the
monarchial Episcopate exists as a Divine necessity. The
Sacerdotal hypothesis of the origin and authority of the

306 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Episcopate of the Christian churches is therefore as
unscientific and belittling as it is unhistoric and super
stitious. As the whole superstmcture of Christian Sacerdotal
ism rests upon tradition, the interests of tmth require that
the worthlessness of its testimony to the institutions, doc
trines and customs of Christianity should be made to ap
pear. Fortunately, Auguste Sabatier, the late Dean of
the Protestant Faculty of Theology in the University of
Paris, one of the greatest among modern scientific theo
logians and historical critics, has rendered this service
to the cause of truth in an exceedingly comprehensive and
brilliantly illuminating passage that is short enough for
quotation. No candid representative of Sacerdotalism,
who is open to conviction, and knows of the eminence of
the Dean as an historical authority, cem read the passage
and be quite the same Sacerdotalist afterwards that he was
before. It rans as follows:
" To raise a new historic tradition to the rank of
supernatural tradition and divine, permanent inspiration in
the Church itself, one must either forget history or do vio
lence to it. The Catholic theory rests upon three prem
ises which are not only imdemonstrable, but fictitious:
1. That the Apostles drew up and left to their suc
cessors an unchangeable formulary of Christian faith. 2.
That succeeding generations added nothing, subtracted
nothing, changed nothing, as to the customs and ideas
which they inherited. 3. That Bishops are the successors
of the Aj)Ostles and heirs of their gifts and privileges.

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 307
" These three affirmations are wholly illusory, and a
single reading of the original texts is enough to dissipate
them irrecoverably. But at the end of the second century
historic criticism did not exist. Men lived in the super
natural, and the stream of the marvelous flowed full.
In such a time dogma becomes a prolific mother of legends.
The reflection of the idea then dominant transforms the
vision of the past. History is altered wherever it shows
itself contrary to the dogma; where silence would do it
harm it is made to speak. It is common enough to see
children who have attained years of strength fostering and
caring for the aged father to whom they owe life. Thus,
in the course of the centuries, the pious legends of tradition
came forward to legitimize and defend the dogma of
which they were born.
" These legends, which we must remember were the
product and complement of the Catholic theory of tradi
tion, came into being at three points, and from genera
tion to generation developed along three parallel lines,
with ever greater definiteness and wealth of embellish
ment. "1. The first were the Episcopal lists, which, from
about the year 180, began to be formed in all the great
Churches to establish the line of Apostolic Succession in
material and tangible form. To this end traditional memo
ries were drawn upon and names were borrowed from
the apostolic writings. Starting with Eleutherus, who died
in 188, we may go back by names sufficiently authentic
as far as Sixtus or Alexander, about the year 130; but

308 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
back of this the lists of the early popes or Bishops of Rome
have absolutely no value. The reason is simple. There
was no Episcopate in Rome, in any proper sense of the
word, before the reign of Hadrian (117-138), as we
shall presently see.
" There was need of these official lists in the polemic
against the Gnostic doctors and Montanist prophets; and
it is a matter of experience that documents of which any
authority finds a practical need are always produced.
" 2. The twelve Jewish Apostles of Jesus appear to
have restricted their teaching to their own people. Paul
gives them no part in the evangelization of the pagan
world. It is one of the paradoxes of history that they
should have become from the close of the second century
the traditional patrons and authorities of the great
Churches in whose foundation they had almost no part,
while Paul and his fellow-laborers, Titus, Sosthenes,
Aquila, Apollos, those daring pioneers of the new
religion, are forgotten or relegated to the second rank and
to obscurity. Paul is despoiled by John in Ephesus and
Asia, as in Antioch and Rome by Peter, whose humble
and docile satellite he becomes. This historic paradox
is explained by the legends which came into being at the
epoch at which we have now arrived. They show us
the Twelve assembled at Jerusalem dividing among them
selves the map of the world, and then setting forth, each
to conquer with the strong aid of a miracle and at last
of martyrdom, the province which to him had been as
signed. From the forensic standpoint of the theory of

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 309
tradition, it was necessary that the Episcopal order should
everywhere find the name of an Apostle to which to
fasten its initial link.
"3. Finally, to all these legends must be added, as
tending to the same end, those which grew up around the
Symbol (Creed) of the Apostles. In the beginning the
title apostolic, applied to a traditional rule of faith, was
doubtless Intended only to declare the essential conformity
of this faith to that preached by the Apostles. But soon
the people began to understand It in a stricter and more
literal sense. About the middle of the third century it was
said and believed in Rome that the symbol had been
brought to the capital of the empire by Peter himself, and
consequently that it dated back to the very foundation
of the Church. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, confirmed
this pious legend which Rufinus a little later embellished.
Before separating, says the writer, the Apostles with
a view to defining the faith which they were about to
preach throughout the universe, conjointly put Into form
the terms of the symbol which each one then carried with
him. But a legend is like a plant, continually putting out
new branches and flowers. Isidore of Seville knows much
more about this one than his predecessors. He tells how
the Apostles met In conclave in Jerusalem. Each one of
them moved by the Holy Spirit, rising in turn, uttered,
in the silence of the others, an article of the Credo. This
is why the Creed has twelve articles. It became pos
sible even to set over against each of the articles the name
of the Apostle who proclaimed it. The Roman Cate-

310 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
chlsm at last adopted and consecrated the whole legend.
What more striking example could be cited of the birth,
evolution, and triumph of a reHgious tradition?" Religions
of Authority, pages 58-61.
Elsewhere Dean Sabatier says : " The history of Ca
tholicism (Sacerdotalism) presents the singular law, that
dogmatic theory always lags two or three centuries behind
the practical reality. A certain condition is produced
by the action of general and natural causes; thence, the
condition being established, dogma comes in to supernatu-
ralize, and consecrate it in a formula assumed to be primi
tive and divine." Religions of Authority, page 69.
Sabatier has stated the case against Sacerdotal tradition-
aHsm none too strongly. The Jewish religion was orig
inally non-Sacerdotal in character. It had been the Prot
estantism of the ancient world. During all the ages from
Abraham and the Patriarchs, down to the Babylonian
captivity, the Jews had borne a relationship to the other
peoples resembling that of the Puritans to the rest of Prot
estantism in the Reformation period.
But while sojourning In Babylon the Jewish exiles took
up with heathen Sacerdotalism, the seed of which they
planted at Jerusalem upon their return under Ezra and
Nehemiah. These leaders. Prophet and Governor, co
operated in the rebuilding of the Temple, and in the es
tablishment of the Sacerdotal ministry and ritual. The
transported seed of Sacerdotalism sprang up and became
a great tree which, by the time of the Saviour's birth,

hall's APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 311
completely overshadowed and dwarfed the native reli
gious growth.
This imposing growth was the gorgeous and promising
fig tree of Sacerdotalism, or traditionalism, upon which
the Divine Layman found nothing but leaves and which
He cursed. It is to this cursing and the withering which fol
lowed that modem civilization owes its existence. The
harshest things that Jesus had to say were said against
the husbandmen of this tree, the Scribes and Pharisees. It
was against them and their Sacerdotal successors in the
Christian church that He pronounced His severe woes.
We have now made it appear that Sacerdotal " Catho
lics" are as really theorists as Republican Protestants,
differing from them only as to the basis upon which they
rest their theories concerning the Christian church, min
istry and sacraments. Sacerdotalists rest their theories
respecting these on the basis of tradition; Republicans
on historical facts. Historical criticism has shown the
basis of tradition to be so unreliable as not to afford a safe
foundation for any important doctrine.
The real question at issue between Sacerdotalists and
Republicans is not, then, concerned with the right to
theorize, for when the Sacerdotalist calls the Republican
a theorist he is following the foolish example of the pot
in calling the kettle black. It is a question of whether or
not traditional. Sacerdotal Christianity may be and should
be rejected for historical. Republican Christianity.
The answer to this question is found in the fact that both
Jesus and His great interpreter, St. Paul, rejected Jewish

312 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Sacerdotalism. As they rejected the Sacerdotal priest
hood, doctrines and customs which had been carried over
from Heathenism into Judaism so we not only may but
should reject the Sacerdotal ministry, doctrines and cus
toms which have been carried over from Judaism and
Heathenism to Christianity.
In referring to the assertion of Bishop Hall, about the
necessity of Interpreting New Testament and early Chris
tianity by the light of the existing Institutions and accepted
traditions of later times, a friend of mine disposes of his
claims on behalf of Sacerdotalism in this summary and
effectual manner: "On the theory of Bishops Hall and
Gore, any accepted order of the present, however new the
development, could be read back into the history of the
past, if that history happened, for any reason, to be suffi
ciently ' obscure ' on the matter to satisfy the advocates
of the accepted order."
III. The Summary of Conclusions which are alleged
by Bishop Hall to have been established by the array of
Facts and Arguments presented in his Essay: 1. The
representation is made (page 34) that "any tampering
with the principle of an authoritative Ministry with a
transmitted commission would indefinitely delay any possi
bility of reunion with the Latin and Greek communions
and forfeit our opportunity to act as mediator between
the old historic churches and the reformed bodies."
There is something altogether Impracticable and bizarre
about the Idea that the Anglican Communion is in a posi
tion to mediate between the Roman and Greek Churches

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 313
and the Protestant Churches. There Is no hope of our
commending ourselves to the Roman Church, however
extreme a Sacerdotal basis we may occupy; and Sacer
dotalism puts us altogether out of touch with Protestant-
Ism. 2. In his criticism of my plan as he understands It
(page 35), Bishop Hall leaves out of account two facts:
( 1 ) That the plan provides for the evolution of unity
through a Common Ministry, and (2) that Sacerdotal
Episcopacy is no guarantee against error in doctrine.
The Roman and Greek Churches have always been
Episcopal and yet in Article xix we declare that they
" have erred in matters of faith." Sacerdotal Episcopacy
has likewise failed to preserve unity among those possess
ing it. The most hopeless divisions of Christendom are
those which separate the Roman, Greek and Anglican
Communions, all of which have one of the three Historic
Episcopates. 3. In his statement of the issue (page 35) the Bishop
of Verm.ont says : " Church principles, including the or
derly transmission of the ministerial commission are a
part of God's design for His Church, or they are merely
human arrangements, convenient perhaps and desirable
under many conditions, but necessarily alterable."
I understand these words to mean that a Ministry de
rived according to the Sacerdotal theory of the Apostolic
Succession is a part of God's plan and so of Divine origin.

314 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTAJ^T DOCTRINES.
And that a Ministry otherwise derived is of human ar
rangement and origin.
This is the explanation of such expressions as the fol
lowing made by a diocesan convention of the Episcopal
Church. " Any plan for Church unity which involves a
surrender or impairment of our belief in the superior and
Divine origin of the Ministry of the Holy Catholic Church
as distinct from the Ministries of the Protestant Bodies
would be unacceptable."
Here again we see the unnaturalness of the Sacerdotal
conception of the supernatural. Before my door, as I
write, is a wagon on which is painted in large letters,
" Artificial Ice." Here comes the driver with one hundred
pounds of it. I do not want artificial ice, but genuine ice,
and he is bringing the real thing. The " manufactured "
ice which we use in the South is just as real, genuine, and
useful as is the " unmanufactured " ice used in the North.
Both were formed by the operation of the same Divinely
appointed laws of nature. In the one case, man directed
and utilized those laws and in the other he did not; but
both kinds of Ice are equally natural and equally divine.
The ice that I use is not artificial.
Episcopacy is, as I have repeatedly said, the embodi
ment of the eternal, universal principles of unity and super
intendence under one headship. One such Ministry is
just as much of Divine origin as another. If the Ministries
of the ancient Churches are compared with the " unmanu
factured " ice of the North, the Ministries of the modern
Churches may be compared to the "manufactured" ice

HALL'S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 315
of the South. No ground in reason presents itself on
which the ancient Churches can set up the claim to a more
Divine, authoritative or efficient Ministry than that which
is possessed by the modern Churches. As both ices, un
manufactured and manufactured are Divine and serve
the purposes of ice; so both Ministries, ancient and
modern, are Divine for all the purposes of a Christian
ministry. It should be remembered by the representatives of the
ancient Christian churches with inherited Ministries that
the quality of age is not a guarantee of superiority. Rather
the opposite is true. A strong argument might be formu
lated to the effect that human institutions, like men and
women, have an age limit, beyond which their usefulness
diminishes rather than increases. It cannot be maintained
that a Church has no age limit, because it is a Divine insti
tution; for surely it is no more Divine than its people.
All indispensable human institutions are Divine because
the people who constitute them are Divine as the result
of the Incarnation which took place in the Adam and the
Christ. Horses and dogs, though they are very noble crea
tures, cannot constitute a Divine institution. The Divine
ness of an institution depends upon the Divineness of its
adherents and upon the Divineness of the principles which
It embodies. The Family, State and Church are Divine
institutions. In the degree of their Divineness the Family
comes first, not the Church, as Sacerdotalists would have
us believe. The Family Is the most Divine of institu-

316 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
tions because it is the foundation of all the other institu
tions which enter into the superstructure of civilization.
The universal extension and complete development of
the Kingdom of Christ Is the goal of civilization. In pro
portion as an Institution helps forward toward that goal it
is Divine in Its efficiency. As I have said, institutions,
like men and women who constitute them, have an age
limit. Institutions die a much slower death than men and
women. But, nevertheless, they do die. Unlike men and
women they generally die of old age ; and unlike them also
they become antiquated and useless long before their death.
If an Institution Is to continue Divine In the sense of
efficiency it must constantly be renewing its youth by read
justments, and even by reorganizations which will enable
it to meet new conditions. There is a close analogy be
tween human bodies and human institutions. As the body
of an octogenarian is not more than seven years old, so
the organization of a millennial Church is not more than
a generation or two old. There is, then, a sense in which
it may be said that the Methodist Church is as old as the
Roman Church.
The Methodist Episcopal, the Presbyterian and the
Congregational forms of the Ministry are just as truly of
Divine origin and authority as the Roman, the Greek or
the Anglican. All alike are of human origin and au
thority; and, all alike are of Divine origin and authority,
in proportion as they embody the eternal and Divine prin
ciples of unity and superintendence under one headship.

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 317
4. I am glad to see that Bishop Hall contends (page
36) that the Ministry cannot be regarded as a caste; but
on the theory that ministerial character is given in ordina
tion it must be concluded that at the laying on of hands
by a successor of the Apostles the ordinand is differentiated
from other Christians. Upon this hypothesis it Is necessary
for us to conclude that the Ministry Is a caste.
5. In considering St. Paul's analogy in which he com
pares the members of the Church to the several members
of the human body (page 37), Bishop Hall loses sight
of the fact that there is no differentiation between the
members of the human body corresponding to the
differentiation between the Clergy and the Laity which
the Sacerdotal theory of ministerial character conveyed
by ordination postulates.
6. The Bishop of Vermont (page 38) gives up the
task of proving that the transmission of the ministerial
commission is limited exclusively to the Episcopate.
This is an Important concession, for if Episcopal ordi
nation is not the exclusive mode, but only the ordinary
and normal mode of such transmission, it follows that this
ordination is not absolutely necessary to a valid Ministry;
and hence some other kind of ordination might be adopted
which would be valid and might in time become normal
and ordinary.
As I interpret Bishop Hall's language a non-Episcopal
ordination would be an abnormal or extraordinary ordi
nation, but that nevertheless it might transmit the ministe
rial commission, and consequently enable the ordinand to

318 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
validly administer the Sacraments. The Level Plan for
Church Union could be carried out on this admission.
7. Bishop Hall (page 38) comes over fully to my
position when he says : " The acceptance of no theory of
the Apostolic Succession Is required of either Lay people
or of the Clergy. The due transmission of ministerial
authority may be regarded as belonging rather to the Dis
cipline of the Church than in the stricter sense to its Doc
trine." This admission determines to which of Bishop Hall's
two divisions (page 35) "the due transmission of minis
terial authority" belongs: (1) whether it is a part of
" God's design for His Church," a " principle of the
kingdom of Christ," " a necessary guarantee for God's
pledged sanction and ratification of the administration of
the Sacraments" and unchangeable; or (2) whether it
is of "human arrangement," or a matter of "spiritual
convenience, or ecclesiastical order" and chcmgeable.
Bishop Hall's admission that the transmission of min
isterial authority belongs to discipline and not to doctrine
clearly places Episcopal ordination in the second of these
divisions and I agree with this conclusion.
This is the bed-rock upon which I build my Level
Plan; and it finds its ample justification in the Preface
to the Book of Common Prayer: " In every Church,
what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine
must be referred to Discipline ; and therefore, by common
consent and authority, may be altered, abridged, enlarged,
amended or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most con-

HALL S APOSTOLIC MINISTRY. 319
venient for the edification of the people, according to the
various exigencies of times and occasions."
Bishop Hall and I agree that the Protestant Episcopal
Church, of which we are members, and the great Com
munion of which it is a part, has no doctrine of obligation
concerning the Christian ministry. Hence, he is perfectly
free to hold to the Sacerdotal, traditional, mediaeval, un
scientific, devolutionary, supematural theory of its origin
and authority, and I, thank God, am equally free to hold
to the Protestant, RepubHcan, historical, modern, scien
tific, evolutionary, natural theory.
The Prayer Book is, next to the Bible, the highest au
thority in the Churches of the Anglican Communion. It is,
so to speak, "the little Bible " of these Churches and holds
a place with them which corresponds to that held by
" the big Bible," in Christendom at large. The Prayer
Book would fully justify our Churches in officially propos
ing the Level Plan for Church Union to their sister and
daughter Churches.
As even Bishop Hall admits, questions appertaining
to the Christian ministry, belong to the realm of Disci
pline. As we have just seen, in the Preface to the Prayer
Book, it is distinctly declared that what belongs to this
realm " by common consent and authority, may be altered.
according to the various exigencies of times and occasions."
Provision has been made for the covering of much of
the ground traversed by the great Sacerdotal writers, Drs.
Gore, Moberly and Hall, in the section of Lecture I,
entitled, " The ApostoHc Succession," and in the remain-

320 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
ing sections of this Lecture, "The Historical Critics,"
and "Grace of Sacraments." The showing as a whole
is to the effect that, quite contrary to the fundamental
assumption of Sacerdotalists, covenanted Gospel salva
tion is not inseparably connected with Baptism and the
Holy Communion, and that the validity and efficacy of
these Sacraments are dependent upon the Lay Priesthood
of the recipient, not upon the Ministerial Priesthood of
the administrators of them.
III.
THE HISTORICAL CRITICS.
IF SPACE could be commanded for the purpose, I
should be glad to make extensive quotations from the
writings of the great expert authorities in the field of
ecclesiastical antiquities, for the purpose of confirming the
representations that have been made in this book concern
ing the origin and authority of the Christian ministry and
the development of the monarchial Episcopate ; but, under
the limitations which are upon me, the best that I can do is
to give six or seven among such quotations and they must
be short. I.
The first quotation shall be a remarkably illuminating
extract from a book entitled, " The Apostolic Age."
The author of this work has specialized in Primitive
Church history sufficiently to secure to himself the enviable

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 3^31
distinction of being Invited to treat of the most difficult and
important period in the whole range of ecclesiastical his
tory, as it is so admirably covered In that recently pubHshed
great work, entitled, " Ten Epochs of Church History."
Besides stating the facts with which we are here con
cerned, this author makes two or three citations that should
set Sacerdotalists to thinking. We begin our quotation
from " The Apostolic Age," where the author cites Dr.
Hort as saying of the New Testament Church:
" ' Of officers higher than Elders we find nothing that
points to an institution or system, nothing like the Epis
copal system of later times.' "
Then our author goes on to say: " In the New Tes
tament the word Episcopos, as applied to men, mainly, if
not always, is not a title, but a description of the Elder's
function. Many would except Phil. 1:1, from the latter
rule. But the former holds not only for the New Testa
ment, but for Clement's epistle also. Episcopoi or over
seers (Bishops), then, are always found as a body of
officers in a single local Church; and no function is as yet
definitely concentrated in the hands of one Episcopos
in such a sense as to put him in an order by himself. The
nearest approach to this before 70 (besides James' posi
tion at Jerusalem, due to personal and family reasons)
appears in the temporary functions entrusted to Timothy
and Titus, as representing St. Paul In the completion of
organization in Ephesus and Crete respectively. But they
were not permanent local officers, only apostoHc assistants
on detached service. Thus the first real forerunner of

322 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
the single or monarchial Bishop, as found in the Ignatian
Eplsdes (about 1 10-1 15 A. D.) is Diotrephes, who seems
to have been paramount in his Church. Yet there is no
sign that even he was superior in status, rather than in
fluence, to his fellow-elders.
" It is possible, however, that in the last years of the
first century things were setting steadily towards the emer
gence of a third order distinct from Elders or Presbyter-
Bishops, as these were now becoming more marked off
from Deacons. This may be Inferred from the Ignatian
letters some fifteen or twenty years later; although even
then, Ignatius, as his insistent tone impHes, writes not as
an historian, describing facts, but rather as a prophet im
pressing an ideal. In his advocacy of a single Bishop
as a center of visible unity in each Church, he had his
eye on the needs of the future rather than on the facts of
the past. He saw in the actual predominance of a pre
siding elder or Bishop, primus inter pares, as found at
Antioch and in certain developed Churches in the prov
inces of Asia, and nowhere else to our knowledge save
in the person of our Lord's kinsman, Symeon — the best
guarantee of outward order at a time when centrifugal
tendencies were strong. Accordingly he tried to strengthen
the Bishop's position by burnishing it will) a new theoretic
basis. But the striking thing is that, while fertile in ideal
arguments and analogies, he never claims for his favorite
institution apostolic origin or commission, and that in the
region where John's name was of supreme authority. As

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 323
Dr. Moberly justly observes : ' It is only as the symbol
of unity that the Bishop is magnified.'
" Ignatius therefore fully supports Jerome's account
of the rise of the single pastor or Bishop, namely, ' that
the germs of factions might be removed.' And in this
light the development was a valuable one, so expedient
that the vast majority of Churches to-day make it the key
stone of organization, the last addition, making firm the
rest of the arch." The Apostolic Age, pp. 489, 490,
491.

II.

Professor Moshelm, a celebrated expert in the field
of Christian antiquities, probably the most learned man
of his generation, who wrote more than one hundred
years ago, and with whom all specialists who have worked
in that field ever since his time have been in substantial
accord, says, in his "History of the Christian Church: "
" Such was the constitution of the Christian Church, in
its infancy, when its assemblies were neither numerous nor
splendid. Three or four Presbyters, men of remarkable
piety and wisdom, ruled these small congregations in
perfect harmony, nor did they stand in need of any pres
ident or superior to maintain concord and order where no
dissensions were known. But the number of the Presbyters
and Deacons increasing with that of the Churches, and
the sacred work of the Ministry growing more painful and

324 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
weighty by a number of additional duties, these new cir
cumstances required new regulations. It was then judged
necessary that one man of distinguished gravity and wis
dom should preside in the council of Presbyters, in order
to distribute among his colleagues their several tasks, and
to be a center of unity to the whole society. This person
was, at first, styled the Angel of the Church to which he
belonged, but was afterwards distinguished by the name
of Bishop, or inspector, a name borrowed from the Greek
language and expressing the principal part of the Episco
pal function which was to Inspect Into and superintend
the affairs of the Church. It is highly probable that the
Church of Jerusalem, grown considerably numerous and
deprived of the ministry of the Apostles, who were gone
to Instruct the other nations, was the first which chose a
President or Bishop. And it is no less probable that
the other Churches followed by degrees such a respectable
example. " Let none, however, confound the Bishops of the primi
tive and golden period of the Church with those of
whom we read in the following ages. For, though they
were both distinguished by the same name yet they differed
extremely, and that in many respects. A Bishop during
the first and second century was a person who had the
care of one Christian assembly, which, at that time, was,
generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a
private house. In this assembly he acted not so much
with the authority of a master as with the zeal and dili
gence of a faithful servant. He instructed the people.

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 325
performed the several parts of Divine worship, attended
the sick, and Inspected into the circumstances and supplies
of the poor. He charged. Indeed, the Presbyters with the
performance of those duties and services which the multi
plicity of his engagements rendered It Impossible for him
to fulfill; but had not thrf power to decide or enact
anything without the consent of the Presbyters and people.
And, though the Episcopal office was both laborious, and
singularly dangerous, yet its revenues were extremely
small, since the Church had no certain Income, but de
pended on the gifts, or oblations of the multitude, which
were, no doubt, inconsiderable, and were, moreover, to
be divided between the Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons,
and poor.
" The power and jurisdiction of the Bishops were not
long confined to these narrow limits, but soon extended
themselves, and that by the following means : The Bishops
who lived In the cities, had, either by their own Ministry,
or that of their Presbyters, erected new Churches In the
neighboring towns and villages. These Churches con
tinuing under the Inspection and Ministry of the Bishops,
by whose labors and counsels they had been engaged to
embrace the Gospel, grew imperceptibly into ecclesiastical
provinces, which the Greeks afterwards called dioceses.
But as the Bishop of the city could not extend his labors
and inspection to all these Churches in the country and
in the villages, so he appointed certain suffragans, or depu
ties, to govern and to instruct these new societies, and
they were distinguished by the title of choreplscopi, that is.

326 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Country Bishops. This order held the middle rank be
tween Bishops and Presbyters, being inferior to the former
and superior to the latter."

III.

In the following passage which I have collated from
Professor Ramsay's monumental historical work, "The
Church in the Roman Empire to A. D. 1 70," we have
the showing of a most learned and candid Presby
terian author from which It appears on his great author
ity that the Historic Episcopate grew out of the need
of the Asia Minor Churches for confederation in doing
philanthropic work and in resisting persecution. Professor
Ramsay says :
" Like the empire, the Church fully recognized the
duty of the community to see that all its members were fed ;
and this was one of the earliest forms in which the ques
tion of practical organization began to press on it. (Acts
vi. ) Further organization was required when many com
munities existed In different lands, all considering them
selves as a brotherhood.
" As it was completed in its main elements by A. D.
1 70, the organization of the Church may be described
thus: "1. Each individual community was ruled by a
gradation of officials, at the head of which was the
Bishop; and the Bishop represented the community.

lUt. tllSlUKlCAL CRITICS. . 32't'
" 2. All communities were parts of a unity, which was
co-extensive with the Roman world. A name for this
unity, the Universal Catholic Church, is first found in
Ignatius, and the idea was familiar to a pagan writer like
Celsus, perhaps 161-9 A. D.
" 3. Councils determined and expressed the common
views of a number of communities.
" 4. Any law of the empire which conflicted with the
principles of the Church must give way.
" 5. All laws of the Empire which were not in con
flict with the religion of the Church were to be obeyed.
" In this completed organization the Bishops were es
tablished as the ruling heads of the several parts, divided
in space but not in idea, which constituted the Church in
the Roman world. The history of this organization is, to
a great extent, the history of the Episcopal power.
The Bishops soon became the directors of the Church
as a party struggling against the Govemment.
" Such a vast organization of a perfectly new kind,
with no analogy in previously existing institutions, was
naturally slow in development. We regard the ideas
underlying it as originating with Paul.
" The word episkopos means overseer. Originally,
when the deliberative council of Elders resolved to perform
some action, they would naturally direct one of their num
ber to superintend it. This Presbyter was an episkopos
for the occasion. Any Presbyter might be also an epis
kopos, and the terms were therefore applied to the same
persons, and yet conveyed essentially different meanings.

328 - SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
The episkopos appointed to perform any duty was nec
essarily single, for the modern idea of a committee was un
known; any Presbyter might become an episkopos for
an occasion, yet the latter term conveyed an idea of single
ness and of executive authority which was wanting to
the former. On the other hand, the idea of an order of
eplskopol at this stage, like the order of Presbyters, is
self-contradictory. The episkopos was necessarily single,
and yet there might be many eplskopi for distinct duties.
Such appears to be the natural Interpretation of the term,
as It was used In ancient Hfe.
" It was natural that proved aptness and power in an
Individual Presbyter should lead to his having executive
duties frequently assigned to him. The Imperial idea
was in the air ; and the episkopos tended to become perma
nent, and to concentrate executive duties In his hands.
The process was gradual, and no violent change took
place. The authority of the episkopos was long a dele
gated authority, and his Influence depended mainly on per
sonal qualities.
" The scanty and unsatisfactory evidence of the first
century points to the practical permanence of the episko
pos as already usual, but is inconsistent v«th the idea that
the episkopos was considered as separate in principle from
his co-Presbyters (as he continued for centuries to term
them) . He was only a Presbyter on whom certain duties
had been Imposed. There was In practice one permanent
episkopos In a community, when I Peter II, 25 was written,
and when the messages were sent to the angeloi of the

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 329

re-

seven Asian Churches ; but the episkopos was very far
moved from the monarchial Bishop of A. D. 1 70, and
we find not a trace to suggest that he exercised any
authority ex-ofjicio within the community.
" We have seen that, before the end of the first century,
there was, as a rule, an individual episkopos in each com
munity, who tended in fact to be permanent, but who pos
sessed no official rank except as a presbyteros. It may
be argued that the account we have given of his position
is inconsistent and self-contradictory. We acknowledge
that this is so ; but this does not prove it to be untrue. The
office was in process of rapid growth, and no account of
it can be true which makes it logical and self-consistent in
character. It had vast potentiality, for the whole future
of the Church was latent in it; yet, in its outward ap
pearance and its relation to the past, it was humble, and
the episkopos was merely a Presbyter in special circum
stances. His actual influence depended on his personal
character. "Christian communities, registered as collegia tenuiorum,
and held property. The collegium had to be registered
in the name of some individual, who acted as its head
and representative, and who held the property that be
longed to it. We can hardly doubt that the episkopos
was the representative of the collegium, for he already
acted as representative of the community in Its relation to
others. About 259 Galllenus granted to the Bishops
the right to recover the cemeteries, which had been seized
in the recent persecutions, and which had therefore been

330 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
registered in the name of die Bishops a considerable time
previously. This being the case, the community would be
unable to recover such property by ordinary legal process
from the Bishop, if he were deposed or changed; for it
could not appear before a court except through its Bishop.
Permanence in the discharge of Episcopal duties was
usual long before 1 30."

IV.

In the Important departments of Pauline and Apostolic
Patristic literatures, the late Bishop Lightfoot of Durham
is the most renowned of all ecclesiastical antiquarians. That
he believed Christianity to be essentially Republican and
not Sacerdotal in its character is evident from the opening
paragraph of his celebrated essay, " The Christian Min
istry." "The kingdom of Christ," says this great scholar, "not
being a kingdom of this world, is not limited by the re
strictions which fetter other societies, political or religious.
It is in the fullest sense free, comprehensive, universal. It
displays this character, not only in the acceptance of all
comers who seek admission, irrespective of race or caste or
sex, but also in the instruction and treatment of those
who are already its members. It has no sacred days or
seasons, no special sanctuaries, because every time and
every place alike are holy. Above all, it has no Sacerdotal
system. It interposes no sacrificial tribe or class between

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 331
God and man, by whose Intervention alone God is recon
ciled and man forgiven. Each individual member holds
personal communion with the Divine Head. To Him
immediately he is responsible, and from Him directly he
obtains pardon and draws strength."
It Is true that Bishop Lightfoot, after making these
sweeping statements, declared in effect that they were
idealistic, and that in practical life the necessity of some
modifications of them must be recognized. But it is
equally tme that he contends that the taking of idealism
out of the Gospel of the God-Man would be to rob It
of its most valuable practical content. No people can
advance towards the mountain peaks of civilization ex
cept by making the difficult ascent by the way of IdeaHsm.
If it be contended that practicalism, or utilitarianism is one
of the most striking characteristics of our age, I reply that
idealism is at once the basis and goal of all true practical
ism. The great Bishop of Durham realized this and so, after
making such modifications of his thesis as the Interests of
utilitarianism required, he reiterated its Republican ideal
ism in the boldest and strongest terms.
This, then, he wrote, " is the Christian ideal ; a holy
season extending the whole year round — a temple confined
only by the limits of the habitable world — a priesthood
co-extensive with the human race."
Elsewhere in his epoch-making essay in support of this
thesis, Bishop Lightfoot says many such things as these:
" The faculty of governing not less than the utterance

332 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
of prophecy, the gift of healing not less than the gift of
tongues, is an inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But on
the other hand, in both alike there is an entire silence about
priestly functions; for the most exalted office In the Church,
the highest gift of the Spirit, conveyed no Sacerdotal
right which was not enjoyed by the humblest member
of the Christian community."
" The Episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic
order by localization, but out of the presbyterial by ele
vation; and the title, which originally was common to all,
came at length to be appropriated to the chief among
them." V. -
One of the most brilliant among the expert authorities
in the field of ecclesiastical antiquities is the German
scholar and author, Paul Wernle, Professor Extraordi
nary of Modern Church History in the University of
Basel. He occupies about the same place, as a writer
in support of the evolutionary theory respecting the origin
of the Christian church and Institutions, as was occupied
by the scintillating George John Romanes, as a writer in
support of the evolutionary theory respecting the origin
of the animal organism, including that of man. In Chap
ter ix. Volume 1, of his truly wonderful work, entitled,
" The Beginnings of Christianity," Professor Wernle, un
der the heading, " The Development of the Church,"
says:

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 333
" Even in Jesus' lifetime there was a Christian fellow
ship in the ideal sense of the word, the number of all those
who recognized Him as the Lord, as their Head, and
kept His commandments In their daily life. But there was
no coherence, no organization. These followed only after
Jesus' death, under the impression produced by the ap
pearances and under the guidance of the Apostles. We
cannot fix any exact date, but we may look upon the re
turn of the disciples to Jerusalem in expectation of the
Second Advent of Jesus in the place where He died as
the decisive occurrence.
" The Christian church is the child of enthusiasm.
The less likely we are to imagine this as we look at the
Church to-day, the greater the importance of reminding
ourselves of this fact. The Church originated in a hero
worship — theologians call It faith — the truest and the
purest that has ever been. It united all the worshippers
indissolubly together and created the new forms quite of
itself. They were the tokens of the same love. Jesus
Himself and none other was the center of the new com
munity, present in the veneration, the love, the enthusiasm,
the faith of His disciples. The watchword of the breth
ren in its simplest form was just this : Jesus is the Lord —
with Him through life or death into the kingdom of heaven;
without Him we are lost. All the feelings of love and
reverence for the nation, for the family, for friends, cher
ished in each individual soul, were now uprooted and
transferred to Jesus and His followers. The saying of

334 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Jesus, ' He that is not with Me is against Me,' was now
fulfilled in all its practical consequences.
" All manifestations of anything extraordinary were
reckoned the surest sign of a disciple; above all else the
speaking with tongues. The impression made by the
story of what Jesus did and of His appearance was so
great that it often happened that not only believing disci
ples but strangers and newcomers who were present fell
into an ecstatic condition as they listened — an indubitable
sign that they were brethren, as God had vouchsafed the
Spirit unto them.
" All this enthusiasm was crowned by the heroism of
the martyrs. There is an early Christian hymn:
' Let them take our life.
Goods, honour, child and wife ;
Let all these go.
Yet is the gain not theirs;
The kingdom still is ours.'
" These simple fishermen and artisans of Galilee sur
rendered their all, even their lives, and with a glad cour
age, that shrank not from death itself, set the seal upon
their discipleship of Jesus. They translated Jesus' words
into deeds and accounted death for nought. The first
community of believers was welded together by the blood
of the martyrs far more than by the speaking with tongues.
But this was all the organization that existed thus far.
He that spoke with tongues of Jesus, he that for His
sake gave all his belongings to the poor and died for Him,

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 335
was His disciple ; of that there can be no doubt. No outer
sign was necessary,
"In the first period of its development Christianity ex
isted as a sect or heresy. The metamorphosis from sect
into Church was a very gradual process. Step by step
the Christian sect separated itself from the Jewish church.
By slow degrees it emerged from its obscurity into pub
licity. But it was only in the reign of Constantine that
the transformation was completed. At first it was a sect,
and nothing but a sect. No one thought of leaving the
Jewish charch. All shared in the public worship of the
Church and were subject to the public discipline. But the
community lived its own life hidden from the public gaze.
The earliest services of the Christian church were secret
conventicles, meetings in the house of a friend with closed
doors. " Their life as sectaries imparted a sectarian character
to the outer forms current among the brotherhood. Every
one free from suspicion was, it is tme, allowed ready ac
cess to the meeting-place of the brethren. But admission
to the brotherhood itself was only granted after the ob
servance of due formalities. This was the place occupied
by baptism. Baptism was no original Christian institution,
but was borrowed from the disciples of John with one
addition. By the utterance of the name of Jesus, a Chris
tian character was imparted to the rite. We have no
tradition as to the use of baptism in the earliest times.
" As yet no instruction preceded baptism. It was not
necessary. The confession of faith in the Messiah was

336 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
SO simple. But as a rule adults only were baptized. Had
not Jesus promised children the kingdom of God without
laying down any further condition? The baptized now
shared In the meals of the brethren. The chief meal was
always, or at least frequently, connected with the repeti
tion of a portion of the account of the Last Supper.
" The Apostles, prophets and teachers, secured a cer
tain amount of connection between the scattered congre
gations by their constant journeys from the one to the
other. Wherever they appeared they stood in God's
stead. TTiey conveyed the collections to their right des
tination, they fostered the brotherly love both of indi
viduals and of Churches for each other, but they were al
ways reckoned as the servants of the community, not as
its masters.
" The foundation of the sect, however, brings about
the first great change in the new religion. It can be
traced in a certain Increasing rigidity both without, where
it assumes the shape of excluslveness, and within, where
it becomes legality. Between the brethren and those that
are without, an impassable barrier has been set up by the
institution of baptism and the profession of faith in the
Messiah. " The Lord's Supper was celebrated with a scrupulous
frequency, and finally exalted into a Sacrament founded
by Jesus Himself. Perhaps, too, the example of Jesus le
galized the idea of the reception into the Church by bap
tism. In the same way faith in the Messiah comes to be
claimed as a dogma which must be believed. It is no

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 337
longer self-understood. In the long run, faith in an
absent person can only be maintained by legal forms.
Thus, then, this development of the sect Implies at the
same time a diminution of the first freshness, freedom, and
originality, a gradual Increase of that mere mechanical
copying which belongs to the essence of a Church. The
whole frame of mind altered. Mourning their Master,
they began to fast again like the Pharisees and the dis
ciples of John.
" And yet this sect, sharply defined against the world,
and with the Gospel for law, was the necessary vessel for
the eternal treasure of redemption in Jesus. This was the
first body which the soul of Jesus took unto itself in order
thence to begin the long journey out from these narrow
borders into the wide world. All reverence to the Divine
in this brotherhood. Here within this small compass lies
hidden the life that is destined to give the world comfort
and to inspire it with strength. These rude but strong
characters, at enmity with the world, their expectant gaze
tumed towards the eternal mansions, are called to be the
conquerors of the world."

VI.

Professor Adolph Harnack, Rector of the University
of Berlin, is by common consent the greatest all round
authority among living historians. His special field is the

338 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
history of Christian dogma. I quote a short passage
from an article of his in the Ninth Edition of the Encyclo
paedia Britannlca, because the work is so easily accessi
ble. In that article Professor Harnack says:
" In so far as each local Church embraced a system of
higher and lower functions, each was indeed a little world
to itself. It possessed a governing body (stewards) for
the. care of the poor, for worship, for correspondence — in a
word, for its ' economy.' In the widest sense of the word,
the congregation needed controlling officials. These were
the Bishops and the Deacons — the former for higher, the
latter for inferior services ; they owed their official position
to the congregation, and in the nature of their offices
there was, strictly speaking, nothing which could have Idd
the foundation of any special rank or exaltation."

VII.
These citations from the great experts in the science
of historical criticism to whom I appeal in support of the
theory of the origin and authority of the Christian church
and ministry upon which the Level Plan for Church
Union is based have already exceeded the space reserved
for them. They cannot be concluded, however, without
a word from Professor Hatch's celebrated Bampton Lec
tures, " The Organization of the Early Christian
Church," a work to which Harnack attached such prime
importance that he published a German edition of it in his

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 339
own translation with elaborate notes. These lectures
appeared in 1881, some fifteen years after Bishop Light
foot's essay, " The Christian Ministry." Though they
constitute an entirely independent investigation of great
scholastic originality and literary merit, yet they cover
practically the same ground that is covered by the essay.
The two great works should be read together in the order
of their publication, for the Professor's lectures throw a
flood of light on the Bishop's essay and vice versa. Pro
fessor Hatch says :
" The Episcopate grew by the force of circumstances, in
the order of Providence, to satisfy a felt need. It is per
tinent to add that this view as to the chief cause which
operated to produce it has not the merit or demerit of
novelty. Although the view must rest upon its own inher
ent probability as a complete explanation of the known
facts of the case, it has the support of the earliest and
greatest of ecclesiastical antiquaries. St. Jerome, arguing
against the growing tendency to exalt the Diaconate at the
expense of the Presbyterate, maintains that the Churches
were originally governed by a plurality of Presbyters,
but that in course of time one was elected to preside over
the rest as a remedy against division, lest different Presby
ters, having different views of doctrine, should, by each
of them drawing a portion of the community to himself,
cause divisions in it.
" The earliest theory of the relation of the Bishop to
the community was, as we have already seen, that the
Bishop stood in the place of the unseen Lord, entmsted

340 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
with the oversight of his Master's household until He
should return from that far country into which He had
gone. This view is found in the Ignatian Epistles, in the
Clementines, and in the ApostoHc Constitutions. In none
of these cases is there any ambiguity of expression. The
Bishop is in the place of God, or of Christ; the Presbyters
are in the place of the Apostles. But gradually another
theory Interweaves Itself with this and ultimately takes
its place. It was a not unnatural inference from the belief
that the Bishop was the custodian and conservator of apos
tolic teaching that he, rather than the Presbyters, took
the Apostles' place. The Bishops had succeeded the
Apostles in the presidency of the several Churches by what
Firmilian calls an ordinatic vicaria — one officer being ap
pointed in another's place, as govemor succeeded governor
in a Roman province, or as chancellor succeeds chancellor
in our own university. When discipline as well as doc
trine found its center in the Bishops, it began to be argued
that they had succeeded not only to the seats which the
Apostles had filled, but also to the powers which the
Apostles possessed. It began to be urged that the
powers, especially the power of * binding and loosing,'
which our Lord had conferred on the Apostles, were given
to them personally or as constituting the Church of the
time, but in a representative capacity as the first members
of a long line of Church officers. Against an early asser
tion of this view, Tertullian raised a vigorous protest; nor
did the view win its way to general acceptance until the
time of the great Latin theologians of the fifth century.

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 341
It was a still later development of this view to maintain
that the Bishops had also succeeded to the power of the
Apostles in the conferring of spiritual gifts, and that
through them, and through them exclusively, did it please
the Holy Spirit to enter into the souls either of individual
Christians in baptism, or of Church officers at ordination.
This latest development, which has frequently been con
founded with the earlier view, is found in its completest
form on the threshold of the middle ages; it was received
as a doctrine by the Council of Paris in A. D. 829; it
forms the basis of several arguments in the pseudo-Isido-
rian decretals; it passed at length into the ordinals; and
it still survives.
" If we gather together all the words which, during the
first two centuries, are used as collective terms for the offi
cers of the Christian communities, we find that they agree
in con-noting primarily the idea of presidency or leader
ship. " If we further gather together the abstract terms which
are used, during the same period, for ecclesiastical office
we find that, with the exception of diakonia, they exhibit
the same phenomenon.
" If, therefore, the primitive Christian communities
were institutions which had entirely passed away, and we
were examining their constitutions as a piece of ancient
history, in the same manner as we examined the consti
tution of Athens or of Sparta, we should be led to the
conclusion that the relation between the officers and the

342 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
rest of the comrhunlty was primarily a relation of priority
of order.
" If we extend the sphere of our induction and look at
not only the collective but also the particular terms for
Church officers in the light of their contemporary use, we
further find that none of them were pecuHar to the Chris
tian communities but that they were all common to them
with contemporary organizations. Some of them were
in use in the imperial administration, some of them in mu
nicipal corporations, some of them in voluntary associa
tions. " If, therefore, we could exclude all ideas except those
which appear simply upon the evidence, and deal with
the facts of Christian organization as we should deal
with the facts of any other organization, we should un
doubtedly be led to the conclusion that not only the re
lation between Church officers and the rest of the com
munity, was that of presidency or leadership, but that
also the presidency or leadership was the same in kind as
that of contemporary non-Christian societies.
"The question before us may be thus stated: A pre
sumption having been raised by the terms which were in
use for Church office that the conception of such
office was one of presidency or leadership, does the exist
ing evidence warrant an inference that Church officers
were regarded as possessing other powers than those which
naturally attach to presidents and leaders of a community?
" It will be convenient to take in detail the several
functions which in later times have been regarded as the

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 343
special and peculiar functions of Church officers, and
to Inquire how far they were regarded as special and pe
culiar functions in the first two centuries.
"In regard to the function of teaching or preaching,
it is clear from both the Acts of the Apostles and St.
Paul's Epistles that ' liberty of prophesying ' prevailed in
the apostoHc age. It is equally clear that liberty of
prophesying existed after the apostolic age. The
Apostolic Constitutions expressly contemplate the exist
ence of preaching by laymen : ' even if a teacher be a
layman, still if he be skilled in the work and reverent
In habit, let him teach; for the Scripture says they shall
be all taught of God.' "
In the next paragraph Professor Hatch shows that the
administration of Baptism by laymen was Held to be
valid. In regard to the Eucharist, he says: "The only
explicit evidence is that of the Ignatian Epistles." And
he then proceeds to show from these epistles that it was
the custom for laymen, in the absence of a Church officer,
to celebrate the Eucharist and that such celebrations were
by the people, held to be valid.
The author then shows that the power of disci
pline even to the extent of removing its own officers
was exercised by the congregation. And concludes as
follows :
" Whether therefore we look at Preaching, at Baptism,
at the Eucharist, or at Discipline, it seems probable that
the officers were not conceived as having, as such, ex
clusive powers. In other words, the existing evidence

344 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
in regard to the functions of Church officers so far from
establishing, tends to disprove the existence of any con
ception of the nature of their office, other than that which
is gathered from the terms which were in use to designate
such office. It supports the hypothesis that they existed
in the Christian societies, as those who bore the same names
existed in secular societies, for the general superintend
ence of the community and the general control of its
affairs, that all things might be done decently and in
order." It is sometimes asserted that the general trend of mod-'
ern scholarship has been of late years away from Bishop
Lightfoot's position towards that of the Sacerdotalists or
Romanizers. In reply to this representation it may be ob
served that among all. those who have written from first
hand knowledge since his time. Professors Harnack and
Ramsay are by common consent the greatest authorities.
They not only occupy Bishop Lightfoot's position, but
have fortified it with the pubHshed results of their inde
pendent investigations, until the assertion may be made,
in the greatest confidence, that it will forever remain se
cure against all attacks of Sacerdotalists.
But, it will be asked. Though there may be no recog
nized historical basis, what about that furnished by Catho
lic tradition? My reply is that our interest is in historical
facts, not in traditional assumptions. Bishop Gore, upon
whom Sacerdotalists rely so confidently, does indeed
make a wonderful showing as to the support given to

THE HISTORICAL CRITICS. 345
Sacerdotalism from A. D. 1 50 down to the Reformation.
But now-a-days people do not go to tradition, when they
may turn to reliable documents; or grope around in
dark tunnels with the dim and flickering light afforded
by the candle of tradition, when they may as well have
the much brighter and more certain Illumination of his
torical facts.
If we take our stand on the facts and logical deductions
of ecclesiastical history, it will appear that the Diocesan
or Historic Episcopate possesses nothing which was not
originally derived from the Congregational Episcopate.
As for the Congregational Episcopate, it will be seen
that it possesses nothing which was not originally derived
from the Presbyterate. And as to the Presbyterate,
it will be evident that originally it was very slightly if at
all differentiated from that Ministry which is co-exten
sive with organic Christianity, the ordination to which is
baptism ; so that it owed its existence wholly to the recog
nition by the people of natural spiritual gifts.
Let me most respectfully but earnestly advise those
who are still appealing to tradition to read what even
Roman modernists are saying. Here is a sample passage
from the pen of one of them:
" The traditional apologists have been wont to view
the Church as an institution leading a life apart from
the surrounding social and political world, growing and
shaping itself according to peculiar laws of development,
whose largely miraculous character forbids their verifica
tion. This ancient conception of the Church as the work

346 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
of the Logos, and as a domain closed to the influence
of those which govern the growth of human socle-
ties, having once obtained footing in the great historical
construction of Eusebius, has for long ages been the
postulate of all Catholic ecclesiastical history.
" A prepossession of this kind, joined with the notion
of revelation as being, before all, a communication of un
changeable abstract propositions led to another assump
tion, namely, that the dogmatic affirmations, which gradu
ally became part of the Inherited intellectual explanation
of faith, as well as the external forms progressively as
sumed by the ecclesiastical organization, existed, at least
implicitly, from the very beginning of the preaching of
Jesus, in the faith of the first Christians, and in the teaching
of the Fathers.
" Historical criticism has purged our minds inexorably
of these prepossessions.
" This Church which lay beyond the horizon of Christ's
outlook, bounded by the Parousla, grew up naturally
among His followers and quickly passed from the charis
matic hierarchy of His first days, arranged according to
personal graces and gifts of the Spirit, to the official and
monarchic hierarchy arranged according to measures of
jurisdiction and sacramental power.
" Finally, as regards the organization of the Chris
tian communities, they had come by the beginning of the
second century to adopt the monarchic Episcopate as the
result of taking over certain offices and titles, partly from

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 347
the synagogue, partly from the Hellenistic confraternities
and societies.
" The Church should feel a sort of nostalgia, a yearn
ing towards her own past, in regard to these, as yet un
consciously reHgious currents of thought and sentiment
which are the Hfe-blood of the rising democracy. She
should find some way of mingling with this world-move
ment in order to ensure Its true success by means of the
strength of her restraints and the stimulus of her moral
authority, which alone can bring home the lessons of self-
denial and altruism to the multitudes. She should frankly
recognize that democracy paves the way to what is pre
cisely the highest expression of her Catholicism. When
she does so, then democracy will begin to yearn after the
Church which continues that Gospel-message wherein
democracy finds its own remote but authentic origin."
The Programme of Modernism and the Encyclical of
PiusX, pp. 74, 81, 84. 128.
IV.
GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. I.
THE SACRAMENTS have always been the storm
center of the controversy that has raged between
Sacerdotal Catholics and Republican Protestants.
Drs. Gore, Hall and Mobedy cannot be fully answered,

348 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
nor can the Level Plan for Church Union be defended
without a justification of the Protestant doctrine conceming
the Sacraments.
There are two points from which a Sacrament may and
should be viewed. From one of them it is seen that it has
an effect upon the grace with which it is concerned, an
effect exactly analogous to that of a sermon which has
in view the stirring up of the same grace. A Sacrament
is then a dramatized sermon. From the other view point,
it is seen that a Sacrament is a dramatized prayer to God
for the promotion of the grace with which the Sacrament
is concerned. In the discussion of the supernatural in the Sacra
ments it is important to note that the supernatural is never
the unnatural. The Sacerdotal theory of Sacramental
grace seems to me to invest the Sacraments and their ad
ministrators with a supematuralness which is unnatural,
if not superstitious.
I do not deny the supernatural in the Sacraments; but
insist upon a supematuralness which is entirely congruous
with the natural, and which is free from every vestige of
Sacerdotal superstition.
Christian sacraments are supernatural but not more
so than Christian sermons or prayers. The administrator
of a Sacrament performs no more of a miracle than that
which is performed by one who effectively preaches or
prays. In my efforts to arrive at the truth respecting Christian
doctrine, I am, of late years, more and more, proceed-

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 349
ing upon the assumption that there are very few basic
principles to be reckoned with. God has made much out
of litde. The miracle of the loaves and fishes runs all
through things as we know them. 1 do not presume to
speak for other Protestants, but for myself I want to re
iterate that, according to my conviction, the sacramental
principle is the same as the preaching principle, and also
that the preaching is identical with the prayer principle.
If I am right in this conclusion, a Sacrament Is at once
both a sermon and a prayer dramatized. But preaching
and praying In any form cannot, on Gospel grounds, be
limited to a Sacerdotal, Priestly, Ministerial, Caste.
I would not be understood as placing the Sacraments on
the same level with ordinary sermons or prayers. A Sac
rament may be more effective than a sermon or a prayer
in inspiring good desires, determinations and efforts: not,
however, as Sacerdotalists teach, because of any super-
naturalness in it or its administrator, but because of the
same underl3nng reason that the compositions of Shake
speare are more effective when dramatized than when
simply read or recited.
The dramatic principle explains the almost universal
prevalence of Baptism by immersion in primitive times and
its wide persistence to our own day. Baptism by immer
sion is much more of a drama than is Baptism by sprink
ling or pouring. The Lord's Supper was often dramatized
in the primitive Church. Christ was impersonated by the
chairman or president of the college of Presbyters,
which college, in places where this was done, usually

350 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
numbered thirteen. The other twelve Presbyters imper
sonated the Apostles.
If we could go deep enough we would, I think, see
the principle of preaching and the principle of praying
to be one and the same principle in different relationships.
Even on the surface it is perfectly evident that if there be
two principles they run quite parallel much of the way.
The indispensable importance of the principle of
preaching and praying to the Sacraments appears from our
own incomparable Services for the administration of the
two great Sacraments and the several sacramental ordi
nances. If the elements of praying and preaching were
eliminated from them, there would be almost nothing left.
This is especially true of the element of prayer which all
admit to be a universal, not alone a Priestly, prerogative.
Or, to state the same truth in another form, prayer proves
the universality of the Christian priesthood. According
to the true Protestant doctrine, as I understand it, every
Christian is actually and every human being is potentially
a Priest. Of course if the Sacerdotal theory were true, the entire
elimination of the preaching and prayer elements from the
offices for the administration of the Sacraments would
leave to them all that is absolutely essential. On this
theory, the Priestly miracle-working declaration on behalf
of Christ, upon which, for example, in the case of the
Lord's Supper, is supposed to depend the conversion of the
elements of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of
Christ, is the essential thing. According to this theory.

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 351
we would also have as the result of this declaration, in
some real and literal sense, the miracle of the repetition
of the Sacrifice on the Cross; and furthermore, a repe
tition or extension of the miracle of the Incarnation.
I think that to admit that a Sacrament conveys grace
of essentially another kind, or in essentially another way
than that which is conveyed by preaching and praying,
is the admission of the Sacerdotal principle as held by
the Roman and Greek Churches.
Tills contention is not novel, for our Church teaches
that, under certain conditions, the benefits of the Lord's
Supper may be received by any Christian as the re
sult of his own prayer, quite as really and effectively as
if the Sacrament were administered by one of our Pres
byters or Bishops.
Dr. C. B. Wllmer in his excellent pamphlet entitled,
" The Protestant Episcopal Church and the Present
Crisis," refers to a remarkable article by the Bishop of
Vermont in The Living Church, for December 4, 1 909,
on the Priesthood, in which he brings out the true idea
of the Sacrament as a blessing Imparted in answer to
prayer. II.
The insistence upon the " Catholic " or Sacerdotal doc
trine of Apostolic Succession in connection with the His
toric Episcopate, in such a way as to make that insti
tution the seed of the Church, and necessary to its exist-

352 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
ence and historical continuity, is based on the idea that
the Christian religion is supernatural in character; and
more particularly, upon the persuasion that this super-
naturalness is manifested through the Sacraments, only
when they are administered by Bishops or Priests who
have received ordination from representatives of this His
toric Episcopate.
God forbid that I should deny that the Christian re
ligion is supernatural. I insist, however, that it is super
natural because of the Incarnation, not because of its
Ministry or Sacraments, or even because of its Scriptures.
In order to connect the supernatural with our religion,
there is no need of associating it with that to which it does
not inherenriy belong. The Ministry and the Sacra
ments of the Christian religion contribute to the develop
ment in the Christian of the supernatural life, but the
supematural goes back of the Ministry for its origin to the
Incarnation of the Son of God.
The Ministry and the Sacraments then bear a re
lationship to the development of the supernatural life of
a Christian, analogous to the relationship which is borne
by the sower and the soil, and by the rain and the sun
shine, to the seed from which the harvest is expected. The
ripened harvest is the result of a developed supernatural
life. The supernatural is not in the sower, or the soil,
nor yet in the rain or the sunshine. The supernatural is
in the seed. The supematuralness of the seed is life, a
life which is capable, in the case of each grain, of yielding,
under the most favorable circumstances, a hundred-fold,

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 353
but under other conditions less, some sixty, some only
thirty. As the farmer is necessary because, if there is to be a
harvest, the seed must be brought into contact with the
soil and be guarded and cultivated, so the Christian min
istry is necessary because men, women and children, upon
whom has been bestowed the supernatural seed of the
Incarnate life, must be brought into the Church, the Gar
den of the Lord, and must be protected and cultivated.
As there is nothing supernatural about the farmer, as such,
so there is nothing supernatural about a Christian min
ister, as such. In both cases, they are only Providential
agents, by which a supernatural life, existing quite inde
pendently of them, is made to yield a harvest of its kind.
It is the same with the Christian sacraments. They
are, by Christ's ordinance, means of grace, without which
the Divine life, with which the human soul has been en
dowed by the Incarnation, can not, speaking generally,
bring forth a full harvest of righteousness. Their effect
upon the Christ life no more entitles them to be regarded
as supernatural instrumentalities in the Sacerdotal sense
than the effect of the rain and the sunshine upon vege
table life, entities these to be regarded as supematural
instrumentalities. Vegetable life is Divine, because God
made it so by the nature which He gave it. Human,
spiritual life is Divine, in an infinitely higher and more
personal sense, because God took human nature upon
Himself, and thus supematuraHzed it. But there is noth
ing extraordinarily supematural about the instmmentall-

354 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
ties which have to do with making the most of either
vegetable or human life.
In a private letter a friend who looks at the subject
of supernaturalism In connection with the Christian sacra
ments from very much the same point of view that I
have taken asks with much pertinency:
" Why attempt to limit the supernatural by saying,
'Lo here,' and 'Lo there.' Is not the supematural every
where conterminous with the natural? Is the natural at
any point understandable apart from the supernatural?
In other words, does nature at any point get away from
God? Of course, the Christian ministry is supernatural,
but how supremely absurd to make its supematuralness de
pend upon tactual succession. Your Catholic critics mean
by supernatural, magical. A spiritually helpful act or
word, which is not supernatural is to me inconceivable."
I am convinced that my friend has here given ex
pression to a great truth. Those who are of our way
of thinking do not deny that the benefits received by the
faithful recipients of the Christian sacraments are very
many and inestimably great, and also that the efficacy of
some, if not all, among such benefits is of a highly super
natural character. Nevertheless, we insist that the super
natural element in the Sacraments is, to speak paradoxic
ally, a natural supematuralness; and that in this age of
scientific naturalism which has succeeded and completely
supplanted the Mediaeval age of superstitious supernatu
ralism there is simply no use in making any other doctrine
conceming the supernatural in anything appertaining to

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 355
religion, a plank in a platform upon which it is hoped to
secure the organic unification of Christendom.
We have seen that the basic social institution upon
which the whole superstructure of civilization rests is
the family. The analogy between the Family and State
and Church is so clear that any one can see it, and so
indisputable that none will call it in question. So far
as It concerns the Church, the great St. Paul saw this
striking analogy and impressively commented upon it.
We have seen also that the family is a Republican in
stitution, as is evident from the fact that it is based upon
the mutual consent of the man and woman who unite in
marriage to constitute it.
As the family is by common consent the greatest of
all institutions which go to make the social realm what
It is, being the foundation upon which the whole super
structure rests, it should not be hard to gain consent to
the assertion that the Sacramental ordinance or ceremony
or rite upon which its very existence is dependent is one
of the greatest of Sacraments.
And, furthermore, since the Sacrament of marriage
was the first to be instituted and the State, and the Church,
and, in short, everything connected with the temporal
welfare of the human race, ultimately hinges upon it,
this being absolutely true of all that goes to make for
the creation and development of civilization, it must be
admitted that if it is lacking in unnatural supematural
ness, the Sacerdotalist must be wrong In attributing such
a supematuralness to any other Sacrament whatsoever.

356 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
In the family, the husband and wife are King and
Queen, Priest and Priestess in the highest sense of the
terms, in a much higher sense than any man or woman
has ever been King or Priest, Queen or Priestess in a
State or Church. Their coronation to this kingship and
queenship and their ordination to this priesthood and
priestesshood took place when they received the Sacra
ment of marriage.
Surely no one will claim that the coronation of a King
or the ordination of a Priest means more to the civil
or religious parts of the social realm, than does marriage
to the domestic portion of that realm, and all agree that
the domestic department of the social realm is, so to
speak, the rock upon which both the civil and religious
realms are built. Or, to change the figure, the domestic
department of the social realm is the soil from which the
civil and religious departments of that realm grow.
It would therefore be illogical to make more or even
as much of a coronation or ordination ceremony as of the
marriage ceremony or Sacrament. Sacerdotalists give to
ordination the rank of a Sacrament. If they are right
in so doing as I believe they are, I certainly am right in
giving, with them, the same rank to matrimony. I contend
that there is no ground upon which more can rightly be
made of the Sacrament of ordination than of the Sacra
ment of marriage, and indeed that the latter is the greater
Sacrament. What does the Sacrament of marriage do for its recip
ients? Does it give them an inherent capability corres-

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 357
ponding to what Sacerdotalists characterize as the grace
of ordination which capability they would not and could
not possess but for the Sacrament? The Sacrament of
marriage gives to those receiving it a legal and religious
ratification and sanction of the relationship of husband
and wife into which the man and the woman of their
own volition and by their own promises and vows enter.
No one will question that the grace of the Sacrament of
marriage is the change of relationship which makes the
man a lawful husband and the woman a lawful wife.
Now, I claim that apart from the benefit derived by the
recipient of a Sacrament as the result of intercessory
prayer, a change of relationship is all the benefit that
results from any Sacrament, and that this benefit is so
great as to abundantly justify the Institution and observ
ance of all among the great sacramental ordinances.
And, continuing to speak of marriage, this change of
relationship is brought about and established as securely,
effectively, and, therefore as validly, whether the marriage
is solemnized by a Priest of the Greek, Roman or Angli
can Church, or by a Justice of the Peace. Thus, accord
ing to the laws of our country, there is at least one Sacra
ment that can be validly administered by a layman, even
though he be neither Christian nor Jew.
Nor is this all about the Sacrament of marriage which
makes against the Sacerdotal position. Even when a
Priest or Bishop of the Church, Instead of an officer
of the State, presides at the Service, he does not, stricdy
speaking, celebrate or administer the Sacrament. In reality

358 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
that is done by the man and woman about to enter into the
holy estate of matrimony for themselves. For the cHmax
of the ceremonial occurs where it is declared by the man
that he takes the woman as his wedded wife and by the
woman that she takes the man as her wedded husband.
These words are the essential part of the Sacrament. In
that reciprocal declaration the Sacrament of marriage is
celebrated ; for when it has been made, even if the service
were then to abruptly close, the particifjants in the Sacra
ment would, in the eyes of all men, be man and wife.
It appears, then, that in the celebration of the exceed
ingly Important Sacrament of marriage, a Sacrament
which constitutes the very basis of civilization, the man
acts as his own Priest and the woman as her own Priest
ess. All that the ministerial representative of the Church
or State does is to make public, official announcement that
the Sacrament has been performed, the marriage has taken
place, and this announcement is to the effect that the man
and woman especially concerned have changed their re
lationship each to the other.
Now, in the Sacrament of marriage, we have, so to
speak, a mirror in which may be seen that which occurs
in all Sacraments, and we see four things : ( 1 ) that the
grace of Sacraments is a change of relationship; (2) that
in all Sacraments the recipient is really his own Priest and
that without the exercise of his Priesthood the Sacrament,
so far as he is personally concerned, would be neither
regular nor valid; (3) that, quite contrary to the Sacer
dotal theory, the Minister who presides over and conducts

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 359
a sacramental ceremonial is just what the word Minister
denotes, not the person upon whose acts the accomplish
ment of the thing in hand is actually dependent, that Is to
say, he is not really the Priest, but only the Minister, or
acolyte, or server of the real Priest who Is the recipient
of the Sacrament, and upon whose faith and repentance
the efficacy of the Sacrament depends; and (4) that so
far as the validity and regularity of the Sacraments are
concerned, it is a matter of indifference whether this Minis
ter has received ordination to the official Ministry of a
Church, or whether he Is a Layman; and that the desir
ability of ministerial officialism, and of confining minis
terial acts to it is quite another question than the one with
which we are here especially concerned, a question, the
right answer to which is of essentially the same import,
whether given by State or Church, having to do with the
organic unity and efficiency of the State or Church, not
with the validity or regularity of Sacraments, much less
with their efficacy.
But the truth which I am anxious to enforce here is,
that the all sufficient explanation of the Sacrament of
ordination like that of the Sacrament of marriage and
Indeed of all Sacraments Is found in a change of relation
ship on the part of the person receiving the Sacrament.
A candidate for the Christian ministry, in any Church,
Ancient or Modem, Sacerdotal or Republican, receives
no new power by the laying on of hands in ordination,
but he does thereby receive an official position which gives
regularity to the exercise of his ministerial capabilities. In

360 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
the Sacraments of both marriage and ordination the grace
Is that of a legal relationship not the gift of a character
or of capabilities which would not otherwise be pos
sessed. Of course there is the element of prayer connected with
all Sacraments and sacramental ordinances which must
not be lost sight of. But no one will contend, not even the
most advanced Sacerdotalist, that all the prayers or even
the most efficacious among them, are necessarily offered
by the Clergyman at a marriage or ordination. Indeed
prayer can be regarded as a Priestly act by those only
who hold to the doctrine of the lay Priesthood.
Sacerdotalists contend that to regard ordination as only
a means of admitting its recipient to an office in the Chris
tian ministry, and of securing to his official acts the char
acter of regularity. Instead of looking upon it as a means
through which the ordinand is given some gift or grace
which inherently differentiates him from those who have
not been ordained, a gift of grace which carries with
it capablHties which could not be secured without the
Sacrament, is to open the door for a low view of sacra
mental rites and to degrade them to a formal ceremony.
In raising this objection to the Republican or Protestant
doctrine of ordination, Sacerdotalists do not sufficiently
bear in mind the Immense importance of the giving of a
license by constituted authority for the performance of
acts of public concern or the importance of the regular
performance of such acts under such license.
Even the most extreme Sacerdotalist would not main-

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 361
tain that the Sacrament of marriage endows its partici
pants with the capability of obeying God's command
to men and women to populate the earth. For it is the
assumed existence of this capability and the necessity for
the regulation of its exercise that accounts for the insti
tution of marriage. The Sacrament does not give to its
recipients any grace or power, with which It Is concerned,
that is not already possessed, but it does give sanction
and regularity to the exercise of an existing grace or
potentiality. The whole physical universe, as we know
it, first took its form out of chaos, has ever since been
sustained, and is now being developed as the result of regu
larity. The development, stability and progress of every
part of the spiritual universe is likewise dependent upon
regularity. Without regularity everything, physical and
spiritual would go to pieces.
Since, then, regularity is so transcendently Important,
and since, so far as Churches and States are concerned,
so much of their coherency, efficiency and development
depend upon regularity in its official ministries, and,
moreover, since regularity in the Ministry of a Church
hinges upon ordination, why should Sacerdotalists try
to make this Sacrament out to be more than it is naturally
by the very constitution of the social order of things?
What is needed by the Churches of each country is a
Common Inter-Church Ministry which will be as regular
to the organic Christianity of a nation as the distinctive
Denominational Ministries are in the Churches to which
they respectively belong. The problem of Christian

362 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
unity is the problem of how to convert sectarian regularity
Into inter-sectarian or national CathoHc regularity.
Under present conditions the Ministry of any one
Church is as regular and the ministrations of its repre
sentatives are as valid as are those of any other Church.
The recognition and admission of this fact constitutes an
indispensable plank in the platform which is to afford
the basis for Church union.

III.

The benefits of baptism are regeneration and the for
giveness of sins. These benefits are results of a natural
change of relationship. They are not due to the infusion
of a new spiritual life.
The grace with which Baptism is concerned is spiritual
life and it is in the possession of all men, women and
children whether they are baptized or not. The human
race as a whole is endowed with spiritual life as an uni
versal result of the Incarnation. Baptism changes the
Christ life of the recipient of the Sacrament from a place
outside the Chuch to one inside of it. This change is
regeneration, and the living of the regenerated life in
volves the comfortable assurance of the forgiveness of
sins. The benefits of the Holy Communion can be rationally
accounted for only upon the theory of change of relation-

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 363
ship not upon an infusion of grace. These benefits cannot
be satisfactorily explained to the rational mind apart from
social relationship, but its mission is not so much to create
as to sustain this relationship. This Sacrament bears very
much the relationship to the Divine life in man that food
does to the body. It does not give Hfe any more than
food gives life, but it sustains and develops spiritual life
even as food sustains and develops physical life.
What Is it to feed upon Christ in the Holy Eucharist,
so that our souls are strengthened by the Sacrament, as
our bodies are by the bread and wine? It is, I answer,
a real partaking, by an act of our own faith, without
regard to any mediatorial Ministry, of the Divine virtue
and power of Christ, sacramentally symbolized and
pledged in the Lord's Supper. What the breaking of
bread is to the social life, the Sacrament of Christ's broken
Body and shed Blood is, in an intensified degree, to our
religious life.
If we want to get at the core of the matter respecting
the Lord's Supper, we must do two things : ( 1 ) we must
emphasize the importance of our direct partaking of
Christ, and (2) we must emphasize the necessity of eating
and drinking together in the highest degree of earthly and
heavenly communion. Communion is the basis of social
life, and eating and drinking together is generally asso
ciated with the highest degree of social communion.
It is the direct participation of and communion with
the Divine Christ which raises the religious table of our
Heavenly Friend above the tables of our human friends.

364 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
Both are communion tables in the same sense ; but the com
munion of the one is predominantly social, while the other
is pre-eminently religious. The communion of both tables
is a great source of refreshment and strength. But this is
tenfold, yes, a thousandfold more true of the table of
our Divine. Friend, than of our earthly friend ; for if we
have the right conception of it, we realize that there
we actually partake of the real Bread of Life, even the
spiritual substance of His Body and Blood.
But it will be asked: If the presence of Christ in the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is spiritual and if the
Sacrament has its supematural accomplishment in
the heart of the faithful communicant rather than in the
bread and wine, what is there in the Lord's Supper to
excite to the thanksgiving, adoration and reverence for
which the Church provides in the matchless Liturgy by
which it is celebrated? I reply that a sufficient incen
tlve for all the thanksgiving, adoration and reverence
which the human heart can feel or tongue and body can
express, is found in the fact that the bread and wine are
memorials established by Himself of the sacrifice and
suffering of the Son of God on our behalf, and not only
are they memorials of this wonderful mercy and grace,
but further than this, they are the means by which He has
chosen to symbolize and pledge His presence. His power
and His virtue in us.
If we only sufficiently apprehended the realities that
the Sacramental bread and wine symbolically represent
to the world and are to the worthy recipient, we could find

GRACE OF SACRAMENTS. 365
no words of thanksgiving or postures of adoration, that
would sufficiently express the feelings of our hearts.

IV.
The unification of Protestantism and indeed of Chris
tendom must be regarded as an utter and altogether hope
less impossibility upon the Sacerdotal theory that the
Christian ministry is a devolution from the Lord Jesus and
His first Apostles and not, according to the Republican
theory, an evolution from the people ; and that Sacramen
tal ordinances, such as Baptism and the Holy Communion,
Confirmation and Ordination, Infuse any grace into their
recipients. It is all right to speak of the grace of Sac
raments, if we mean the comforting and helpful assurance
of the possession of that which already exists quite in
dependently of them; or if we mean the strengthening
which comes from them as the result of obedience and
prayer; but it is all wrong to speak of the grace of the
Sacraments if we mean that through them a Priest, as
a channel or custodian of God's grace, conveys any spirit
ual endowment which is necessary to salvation that other
wise could not be possessed.
I will be reminded that there must be something in
the sap of this RepubHcan tree of the Lord's planting
which is most congenial to Sacerdotalism and Imperialism,
or else they could not have flourished so luxuriously as
grafts upon k. But the phenomenon of different kinds of

366 SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
fruits growing upon the same tree is not peculiar to insti
tutional Christianity.
A graft from a sour apple tree will flourish and bear
fruit of its kind on a sweet apple tree, quite as much,
generally even more, than if it had remained in its native
tree. The fact that the ministerial caste systems of the
Jevnsh and Heathen religious trees flourished upon the
tree of the Christian religion is therefore no proof that
the true and proper nature or character of Christianity is
not Republican rather than Imperial.
The only thing that it can be held to prove is that God
in His all-wise Providence saw it to be for the time being
good for the world that cuttings from the Imperial relig
ious trees which He had allowed His Jewish and Gentile
children to plant and cultivate, should be grafted into
the Republican religious tree which He had given to His
Christian children. But the character of a tree is not
changed by grafting. Even if every limb of a sweet apple
tree were to be grafted with a cutting from sour apple
trees, the tree in its roots and stem would remain a sweet
apple tree and every limb that grew out below a graft
would bear sweet apples.
It must be admitted that, speaking broadly, from the
time of Constantine to Luther, nearly twelve himdred
years, the cuttings from the trees of Jewish and Gentile
Imperialism were more and more grafted into the tree of
Christian Republicanism, until it must have seemed that
its very nature had been changed in its root and tmnk,
as well as in its branches. No wonder then that such

Grace 01" sacraments. 367
powerful writers as Gore, Moberly and Hall in their
efforts to commend the Sacerdotal or Priestly theory of
the origin and authority of the Christian ministry, are
able to make a showing that Is well calculated to deceive
and persuade even the very elect among those who stand
for true, primitive Republican Christianity.
But, ask Sacerdotalists, as if it were a complete refuta
tion of the Protestant doctrine concerning the Chris
tian sacraments and ministry. How can it be consistently
held that Sacraments which are only material symbols
of subjective spiritual realities, and not at all material
vehicles of objective realities, depending upon the incident
of their proper reception Instead of upon their due ad
ministration for validity and efficiency, make good a title
to recognition as being of any essential value?
This objection to the sacramental doctrine of Prot
estantism is in substance raised by Pope Pius X, in his
Encyclical against the tenents of a powerful school known
as the " Modernists," which has happily risen within
the Roman Church, and, to all appearance, is destined
to gather force until it has worked a mighty reformation
or revolution in that Church by the protestantization of
her doctrines and the republlcanlzation of her govern
ment. The objection is answered by a passage in an
anonymous book, in which the Modernists defend them
selves against the charges of the Encyclical. This book
is entided, " The Program of Modernism and Encyclical
of Pius X." It was published in 1908 and is, all things
considered, perhaps the most notable and consequential

368 sacerdotal and protestant doctrines.
contribution to the science of theology from a Roman
source that has appeared within twenty-five years. It
undoubtedly strikes the most powerful blow that Roman
ism, and Indeed Sacerdotalism as a whole, has received
from its own sons since the publication of the memorable
Protest of Professors Doellinger and Hefele against the
proposal to crystallize the theory of Papal infallibility
into an article of the Roman faith. The passage which
is to our purpose reads:
"Subjectivism and symbolism can no longer be re
proaches. The latest criticism of the various knowledge-
theories point to everything in the realm of knowledge,
the laws of science and the theories of metaphysics, as
being subjective and symbolic. But this does not hinder
every such creation of the human spirit in the various
departments of its activity from having an absolute value.
Also the world constructed by faith has its life-giving
value, and is therefore something absolute in its own kind.
As for symbolism, a symbol no longer means a fictitious,
and perhaps fraudulent, substitution connected with igno
rant or erroneous behefs. It too is a reality of its own
peculiar kind, whereon faith confers an inestimable value,
by which it becomes the real vehicle and beneficent occa
sion of an uplifting of the spirit and of a deeper religious
insight. And since our own life is, for each one of
us, something absolute, nay, the only absolute of our
direct experience, all that proceeds from it and returns
to it, all that feeds it and expands it more fruitfully, has,
in like manner, the value of something absolute. The

grace of sacraments. 369
point of the Encyclical's reproach is therefore blunted
in these days."
When I laid down the book from which this passage
is quoted, it was with the thankful feeling that we have the
beginning of the end of Sacerdotalism, even in the Roman
Church where it is the most thoroughly entrenched.
Now and then I have been accused of not being a true
Anglican; but I humbly venture to claim that any impar
tial effort to arrive at the concensus of opinion among us
will show that out of every ten, nine will agree with the
representation that I am here making rather than with
that of the Rev. Archibald C. Knowles of St. Alban's
Church, Olney, Pa., who in a recently pubHshed pamphlet
entitled, " Church Unity," says:
" Not even the most spiritual worship of the Protestant
Bodies can be compared to even the most perfunctory
presence of Romanists at a Mass mechanically rendered;
for the Romanist at least worships in the Sacramental
Presence of the Lord of Glory. To quote an ancient
saying, ' It is the Mass that matters.' "
I am quite willing to admit that in the Church of the
Future, in some way, I do not undertake to say just how,
room must be made for even " Catholics," who talk like
this; but I cannot concede that their doctrine will con
stitute any part of the basis upon which the Protestant
Churches will come together; or that such doctrine is
widely held in the Churches which constitute the Anglican
Commimion. I doubt whether all who adhere to it
would constitute one good sized Diocese, and I am mor-

370. SACERDOTAL AND PROTESTANT DOCTRINES.
ally certain that if all Anglicans who are of this way of
thinking were to be gathered into one Diocese, it would
contain more youthful " Catholic Priests " than " Catho
lic Laymen ; " for in the Anglican Communion the viru
lent type of " Catholicism " with which this " Catholic "
is so sorely afflicted is a disease which happily is generally
confined to the Clergy and women. The laymen who are
infected by it are few and far between; and, doubtless
there are fewer of them now than there were ten years
ago. The night of Sacerdotalism with its superstition, tyranny,
and sectarianism, is giving place to the day of Repub
licanism, with its science, freedom and concord. It is at
the noon-tide of this day that may be expected the
Second Coming of the Divine Republican to usher in
the glories of the Millenium with its one folding and one
shepherding. " Surely 1 come quickly. Amen. Even so
come Lord Jesus." Amen. Amen.

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES.

" Unity is that oneness in the visible body of
christ that makes men know and believe. it is
well for us to remember that the greatest
triumphs that the christian world has ever
won were in the days when the church was
one. it is well for us to remember that the
greatest triumphs that christianity has ever
won were won, shall i say, before the thirty-
nine articles were written, or the westminster
confession or the augsburg confession? and
the greatest triumphs that christianity is going
to win will be the triumphs of a united chris
tian discipleship- nobody is asking anybody to
give up anything that is of value. we can give
up pride ; we can give up our ecclesiastical con
ceit; we can give up our denominational jeal
ousies ; we can give up our inherited prejudices ;
and perhaps, by the grace of god, we can give up
some of our ignorance. i lay this down, breth
ren, as a proposition that has already demon
strated itself; christ-like christians cannot
stay apart. there is more unity than we think.
the things that separate christians are in
consequential in comparison with those that
separate christians from non-christians. christ
is for the whole world and the whole world
for christ. and as a means to that end let us
all be prophets of unity, priests of unity, apos
tles of unity. we can do that much at any
rate. we can say of unity as we say of univer
sality; we can if we will; we can and we will."
— From the opening address to the National Missionary
Congress in Chicago, May 3-6, 1910, by the Rt. Rev.
Charles P. Anderson, D. D., Bishop of Chicago.

READER, things cannot go on as they are. Secta
rianism in this country, and throughout the world,
is in great peril of becoming the most conspicuous
and melancholy of all illustrations of the truth of the pro
verb, " A house divided against itself cannot stand." A
distinguished metropolitan Presbyterian Pastor, in a single
phrase of a notable letter with which he favored me ex
pressed many volumes, when, in speaking of the necessity
of unity on the part of the Protestant Churches of our
country, he wrote, " We must get together or go to the
wall." I have given you my vision of the way in which we can
" get together, " the way of a Level Common, Inter-
Church Ministry of the Episcopal type.
It is a dream ! Yes, but it is not an hallucination ; for
it Is an expression of the fundamental fact that Institution
alism in any form, domestic, civil, ecclesiastical, social
or commercial, cannot be created, sustained, or developed,
except along the lines of the great underlying, indispen
sable principle of unity and superintendence, under one
headship.

374 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
It is idealism! Yes. But I hope that I have shown
that it is idealism having a rational and historical basis,
and that therefore my plan for unity through a Common
Ministry will not be rejected on this account. A con
sistent Christian will be about the last to condemn an un
dertaking having great ends in view simply because it is
stupendously magnitudinous and cannot be consummated
at once; or because it is without distinguished advocates.
Is it not true that there is a great deal of IdeaHsm in the
Gospel of our Lord Jesus, even in the most practical parts
of it, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the Summary of
the Ten Commandments, and the Prayer which was given
to the Disciples? Were not the first Apostles of Chris
tianity chiefly fishermen? " Thy Kingdom come. Thy
will be done on earth as it is in Heaven." Fishermen, "Go
ye and make disciples of all nations. " What astonishing
idealism !
It is theoretic! Yes. But, really, is not my plan for
Church unity on the basis of a Common Ministry, less
theoretic than any other that has ever teen proposed, since
it is the only one that has been tried vsith success?
But, the reader may object, " The reorganization of
the Churches which you are proposing in order that we
may have a United Protestant Church of the United
States, and, ultimately, a United CathoHc Church, will
organize my Church out of existence." This objection
gives expression to a natural fear in which the representa
tives of all the Denominations will share. There are how-

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES. 375
ever, two considerations which should remove any anxiety
occasioned on this account.
The historic Church, for example, of the English-
speaking race, in its organic national parts, and even as
a whole communion, certainly is no more the Church of
God than was the historic Church of the Hebrew race.
Yet the Church of the Hebrews is overshadowed by the
Church of the Christians, somewhat as it Is proposed to
overshadow the Churches of the divided Christians of
this country by the Church of the United States. As,
upon Christian principles, there should be no Jewish
Church, so upon the same principles, there should be no
sectarian Churches.
The loss of self for a high purpose Is one of the fun
damental requirements of our holy religion. Chris
tianity, both ideally and practically, is really founded
upon the principle of sacrifice; in fact this is true of civ
ilization as a whole. God, in the person of the Christ,
made the amazing sacrifice of losing Himself, so far as it
was possible for Divinity to lose itself, in the ocean of hu
manity, in order that the world might be saved from cor
ruption and death.
In view of the astonishing sacrifice of our Lord, and
His explicit teaching concerning the necessity of sacrifice
on the part of His followers, why should any sectarian
Church, made up of those who would be His true disci
ples, object to losing its Identity In the oneness of Christ's
Body, the united brotherhood of believers, in order to se-

376 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
cure that organic Christian unity upon which depends the
evangelization of the world.
Since it is not only His will, but His intense desire, to
which He gave expression in exhortation, prophecy and
prayer,' that His followers should constitute one great all-
inclusive flock, under one shepherding Ministry, should
not the representatives, both Laymen and Ministers, of all
the separate flocks in, for example, the United States,
be not only willing, but anxious, to lose themselves into
one mighty Catholic, national racial fold, under a com
mon, unified Ministry which would be able to gather, to
feed, to tend, and to hold together such a flock?
Another consideration, which should reconcile the
Churches of a nation or race to the losing of themselves
in a national or racial Church, is the fact that what they
already possess of permanent value will live on and operate
as a leavening influence in a much wider sphere and to
a much greater purpose in a Catholic body, than it does
now in its sectarian body.
In consequence of our sectarianism, we Christians are
not obeying the two practical requirements of the Lord
Jesus: (1) " Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
the nations; " and (2) " Let your Hght shine before men."
Let me give a concrete illustration of what I mean.
The attractive little city of Gallon, Ohio, where I com
menced my Ministry and still have my summer home,
will serve the purpose as well as any other place. It
is a typical American town, with a population of about

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES. 377
10,000, having eleven Protestant Churches, but not a
single charitable institution of any kind. It is a railroad
center, and should have a large, well-equipped, free
hospital. It has no orphan asylum and no home for
aged poor.
Now how shall men see the good works of Gallon Prot
estant Christians and glorify their Father which Is In
Heaven? Unhappily, those Gallonites are no more
neglectful of their Lord's great commands than are the
Protestant Christians in other American towns.
Christians have a great mission; the enlightening and
saving of a darkened world by setting up the lamp of
the Gospel In every part ; and by keeping it filled, trimmed
and burning. Under the most solemn of imaginable
circumstances, God the Son revealed to His blessed Apos
tles and through them to all His disciples of every age,
that they could not fulfill their glorious mission, unless
they bound themselves In the closest unity to Himself and
to each other.
An experience of the summer of 1909 convinces me
that there is no reason at all why, for example, Presby
terians, Methodists, Baptists and the Disciples of Christ
should not worship and work together. The Episcopal
Church of Gallon was closed during the absence of the
Rector on his vacation, and special circumstances seemed
to make it undesirable that I should officiate. So on four
successive Sunday mornings I attended in turn the Service
of the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and Disciple
Churches.

378 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
I was surprised and Impressed by the fact that the
services were, as to their order, and practically in all other
respects, identical. The order was so uniform that if the
four congregations had worshipped together their repre
sentatives would have felt perfectly at home, so far as
knowing what would come next could contribute to such
a feeling. The Service in each case made a favorable im
pression upon me, and 1 came away feeling that I had wor
shipped God as truly as I would have done at our own
Morning Prayer.
The sermons of these services were good, quite the
equal, I think, of the average sermon in the Episcopal
Church. One of them was on a very difficult article of
the Apostles' Creed. The subject was well handled, in
entire conformity to sound doctrine. If occasion required,
I should be glad to take advantage of Canon xix in
licensing the preachers of those sermons, in any Church of
the Diocese of Arkansas.
I could not help feeling it to be a matter of great
regret that the four congregations could not have wor
shipped together on those Sunday mornings. There would
have been plenty of room and to spare in any one of their
Churches, and there would have been greater enthusiasm
for the people, and inspiration for the Minister.
And now I relate a remarkable fact which shows that
there really is no reason why these congregations of Pres
byterians, Methodists, Baptists and Disciples might not
have worshipped together on those Sunday mornings or

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES. 379
why they might not worship together every Sunday morn
ing. The Protestant Churches of Gallon have a custom,
which happily seems to be spreading throughout the coim-
try, of having Union Services on the Sunday evenings of
July and August. These Services are held in the several
Church buildings in regular rotation, and the Pastors
preach in turn, in accordance with an order which provides
that no Pastor will preach in his own Church. One of
these services which I attended was held in the German
Reformed Church, the largest ecclesiastical structure in
town. There must have been seven hundred people in
the main part of the Church, and fully three hundred who
came could not gain admittance, because the Sunday
School room could not be thrown open on account of the
breaking of the cable of the connecting doors.
The truth which I wish to impress lies on the surface,
and it is a truth having a fundamental bearing upon the
question of Christian unity. If the representatives of the
Protestant Churches, both clerical and lay, of Gallon and
other places throughout the United States can worship to
gether on Sunday evenings in July and August each year,
there is no reason in principle why they might not do so
on Sunday mornings as well as evenings all the year
around. Among the most hopeful signs of the times so far
as they relate to the great and pressing problem of Church
union, and there are many such signs, is the fact that
the Laity in all of the Churches have become dissatisfied

380 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
with sectarianism and are doing what they can to dis
courage the sectarian spirit in the preaching of their
Ministers. The majority of them will no longer patiently
listen to the sectarian sermons which were not only ac
ceptable to their fathers but demanded by them. The time
was, even within my memory, when the average congre
gation felt that it was being defrauded of its just dues, un
less its Minister in nearly every sermon quite pointedly
contrasted the excellencies of his Church with the imper
fections of all rivals in the community.
Speaking of the decadence of the sectarian spirit, a
prominent layman of the Episcopal Church in the great
metropolis of our country remarked to me that a few
years ago he knew the religious affiliations of almost every
man with whom he came Into close contact, and was
strongly inclined to discriminate in favor of those of his
own household of faith; but that now, although I know
him to be as devout a Churchman as ever, it seldom occurs
to him even to inquire concerning the ecclesiastical rela
tionship of a new acquaintance, and between himself and
members of another Church than his own there is no
longer the slightest barrier to the development of the
closest intimacy.
No stronger evidence of the decHne of sectarianism
among the laity is needed than is afforded by the organi
zation and development of the Young Men's Christian As
sociation and by the mighty Inter-Church Laymen's Mis
sionary Movement which has recently been set on foot.
This movement which is destined to gather force, and.

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES. 381
so far as the laity are concerned, sweep everything before
it, would have been an impossibility only ten or fifteen
years ago.
Most happily this breaking down of sectarian walls
between the laity, is destined to be completed in the near
future, and then will begin a general and persistent demand
for a different order of things, by doing away with our
unnecessary and hurtful divisions. There is no other goal
at which the several inter-Church movements can logically
converge and terminate. The idea that these movements
are destined to die out before their aim at a world-wide
co-operating Christian brotherhood is realized, can be en
tertained only by those who do not give sufficient attention
to the teaching of history concerning similar movements.
The determination of the Laity to ignore sectarian bound
aries and to get together must sooner or later spread to
the Clergy. Indeed, in many places, this unifying leaven
of the Laity has already permeated the Ministry, and, to
a very perceptible degree, is doing its blessed work of
unification. The great Inter-Church Conference Move
ment originated by ministerial associations was made a
blessed possibility because of this leaven of the laity.
I am sure that it has not entered Into the heart of the
majority of Christians, to conceive of all the manifold and
wide-spread good that would result from the coming to
gether of the Protestant Churches of the United States.
It would give them the spiritual unity of " the Communion
of Saints, " such as now exists between the various national
branches of the Anglican Communion; a national and

382 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
international Denominational co-operation in missionary,
philanthropic and reformatory enterprises, a great system
of inter-Denominational hospitals, orphanages, homes and
eleemosynary properties, national and perhaps also inter
national missionary societies ; a Denominational partition of
the mission field in heathen countries; a reduction of the
number of superfluous Churches, and a corresponding in
crease in the number of resident Ministers in the villages
and rural districts of Christian countries; a partition be
tween the Denominations of the work among the poor of
our great cities ; a consolidation of small and stmggling city
parishes into great Churches ; the solution of the ministerial
supply problem; an order of special preachers; crowded
Protestant Churches ; attractive inspiring Services ; an ade
quate Clerical staff for all the larger parishes; a division
of ministerial labors among those who have a special
aptitude for the work to be done; much better Theolog
ical Seminaries ; a better qualified Protestant Ministry, and
last, but not least, better equipped, more efficient Sunday
Schools. All this and much more would be the ultimate and
inevitable result of the unification of Protestant Chris
tianity. The great Head of the Church, whose doctrines we
are to disseminate and whose glory we are to promote, is
One, and therefore the organization for its accomplish
ment should be one. The doctrines and precepts enjoined,
the motives to obedience, the duties to be performed,
the rewards and punishments proposed, are one and the

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES. 383
same for all; therefore the society should be one. The
entrance into this spiritual kingdom, the new birth, is
the same for all, and the same truth is the food for all.
Why should we not walk together? All have been
bought by the same blood of Christ from the same thral
dom of sin; the badges of membership. Baptism and the
Lord's Supper, are the same for all ; and why are we not
all one? The truth is, if we would only admit and realize
and live it, we are one.
The kingdom of Christ is set up In the world for the
purpose of gaining a conquest for the Gospel over the whole
earth. It is an admitted as well as an important truth
that union is strength. If all the zeal and learning and
effort that are expended by Christian churches in com
peting with one another, were devoted to the propagation
of the Gospel, teaching sinners the way of life, it would
require but a few years to preach it to all the nations of
the earth.
One of the reasons why Jesus prayed for union was
that the world might believe in His mission; "that the
world may believe that Thou hast sent Me."
So far as our own Christianized countries are concerned,
it is conceded that, in her divided state, it is impossible for
the Church to give adequate ministrations to villages and
rural districts, or to sufficiently administer to the needs
of the poor in our great centers of population.
The same line of argument which leads to the conclusion
that Episcopalians and Presbyterians, who are standing
upon the Catholic principle that the Lord Jesus created a

384 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Royal Family or Priesthood instead of a Kingdom or
Church, should come together under a Common Ministry
will ultimately lead to the conclusion that Sacerdotal
Catholics and Republican Protestants can and therefore
should get together. For notwithstanding all the con
troversy between them, there is no difference on account
of which separation can be justified as a moral necessity.
It is indeed true that Sacerdotal Catholics maintain that
the Lord created officers and left them to create a Church,
while Republican Protestants contend that He created a
Church and left it to create officers. Here the principle
involved is that of creation, and both are agreed that ul
timately Christ must be regarded as the direct or indirect
creator of the Church. The question of how He did the
creating, whether through Ministers of His making or
People of His making, has to do with theories that may
well be sacrificed for the sake of unity which is seen
to be absolutely necessary to the universal spread of His
Kingdom and Its complete development.
Nor must we lose sight of the reassuring fact that both
the Sacerdotal Catholic and Republican Protestant theo
ries of the origin of the Church may at bottom be equally
true. For, on the one hand, the essential requirement is
that the Church should be acknowledged to be a Divine
institution; and on the other hand, it may well be ad
mitted that during the short period between the call of
the Apostles and the Ascension, the Association, Brother
hood or Church of believers was Divine because of the
presence of the God-Man Himself; and that afterwards.

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES. 385
until Pentecost, it continued to be Divine, because of the
leadership, under His almost immediate influence of the
blessed, faithful Eleven whom He had associated with
Himself during the three years of His public Ministry.
And surely Sacerdotal Catholics will admit that the
Church from Whitsunday until this time, and to the Second
Coming, must be regarded as Divine, even on the Protes
tant theory that the ruling or leading authority of the Lord
and His Apostles ended, and that the more ordinary,
though not less supernatural dispensation of Providence,
under the influence of God's Spirit commenced.
Really it is not at all necessary. In order to maintain
the Divine character of the Church of Christ, to insist upon
the acceptance of the theory contained in the doctrine of
Apostolic Succession. The doctrine of the presence of
the Holy Ghost in the Church of Christ, and the Provi
dential ruling of it by Him is all that should be required
in the way of a confession of a Divine character for the
Church as a basis of Christian unity. According to either
of these doctrines, the Church is sufficiently Divine. Why,
then, cannot Sacerdotal Catholics and Republican Protes
tants agree to differ as to the doctrinal theory of account
ing for her Divinity, and join hands in endeavors to make
her the light of a sin darkened world?
As for the questions concerning sacramental grace,
which for so many centuries have sorely vexed the Church,
why should Sacerdotal Catholics and Republican Protes
tants allow them any longer to keep them apart while the
world is perishing for the want of their united effort?
On the one hand it is beheved that the worthy recipient

386 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
of Ordination and of the other sacramental ordinances
especially Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Commun
ion, is given an infusion of something which he had not
before, that will enable him to make the example and pre
cepts of the Lord Jesus his pattern and rule of Hfe, as
otherwise he could not.
On the other hand it is believed that a grace which is
already in the possession of every member of the human
race, as an universal effect of the infusion of the Divine
nature into human nature through the Incarnation, is
strengthened in the worthy recipient of any of the Sacer
dotal ordinances of our holy religion, so that he is enabled
to walk in the footsteps of the Divine Saviour, as other
wise he could not.
It Is a palpable fact, perfectly evident to all who are
not so blinded with the bandage of sectarian prejudice
that they cannot see such facts, that both the Sacerdotal
Catholics and Republican Protestants are, everywhere,
throughout Christendom, with equal success, living the
Christ life and growing into the full stature of exemplary
Christian manhood and womanhood. Since then, both
have the substance and bear the fruits of sacramental
grace, why should they continue their hurtful disputings,
as to whether or not the Christ life and growth which they
respectively exhibit is to be explained as the result of an
infusion of grace or the strengthening of grace?
Having by the mutual and common consent of all sensi
ble, candid people, the substance of Divine grace why
may we not, with perfect consistency, v^athout any refer

APPEAL TO THE CHURCHES. 387
ence to our widely divergent theories as to how we have
come into possession of it, walk hand in hand in the ways
of goodwill and peace, and fight shoulder to shoulder for
the conquest of the world for our King?
Because of our equally warm love for the Christ, our
Elder Brother, and because of our equally strong desire
for the salvation of the world let us cease our unseemly,
blighting wrangllngs as to how we have come into the
possession of enabling grace, and by cordially co-operating
with each other, make use of it for our own good, and for
the furtherance of our Lord's Kingdom.
Not even does sentiment or reverence for the Church
as a sacred institution necessarily constitute an insuperable
barrier to the association of Sacerdotal Catholics and Re
publican Protestants In public worship, or to co-operation
in missionary and philanthropic undertakings. For, as I
have intimated, if He who is acknowledged by both as
Lord and Saviour did not found the Church, by giving
specific directions to His first Apostles respecting its con
stitution, it is nevertheless Divine as the result of Provi
dential developments growing out of the preaching of
the Gospel.
When the religious devolutionist and the religious evo
lutionist go below the surface of things, they find that the
difference in their views concerning the origin and au
thority of the Christian church and ministry, afford no
reason why they should continue to stand aloof from each
other. The renowned historical critic. Professor Pfleiderer, is

388 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
perhaps as radical as any among the great authorities
in the field of ecclesiastical antiquities, in his opposition
to the theory of devolution by which Sacerdotalists ac
count for the existence of the institutions of Christianity
and for the obligations connected with them; but in all
literature It would be difficult to find a paragraph which
gives expression to more of reverential sentiment for or
ganic Christianity than is found in these words, spoken
in 1894, on the occasion of his becoming Rector of the
University of Berlin. It seems to me that after reading
what he says the most extreme Sacerdotalist in the world,
whoever he may be, say Pope Plus X, must feel that he
would like to shake hands with Professor Pfleiderer and
enter into a partnership with him in some undertaking for
the glory of God and the good of man. Nor, can there
be any doubt that together they might accompHsh what
otherwise could not be done. Here is the notable utter
ance: " If we learn from history that the great institutions of
society, the State and the Church, are neither a finished
gift from Heaven nor a creation of human caprice, but
the result of a development which has run a course of
thousands of years, and to which unnumbered deeds and
sufferings, conflicts and sacrifices, of all generations have
contributed; such an insight can only increase our rever
ence for these institutions, and strengthen the purpose to
devote all our powers in order to maintain the holy inherit
ance of the fathers unimpaired amidst the storms of
the present time, and to give it an ever richer development

Ai-l-EAL TO THE CHURCHES. 389
and a finer form for the welfare of the coming genera
tions." In beginning this book, I quoted a renowned teacher's
prophetic words, " The world will never be converted by
a disunited Church;" and now let me end it with the burn
ing appeal of one of the many hero missionaries, "of
whom the world is not worthy," for that coming together
of the Churches without which, as all workers In mission
fields have come to see, the Christian civilization cannot be
universally extended and fully developed. If you can
read his pathetic and representative appeal to the Churches
of Europe and America without being touched to tears,
you can do more than 1 could do when 1 first read It.
" Can you not," he asks, " restore to us the unity of
the Christian Church? For the sake of the life of young
Churches and great nations, for the sake of perplexed
Christianity of your own lands, for the sake of the honor of
your Lord, now at least make real to yourselves and visi
ble to the world the unity of the Body of Christ. We
have long lamented our divisions, and we have begun to
be ashamed of them. We have spoken with pious grief
about the rent robe of Christ, and longed for its knitting
together again. We have forgotten that there Is not
merely a rent robe, but there Is a wounded body ; and that
wounded body Is the Body of your Lord, in pain till its
wounds be healed.
" The Churches which you have planted across the
seas have not been won by your words of division. In
the days of the great persecution in China, nine years

390 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
ago, when the Boxers tested the Christians there, they did
not test them by the Westminster Confession, nor by the
Thirty-nine Articles, nor by the Twenty-four, nor by the
Sermons of Wesley. Instinctively they chose a more
universal and a more searching test. Drawing a rude
cross upon the ground, they called on their prisoners to
trample it under foot, offering life and freedom to those
who did so, and death to those who refused. In that
hour of terror, some fell from a scarcely grasped faith,
but many thousands, men, women and children, could not
bring themselves to put a contemptuous foot on the rudest
symbol of the holy passion of their Redeemer, and they
died unflinchingly, not as Anglicans, Wesleyans or Pres
byterians, but as Christians, members of the one Body,
holding the one faith, inspired by the one Spirit; and so
they gained the Crown of Life.
" The testimony of these martyrs, and the voice of
the Church which glories In cherishing their memory, has
one clear message for us in the Western Churches, and
it Is this: ' It was never your words of division that won
us and drew us to the faith and service of Christ. When
you speak these words of division your voice Is the voice
of strangers, and the flock of Christ will neither hear nor
follow. But when you speak the word of the Cross you
use an Irresistible spell. In that sign you conquer us.'
" So far you all, no doubt, approve. But note what
follows. ' If our divisions have no vital place in your
mission to the wodd, if you cannot commend them to
others why perpetuate them among ourselves?' "

The Level Plan for Church Union.

APPENDIX

THE CMlEr BARRIER TO CHRISTIAN UNITY.
BY
"ANGLICAN PRESBYTER."

CONTENTS.
Prefatory Note  393
I. The Origin and Powers of the Episcopate... 404
II. Episcopacy the Esse or Bene Esse of
the Church  426
III. Can a Body of Christian Laymen Create its
OWN Ministry?  439
IV. The Canons op Hippolytus and a
Republican Episcopate  452
V. Bishop Hall on the Apostolic Ministry  477

PREFATORY NOTE.
IN THE third part of the following essay, under the
heading — TTie Canons of Hippolytus and a Repub
lican Episcopate — I claimed that in the opinion as to
what functions belong essentially, and therefore exclusively,
to the Episcopate, lies the crux of the unity problem. The
contention running throughout the entire three parts is, that
there are no functions belonging exclusively to the Episco
pate, since the latter is merely a higher office which was
developed out of the one order of Presbyter-Bishops by its
own members to meet an emergency, to which was given
the definite title of the Episcopate. Thus per se this higher
office possesses no functions which do not belong equally
to every member of the lower office, the Presbyterate
proper. This I showed was not only the conclusion of the
majority of our own Anglican scholars, but that it was
also the opinion of certain noted Roman Catholic and
Protestant writers.
In harmony with this view I may again quote from the
Dean of Westminster, Dr. Robinson, to the effect, that

394 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
" the Monarchial Episcopate quickly became the symbol
and safeguard of the Church's fellowship " (The Vision
of Unity and other Addresses) . In an editorial, the Church
Times, as representing the ' Catholics ' in the Church of
England, said, " Dean Robinson's earnest and devout
pleas for unity are weakened by his seeming endorsement
of the common conception of Episcopacy merely as a
form of government ... it was not as a useful head
official that ' the Bishop was the centre of unity ' . . .
rather the Bishop was the successor of the Apostles
and stood in the place of Jesus Christ." (Nov. 13th,
1 908. ) This is the " CathoHc " theory of the Episcopate,
which the Church Times in the further editorial on Pres
byterian Orders represents as the view that the Church's
Ministry is transmitted in "an unbroken successive series
from Christ and His Apostles," adding, " Only the or
dained can ordain." This is but another way of describ
ing the doctrine of Apostolic Succession (a succession
transmitted through the Episcopate exclusively), "of
which fiction," wrote Dean Alford, " I find in the New
Testament no trace," and to which Canon Rashdall re
ferred as, " a gigantic figment." Notwithstanding all this,
however, the Church Times claims that " Theologians
have demonstrated in many folios and quartos the Divine
right of Monarchial Episcopacy as the true and Scriptural
form of ecclesiastical polity." It adds, " Others have
argued that it is only of the bene esst of the Church, not
its esse. We hold that it is certainly of the Divine insti
tution." Thus it concludes, " Until the CathoHc and

APPENDIX. 395
Liberal conceptions of what is meant by the Church of
God are brought nearer to one another, reunionists are
working for different ends, and while the rent is being
drawn together in one place, it is by the very act made
worse at another." These are weighty words, weighty
because they are true. No efforts for Christian unity,
however sincere and strenuous, can ever accomplish their
desired end while amongst those seeking it there exist two
irreconcilable conceptions as to what is absolutely essen
tial to constitute such unity. But do Christians believe
in their Lord's prayer for unity, which meant of course
corporate as well as spiritual unity, since the hearing of
the Master's voice was to result not merely in one aim,
but also in one flock- (Jno- x, 16.) It was this feature
which our Lord evidently Included in His prayer for unity
in order to convince the world of the complete oneness
of Himself with the Father and of all men in both. ( Jno.
xvn, 20, 21 .) We take it for granted that all Christians
do believe in this prayer, and that in so beHevlng they will
further recognize the necessity of removing at all cost the
barriers which stand in the way of its fulfillment. Now the
chief barrier is undoubtedly the disputed point as to what
constitutes the real character and value of Episcopacy, as
this is the basis upon which the conception of the whole
" Catholic Church " is built. Now the " Catholic " view
of the Episcopate is explained by Bishop Short as fol
lows — " According to the doctrine of an Episcopal
Church, he who was ordained without the presence of a
Bishop was never ordained at all; he wants the essence

396 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
of ordination, the laylng-on-of the hands of a Bishop.
(His. Ch. Eng. p. 246, note.) Some Anglican writers
have endeavored to prove that the Preface to our Ordinal
as extended in 1661 with the additional clause, " or hath
Episcopal Consecration or Ordination," has still " nothing
whatever to say upon the subject of Apostolic Succession.
or the validity or non-validity of non-Episcopal ordina
tion." (McCrady- Apostolic Succession and the Problem
of Unity, p. 43.) Bishop Barry, however, in his
Teacher's Prayer Book refers to this addition as " clearly
distinguishing Episcopal Ordination from all other, and
all exceptions to it for the future disallowed " (p. 508 d.).
Bishop Short, referring to the Act of Uniformity ( 1 662) ,
which Included the revised Ordinal of the previous year,
says, " though diversity of opinion has been entertained
as to the validity of the ordination of foreign reformed
Churches, the question was now decided with regard to
the Church of England . . . for the future was
now settled by the Act of Uniformity, and rightly so
settled if the principles previously laid down with regard
to Episcopacy be correct." (lb., p. 243.)
Much controversy has arisen as to the meaning of the
expression Historic Episcopate in the fourth clause of the
platform of unity adopted by the Anglican authorities at
Lambeth in 1 888. Writers like Mr. McCrady labor to
show that the above expression as embodying a belief is
entirely distinct from the doctrine of Apostolic Succession
(lb., pp. 43, ff; 139, ff.) Bishop Seymour, however, who
attended that conference, says, " In the judgment of

APPENDIX. 397
Lightfoot, as evidently in the Intention of the Ordinal, the
' Historic Episcopate ' includes the Apostolic Succession."
(Proofs of the Historic Episcopate, p. 4.) Bishop Sey
mour, in thus referring to Lightfoot, after quoting a sentence
from one of the addresses of this great scholar, has infused
into his words a meaning they do not necessarily bear, and
which is seen to be altogether contrary to his mind on this
subject when compared with his defined position expressed
in other utterances. Apart from Bishop Lightfoot, how
ever. Bishop Seymour correctly defined the opinion of
the main body of the Present Anglican Bishops, together
with the real intention of our Ordinal as amended in 1 661 .
and ratified by the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Mr.
McCrady assumes that the Oxford movement, beginning
in 1833, was the real source and mother of the present
wide-spread interpretation of the phrase " the Historic
Episcopate " as including, or as synonymous with. Apos
tolic Succession, (lb., p. 128. cf. 18.) It was, however,
in 1 832 that Bishop Short published his " History of the
Church of England" from which we have previously
quoted. Our references show the view of a Bishop
and noted scholar of his day as to the meaning of the
revised Ordinal. When, therefore, we add to this the
further view held to-day equally by Bishops Barry and
Seymour, there can be Httle doubt that Mr. McCrady,
and all similar apologists, are entirely in error in their
opinion that our present Ordinal, and the phrase " Historic
Episcopate," as used in the fourth clause of the Chicago
Lambeth Quadrilateral, do not imply the acceptance of

398 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Nor let it be sup
posed for a moment that the sentence in the Preface of
the Ordinal, "in this Church," affects our conclusion in the
least by signifying that the Anglican Church " requires
Episcopal ordination for the administration of her own
ordinances, but in so doing does not deny the validity of
the ordinances of other Churches, though non-Episcopal."
(Blakeney — The Book of Common Prayer, p. 828.)
Before the paragraph of this Preface which deals with
the character of the Orders recognized " in this Church,"
there is another deaHng with the character of Orders
generally. Originally this merely stated that no man
could privately of his own authority execute any of the
ministerial Orders before he had been " first called, tried,
and examined." In 1661, however, to this direction was
added, " by lawful authority." It has been attempted to
show that the authority here referred to means no more
than the ordering " by men who have pubHc authority
given them in the congregation." (McCrady, lb. p. 38.)
Undoubtedly the Reformers so viewed this authority,
but not so the Revisers of 1661, who meant their added
phrase " by lawful authority," to be understood as includ
ing Episcopal ordination at the hands of one who himself
was a lawful Bishop by virtue of his elevation to the Epis
copate by Episcopal ordination. Hence they concluded
the directions for the Episcopal ordaining of candidates
for Orders in " this Church," with the sentence, "or hath
had Episcopal Consecration or Ordination."

APPENDIX. 399
Returning to the phrase " Historic Episcopate " in the
fourth clause of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral.
The acceptance of the Historic Episcopate has here been
made a sine qua non to Christian unity by the Anglican
Church. But how is this to be accepted by non-Episco
pal Churches. The only way, according to our Ordinal,
is by their receiving Episcopal ordination from us, or
from some other Historic Episcopal Church, that is to say,
by means of an Apostolic Succession. Thus it is that
whether the framers of the Quadrilateral meant it or no,
its fourth clause as Interpreted by our present Ordinal
does include, as Bishop Seymour said, the Apostolic
Succession, while it is equally so viewed by non-Episco
pal scholars. (Prof. Williston Walker — The Validity of
Congregational Ordination, p. 4.)
In his famous sermon, the Dean of Westminster said,
" I have chosen the subject of Christian unity, because it
is to my thinking by far the most important that presents
itself at the moment of history at which we have now
arrived." But how is it possible to talk of unity between
Episcopalians and Protestants, or, as the Church Times
expressed it, between Catholics and Liberals, when they
differ radically as to the character of the basis essential
to such unity? It is impossible, and so it is for this reason
that I said that the chief barrier to Christian unity was
the disputed point as to what constituted the real char
acter and value of Episcopacy. Notwithstanding our
present Ordinal, I believe the Church Times to be in error
in stating that Theologians have demonstrated in many

400 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
volumes that Monarchial Episcopacy is the true and
Scriptural form of ecclesiastical polity. Where are these
volumes, and who are these theologians? The two most
learned representatives of modern * Catholics ' are Gore,
and Moberly, yet these have not demonstrated to any one
but their own school of thought the Divine right of Mo
narchial Episcopacy. On the other hand, it is not difficult
to show that the very opposite opinion is that maintained
by the majority of Anglican scholars. I mean by the
opposite opinion, the Republican as opposed to the Mo
narchial Episcopate. A Republican form of the Epis
copate offered to the great non-Episcopal bodies stands
a fair change of winning consideration at their hands. In
closing the third part of my essay, I fully defined what I
meant by a Republican Episcopate, so that all that is
necessary for me to do here is to suggest some method by
which the non-Episcopal Churches could be brought into
connection with the Historic Episcopate. Bishop Brown
has correctly proposed reordinatlon, but how is this to be
effected ? By what form of service can this end be accom
plished without giving needless offence to the Protestant
Churches, whose present Ministries we recognize as the
equal of our own for all ministerial functions? We suggest
two forms. ( 1 ) A Bishop of an Historic Church laying
his hands upon the head of the candidate for reordina
tion, shall say, " Take thou legal authority to execute the
office of (Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop) in any Historic
Church or Diocese to which thou shalt be lawfully ap
pointed." (2) The present form of ordination in the An-

APPENDIX. 401
gllcan Ordinal as there worded shall be that used in the re
spective cases of Deacon, Presbyter, and Bishop, except
first, that the words " in the Church of God," following
the particular office specified shall be changed into, "in
any Historic Church of God." No question of Apostolic
Succession, as that phrase is understood to signify, could
possibly enter into either of these methods, because all the
authority conferred would be the mere ecclesiastical right
to exercise in the Historic Church the ministerial office
already possessed. And this could be definitely provided
for In the second proposed change, viz.. Instead of the
respective forms of reading, " the Office of Deacon," or
" the Office and work of a Priest," or " of a Bishop," they
would run, "your office of Deacon," "your Office and
work of a Priest," or "of a Bishop," according to the
Office in the Ministry to which the candidate for reordina
tion had already been ordained. The Republican char
acter of the Episcopate might be definitely acknowledged
by the Anglican Church by inserting into her service for the
consecration of Bishops a similar explanation of the Office
of Bishop to that already in the Methodist service. It
runs, " This service is not to be understood as an ordina
tion to a higher Order in the Christian Ministry, beyond
and above that of Elders or Presbyters, but a solemn
and fitting consecration for the special and most sacred
duties of Superlntendency in the Church." (Discipline
M. E. Ch., p. 558.) We have produced abundant evi
dence in our essay to show that Bishops and Presbyters
form but one Order in the Christian ministry, and that

402 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNlON.
being so, a definite statement to that effect would alter
nothing, but it would emphasize the true Republican char
acter of the Episcopate. It Is upon this character of the
Episcopate that Bishop Brown, with the inspiration of a
true "seer," and the knowledge of a thorough scholar, has
based his whole plan of Christian unity, knowing well
that a Monarchial Episcopate as the basis of such unity
has no chance of even consideration at the hands of non-
Episcopal Churches. The Bishop, however, has wisely
presented his plan unencumbered in the course of its de
velopment by any detailed references to authorities upon
which It Is founded. To supply this, and thereby to show
the warrant for the Bishop's view of the true character
and powers of the Episcopate, is the main object of the
following essay, a perusal of which will further show that
the Historic Episcopate, viewed as including, and as con
stituted by, an unbroken tactual succession of Bishops
from the Apo=tles to the present time, is the chief barrier
to Christian unity. Notwithstanding, however, this Re
publican character of the Episcopate as it originally existed
down to 324 A. D., the only way by which the Historic
Episcopate can be secured by those Churches which do
not possess it, is, as I have already intimated, reordina
tlon by Bishops who are themselves members of the His
toric Episcopate. Had all the Reformed Churches at
the Reformation agreed to restore the original Republican
character of the Episcopate, and so appointed Bishops
after the manner of the early Churches of Rome and
Alexandria, then it would have been sufficient for their

APPENDIX. 403
re-incorporation into the Historic Church of to-day for the
Monarchial Bishops of this Church to offer them the
right hand of fellowship. This fellowship greeting would
then have signified that these Republican Bishops were
as tme Bishops as the Monarchial Bishops of the Historic
Church. Most of these Reformed Churches, however, re
jected Episcopacy entirely, thus the only possible way to
unite them again with the Historic Episcopate is through
reordination by Bishops who are themselves members of
an Historic Episcopate. This is plainly seen by the noted
scholar and representative of the Congregational Church,
Dr. Newman Smythe, who has lately declared, " Episco
pacy holds the key to the door through which other
Churches may be invited to enter into a Catholicism large
enough to hold them all." (Passing Protestantism and
Coming Catholicism. ) This Episcopacy Dr. Smythe def
initely intimates is that possessed by the Anglican Church,
which he thus sees to be also the door by which the Prot
estant Churches can once more be reunited with the His
toric Episcopate. But how? By reordinatlon at the
hands of the Bishops of the Anglican Church. Not, how
ever, on the ground that these Bishops possess an unbroken
Apostolic Succession, for this he correctly repudiates, but
because they are members of an actual Historic Episco
pate. Further, until all the Historic Churches, have come
into union, including the Roman and Greek Churches, for
there can be no real unity with these left out — Episcopal
ordination would have to be exclusively maintained by all
the Churches entering a unity, otherwise an insuperable

404 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
barrier would be created to the future coming in of the
Historic Churches still outside. When all shall have
come in, then the Republican character of the Episcopate
could be restored as already indicated, this Republican
character being safeguarded both previously and subse
quently by inserting into the service of reordination the
explanation previously referred to.

L

THE ORIGIN AND POWERS OF THE
EPISCOPATE.
ALL SCHOLARS agree that in the period covered
by the New Testament, the terms Presbyter and
Bishop referred to one and the same person.
Alluding to their respective positions, which might be
assumed to differ owing to their separate titles. Professor
Gwatkln, from the evidence produced, says, " The general
equivalence of the two offices in the apostolic age seems
undeniable," and he closes an exhaustive enquiry into any
possible difference, with these words, " our general con
clusion is, that while we find Deacons and Elders (or
Bishops in the New Testament sense) in the apostolic
age, there is no clear trace of Bishops (in the later sense),
or of any apostolic ordinance that every Church was to

APPENDIX. 405
have its Bishop." (Bishop — Church Government. Hast
ings' D. B.)
Canon Sanday tells us that during the period covered
from St. Paul's speech at Miletus, to the Epistle of
Clement of Rome, and possibly to the Shepherd of
Hermas (cir. A. D. 140) "the terms Bishop and Pres
byter were applied to the same persons." Though he
adds, " that at the time of the martyrdom of Ignatius, i. e.,
probably about 1 10-1 1 7 A. D., at Antioch in Syria, and
in some of the Churches in Western Asia Minor, there
was already established a Monarchial Episcopate."
(The Conception of Priesthood, p. 61 .)
Now the above agrees with the following statement of
the English Bishops under Henry VIII, in referring to the
original establishment of the permanent offices of the
Christian ministry. They say — " In the New Testament
there is no mention made of any degrees or distinction in
Orders, but only of Deacons or Ministers, and of Priests or
Bishops," adding — "of these two Orders only Scripture
maketh express mention." In alluding to the later dis
tinction between Bishops and Presbyters as indicated bj-
Ignatius, Canon Sanday says, " How the transition was
brought about we can only guess." (lb., p. 61.) How
ever it was brought about, the English Bishops referred to
definitely attributed it to human origin. Repudiating, as
unwarranted, the action of the Popes in assuming the title
of " Universal Bishop," or of " the head of all Priests, " or
of " the highest Priest," they say, " there is no mention
made neither in Scripture, neither in the writings of any au-

406 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
thentical doctor or author of the Church, being within the
time of the Apostles, that Christ did ever make or institute
any distinction or difference to be in the pre-eminence of
power, or order, or jurisdiction between the Apostles
themselves or between the Bishops themselves, but that
they were all equal in power, order, and jurisdiction.
And that there is now, and since the time of the Apostles,
any such diversity or difference among Bishops, it was de
vised by the ancient fathers of the Primitive Church, for
the conservation of good order and unity of the Catholic
Church ... an order of degrees to be among
Bishops . . . and so ordained some to be Patri
archs, some to be Primates, some to be Metropolitans,
some to be Archbishops, some to be Bishops." (Formu
laries of the Faith of the Reign of Henry VIII, p. 1 18;
cf. 105, 281 ; Bsp. Short Hist. Ch. Eng., pp. 132-252.)
But this clear statement of the case by our own Bishops
at the commencement of the Reformation movement in the
Church of England, is merely an endorsement of the asser
tion of St. Jerome, that " before the devil had Incited men
to make division in religion . . . Churches were
governed by the common council of Presbyters. But
afterwards it was everywhere decreed that one person
elected from the Presbyters in each Church, should be
placed over the others. So let Bishops know that they
are above Presbyters rather by election than by divine
appointment." (Powell — Apostolic Succession, pp. 93-
95 ; Allen — Christian Institutions, p. 7 ; Lightfoot —
Essay C. M.) But if we accept Jerome's statement, en-

APPENDIX. 407
dorsed as we have seen by our own Bishops of the period
mentioned, that a separate Episcopate was the result of
an arrangement made by the Churches themselves as a
matter of expediency, what are we to make of the tradi
tion that St. John was its author? L believe that this
tradition originated in the fact recorded by Irenaeus, that
in his youth he had seen and listened to Polycarp, who
had known and conversed with St. John and others who
had seen the Lord. From this he drew the conclusion
that Polycarp had been made Bishop of Smyrna by
Apostles. He does not say by St. John, as he surely
would have done had the tradition to this effect been cor
rect, for who would have been more likely to know and
to repeat it than Irenaeus himself. Omitting all reference
to St. John, he says simply, that Polycarp had been " by
Apostles in Asia, appointed Bishop of the Church of
Smyrna." (Her. 111. 3, 4; Let. to Flor.) We next have
Tertullian Informing us on the authority of the Church of
Smyrna Itself, that John was the Apostle who had ap
pointed Polycarp to be its Bishop. But then Tertullian
mentions in the same context that In like manner the
register of the Church of Rome recorded that Peter had
made Clement Its first Bishop, although Puller, with An
glican and most other scholars, ascribes this belief to " the
Clementine Romance." (Prim. Saints and SR, p. 48;
Salmon Infal. Ch., p. 361 ; Ter. Pres. Her., 32.) What
further warrant, therefore, have we for accepting as correct
the tradition of Poly carp's apostolic appointment as
Bishop of Smyma, or as a Bishop at all, any more than

408 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
for the tradition stated in the case of Clement? None at
all, consequently, on this ground alone we might dismiss
It as lacking evidence. But there Is further reason for
rejecting it. Ignatius In his letter to Polycarp is silent as
to the source of Polycarp's Episcopate, although he writes
to him as Bishop of the Church of Smyma. Nor does he
mention St. John in any of his letters he addresses to the
very Churches in which later tradition reported that St.
John had placed Bishops, and this although he makes
special reference to obedience to be paid to their Bishops.
Indeed, when producing authority for his advocacy of
Episcopal supremacy, he definitely states, " I knew nothing
of any man. But the Spirit spake, saying on this wise:
Do nothing without the Bishop." (Epis. Phil.) In view
of all these facts, we are not surprised that Professor
Gwatkln concludes that Ignatius knew of no Institution
of Bishops by Apostles. (Ch. Gov. HDB.) Finally,
Polycarp himself, in his letter to the Church of Philippi,
makes no mention of St. John, although he enjoins its
members to adopt the patience of " Paul, and the rest
of the Apostles." No wonder then that Canon Bmce
declines to accept the tradition that St. John introduced
Episcopacy into the Churches of Asia Minor, and al
though Lightfoot, followed by Gwatkln, connects its in
troduction with this Apostle, the facts mentioned amply
warrant Canon Bruce's conclusion. This last Anglican
writer is not alone in the view he adopts. Principal Lind
say also rejects Lightfoot's view, asserting not only " that
the Apostles did not prescribe any particular form of

APPENDIX. 409
Church government," but that " the Indication is all the
other way," and he sees in the change which Canon San
day thought we could only guess at, a transition brought
about " without any Apostolic sanction, in virtue of the
power lying within the community." (The Church and
the Ministry in the Eady Centuries, pp. 132-210.)
Conceding, however, though merely for the sake of
argument, that this tradition has some basis of truth. It
militates against the theory that Episcopacy was of general
apostolic introduction, since It indicates cleady that at
the end of the apostolic age, when St. John was most
probably the only surviving Apostle, the office of Bishop
had not previously been called into existence. Even when
instituted, its originators did not think It of sufficient im
portance to leave any direction touching its general accept
ance, as Lightfoot himself concedes; while long after St.
John's death there were many Churches outside the Imme
diate sphere of his Influence that were still governed by
bodies of Presbyters without any superior officer, such as
the Churches of Rome, Philippi, and Corinth (Words
worth — MG, p. 136; Jacobs — The Ecclesiastical Polity
of the New Tes., pp. 76-78; Lightfoot — Essay CM.)
The tradition in question, therefore, even if authentic, and
there is ample warrant for rejecting it, is of little value as
evidence In support of the theory of the divine right of
Episcopal government, a theory rejected, as we have seen,
by Jerome, and our own Bishops of the period named.
The conclusion is, that even If we concede St. John in
troduced Episcopacy, in other regions the Church was at

4l0 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNIOM.
first governed In its local and permanent Ministry by a
body of Presbyters of equal authority, and while subse
quently the whole Church adopted Episcopacy, such an
acceptance was entirely a matter of choice, a right be
longing Inherently to the Churches making this change.
Thus Principal Lindsay is still justified in asserting that
this change In a college of Elders without a President to
a college with a Bishop at its head, took place " without
any apostolic sanction," but rather " In virtue of the
power lying within the community." If this be so, if with
these facts evidently clearly in mind, Lightfoot contended
that " It is plainly competent for the Church at any given
time to entrust a particular office with larger powers, as
emergency may require," (CM) the Church, or any por
tion of the Church, as things are at present constituted,
has full authority to withdraw those powers, consequently,
orthodox bodies of Christians possessing the original Pres
byterate of the Church may rightfully claim to possess
as valid and as regular a Ministry as any Historic Epis
copal Church.
Perhaps the general mistaken notion amongst Anglicans
with regard to the assumed inherently exclusive powers of
the Episcopate, is largely the result of a wide-spread error
as to the actual reading of the opening clause of the
Preface to our Ordinal, which Is frequently quoted as
referring to " three orders." Harold Browne, in his
" 39 Articles," says, " In 1 549, Cranmer and twelve
other divines drew up the Ordinal where It is declared,
that ' from the Apostles' times, there have been three

APPENDIX. 411
Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church.' " (p. 559.)
Denny has " these three Orders." (Anglican Orders, p.
93, S. p. C. K.) Dr. Fulton so quoted it in the Church
Standard, April 5, 1902, p. 855, a mistake frequently
committed even as we have seen in important works by
leading scholars. But the fact is that the word three does
not occur in this clause, nor In this preface at all, the
actual wording being " these orders." (First Prayer
Book, Ed. VI — Ancient and Modern Lib. Theo. Lit.)
It is evidently owing to this wide-spread error that even
Evan Daniel, In analyzing this Preface, represents the first
clause as follows — " From the time of the Apostles there
have been three orders of Ministers In Christ's Church."
(The Prayer Book, Its. His. etc., p. 423.)
The fact is, there are but two orders of Ministers in
Christ's Church, as has already been intimated in the
quotation from Jerome, and that from our own Bishops
as already given. Lord King was absolutely correct when
he stated that "it Is expressly said by the ancients, that
there were but two distinct ecclesiastical orders, viz..
Bishops and Deacons, or Presbyters and Deacons; and
If there were but these two. Presbyters cannot be distinct
from Bishops, for then there would be three." (The
Primitive Church, 73.) But Evan Daniel, while ac
knowledging that in the New Testament Bishops and
Presbyters are represented as belonging to, or forming
but one Order, nevertheless, attempts to show that " The
offices of Bishop and Elder appear to have become dis
tinct even In the Hfetime of the Apostles," and as evidence

412 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
to this end he points to the position held by Timothy and
Titus, respectively, (pp. 419, 420.) But here he is not
only opposed by some of the best modern Anglican
scholars, such as Professor Gwatkln (Ch. Gov. HDB) ;
Canon Venables (Episcopacy — Encyc. Brit.) ; and Bp.
Lightfoot (Essay CM), but the EngHsh Bishops already
quoted view Timothy and Titus as raised to the Ministry
by "the authority of Priesthood" (ib. p. 278), not
Episcopacy. Further, Bishop Harold Browne shows that
the majority of the Fathers have held that there are but
two orders in the Christian ministry. Bishops or Priests,
and Deacons or Ministers, (lb., p. 555.) Bishop Short
also showed this to be the belief of the Anglo-Saxon
Church (lb., pp. 132, 252), while it is the view of the
Church of Rome herself to-day, as always. (Evan Daniel,
ib., p. 423.) We may therefore dismiss as unwarranted,
all attempts to make the Christian ministry consist of three
Orders. It actually consists of but two, which brings us
to consider the assumed special and exclusive powers of
the Episcopate.
The assertion that the power to ordain to the Christian
ministry belongs by divine right exclusively to the Epis
copate, is a modern revival of a theory of the Episcopate
first propounded by Cyprian (A. D. 247-248), but not
authoritatively decreed until the Council of Paris A. D.
829, maintained that the Holy Spirit is exclusively given
at Ordination, through the Bishop. The ruling of this
council, however, did not affect the Church at large, as
we shall see presently. Bishop Wordsworth would have

APPENDIX. 413
US believe that the validity of Presbyterial ordination was
decided in the negative in the case of Ischyras and others
ordained by Colluthus. But this setdement (A. D. 324) ,
was not touching the validity of Presbyters to ordain, but
concerning acts done under unlawful conditions. (Words
worth, MG, pp. 138, 169; Colluthus— SDCA.)
The divine right of Episcopacy was first authoritatively
decreed by the Church of Rome at the council of Trent,
A. D. 1545-1560, whose ruling first found definite foot
ing in England In A. D. 1 549, when Bancroft preached
his famous sermon in which he claimed that " Bishops
were a distinct order from Priests, and had superiority
over them Jure Divino and direct from God
that the denial of it was heresy." (Neil His. Pur. Vol,
1., p. 262.) This did not pass unchallenged, however, as
it was absolutely contrary to the teaching of the Anglican
Reformers, and only finally succeeded in becoming the
recognized teaching of the Church of England in A. D.
1 66 1 , when the Preface to the Ordinal was revised to
emphasize this new doctrine. Before that time, as Bishop
Barry concedes in his Teacher's Prayer Book, men having
merely Presbyterian Ordination were allowed to minister
in our Church. Lord Bacon complained at the close of
the reign of Elizabeth that this doctrine was being promul
gated. Notwithstanding it continued, and in A. D. 1593,
Bilson asserted the full doctrine of Apostolic Succession
(Wakefield His. Ch. Eng. p. 358.) In 1604, Laud
was reproved by the University of Oxford for maintaining
in his exercise for Bachelor of Divinity, that there could

414 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
be no true Church without Bishops. To him we owe the
phrase nullus episcopus, nulla ecclesia, which, however, is
but another way of stating Cyprian's maxim, " The Bishop
Is in the Church, and the Church Is In the Bishop." (Epis.
Ixvi, 8.) Still, this was Cyprian's own opinion, which
was not shared universally, and even when publicly main
tained, as we have seen, it was not till the Council of
Trent that Rome endorsed this ruling. In the meantime,
Anglican writers like Hall and Chlllingworth put forth
their respective works on " Episcopacy of Divine Right,"
and " Divine Institution of Episcopacy," until all this is
so taken for granted with us, that our leading paper. The
Guardian, does not scruple to find fault with one of our
own Bishops (Perowne — Sept. 28, 1892), in the follow
ing words, " If the Bishop of Worcester had been content
to say that he did not know whether Episcopacy was of the
esse or of the bene esse of a Church, we should have no
criticism to make of his statement. It is with his readiness
to pronounce that it has to do only with the bene esse that
we find fault, and we do so because such a declaration
seems to us wholly Inconsistent with the jealous adherence
to a policy derived from apostolic direction." The
Church of England has traveled a long way since Arch
bishop Whitgift declared, " notwithstanding govemment,
or some kind of government, may be part of the Church,
yet it is not such a part of the Church's essence and being,
but that it may be the Church of Christ without this or
that kind of government." (Works, p. 1 84, vol. I., P. S. ) .

APPENDIX. 415
Far as we have journeyed from this view, there are not
wanting men who will yet check the utterly unwarranted
course taken by the Anglican Church perhaps more ag
gressively to-day than ever before. The present Bishop
of Durham was reported in The Guardian for Jan. 22,
1902, as saying in an address at the Newcastle Y. M. C.
A., " he was a believer in a moderate Episcopacy, and was
a Bishop himself holding an office which he could not
possibly have accepted if he had not thought it according
to the will of God that he might take it ; but he held that
it was possible to think all that, and to say a great deal
more than that about it, and yet be absolutely true, as a
son of the English Church, in repudiating the tremendous
position of ' nullus episcopus, nulla ecclesia.' He repudi
ated that position, and he knew that he was a good Angli
can when he did so." Here is Bishop Moule supporting
the view of Bishop Perowne, which opinion is endorsed
by Canon Sanday, perhaps the most widely recognized
English theologian of his day. He writes, " It should be
distinctly borne in mind that the more sweeping refusal
to recognize the non-Episcopal Reformed Churches is not,
and can never be made a doctrine of the Church of Eng
land; too many of her most representative men have not
shared in it." (The Conception of the Priesthood, p. 95.)
No, it can never be made a doctrine of the Church of
England, because it is absolutely contrary to the teaching
of its Reformers, who held, that the Episcopal form
of government is the best and most Scriptural, meaning

416 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
by that, best agreeing with what we find foreshadowed
in Scripture, without It being either taught or even inti
mated there as a possible future method of government.
Thus, while its adoption is agreeable with what we find
in Scripture, it cannot be viewed as binding upon any
Church desiring some other mode of government. It is
a mere matter of choice, as was so plainly stated by Whit
gift in his reply to Travers, " It is plain that any one
certain form or kind of external government perpetually
to be observed, is nowhere in Scripture prescribed to the
Church." (ib.) Nor let it be thought that all this re
presents the thought of a past age, or of a few men of an
extreme party bias. On the contrary, it is the expression
of our most sober scholarship as represented by such men
as Professor Gwatkln, Professor of Ecclesiastical History,
Cambridge, England, who writes: "Though the Lord
commanded His disciples to form a society, there is no
indication that either He or His Apostles ever prescribed
any definite form for it." (Bishop HDB.) He adds,
touching the Elders left alone after the dying out of the
unlocal Ministry, that is. Apostles, Prophets, Teachers,
(Acts xiii, 1,3) " they would act alone in the institution
to local office." That they did so is proved by the state
ment of Jerome to the effect, that to the time of Diony
sius (A. D. 249-265) the Alexandrian Presbyters al
ways appointed their own Bishops, Lightfoot seeing here
consecration as well as appointment (Essay CM), a con
clusion made almost certain by the directions of the
Canons of Hippolytus, from whose ruling Principal Lind-

APPENDIX. 417
sa> rightly claims that a Presbyter could ordain a Bishop.
(Wordsworth, MC, pp. 128, 136; Lindsay, CM, p.
246.) Here we must call attention to an elaborate review of
this whole question undertaken by the late Dr. Fulton in
a series of articles published in The Church Standard
for 1902 (March — May.) Unfortunately these papers
were written with a carelessness and an unwarranted as
surance not usually visible in the statements of one who
was justly recognized as a scholar. In the issue of May
1 7th, he wrote : " The record of the New Testament
shows that, certainly in some Churches, and therefore
probably in others, the threefold Ministry was either in
stituted by the Apostles or came into existence with their
sanction." From his previous article in the Issue of March
15 th, we know he referred to the appointment of Timothy
and Titus by St. Paul to certain work. He wrote, " St.
Timothy is setded as the ruling Minister in a single city
— the prototype of that See Episcopate which speedily
became normal throughout the Church ; while, in the com
mission of St. Titus we have the first and only Scriptural
example of a member of the same Ruling Order holding
jurisdiction over a whole island, the prototype of a Terri
torial Episcopate ... Of the spread of this same
Ruling Order within the apostolic period, and cleady
under apostolic sanction, the New Testament furnishes
another plain proof," and he refers here to the Angels of
the Churches in Rev. 1. Against this unwarranted view is
arrayed the best scholarship, headed by Lightfoot, who

418 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
with regard to Timothy and Titus, says, " St. Paul's own
language implies that the position which they held was
temporary." (CM.) Professor Gwatkln says, " Neither
Timothy nor Titus is a permanent official, and Titus is
not connected with any particular city. They are rather
temporary vicars apostolic, sent on special missions to
Ephesus and Crete. The letters by which we know them
are (2 Tim. 4. 9; Tit. 3, 12) letters of recall, and there
Is no serious evidence that they ever saw Ephesus or Crete
again . . . the angels are praised and blamed for
doings of their Churches in a way no literal Bishop justly
can be. It is safer to take them as personifications of the
Churches. " (Ch. Gov — HBD.) The foregoing is the
conclusion of most scholars. Episcopal and non-Episcopal,
which entirely disposes of Dr. Fulton's assured basis of
the origin of the threefold Ministry. Taking his stand
on the position which he unwarrantably gave to Timothy,
Titus, and the Angels of the Churches, he declared, " It
may fairly be claimed, in accordance with the terms of
the Preface to the Ordinal, that not only from, but during,
the Apostles' times, there were three clearly distinguish
able orders of Ministers In Christ's Church." The fact
is, that there are not three orders of Ministers in Christ's
Church, despite the statement in the Preface to our Or
dinal, Lightfoot himself, while he maintained the accuracy
of this Preface, asserting that between Bishops and Pres
byters there is " a substantial identity of Orders." (CM.)
For the meaning of the term Orders in this Preface, Cran-

APPENDIX. 410
mer's opinion must be consulted In his works, where we
shall see that he uses the term "order" as synonymous
with office or degree. He himself wrote this Preface, and
he had definitely declared his beHef in only two Orders,
for he was one of the Bishops who composed the Formu
laries of Faith in which this belief Is stated.
And now we have to call attention to another glaring
mistake made by eminent Anglican writers. Bishop
Harold Browne asserts, " there is no example of ordina
tion being entrusted to Presbyters only." (39 Articles
p. 553.) Bingham made the same statement. On the
contrary, however, there are many instances of this. Hatch
(Organ. Early Chris. Chs. p. 1 10.) ; Wordsworth (MG,
p. 166); Encyc. Brit. (Celestine V), give examples
where Orders have been conferred by Presbyters and
others apart from Bishops. The famous scholar Dean
Field, of Gloucester, maintained that " the power of or
dination exists In the Presbyter;" (Bsp. Dowden-Theol.
Lit. Ch. Eng., p. 80) while Bishop Wordsworth declines
to acquiesce In the position that their co-operation In or
dination is a mere witnessing to the fact. (MG, p. 169.)
Bishop Lightfoot, commenting on the ruling of the council
of Ancyra (A. D. 314), shows that at that time, ordina
tion by Presbyters only depended upon Episcopal sanc
tion. (CM.) But the ruling of the Canons of Hippo
lytus shows unmistakably that Presbyters did ordain alone
without the presence of a Bishop, nor must we neglect
to add, that Bishop Wordsworth can say no more of this

420 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
presence than that It was " necessary, at any rate after
the decision in the case of Colluthus In A. D. 324."
(MG, p. 169.)
Regarding these Canons, however. Dr. Fulton, discuss
ing the question of the exclusive right of a Bishop to or
dain, claimed that one of the very oldest canons which
has come down to us from the Primitive Church, known as
" apostolical," reads: " Let a Bishop be ordained by two
or three Bishops;" He quotes Beveridge as asserting that
this code, " The Apostolic Canons " — was collected sub
stantially in its present form before the termination of the
second century. Dr. Fulton expressed himself as of the
opinion that the canon quoted was amongst the oldest of
the code. He was wrong, however, all through. Bishop
Wordsworth shows that the " Apostolic Canons " cannot
be earlier than A. D. 341, or much before A. D. 400.
Now it is true that part of this ancient document goes
back into an earlier age, somewhere between A. D. 140
and 1 80, but the canon in question formed no part of this
earlier portion. Such a rule, while practiced to some
extent in the third century, is first found formulated in the
canons of the council of Aries, A. D. 314. Had Dr.
Fulton only looked more thoroughly into the matter, he
never would have made such a mistake as he unwittingly
committed. In the earlier fragment of the later canons,
there is a reference to " three men " as appointed in the
little congregation to assist in selecting a Pastor. In
them, Hamack finds " the anticipation of the much later
rule that the consecration of a Bishop requires the pres-

APPENDIX. 421
ence and co-operation of the three neighboring Bishops."
(Lindsay, ib., p. 1 78. ff.) There is, however, a document
dating from the end of the second century. It Is the
lost Roman Order, the Canons of Hippolytus, which Dr.
Fulton fails to treat with the weight of importance It calls
for, while he entirely misstates its significance. It is
a document which shows that there was as yet no differ
ence recognized In the one order of Presbyter-Bishops.
It directs that there shall be a Bishop to whom the exercise
of ordaining shall belong, as this is not permitted to Pres
byters, because the power of ordination is not given to
him. (i. e.. The Presbyter.) But It must be noted, that
in case of the election of a Bishop over the body of Pres
byter-Bishops, one of themselves is to be chosen to perform
the act of ordination. In the words of Principal Lindsay,
to which 1 have already referred, " one of the Bishops
or one of the Elders of the congregation, was selected to
perform the act of ordination," owing to which he says
in his " index," under " Elder," " could ordain a Bishop;"
and under " Bishop," " ordained by Elders," p. 246. We
see therefore, that notwithstanding the statement respect
ing the power of ordination not being given to a Pres
byter, we are not to infer from this that a Presbyter never
possessed the power and right to ordain. On the contrary,
we see here a plain indication that a power once belonging
to Presbyters, and still to be exercised by them in the case
of an ordination of a Presiding-Blshop, had at some time
been restricted to the latter, except when he himself was

422 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the person to be ordained. That we are here corrrect is
seen in the case of Timothy, ordained equally by the
Presbyters as by St. Paul. ( I Tim. iv : 1 4 ; II Tim. 1:6.)
Nor must it be forgotten that the New Testament indi
cates by this incident that there Is but one ordination to
the local Ministry proper, the Deacons not being Minis
ters in the sense of the Elders. Timothy was not or
dained twice, so that whatever was conferred upon him
by which he became entitled to ordain to the Ministry,
had been conferred equally by Presbyters as by an
Apostle. It follows from this that Presbyters have a share
in the bestowal of an office to which the function of ordi
nation belongs. This being so, it follows logically that
they themselves possess the right and power to ordain.
That they did exercise this power Is proved by the canons
of Hippolytus ; the practice of the Church of Alexandria ;
and the decrees of the Council of Ancyra. Ignatius tells
us, that apart from the Bishop " It is not lawful to bap
tize," etc. (Epis. Smy means.) But upon what author
ity? Philip knew of no such restriction when he baptized
the Samaritans (Acts vlu, 12). Ignatius tells us him
self, that it was not owing to any man's influence, but to
that of the Spirit (Epis. Phil.). We see therefore that
the restriction of ordination to Bishops, as in the case of
Baptism, was the outcome of the growth of the Episco
pate as differentiated from the Presbyterate, and not of
an apostolic action or influence. We have thus arrived at
the point when it may be asked — What is the actual value
of Episcopacy, since under the title of " the Historic Epis-

APPEfJDiX. 423
copate," it has been put forward by the Bishops of the
Anglican Communion as a sine qua non to Christian union
(The Quadrilateral) ?
First, however, it Is necessary to bear in mind that,
owing to the phrase " the Historic Episcopate," there is an
added feature to be considered, as It Is not merely with
Episcopacy qua Episcopacy that we have here mostly to
deal, but with Episcopacy In its historic character. For
the sake of clearness we shall therefore first deal with
Episcopacy as Episcopacy, and then with Episcopacy in
that historic transmission owing to which It has been
termed the "Historic" Episcopate.
In the report of the Committee of American Bishops to
the General Convention of 1 886, they included the Epis
copate as amongst the principles of Order " committed
by Christ and His Apostles to the Church unto the end
of the world, and, therefore, incapable of compromise or
surrender." These are weighty words coming from such
a source, and yet, unless we are mistaken, from the evi
dence produced In this paper it would seem that the Epis
copate was neither given by Christ nor His Apostles,
but rather by the Holy Ghost acting at first through In
dividuals, next through separate Churches, and finally
through the whole Church by general councils. Thus
we have to this end, first the action of Ignatius, then of
Churches like those of Rome and Alexandria, and finally
of councils Hke those of 324 and 325 A. D. Episcopacy
being thus merely a matter of evolution through second
ary causes, there Is, consequently, no necessity whatever

424 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
to view it as a method of Church government or Order
obligatory to the end of the world, or Indeed beyond the
time when it might warrantably be viewed as having
failed to meet the end for which it was Instituted. At
the same time, it is quite possible to view It as a measure
indispensable to meet a present emergency. Episcopacy
was originated to preserve the unity of Christendom, and
for ages It accomplished this end, thus resulting in a
fellowship all Christians are to-day anxious to see re
stored. May it not be that In once more universalizing
amongst all Christian communities the Episcopate origi
nally recognized by the undivided Church as a true Epis
copate, lies the readiest and most likely method of restor
ing the lost Church unity ? It would seem so, at least, the
majority of Anglicans, Evangelical and Catholic, are of
this opinion. But first, where is this Episcopate that can
be so universalized; and second, by what method can it
be secured by those Churches which to-day are without it?
Such an Episcopate is possessed by the Anghcan Church,
which, owing to her midway position between Catholicism
and Protestantism, has been regarded as the link which
can alone unite the undivided Church of the future with
the undivided Church of the past. In the unbroken con
tinuity of the Episcopate of the Anglican Church we
have the Episcopate originally recognized by the undivided
Church as a true Episcopate. This then is the value
(1) of Episcopacy qua Episcopacy, and (2) of Epis
copacy with its added character of historicity. Inaugu
rated originally to preserve first the unity of the local

APPENDIX. 425
Church, then of the adjoining Churches, and finally of
the Church universal, it came at length to be viewed as
the permanent method of preserving the Church's unity.
Its failure to this end was conspicuously seen at the Refor
mation, but it is thought to have been owing chiefly to the
fact that by that time Episcopacy had become a prelacy.
A Reformed Historic Episcopate, that is to say, an
Episcopate connected by an unbroken succession with the
Episcopate of the undivided Church, and yet one that
is willing to recognize its functions as belonging equally
per se to every member of the one Order of the Presbyt
erate of which the Episcopate is but the higher office.
Such an Historic Episcopate would, I believe, stand a
fair chance of being accepted by non-Episcopal bodies
as the solution of the present problem of divided Christen
dom. An Episcopate presented without this reform, on
the assumption that as an apostolic institution its special
functions belong exclusively to its own Order, never will
be accepted, since such pretensions are not only rejected
by the great non-Episcopal bodies as having no warrant
either in Scripture or early Church history, but they are
equally so rejected by the majority of our own scholars.
All true Christians are longing for some method b>
which the broken body of our Lord may once more be
come united. As Anglicans we believe that with the
Reform intimated we possess the best system by which
this can be accomplished, viz., through Episcopacy, but
especially in its historic aspect. Here then is our answer
to the question — What is the actual value of Episcopacy?

426 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UJNiUJN.

II.

EPISCOPACY THE ESSE OR BENE ESSE
OF THE CHURCH.
IN CLOSING my former paper, I asked the question,
"What is the actual value of Episcopacy?" And
1 replied, for reasons there stated, that it commended
itself to Anglicans as the best system by which to re
establish the Church's broken unity into its original one
undivided corporate existence. Notwithstanding the evi
dence I there produced to prove that Episcopacy was not
an apostolic institution, but an after development by the
Church itself, there are those who may still think that it Is
of the esse of a Church, and was in existence before the
Church, as included in the Apostolate. This evidently is
the opinion of the Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Gore, whose
words to this effect 1 am about to quote. In a series of
addresses on " The Christian Ministry," delivered In his
Cathedral last Lent, he Is reported as having said in one of
them (see Church Times for March 23rd, 1909) : "The
Idea that the Ministry arose by delegation from the Church
was widely popular, and In modern literature had found
expression in a work, " The Church and the Ministry,"
by Dr. Lindsay, of the Free Church of Scotland, the
central idea being that the Church was constituted to

APPENDIX. 427
frame, and create for itself, to meet its own needs, its
own ministerial office. Such an idea was profoundly and
thoroughly unscriptural." That Dr. Gore Is a scholar
of no mean attainments we readily concede, but there are
other Anglican scholars, his equals. If not his superiors,
who reject this view, and agree with that of Dr. Lindsay.
Dean Stanley holds that the Christian Church or Society
existed before the institution of the Christian Clergy
(Christian Institutions, p. 213). I am perfectly aware that
some Anglicans put little weight in Stanley's opinions on
this subject, but they have a profound respect for Light
foot and Westcott. The former quotes with approval the
statement of Tertullian as follows :
" It is the authority of the Church which makes the
difference between the order (the Clergy) and the people.
Thus where there is no bench of Clergy, you present the
eucharistic offerings and baptize and are your own sole
Priest. For where three are gathered together, there Is
a Church, even though they be laymen." (CM., p. 127,
Pub. Whittaker.) That Lightfoot adopts TertulHan's
opinion as his own, is made clear by his previous remarks,
" As the Church," he says, " grew in numbers . . .
it became necessary to provide for the emergency by fixed
rules and definite officers" (p. 10). Stanley asserted
that " In the beginning of Christianity there was no such
institution as the Clergy, and it is conceivable that there
may be a time when they shall cease to be." (ib., p. 213.)
To a High-Churchman, such 'a statement is foolish
heresy, nevertheless, it is the opinion also of Lightfoot.

428 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
" The only Priests," he tells us, " under the Gospel desig
nated as such in the New Testament are the saints, the
members of the Christian brotherhood," and he adds, "An
emergency may arise when the spirit and not the letter
must decide, the Christian idea will then Interpose, and
interpret our duty. The higher ordinance of the universal
priesthood will overcome all special limitations. The
laymen will assume functions which are otherwise re
stricted to the ordained minister." (ib., pp. 121-146.)
Thus he concluded, as touching the ordained Minister,
" his functions cannot be absolute and indispensable."
(p. 145.)
In view of such statements as the above, assertions of
" The Divine right of Episcopacy;" " The Necessity of
the Threefold Ministry to the valid constitution of a
Church," seem absolutely absurd, to say the least. If it
should be said that, after all, what I have quoted from
Lightfoot represents the private opinion of but one or two
eminent scholars, it can be shown on the contrary that they
are with few exceptions the conclusions of the scholarship
of the Anglican Church from its Reformation till the pres
ent time, voiced by Westcott in his comment on the minis
terial commission given by Christ in John xx, 1 9-23 — "The
commission and promise were given, like the Pentecostal
blessing, which they prefigure, to the Christian Society, and
not to any special Order In it." (The Revelation of the
Risen Lord, pp. 8 1 , 82. ) Thus, Plummer, in " The Cam
bridge Bible for Schools and Colleges," says, "The
Commission therefore in the first instance is to the Chris-

APPENDIX. 429
tian community as a whole, not to the Ministry alone,"
(St. John, p. 363). Strong and convincing as the testi
mony of scholarship undoubtedly is. Bishop Gore takes
us directly to Scripture, the final source of all authority in
the matter. Let us therefore pass over the opinion of the
scholars and go direcdy to Scripture, that we may see for
ourselves whether it affords evidence for Bishop Gore's
assertion, that the idea that the Church possesses the power
to appoint its own Ministry to meet its own needs. Is
" profoundly and thoroughly unscriptural." Or whether
Lightfoot, Westcott, Plummer, etc., give the truer sense
of its teaching.
Bishop Gore's school views our Lord's words, " Go ye
therefore and make disciples . . . baptizing them
. . . teaching them . . . lo I am with you
always" (Matt, xxvln, 19) as the bestowal of mission
and authority upon His Ministry. (Stanley-Catholic
reHgion p. 18.) But all commentators agree that these
words were addressed to the five hundred disciples at
the mount in Galilee (Hammond, Geikie, Lindsay, etc).
These five hundred, therefore, represent the first gathering
of the Church before its absolute inauguration on the day
of Pentecost. Consequently, excepting the " Twelve " we
have the commission to baptize and preach and to bring
into the Church, given to mere laymen. This is what
they actually did at Antioch, where the Church was first
established by laymen independently of the Apostles or
even Prophets. (Acts, xi, 1 9, 2 1 , 22-26 ; Thatcher, The
Apostolic Church, p. 43; Lindsay, The Church and the

430 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Ministry, p. 24; Sanday, the Conception of Priesthood,
p. 46.) Even the administration of the " Breaking of
Bread," otherwise " The Lord's Supper," as indicated by
Tertullian, was undertaken by laymen, for in the first
instance the breaking of the bread was done at the house
by the Head of each household. (Acts. 11, 46, R. V. ;
Stanley, Christian Institutions, p. 44; Lindsay ib., p. 43;
Allen, Christian Institutions, p. 522 ; Wordsworth — MG,
pp. 103,306,331.)
The mistake scholars such as Gore have made in this
matter is in their viewing the original Apostolate as the
exclusive source of ministerial authority. They entirely
overlook the fact that the Apostolate, like the Prophetic
office, belonged to the temporary, or, as Professor Gwatkln
calls it, " the unlocal Ministry." Lightfoot emphatically
asserted, " the opinion . . that the same officers
in the Church who were first called Apostles came after
wards to be designated Bishops, is baseless." (CM, p.
30.) This local Ministry, which included Apostles,
Prophets, Teachers, etc., owed its appointment directly to
the Holy Ghost and not to any direct appointment by the
Lord, except in the case of the original " Twelve " (Acts
xiii, 1 -3 ; Cor. xii, 28 ; Eph. xi, 20 ; iv, 11. ) . The Didache,
a document of the first part of the second century, supports
Tertullian's assertion, that the congregation could appoint
its own Ministry if necessary. " Appoint for yourselves,"
it says, " Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord "
(xv, 12). This, with other data, is conclusive that in
the first stage of the Church's history, it did, or could.

APPENDIX. 431
appoint its own Ministry without any reference to any pre
vious apostolic institution. (See Sanday-Con. Priest,
p. 72.)
During the time of the controversy raised over the re
marks made by the late Bishop of Worcester, Dr. Pe
rowne, touching the equality of Presbyters and Bishops,
the Rev. W. J. Hill, in a letter to The Guardian (March
1, 1899), which paper was flooded with similar letters
at the time, claimed that the Church of England holds
that " Episcopacy is not merely the bene esse but of the
esse of a Church." In proof of his assertion he referred
to the two cases of Whittingham and Travers. These
two cases, however, are seldom understood by those who
make use of them. Whittingham was not even in Genevan
Orders, as he had never had hands laid upon him, or been
called to the Ministry except by election. He was there
fore a mere layman, and had himself scrupled about his
officiating as a minister, but was overruled by Calvin.
With regard to Travers, the objection against him taken
by Archbishop Whitgift was not on account of his orders
per se, but because they were not such as the laws of
England required for ministering in the English Church.
Moreover, Travers actually was ejected not on the ground
of his Orders, but for breaking an order of the Advertise
ments. (Short His. Ch. Eng., p. 247.) He had been
nominated for Master of the Temple by Lord Burghley,
Secretary of State, and Aylmer, Bishop of London.
The latter evidently, although one of the leading English
Bishops, had no objection to his Genevan Orders, and

432 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
It Is further unlikely that Whitgift would have objected
had Travers himself not been strongly averse to Episco
pacy, a fact well known to the Archbishop. However,
after he left the Temple he was appointed Provost of
the newly founded Trinity College, Dublin. Professor
Abbott, of Trinity College, Dublin, wrote me in May,
1 898, of this appointment as follows : " It was not neces
sary for the Provost to be in Holy Orders. No doubt
the case of a man who claimed to be in Orders was not
quite the same as that of an acknowledged layman, as
the former might be expected to perform clerical duty.
I know of no records showing whether Travers actually
did officiate clerically, but 1 think that there can be no
doubt that he did so. . . You will observe that not
withstanding Whitgift's objection (which he had pre
viously raised when Travers was named as possible
Master of the Temple), he never silenced him until he
as a lecturer contradicted In the evening what Hooker
had preached in the morning. This was a case expressly
provided for by the Canons, and, accordingly, for this he
was silenced, the objection to his Orders being no doubt
repeated, but being no new thing."
Now this explanation by Professor Abbott is extremely
important, for it shows definitely that Travers was silenced
not because of his Orders in themselves, but because he had
entered into a controversy in the Church, and this es
pecially with the purpose of contrasting Presbyterianism
to its advantage as against Episcopacy. It has often been
said that while many writers admit that men have held

APPENDIX. 433
appointments in the English Church having only Pres
byterian Orders (Bps. Barry, Short, etc.), of the cases
alleged, " not one of them is an Instance of a valid, open
and authoritative admission of a person not properly or
dained to a ' cure of souls,' in this country, nor can even
one such case be produced." (Denny- Anglican Orders, p.
198.) The fact is, however, that not only eminent au
thority, such as Cosin, Keble, etc., conceded that such
have held cures in the Church of England, but the names
of several can be absolutely produced. For instance,
there is the case of De Laune, a French Protestant, whom
Bright concedes in his volume, (" The Roman See in the
Early Church," 479) , to have been instituted to a bene
fice during Bishop Overall's time (1618), without reor
dination, and several others could also be named, such
as Saravla. (See Saravia-Hadrian-Dict. Nat. Biol.,
where may be seen Bishop Morton's written refusal to
reordain pastors of the reformed Churches.) Notwith
standing, however, that the majority of the lesser Clergy
of the Anglican Church to-day, together with some few
of her scholars, such as Bishop Gore, hold that Episco
pacy is the esse of a Church, the present Bishop of Dur
ham's repudiation of that doctrine (Dr. Moule — The
Guardian, January 22nd, 1902), supported by Canon
Sanday (Con. Priest, p. 95), can easily be shown to be
the conclusion of the majority of Anglican scholars. This
we venture to think that we have here done already, and,
therefore, to some extent, justified the representation of
Bishop Perowne touching the Church of England's view

434 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
of or position touching Episcopacy, viz., " she nowhere
asserts . . . Episcopal government as necessary to
the constitution of a Church " she simply " prefers Epis
copacy." In other words, she views Episcopacy as
merely the bene esse and not the esse of a Church. But
I used the words " to some extent," because the Bishop
indicates not exactly what is, but rather, what was the
officially implied position of the Church of England touch
ing Episcopacy prior to 1 662. At that date, by her re
vised Ordinal and Statutory enforced practice, she took
another position (see Prefatory Note), a position, how
ever, which has been practically rejected as unwarranted
by her best modern scholars. Thus, such an unqualified
condemnation of Dr. Perowne's representation by The
Guardian (Sept. 28, 1892) as I am about to quote, was
entirely without warrant. " If the Bishop of Worcester,"
it is said, with the assurance as though speaking as a repre
sentative authority of the Church of England, " had been
content to say that he did not know whether Episcopacy
was of the esse or of the bene esse of a Church, we should
have no criticism to make of his statement. It is with his
readiness to pronounce that it has to do only with the
bene esse that we find fault, and we do so because such
a declaration seems to us wholly inconsistent with the
jealous adherence to a polity derived from Apostolic di
rection, which Lightfoot held to be the true temper of the
English Church." Now from what I have said it is plain
that The Guardian ought at once to have recognized that
Dr. Perowne was evidently speaking from the standpoint

Al-PENDlX. 435
of the position touching Episcopacy originally taken by
the Reformed Church of England before 1662. Here
his explanation of that position is fully warranted, since
the Church of England during that period did view Epis
copacy as merely the bene esse of the Church. Thus,
notwithstanding our present Ordinal, the Act of Uniform
ity of 1 662, and the recent pronouncement of the Angli
can Bishops (The Quadrilateral, 1888), the doctrine of
Apostolic Succession, which these formularies plainly
teach and which is expressed in the refusal of Anglicans
to acknowledge " whether a Christian community which is
not governed by Bishops is a Church" (The Guardian,
lb.), "can never be made," says Prof. Sanday, "a doc
trine of the Church of England " (Con. Priest, p. 95).
But if all this is so, then the Bishop of Worcester was fully
justified In viewing Episcopacy as the bene esse of a
Church, and not the esse; while he was further warranted
In representing this as the actual though not at present the
official view of the Church of England. Returning to
The Guardian's reference to Lightfoot's view of Epis
copacy. It is strange how the plain statement of a writer
can be passed completely over, by those who do not wish
to see it, as though it had never been written. Lightfoot
himself in 1881 declared that he still adhered to the main
positions taken In his earlier work of 1868 on the Chris
tian ministry. Here is one of them. "It is clear then,
that at the close of the apostolic age, the two lower Orders
of the threefold Ministry were firmly and widely estab
lished; but the traces of the third and highest Order, the

436 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UiNluiM.
Episcopate propedy so called, are few and indistinct "
(lb., p. 30). The Italics of course are ours in order to
emphasize the fact that whatever Lightfoot himself
thought as touching the date of the Introduction of Epis
copacy, it was after all a mere matter of deduction and
not of positive evidence, since at the close of the apostolic
age the traces, he declares, of a separate Episcopate are
few and indistinct. Now had he kept to this statement,
drawing from it a mere assumption which it alone war
ranted, not going beyond it to declare that Episcopacy
must be placed as far back as the closing years of the
first century, and that it cannot be dissociated from the
action of the last surviving Apostles, St. Andrew, St.
Philip, and especially St. John (ib., pp. 41, 48, 81) re
corded as having lived where, and at the time when.
Episcopacy was first originated, he would have been more
in keeping with the guarded language of the Preface to
our Ordinal. In 1 88 1 he wrote touching the result of his
original investigation into the matter of the Christian
ministry, " The result has been a confirmation of the state
ment in the English Ordinal, Tt is evident unto all men
diligently reading the Holy Scripture and ancient authors
that from the Apostles' times there have been these orders
of Ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests and Dea
cons.' " He then added, " But I was scrupulously anxious
not to overstate the evidence in any case." Now the
mention of St. John at all, together with St. Philip and
St. Andrew, was going beyond actual evidence into the
region of pure tradition (Smith's D. B. ; Hastings' D. B.).

APPENDIX. 437
Episcopacy may undoubtedly have developed before the
close of the first century, yet it may have come into exist
ence only within the last ten years of that period, when
most probably all the original Aposdes were dead, except
St. John, who is said by tradition to have lingered on till
the very close of the century. If he did, then the Ordinal
is correct in slating, that from the Apostles' times. Bishops,
Priests and Deacons have existed In Christ's Church.
Even If St. John was not living at the close of the first
century, the Ordinal is still correct, since It says merely
" from the Apostles' time," which does not necessarily
mean they were alive, but only from the time, or about
the time, that they had been aHve. The Ordinal inti
mates no more than this, nor is there evidence to warrant
more. But Lightfoot's opinion is more in accordance with the
evidence at hand when he discusses the character of the
separation of the separate office of the Episcopate as
differentiated from that of the Presbyterate. Here he
showed, that while originally the term Bishop and Pres
byter had been used to signify one and the same office,
the term Bishop had been restricted to the higher office
and the term Presbyter to the lower in one and the same
order of officials, viz., the Presbytery. Thus the Epis
copate was not formed out of the apostolic Order by
localization, but out of the Presbyterial by elevation.
(lb., p. 32.) The creation of these two offices, however,
out of one body of office holders, did not create two
orders, but merely two offices or degrees in one Order

438 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
of Ministers, (pp. 84, 85.) It was Cyprian who raised
the Episcopate into a position of absolute independence,
the Bishop with him being the indispensable channel of
Divine grace ... the primary condition of a
Church, (pp. 102, 107.) Yet the claim of the ex
clusive right of ordination which finally gave the appear
ance to the Episcopate of being a separate Order from
the Presbyterate, was only fully settled In the fourth cen
tury, (p. 89; Wordsworth— MG, p. 169.) Then it
was that the Episcopal and Presbyterial offices, being no
longer regarded as sub-orders, but as two separate Orders,
the correspondence of the threefold Christian ministry to
the ranks of the Levitical Priesthood could not fall to
suggest itself, (p. 139.) And now a startling fact is
presented by Lightfoot which has not received the atten
tion it deserves. He tells us that the completed threefold
Order of the Christian ministry supplied the material for
a new principle which is nowhere enunciated in the New
Testament, viz., the Sacerdotal view of the Ministry (p.
140., cf. 103.) Lightfoot's opinion that a separate Epis
copacy was established in Asia Minor by St. John, and
other Apostles, may be correct, though for reasons given
I do not think it Is. Assuming, however, that it is, and that
it was because of this that he was led to regard the Episco
pate as the backbone of the Church (p. 134; Address,
August 1, 1888), by his Insistence upon the fact that the
only Priests under the New Testament are the Ministers
of the Christian brotherhood; (p. 12), by his acceptance
of Tertullian's statement, that it is the authority of the

APPENDIX. 439
Church which makes the difference between the Clergy and
the people (p. 127) , he, nevertheless, showed that he was
utterly opposed to the Episcopate being viewed as the
sole channel of Orders, or in other words, as the esse
of a Church, but rather as the bene esse. And this he
showed plainly in his refusal to un-Church non-Episcopal
Christian communities, while advocating a jealous adhe
sion to a polity which he assumed to have been derived
from apostoHc direction (144.) Thus we have Light
foot in line with Westcott, Moule, Hort, Hatch, Sanday,
Gwatkln and the majority of the scholars of the Anglican
Reformed Church past and present In their refusal to
regard Episcopacy In any other light than as the bene esse
of a Church.

III.
CAN A BODY OF CHRISTIAN LAYMEN
CREATE ITS OWN MINISTRY?
SUPPLEMENTARY TO
EPISCOPACY, THE ESSE OR BENE ESSE
OF THE CHURCH.
THE STATEMENT of Bishop Brown, that " a
congregation In the time of Ignatius had the right
to create its own Episcopate," was challenged by
a critic while the Bishop's book was yet in MS. It is true

440 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
that the statement appears without proof, since, as I have
already said, all reference to authorities for statements in
the context was left for its Appendix in order that the main
argument might read the more smoothly unencumbered by
such detail. That the Bishop was on as firm ground in the
present as In other statements we shall now endeavor to
show. Bishop Dowden's representation of Richard Hooker
as " an acknowledged classic of first rank in English
theology," will not, we think, be challenged; so that we
may quote his views as carrying great weight with Angli
cans. As to the actual necessity of Episcopacy, he says,
" When the Church must needs have some ordained and
neither hath nor can have possibly a Bishop to ordain;
in case of such necessity, the institution of God hath often
times, and may give place. And therefore we arc not
simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power
from the Apostles of continual succession of Bishops."
These words of Hooker are all the more Important in that
he declared, from his high notions of Episcopacy, that
" the first Institution of Bishops was from heaven," and
" these cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may
ordain but only Bishops." However, in maintaining that
" there may be sometimes very just cause and sufficient
reasons to allow ordination without a Bishop," he gave up
the whole question as to the indispensability of the Epis
copate. Indeed, this followed logically from his concep
tion of the visible Church as " being the true original sub-

APPENDIX. 441
ject of all power." Thus it was that he concluded, to
quote through Bishop Dowden, In the matter of eccle
siastical polity " the living Church possessed the right of
determining its own form" (Theol. Lit. Ch. Eng., p.
61, 1 cf. E. P., vii, 14).
Of the same opinion was Archbishop Whately, of
"clear and massive intellect" (Ency. Brit), who rea
soned that the Protestant Churches at the Reformation
" had full power to retain, or to restore, or to originate
whatever form of Church govemment they in their de
liberate and cautious judgment might deem best for the
time " (Kingdom of Christ, p. 248 ff.).
In the first part of this Appendix we showed that be
tween the Episcopate and Presbyterate as originally insti
tuted, and for many years subsequently, there existed a
substantial identity of Order (Lightfoot, CM, p. 85).
They were simply, as Lightfoot holds, two offices In one
Order, that of the ordinary Presbyter and that of the
presiding Presbyter or chairman of the council of Pres
byters. Thus he speaks of James in the Church of Jeru
salem as " though holding a position superior to the rest,
he was still considered as a member of the Presbytery;
that he was in fact the head or president of the college "
(ib., p. 34) ; while he subsequently referred to the Bishop
in the later Church of Philippi, as " a mere president of
the Presbyterial council" (ib., p. 63). Having traced
the growth of the powers of the Episcopate, he concluded,
"It is plainly competent for the Church at any time to

442 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
entrust a particular office with larger powers" (lb., p.
1 08) . Here he refers to the later authority of the Epis
copate over the Presbyterate, and undoubtedly he is cor
rect, but so also is Hooker, who alluded to this increased
authority of Bishops as " a sword which the Church hath
power to take from them " (EP. viii. v. See also I. xiv;
III. x). This brings us to the examination of the origin
of Church Government as viewed by Anghcan theologians
generally. Prof. Gwatkln voices the conclusion of the general
scholarship of the Anglican Church in claiming that of the
society which our Lord commanded His disciples to per
petuate, "neither He nor His Apostles ever prescribed
any definite form for it;" while he adds that Ignatius him
self knew nothing of an Episcopate as instituted by Apos
ties (Bishop; Church Govern. HDB; Dowden, ib., p.
51). In the absence, therefore, of any apostolic ordinance
on the subject (Lightfoot, CM, p. 49) , we are left to our
selves to discover, if possible, what were the powers in this
direction which may warrantably be assumed as belong
ing to the Church as distinguished from Its Ministry.
Here Westcott holds that the original commission to
minister, given in Jno. xx. 19-23, was given to "the Chris
tian society and not to any special Order in it " (Revel.
Risen Lord, p. 81 ). This passage, with Matt, xxvni, 18-
20, has been taken as indicating a commission given only
to the Ministry which preceded the Church, which only
came into existence on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii).

APPENDIX. 443
The fact is, however, that in both passages we see the
Church instituted and commissioned (Prof. Binnie —
" The Church;" Lindsay: — " St. Mark," p. 242) ; while
in the Acts we see it empowered with the Holy Ghost for
the carrying out of its commission. Now Lightfoot asserts
that the only Priests under the Gospel, designated as such
in the New Testament, " are the saints, the members of the
Christian brotherhood." He thus regards the Priest
hood as springing from the whole body," adding, "so
long as this important aspect is kept in view
the teaching of the Apostles has not been directly violated"
(CM, pp. 12, 131). It is Important to remember what
Bishop Brown has so correctly insisted upon, that " every
member of the human family" Is, in the words of Bishop
Lightfoot, "potentially a member of the Church, and as
such, a Priest of God " (ib. p. 9). The potentiality was
definitely confirmed for the first time to the five hundred
disciples, i. e., to the first assembled congregation of the
Church, when the commission was given to every indi
vidual member to make converts whom they themselves
were to baptize (Matt, xxviii, 19). And this accords
with the testimony of Hilary the Deacon, that " at the
first all taught, and all baptized," and he might have
added — " all administered the eucharlst, which at that
time was the closing office of the principal meal eaten at
home" (Gwatkln, Early Church History; McGIffert-
Apos. Age, p. 69) . Prof. Gayford, after discussing the
ministrations in the early Church, asks, " In whose hands

444 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
did this work lie," and he answers, " At the outset the
idea of ruling does not appear. Earnest believers came
forward and, according as their gifts permitted them
volunteered their services in the work of carrying out the
necessary arrangements for the community 
Those who thus volunteered were accepted by the Apos
tles in the first instance. . . According, then, to the
ideal of the Christian Church, there would have been no
appointed officers, but each Christian would have per
formed the proper part of the work according to the ' gift '
or 'gifts' granted to them" (The Church — HDB.).
Prof. McGlffert in expressing similar opinions, adds,
" Light is thus thrown upon the way in which the earliest
Bishops were selected ... the Church instinctively
chose those who had proved themselves, by their long and
faithful services, best fitted to discharge the required func
tions. Their appointment, in fact, was very likely nothing
more in the beginning than a tacit recognition by their
brethren of their call to serve the Church as they were
already doing, and only gradually did such recognition
develop into regular choice and induction into office "
(lb., p. 666). How thoroughly all this accords with
Tertullian's statement already referred to as quoted with
approval by Lightfoot, that It was the authority of the
Church which makes the difference between the Clergy
and the people, so that when there are no clergy the peo
ple may appoint their own Priest. We now also see how
Hatch was justified In saying, that " Church officers were

APPENDIX. 445
originally regarded as existing for the good of the com
munity," and he then added, touching their appointment,
that this was similar to that of civil officers whose
appointments were considered ratified by the mere
entrance upon their duties. Thus he concluded, " There
was no formal act of admission " (Organ, Chris. Ch., pp.
125,131). Now the above opinion as to the congregational
origin of the Christian ministry is not only warranted by
the fact that the commission to preach and baptize was
given to the Church and not to its Ministry, but we
further actually possess an early and definite example of
the exercise of this warrant by the Church. The Didache,
a document of the early years of the second century, directs
the people to appoint for themselves Bishops and Deacons.
By some this direction has been thought, from the signif
icance of the word used for appoint, to indicate merely a
choice or selection of certain persons for office by the
show of hands, nothing being said as to the mode of ap
pointment to the said office (Allen — Chris. Institu., p. 60).
Others have gone further and Intimated that we have here
an actual repetition of the original direction in Acts vi, 3.
"Look ye out men of good report whom we may appoint"
(Taylor— Didache, p. 135). In both cases this con
clusion of course is drawn from the word cheirotonesate
as though it indicated merely to elect by show of hands.
Professors Hitchcock and Brown, however, give ex-
«tmples showing that this word, in New Testament times,

446 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
meant equally definitely to appoint to office, thus, notwith
standing that Hort sees in the verb cheirotoneo as used
in Acts xiv, 23, not an act of solemn appointment, but a
preceding choice, a mere election (Christian Ecclesia),
a view endorsed by Swete (Laylng-on-of-hands-HDB),
we agree with the two former scholars that in the Didache
XV, 1, we have a definite direction given to the congre
gation to appoint their own Bishops and Deacons, and
here we are not only supported by the AV, which runs —
When they had ordained them Elders, and the RV, which
runs — ^When they had appointed for them Elders, but
Prof. Gwatkln does not hesitate to see in Acts xiv, 23, a
definite appointment, although without the laying-on-of-
hands (Ordination HDB). This conclusion seems all the
more warranted by the fact that at first the Ministry seems
to have been included amongst the spiritual gifts, those
leading by common consent who possessed the ability.
Thus Paul, In his earliest epistle, calls for due recognition
being given to those thus naturally placed in the position
of leaders, viewing them as a sort of local Ministry which
at that time was without any technical designation. They
are simply "those that are over (proistamenous) you in the
Lord " ( 1 Thes. v, 12; 1 Cor. xii, 28 ; Rom. xn, 7) .
" The allusion here," says Prof. Allen, " may be to those
who later became known as the Presbyters or Elders"
(Chris. Insti., p. 24). The writer of the Acts, however,
definitely represents that from the first Paul and Barna
bas appointed EIder§ 'm the Churches they foMn^^d,

APPENDIX. 447
There is evidently a difficulty here, since, had this been
so, St. Paul could hardly have referred to these leaders,
these men set over the rest (as the word used Implies) by
their special gift of ruling, without designating them by
their distinctive title of Elder or Bishop. This difficulty,
however, vanishes at once if we see in these leaders of
I. Thes. V, 12, and Rom. xii, 7, the Presbyters of Acts
xiv, 23, men who only later became technically known as
Elders from the time when Paul first referred to the
definite local Ministry under the distinct titles of Bishops
and Deacons. These titles appear for the first time in the
Epistle to the Philipplans (II.) , a document written be
tween A. D. 60-63, and here the title "Bishop " is equiva
lent to " Presbyter," as is clear by comparing verse 1 7,
with verse 28, of Acts xx. Paul and Barnabas founded
their first Churches In A. D. 45, and the Acts was not
written until A. D. 64 at the earliest. By this time the
definitely appointed local rulers were known by the dis
tinctive title of Bishops or Elders. Thus the author of
Acts applies to the men appointed by Paul and Barnabas
to be leaders in their first established communities, a term
only later adopted as the distinct tide of such officers.
They were not at Jirst definitely appointed with a solemn
ordination which included the laying-on-of-hands, but by
the mere selection by the Aposdes as men best suited from
their natural gifts to preside over the newly founded
Churches. This is the reason why the term cheirotone-
SQntes is used for their appointment and not katastesomen.

448 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
or katasteses as in Acts vi, 3, and Tit. 1, 5, which meant
an actual placing into office. I do not forget that I pre
viously accepted the first word as used in the Didache as
also signifying an actual placing into office, but I meant
that while I so accepted it in conjunction with Professors
Hitchcock and Brown, the appointment there, as evidently
also in Acts xiv, 23, was consummated by mere election
without the laying-on-of-hands, although it most likely
was accompanied with prayer and even fasting, as in the
case mentioned In the Acts.
If the foregoing reasoning has been correct, then the
direction in the Didache addressed to the congregation to
appoint their own Bishops and Deacons meant exactly
what Is said, viz., that they, without further intervention,
could appoint their own officers. Nor is there anything
here to surprise us, since it naturally follows from the fact
that, as we have shown, to the Church and not to any
special Order within it was given the commission to teach
and baptize. We have shown that at the first laymen
were commissioned to preach and baptize. We have
shown that from the first laymen were viewed as possess
ing the power to baptize and administer the communion
(Ter. De Corona, iv) , while they also founded Churches.
as in the case of the Church of Antioch, where the Church
at first had, as Sanday says, little to do with the Apostles
qua Aposdes (Con. Priest., p. 46). Laymen of Cyprus
and Cyrene founded the Church of Antioch, to which a
great number was added through the preaching and evi-

APPENDIX. 449
dendy baptism by these same laymen (Acts xi, 20 ff).
They evidently also in many cases must have appointed
their own permanent Ministry, as Gayford, McGlffert,
and other scholars conclude, for if, as we see, they as
sumed to themselves the right of ministering, they equally
must have assumed that they could appoint their own
definite Ministers. That the Apostles proper, the
" Twelve," appointed the first definite officials in the
Church with the laying-on-of-hands; and that later Paul,
an Apostle, laid his hands on Timothy at his ordination
by Presbyters, does not in the least show that the complete
appointment of the Ministry did not rest with the Church
itself. The unique position of the original twelve Apos
tles as having been specially Instructed by Christ, natu
rally made them the leaders and initiators wherever they
happened to be. Of the Churches founded by an Apostle,
says Prof. Gwatkln, " he would choose their first officials,
start them in the right way," but he adds, " There is no
sign that he took any share in their ordinary administration.
. . . In general the Apostle was not a regular ruler
in the same sense as a modern Bishop, but an occasional
referee like the visitor of a college " (Apostle — HDB).
Prof. Sanday expresses a similar opinion. He views the
leadership of the Apostles as accorded to them more
out of deference to the supposed fact of their having been
exclusively invested " from the first with powers of which
there is no trace " (Con. Priest., p. 42, cf. 45, 47, 49).
Nor does he neglect to refer to that larger aposdeship

450 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
which was the direct outcome of ' Spiritual gifts ' (ib., pp.
49, 64), owing to which scholars like W. R. Smith
(Apostle — Ency. Brit), and Principal Lindsay (Ch. and
Mln., p. 74), look upon the Apostleship not as a Church
office, but as a charisma, similar to prophecy." Thus, where
there was no Apostle, the Churches, composed solely of the
Laity, could apparently act upon their own initiative with
out the aid of a Ministry of any character, simply through
the agency of " those whom the Church most trusted,"
to again quote Sanday (lb., p. 72). Indeed, this we have
not only shown to have been possible from the nature of
the commission given to the Church, but we have also
produced examples where this commission had been so
Interpreted. Having, therefore, elsewhere shown that
from the first Presbyters ordained without the presence
of a Bishop, we have independently proved the accuracy
of Sanday's statement that some of the earliest Churches
had passed " through a Presbyterial and even a congre
gational stage " (The Expositor. III., vln, p, 335, 1887).
With all this before us we are not surprised that Light
foot concluded his famous essay on the Christian Ministry
with the clear statement, that while " It may be under
ordinary circumstances a practically universal law that
the highest acts of the congregational worship shall be
performed through the principal officers of the congrega
tion ... an emergency may arise when the Chris
tian ideal will then interpose and interpret our duty. The
higher ordinance of the universal Priesthood will over
rule all special limitations, The laymen will assume

APPENDIX. 451
functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained
Minister" (CM, p. 145, 146).
We headed this paper with the title " Can a Body of
Laymen Create its own Ministry? " for this Is what Bishop
Brown has asserted In his statement " a congregation had
the right in the time of Ignatius at the beginning of the
second century to create its own Episcopate." We stated
at the outset that the Bishop was here standing upon firm
ground, and we cannot but think that we have now proved
this to have been the case. A congregation not only in
the time of Ignatius had the right to create its own Epis
copate, but we have further shown that a congregation of
Christians had the right at all times, from the beginning
to the present time, to create not only its Episcopate, but
its entire Ministry, if such were needed. Ignatius had
declared that " where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic
Church," but he had in mind the Bishop as impersonating
Christ (Epis. Smyr.). On the other hand, Tertullian
claimed, " Where two or three laymen are, there is the
Church." (De Exhort. Castlt, VI.) Now Christ Himself
had asserted, " Where two or three are gathered together
in My name, there am I in the midst of them " (Matt.
xviil, 20). Was not Tertullian more in harmony with
Christ than was Ignatius? It is not the Ministry, but the
Priesthood of the body which binds us to Christ, and
through which the Church possesses the right and power
to create or reorganize its Ministry at any time to meet its
pwn needs,

452 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.

IV.
THE CANONS OF HIPPOLYTUS AND A
REPUBLICAN EPISCOPATE.
IN MY article on the Origin of Episcopacy, I said, ( 1 )
the Canons of Hippolytus, (2) the practice of the
Church of Alexandria, and (3) the decrees of the
Council of Ancyra, showed that originally Presbyters, apart
from Bishops, were viewed as possessing the power to or
dain, a power they had freely exercised until the opening
of the fourth century. The Rev. Darwell Stone, D.D.,
Librarian of Pusey House, Oxford, however, in a recent
series of lectures on " The Church," in Lecture IV (sec.
Ill, IV), reported in the Church Times, Dec. 3, 1909,
endeavors to belittle the entire testimony of these Canons
of Hippolytus by criticising some of Its provisions, which
were evidently of a temporary character. And he finally
sums up this lecture by asserting that as non-Episcopal
Churches lack the possession of "an historical succession
from the Apostles by means of the Episcopate (Sec. IV) ,
we cannot see that they possess the guarantee
which we believe that Episcopacy affords of the Covenant
of God" (Sec. VI). He means, as is evident, an un
broken Episcopacy of apostolic origin.
Here then we have the latest utterance on the essential
character of the Episcopate by a recognized exponent of

APPENDIX. 453
the " Catholic " school of thought in the Church of Eng
land. We are not surprised that Dr. Stone puts the non-
Episcopal Churches outside the Covenant of God as re
vealed In the New Testament. Bishop Gore In his
famous work on " the Church and the Ministry " did not
scruple to do the same thing, and both writers are merely
explaining the view of the " Catholic " party in the Angli
can Church touching the position of the great Protestant
bodies. No wonder, with present talk of unity In the air,
we are inundated with booklets and tracdets written by
members of this school, plainly stating that if any author
ized overtures of corporate union with non-Episcopal
bodies should be Issued by the authorities of the Protes
tant Episcopal Church which Ignore this aspect of the
question. Its result would be the splitting up of our Church
Into fragments.
Now Bishop Brown's present book on "Unity" not
only refrains from mentioning what to us appears to be
such a monstrously preposterous assumption, but the entire
drift of his argument Is In word and thought utterly op
posed to any such conception. It Is then of the utmost
importance that we should consider the ground upon which
Dr. Stone mainly bases his assertion, since the view he
maintains stands in the way of any possible consideration
on equal terms of the subject of Christian union by Epis
copal and non-Episcopal Churches. 1 use the expression
" equal terms " advisedly, because otherwise any hope of
a mutual consideration of this subject by these Churches
is a vain dream. Dr. Stone, after accepting the evidence

454 THE Level plan For cHUrch union.
from the East as expressing his view of Episcopacy, ex
amines that of the West. He begins by admitting that It
has received two interpretations as follows:
( 1 ) " The chief authority was at first a college of
Ministers, all of whom had received by consecration. In
an historical succession from the Apostles, the Episcopal
character, who consecrated successors to themselves to
hold a position like their own; and at a later time only
one of them received the Episcopal character and became
a Monarchial Bishop, while the rest received the reduced
authority of the Presbyterate."
(2) " There was from the first the single rule of
a monarchial Bishop who alone consecrated and ordained,
and the Presbyters, as a distinct Order, were always in
the second rank. The balance of evidence Is very strongly
In favor of the second Interpretation."
Now both interpretations Dr. Stone assumes to result
in practically the same character of ministerial succession.
Unfortunately, however, neither is supported by Scrip
ture, nor the teaching of the Early Church, while the first
is utterly opposed to the conclusion of general scholar
ship. By the phrase ' college of Ministers ' Dr. Stone means
a ' college of Bishops. ' In other words, that the Bishops
and Deacons everywhere appointed by the Apostles in the
New Testament were not Presbyters at all as we under
stand the term to signify, but Bishops in the present sense
of the word, except that they all rule in common, and
not one singly.

APPENDIX. 455
This is not by any means the first time that such a view
of the New Testament Presbyterate has been put forward
to support the " Catholic " conceptions of the Episcopate.
Bishop Wordsworth, in his " Ministry of Grace," views
the eady Presbyters of Rome and Alexandria as " a
college of Bishops with a chairman, rather than a college
of Presbyters with a President of a superior order." We
can trace this thought earlier still, for Hammond, In his
New Testament Commentary, represents the Presbytery
which assisted St. Paul to consecrate Timothy, as com
posed of " Bishops or ApostoHc men," adding, " for
Presbyters did not ordain Bishops." (1. Tim. iv, 14 of
Acts xi, 30, b.) According to Hammond, therefore,
Timothy was made a Bishop by Bishops, and this is what
he actually says, so that according to him we are not to
see any Presbyters present at all at Timothy's consecra
tion by St. Paul. The best scholarship, however, sees
in the Bishops of the New Testament mere Presbyters,
all equally possessing the exclusive functions of the later
Bishop. (Timothy; SBD; HBD; Cam. Bib.) Ac
cording to Dr. Stone's first interpretation, the Presbyter
ate, or second order of the Ministry, was developed out
of the first, the Episcopate, by restrictive measures being
passed which limited certain functions to one of its mem
bers, which had previously been exercised equally by all.
But this would make the Presbyterate of sub-New Testa
ment origin, whereas Sanday voices the conclusion of gen
eral scholarship when he says of the " Elder " or " Pres
byter," "we find the office existing in the Church at Jeru-

456 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
salem at the time when St. Paul and St. Barnabas arrive
with contributions from the Church of Antioch." (Con.
Priest, p. 59). So Daniel, in his well-known Com
mentary on the Prayer-Book, says, " Elders are again
mentioned in connection with the Church at Jemsalem
in Acts xxi, 1 8, where St. Paul is represented as present
ing himself on his arrival to St. James, all the Elders
being present." (p. 419.) It would indeed be strange
reading were we to substitute the term Bishops for Elders,
and read " all the Bishops being present." Dr. Stone,
and his school, by their forced explanation of the char
acter of the New Testament Presbyterate, would make
the first order of the Ministry, the Episcopate, to precede
the second, the Presbyterate. Lightfoot, however, tells
us, " It is clear that at the close of the apostolic age the
two lower orders of the threefold Christian ministry," by
which he means, the second, the Presbyterate, and the
third, the Diaconate, " were firmly and widely estab
lished; but traces of the third and highest order, the Epis
copate, properly so called, are few and indistinct." (CM
— Com. Phil., p. 195.) An Order, the traces of which
are few and indistinct, can hardly have constituted the
definite college of Ministers such as Dr. Stone sees in
the first Interpretations of the evidence from the West
touching the origin of the Episcopate. The truth is, that
this first interpretation has no general existence except in
minds similar to that of Dr. Stone himself. It was cer
tainly not, as he asserts, accepted by Lightfoot, who
viewed Dr. Stone's ' college of Ministers ' not as a body

APPENDIX. 457
of Bishops; out of whom had developed the Presbyterate,
but rather as a body of Presbyters, out of whom had de
veloped the Episcopate. That Lightfoot viewed them as
possessing the functions of the later Episcopate, in no
sense alters the fact that he viewed them as a college of
Presbyters and not as a college of Bishops. Thus to
use his own words he concluded, "that the Epis
copate was created out of the Presbyterate." (CM, p.
81.) This conclusion is not only endorsed by Sanday,
who after telling us, that " at first the terms episkopoi and
presbuteroi were applied to the same persons," then dis
cusses the problem— "how it was that the plural epis
copoi, representing a college of Presbyters with equal
rights, became a single episcopos with 'superior rights to
the rest of the Presbytery " (ib., pp. 61, 62), but it is
the only conclusion possible in view of the express state
ment of the Canons of Hippolytus, and the practice of
the Church of Alexandria. It was the conclusion also
adopted by the Dean of Westminster, Dr. J. Armitage
Robinson, In his famous sermon on " the Vision of Unity "
delivered to the members of the late Lambeth Conference
(The Church Times, July 10, 1908, p. 58). Further
in his recently published work (Early History of the
Christian Church), the noted Roman Catholic scholar,
Monsignor Duchesne, comes to the same conclusion in
dealing with primitive Ordinations generally. Of the
part here taken by Presbyters, he says, " they for long
retained the power of ordination, which now especially
characterizes the Episcopal dignity. The Priests of

458 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Alexandria, in replacing their dead Bishop, not only
elected but also consecrated his successor." Thus not
only has the foremost scholarship of the Church of Eng
land, but also of the Church of Rome, unhesitatingly
affirmed that ordination was originally a function belong
ing to Presbyters equally with Bishops. Nor must we
neglect to add that Duchesne's conclusion is but a mere
restatement of the view previously expressed by another
recognized Roman Catholic scholar. Abbe Fouard (St.
Peter and the first years of Christianity, p. 201 ). Thus
Bishop Brown's underlying contention in his efforts on be
half of Christian unity, that the Episcopate was developed
out of the Presbyterate, whose members originally were
viewed as possessing the power to ordain equally with
Bishops, and that apart from the Bishop they had long
exercised that power, has been shown to be fully war
ranted. In view of the above facts, what then are we to make
of Dr. Stone's assertion, that " the balance of evidence
is very strongly In favor of the second Interpretation," viz.,
"There was from the first a single rule of a monarchial
Bishop, who alone consecrated and ordained? " Merely
this, that it is an assumption not only without warrant, but
one opposed to what few facts exist touching the matter,
and the conclusion drawn from them by our best scholars,
.such as Lightfoot, Perowne, Hort, Sanday, Gwatkln,
Robinson and others, including the present Bishops of
Durham, Carlisle, and Hereford, together with the lead
ing Roman and Protestant writers, such as Duchesne,

APPENDIX. 459
Fouard and Lindsay. For the " Catholic " party in the
Anglican communion, therefore, to assert that on their
view of the origin of the Episcopate the great Protestant
non-Episcopal bodies are outside the Covenant of God as
related to His Church, or that the Historic Episcopate is
essential to the esse of a Church, is not only in the first
place so monstrous an assertion that it never will favorably
commend itself to the general thinking public, but it is
further opposed to the teaching of the New Testament and
the early Church. It Is an idle dream, consequently, for
this " party " to hope that unity on their basis will ever be
considered for a moment by the non-Episcopal Churches.
This is the thought that underlies Bishop Brown's present
noteworthy attempt to present a plan for Christian corpo
rate unity. He clearly and correctly sees that the crux of
the whole problem lies In the phrase, " A Republican
versus a monarchial Episcopate." Bishop Brown, in con
junction with Bishop Moule, believes — as the latter ex
pressed it — " In a moderate Episcopacy," that is, in Epis
copacy as the bene esse and not the esse of the Church. In
other words, in a Republican Episcopate. In presenting
this aspect of the Historic Episcopate, therefore, as the
basis of Christian unity. Bishop Brown is, as I have fully
shown, supported by the best scholarship of our Church.
The monarchial aspect of the Episcopate, which he so
stoutly and justly combats, is utterly opposed to our Lord's
own view of the possible future form of the Ministry of
His Church. During His lifetime two of His disciples
sought His approval of their attempted elevation above

460 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
their brethren, only to meet with a stern rebuke. " The
kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them .
but ye shall not be so . . . all ye are brethren."
(Lk. xxil, 25, 26; Matt, xxiii, 6, 13. RV.) For some
time after our Lord's Ascension, this rebuke carried weight.
We see this in the fact that while the Apostles were alive,
although they were naturally recognized as first in the
newly founded Church, they were nevertheless merely the
first among equals. Thus the late Prof Allen wrote,
" The Presbyters are associated with the Apostles in the
government of the Church in Jerusalem as if they stood
on equal footing," and he then gives the evidence for this
assertion. (Chris. Institu., p. 39). This view of Prof.
Allen received full endorsement by Prof. Sanday who
refused to see " any special prerogatives of the Apostles "
over the Elders, (ib., p. 45.) If with Ignatius, nothing
was to be done without the Bishop, even so late as
Cyprian, nothing was to be done by the Bishop without
his Presbyters. (Harold Browne, xxxix Articles, p.
553.) The monarchial Episcopate may have been neces
sary at one time owing to the weakness resulting from
human Infirmities which crept into the Church, but it was
a development permitted and not planned by the Head of
the Church, similar to the kingship permitted by Jehovah
for Israel. It was, as the English Bishops said in the
reign of Henry Vlll, " devised by the ancient fathers of
the Primitive Church." In other words, it was an eccle
siastical expediency to meet what Lightfoot calls " the
emergency." (CM., p. 10.) As such it is certainly not

APPENDIX. 461
necessary to the constitution of a Church, although it may
be to its better government in itself, and as part of the
whole Church. A Church without the Historic Episco
pate is certainly not outside the Covenant of God In His
relation to His Church. Prof. Gwatkln merely reiterates
the finding of the best scholarship in asserting, " though the
Lord commanded His disciples to form a society, there is
no indication that either He or His disciples ever prescribed
any definite form of it." (Bishop-HDB.) If this be
so, no action of a Church council can be absolutely bind
ing upon the consciences of all large bodies of Christians.
Here we are in harmony with Lightfoot, who in his sixth
edition of his Com. on the Epis. to the Phil., 1 881 , asserts,
that the only point of importance on which he had changed
his opinion was touching the authenticity of the seven
Greek letters of Ignatius. He had previously viewed them
as forgeries, now he accepted them as genuine. He never
changed, however, his view of the character of the Epis
copate as therein portrayed. On this he had commented
— " It need hardly be remarked how subversive of the true
spirit of Christianity in the negation of Individual freedom
and the consequent suppression of direct responsibility to
God in Christ, is the crushing despotism with which this
writer's language, if taken literally, would Invest the Epis
copal Office . . . it is hard to believe that this extrav
agance would have received the sanction of St. Ignatius
himself." (CM., pp. 96,97.) Lightfoot was wrong since
it had not only received his sanction, but it had been used
by him. It is this " crushing despotism " of the monarchial

462 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Episcopate which Bjshop Brown practically condemns
in his advocacy of a Republican versus a Monarchial
Episcopate, and in so doing he is virtually indorsed by
the majority of the writers and students of our Church. It
is true that the Ignatian, or as it may be called, the " Cath
olic" view of the Episcopate at present dominates the Min
istry of the Anglican communion, but its warrant is found
only in a Mediaeval endorsement, as a vital necessity to the
life of the Church, of what was merely an ecclesiastical ex
pediency to meet contingencies which may be said to exist
no longer. This being so, there is no warrant for the con
tinuance of this expediency, which has failed to prevent
divisions in the very Churches which have preserved it, a
fact in itself which proves that It has no longer power to
promote the object for which it was originally Introduced.
Thus the monarchial character of the Episcopate must be
viewed as having fulfilled its purpose, and it now belongs to
a past agency in the Church's development. In any scheme
of Christian unity, therefore, which views the Historic Epis
copate as essential to its successful fulfillment, the original
Republican character of the Episcopate must be recog
nized as the only form which can claim Scriptural and
early Church grounds for its consideration at the hands
of the great non-Episcopal Christian bodies. It is v«th
such a character that Bishop Brown proposes in his plan
of unity to offer the Episcopate to these Churches, and
in doing so, whatever may be thought of his effort by those
who perchance may condemn it, this fact will remain, viz.,
that his plan contains the only aspect of the Episcopate

APPENDIX. 463
which has any possible likelihood of ever being even con
sidered by the great Protestant bodies, who as a whole
are much more in spirit with the rank and file of the An
glican Communion than these are with the Greek and
Roman Churches.
In his recent address on " Unity," the Bishop of Ver
mont declared — " If what are counted distinctive Church
principles are wrong, let us acknowledge this boldly and
surrender them. ... If, on the other hand. Church
principles are right, we cannot compromise them for the
sake of seeming unity."
Now amongst the matters which the "Catholic" party
in the Anglican Communion have accepted as a Church
principle which is right, and which Bishop Hall himself
accepts, is the doctrine of Apostolic Succession as the ex
planation of the term, " the Historic Episcopate." The
Bishop of Vermont would accept a Roman or a Greek
Priest without reordination, but not a Presbyter from
the Methodist Episcopal Church. Why? Because the
two former are regarded by him, and the present Angli
can authorities at large, as being in Orders according to
the view of a real Episcopal Church, not so, however, the
latter. But what again does this mean? It means, that
according to the present accepted teaching of the Anglican
Church as expressed In her formularies, no one but a
Bishop can ordain to the Christian ministry, thus
the Methodist Presbyter having been ordained by
a Methodist Bishop is not in Orders at all, and,
consequently, must be ordained by a Bishop of ApostoHc

464 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Succession before he can be admitted into the Anglican
ministry. It has sometimes been asserted that the Anglican
Church passes no judgment upon the Orders of the Prot
estant non-Episcopal Churches, but merely enacts a rule
for her own discipline. This, however, is a mistake. If
she reordained all alike who came to her, it might be so
claimed. But she passes judgment beforehand on non-
Episcopal Orders in refusing to recognize them, while
she recognizes the Orders of the Greek and Roman
Churches. In other words, she accepts the Mediaeval view
of the " Catholic " party as to the exclusive powers of a
monarchial Episcopate, and rejects its original Republican
character. Now let us be perfectly clear on this matter, since we
are dealing with the crux of the unity problem. What is
the Republican character of the Episcopate? We have
already clearly intimated this in what we have said
touching the original powers of the Episcopate, the
ruling of the Canons of Hippolytus, and the practice of
the Church of Alexandria. We have not, however, put it
in the form of a definite statement. Well, here it is. A
Republican Episcopate is just what the Canons of Hippo
lytus indicates, an Episcopate created by the Presbyters of
the local Church, who upon the death of their Bishop
elected and consecrated another to fill his place. This is
what could be done now if necessari;, as it was formerly
done in the Church of Alexandria, and evidently in the
Church of Rome itself according to the said canons, and
in other Churches. There is no danger that in conceding

APPENDIX. 465
this original character of the Episcopate every non-Epis
copal Church will immediately reject the overture of the
Anglican Church to give them the Episcopate on the
ground that such a gift is unnecessary, since they can create
it for themselves. They certainly could, and as an Epis
copate merely it would be as good as our own, but it would
not be an historic, but a new Episcopate, and in this fact
lies the whole difference. As a new Episcopate it would
not be likely to find acceptance at the hands of a Church
with an Historic Episcopate. What is required is some
ground as a basis of unity which all Churches can agree
to accept, or would be likely to accept.
Is not this the Historic Episcopate, which can, by its
unbroken orderly succession in the Church be recognized
as an Historic Episcopate without any question as to the
method by which such an unbroken succession was main
tained. This is the Republican character of the Episco
pate, which is Scriptural, which agrees with the teaching
and practice of the early Church, as the majority of our
own best scholars concede, and which therefore Bishop
Brown now proposes to adopt as the basis of his plan of
' Unity.'

After I had completed the above third part of my essay.
The Churchman of New York (Feb. 5th, 1910). came
out with a review of Dr. Briggs' just published volume oji
" Church Unity;" further alluding to it in an editorial,
which also referred to the Episcopate, as " a stumbling

466 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
block to the unity it was created to conserve." The gen
eral intention of the editorial was evidently to protest
against the assumption that the Ministry, any kind or any
part, is above the Church which organized it for its own
service. The writer condemned Dr. Briggs' attempt to
solve the problem of unity by validating the Presbyterate
as the only source of ministerial succession. Dr. Briggs
had maintained that " the Anglican Episcopate has now
what it always has had and nothing more, namely. Epis
copal succession so far as authority and jurisdiction are
concerned, but not so far as any special Episcopal char
acter is concerned. ' Its Priestly character, so far as it has
any, it gets from priestly ordination. The only way in
which Anglican orders can be successfully maintained is
the same way in which the Orders of other Protestant
Churches can be maintained, namely, through Presby
terial succession, which alone transmits the functions of
prophecy, priesthood and royalty in all the Churches of
the Reformation." The Reviewer of Dr. Briggs' book
thinks that the writer had dogmatically asserted an opinion
for which he presented scant evidence, and he then himself
expressed the opinion that the whole theory of an Historic
Ministry transmitted through Presbyters is nothing but an
afterthought, for with the turn of the second century there
appear to have been no Christian communities in any
part of the world which " intended or practiced the trans
mission of ministerial Orders through Presbyters." His
own view of the whole matter appears evidently to be
that of the writer of the editorial who apparently objects

APPENDIX. 467
to the authority of the Episcopate as set " not only over
the rest of the Church's Order, but over the Church Itself."
The evident object of both editorial and review is the
presentation of a strong protest against the absolute author
ity of a Ministry of any kind over the Church which
created it. Here both writers are supported by the ma
jority of Anglican scholars, and thus both are justified in
condemning what they conceive to be Dr. Briggs' un
warranted attempt to exalt above the Church a Ministry
derived through the Presbyterate. If, however, I am not
greatly mistaken, they have misunderstood and so mis
represented the purport of Dr. Briggs' real contention,
though he may be himself to blame for this, owing to
unguarded expressions as to a Presbyterial succession trans
mitting through its own unbroken Order functions of any
character. I apprehend that Dr. Briggs does not mean
to set any form of Ministry above the Church, but simply
to show the real character of the Episcopate In general
and the Anglican Episcopate in particular, namely, that
after all, what it possesses of presumably unique functions
— for he says of its priestly character, " so far as it has
any " — ^has been derived from the Presbyterate. And he
is here undoubtedly correct, for this Is simply our conten
tion for a RepubHcan versus a Monarchial Episcopate.
Bishops per se have no distinctive character apart from
the merest Presbyter. Nor can they possibly be viewed
as having such if they form only a higher office in the one
Order of Presbyter-Bishops. We have fully shown that
Bishops and Presbyters are viewed by most ancient and

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
modern writers as forming but one order in the Ministry.
If this be so, then Bishops derive whatever powers they
possess of ministerial inheritance through a ministerial tac
tual succession from the Presbyterate out of which the
Episcopate was originally evolved. I have fully shown
that the Canons of Hippolytus and the practice of the
early Church of Alexandria demonstrate that originally
the presence of a Bishop was not considered necessary at
ordinations, which at that time were performed by Pres
byters. Indeed the present Bishop of Gibraltar, Dr. W.
E. Collins, in an article in The Guardian, Dec. 6th,
1899, entitled, "The Testamentum Jesu Christu,"
showed that down to the turn of the third century there
were several manuals in use in the Church which directed
that " a confessor in prison or in chains for the faith "
might become a Deacon or a Presbyter without any laying-
on-of-hands on the ground that the hand of God had al
ready rested upon him. The study of the early practice
of the Church shows, as I have already intimated, that the
idea that the Episcopate alone could order the Ministry
was a growth similar to that of the Papacy. It seems to
me that Dr. Briggs as a scholar was simply maintaining
what most scholars are agreed upon, namely, that so far as
there is a Ministry that transmits any unique character
through an unbroken succession of and by its own Order.
that Ministry is in the Presbyterate, since the Episcopate
merely exercises functions which the study of "Orders"
shows to have been originally possessed and exercised by
Presbyters. The fact is, however, that there is no such

APPENDIX. 469
thing as the transference of exclusive ministerial functions
through an unbroken ministerial succession of any charac
ter. It is of course through the Priesthood that the Min
istry receives its authority for the exercise of its functions,
as the English Bishops said in the case of Timothy, that
he exercised his office, "by the authority of Priesthood."
(Form. Hy., VIII.). They were correct, but not by a
Priesthood such as they assumed. It Is the Priesthood
which belongs equally to every member of the Christian
Church. A man is not ordered to the Priesthood, but
rather to the exercise of Its functions. To this end he Is
ordained a Presbyter, not a Priest. Thus It is that Light
foot Insists," the priestly functions and privileges of the
Christian people are never regarded as transferred or even
delegated to their officers. . . The only Priests under
the Gospel, distinguished as such in the New Testament,
are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood."
(CM., p. 12.)
Now this position of the great Lightfoot is exactly
that of Bishop Brown underlying his plea for the recogni
tion of a Republican Episcopate, a position which the able
Editors of The Churchman have already indorsed be
fore the issue of his book. Is not patient scholarship at
length winning the day over the great force of Sacerdotal
prejudice? Is not the present remarkable "Laymen's
Movement " the foreshadowing of Lightfoot's prophecy
uttered at the close of his essay on the Christian Ministry,
" the emergency may arise when the spirit and not the
letter must decide. The Christian Ideal will then inter-

470 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
pose and interpret our duty. The higher ordinance of
the universal Priesthood will overrule all special limita
tions. The laymen will assume functions which are other
wise restricted to the ordained Minister." (ib., p. 12.)
Lightfoot means here not the assumption of functions, but
the assumption of their exercise, and is not this being done
in the coming recognition that it is the Church which is
above the Ministry, and not the Ministry which is above
the Church.
The foregoing Appendix was written for the text of
this volume as presented in the original Manuscript before
it was revised by its author. Since then, however. Bishop
Brown has rejected the Historic Episcopate entirely, not
merely as unnecessary to Church unity, but also as an
insuperable barrier to that end. And here he is undoubt
edly correct if the acceptance and continuance of the His
toric Episcopate is to be viewed as a sine qua non to Chris
tian union. In the foregoing " Appendix " we have shown
that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, in other words,
the assumed existence of an unbroken Episcopate through
its own Order from its original Institution by one or more
of the Apostles, including its sole right to order the Chris
tian ministry, cannot be proved either by Scripture or
early Church history. We have shown that as originally
constituted every Congregational Church was viewed from
the first as possessing the right and power to institute its
own Ministry. Thus, all subsequent forms of ministerial
government must be viewed as matters entirely within tht

APPENDIX. 471
province of each Church or congregation to decide for
itself. If such a conclusion be rejected, then there is no halt
ing place between this rejection and the Church of Rome,
that is, for the so-called ' Catholic ' fellowship or unity.
From the standpoint of a universal Catholic Church, a
National Church has no more right to become a law to
itself than has an individual Diocese. If it has, then also
has a Diocese, and finally each individual congregation.
The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church of the United
States of America declares that " The visible unity of the
body of Christ," in other words the Church, " is not de
stroyed by its divisions into different Denominations of pro
fessing Christians," although it adds, that by these it is
" obscured " (p. 6). But if the existence of these sepa
rate Denominations does not destroy the actual unity of
the body of Christ, this obscuring cannot result from their
existence, but rather from a lack of charity which prevents
them from affiliating together as one united body of Chris
tians in which every member has the right of full commun
ion in each other's Church. That we are correct is seen
in this said Constitution, which further declares that all of
these different Denominations where the Word and Sacra
ments are maintained in their fundamental integrity are to
be recognized as " true branches of the Church of Christ,"
since, "It is according to Scriptural example that the
Church should be divided into many particular Churches."
But this brings us to consider the nature of schism.
Staley, quoting from Newman, represents that ' schism '

472 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
is constituted by, among other separate causes, the rejec
tion of the Episcopal government of the Historic Churches
by seceding bodies of Christians, those Churches retaining
this ecclesiastical regimen alone being In the apostolic fel
lowship of Acts ii, 42. (Cath. ReHg. pp. 36, 62., cf. 21 ,
23, 35.) But the word "fellowship" in this passage
means a community of goods, and has nothing whatever
to do with any Apostolic Succession of Orders (Ham
mond, in loco. Further, Prof. J. H. Moulton shows
that the word "schism" in this sense is unknown in Scrip
ture, a sense which is also an ecclesiastical perversion of
a word which means discord or strife among Christians
themselves. (What is Schism? pp. 4, 7, 8.) The Rev.
Chancellor Lias in agreement with this, says, " the recog
nized theological sense of the word ' schism ' renders it
unsuitable here, where the idea is rather that of division in,
than separations from, the Church " (Cam. Bib. I. Cor.
1, 10.) Divisions, he intimates, which were caused by lack
of mutual affection, in other words, by that lack of charity
to which I have already alluded as all that obscures the
visible unity of the separated Churches of Christ.
Returning to the Historic Episcopate. We ourselves
have long held the opinion to which Bishop Brown has
come in the last revision of his manuscript before publica
tion. In an article In the Protestant Episcopal Review
for June 1897, entided, "Can Apostolic Succession be
proved " — we held not merely that it could not, but that
in the insistence upon the fourth clause of the Lambeth
Quadrilateral for Christian unity we should ultimately be

APPENDIX. 473
found " Fighting against God." Bishop Brown's change
of view, therefore, calls for no alteration in our " Appen
dix." We need merely to point out that where we appear
to have Insisted upon reordination it was only upon the as
sumption that the Historic Episcopate Is essential in any
scheme of Christian unity. If that be contended, then reordi
nation logically goes with it. But why should it be
deemed essential? With the rejection of the Sacerdotal as
pect of the Historic Episcopate by Bishops Lightfoot, Pe
rowne, Moule, Profs, Sanday, Gwatkln, and indeed most
of the scholars of our Communion, the Historic Episcopate
can only be viewed as essential on two understandings, ( 1 )
that it has proved itself indispensable to the unity of the
Church, and (2) that all Churches consent to accept the
Historic Episcopate with its continuance as forming one
of the planks In a platform of unity upon which they
would all agree to unite.
Now in the first place, if the Historic Episcopate did
not prevent the disruption of the Church's acknowledged
visibility in the past, there can be no possible guarantee
against a like disruption in the future. Some basis there
fore of a different character from, or as not necessarily
including a particular form of. Church polity, must be
sought from which it would be impossible for any member
to separate and still be a Christian. Preaching on
"Unity" before the University of Cambridge on Jan.
30th, of this year. Canon Wilson, referring to the disbelief
the Church was called to face to-day, said, " we cannot,
I think, help acknowledging non-Episcopalians as brothers

474 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
and allies in the great battle, and welcome them, as they
would welcome us, to the one Divinely-appointed sacra
ment of unity. Surely it Is possible for us all to make our
Holy Communion a Sacrament of the One Catholic
Church of which we all are members, and not the Sacra
ment of our branch of it. It is the Lord's Supper, not our
supper. . . . This would efface schism, while it re
tains various forms of organization and worship ; for there
is no schism among those who share in the communion of
the Body and Blood, the visible Body and the invisible
life, of Christ. Could this be wrong? Can we ignore
the voice of God Himself speaking to us in facts, which
tell us that Christ-likeness and graces and gifts of every
kind are not unequally distributed among our divided
Communions? "
If I mistake not. Canon Wilson has here practically
supplied the basis referred to. It is this, as I interpret
his words — The acceptance of Christ as the Incarnate
Son of God and Saviour of the World, Who shall be
taken, consequently, as the principle of every human
thought and action. Every congregation of Christians
so believing, and in which the two Sacraments ordained
by Christ are administered, shall be viewed as a complete
part of the Universal Church of Christ, and as such en
tided to send its Pastors at all times, however designated,
to act with a central board of Ministers of all Denomina
tions, who in the name of all shall act for all when asked
to do so, even In the matter of ordaining candidates for
the Ministry sent to them for such purpose by any par-

APPENDIX. 475
ticular Church. Such candidate to be for that Church
itself, which shall have previously elected and examined
him by its own standards. The many details necessary
to the harmonious working of any such scheme cannot be
entered Into here. All I propose now Is to offer. In con
junction with Bishop Brown, some general outline for a
basis of Christian unity which has a possibility of becoming
permanent. The above naturally brings us to our second understand
ing, viz., the acceptance by non-Episcopal bodies of the
Historic Episcopate, with its continuance as one of the
planks In a scheme of Church unity. Bishop Brown pro
poses that each non-Episcopal Church should create for
itself an Episcopate from which members would be sent
to act on a central board such as we have suggested. I
doubt whether this would be done, although it might be.
We think, however, that all non-Episcopal Churches
would consent to act with the Episcopal Church In the
estabHshment of many central boards whose duty it would
be to look after matters within the particular districts com
mon to all, including, if requested, the ordaining of all
candidates for the Ministry within said district. Canon
Wilson told the University In the sermon referred to that
the time would seem to have come " for a re-examination
of the subject of Apostolic Succession ; for a statement of
the historical evidence for or against the probablHty of
the fact, and the history of the development of the dogma
connected with it In its bearing on the grace and powers
conferred In Ordination and Consecration." He added,

476 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
that it would seem as if our Articles xix and xxui were
expressly drawn up so as to include the full recognition
of non-Episcopal Churches, reminding his hearers that
" our Canons of 1603 commanded us to pray for Christ's
Holy Catholic Church, and especially for the Churches
of England, Scodand and Ireland; while he showed by
Archbishop Tennison's defense of the inclusion of the
Church of Scotland in this prayer that it referred to the
Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Referring to the Ox
ford Movement, with its appeal to the historic continuity
of the Catholic Church, he said that further historical re
search is believed to have shown that the Investigation by
its efforts "may now be rightly carried back to a still earlier
age, and to a still more primitive conception of a Chris
tian priesthood," adding, " Such an examination may show
that the approximation now pending between the Eplsc ;
pal and non-Episcopal Churches may not be an innova
tion but a reversion to Catholic and primitive principles."
Referring to the Lambeth Councils, he said, " Before the
next conference meets the Church needs a volume that
can be trusted alike for its historical facts and for its
analysis of theological principles," and he called upon the
University with its wealth of learning to undertake this
task. Surely the above words afford sufficient justification
for Bishop Brown's present volume. In the midst of mul
titudinous cares it was impossible for him to devote the
time to systematically marshal the facts upon which he
has based his great and timely effort on behalf of Christian

APPENDIX. 477
unity. This has been done in the " Introduction " and
"Appendix" which accompany his book. The Univer
sity may produce a volume which will surpass in value the
present attempt, but Bishop Brown will have the credit at
all events of being the first to respond to Canon Wilson's
now famous call for a re-investigation of " The Crux of
the Unity Problem," that is to say, of the subject of
Apostolic Succession.

V.
BISHOP HALL ON THE APOSTOLIC
MINISTRY.
A CRITICISM.
FROM THE discussion which followed the amend
ment of canon xix at the general convention of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in 1 907, and the de
bates on " Reunion " at the Lambeth Conference of 1 908,
the need, we are told, was made plain to the Bishop of
Vermont "of a careful consideration of First Principles
with regard to both the constitution of the Church and the
authority of the Ministry." To this study. Dr. Hall
ipforms us, he at once set himself, finally presenting in a

478 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
charge to his Diocese at Its annual convention of 1910, the
result of his two years' Investigation. We have read care
fully this charge, published under the title of " The Apos
tolic Ministry," and although we have devoted no Httle
time and thought to Its perusal, we have nevertheless failed
to find anything of any particular value In its pages. It
appears to us to be a very meagre. Indefinite, and indeed a
somewhat confused restatement of assertions which have
long since ceased to affect the general scholar in his attempt
to solve the problem at issue. All this, however, is merely
our own personal opinion, and as others may have come
to a totally different conclusion, we can but give here the
reasons which have caused us to take the view stated.
This we now hasten to do, leaving the reader free to say
how much or how little they justify our opinion of Dr.
Hall's two years' research.
In the opening pages ( I -6) it Is implied, without being
definitely stated, that before the establishment of the
Christian Church, Christ had Instituted its Ministry in His
appointment of the Twelve Apostles, with whom, conse-
quendy, all subsequent ordering to the Christian ministry
exclusively belonged, or, after their decease, to those ap
pointed by them to fill their places. Thus it is the Minis
try that makes the Church, and not the Church the Min
istry. In justification of this implied assumption. Dr. Hall
then enumerates the commissions given to the Apostles by
Christ Himself. He begins with that recorded in Matt.
xxviii, 18-20, which he represents as given only to the
" Eleven " disciples, for while it is conceded that it may have

APPENDIX. 479
been given at our Lord's appearance to the five hundred
brethren in Galilee, it was nevertheless meant by Him to
be addressed to the Eleven exclusively (p. 7., cf. 9, note).
But the scene of our Lord's farewell words to his disciples
Is involved in considerable uncertainty, many of the best
scholars viewing it to have been in Galilee, the words then
spoken being addressed to all the assembled brethren, and
not exclusively to the Eleven. This is the opinion of
Westcott (Rev. of the Ris. Lord, p. 157), and it is
amply justified in the election of Matthias to the Aposto
late as one who, in the words of Peter, had witnessed not
only the baptism but also the ascension of Jesus. Indeed,
he was chosen to fill the place of the deposed Judas on
the understanding that he, equally with the Twelve, had
been a witness to all the points in our Lord's ministry,
and so could bear personal testimony to each well-marked
detail. This proves that the commission, " Go ye," etc.,
was heard by more than the Eleven, and subsequent
events showed that it was not heard with any understand
ing of limitation to any particular persons. Thus teaching
with converting was freely undertaken by laymen (Acts
xi, 19-21), nor can we exclude the baptizing of their
converts, as otherwise their work could hardly have been
referred to as the establishing of Churches. That lay
men founded the Church of Antioch, with which the
Apostles as Apostles had little if anything to do, is the
testimony of Scripture (Acts, ib.) , acknowledged by such
scholars as Sanday (The Concep. of Priesthood, p. 46),
and Thatcher (The Apostolic Ch., p, 43) . Who founded

480 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the Church of Rome would appear to be a subject incapa
ble of settlement for lack of evidence. When St. Paul
wrote his epistle to the Christians in Rome there was
already a strong Church there (Rome-HDB). Aquila
and Priscllla appear to have been members of it prior
to their meeting with Paul (Aquila-HDB; Moule on
"Romans") ; while Lightfoot gives reason for thinking that
it was not founded by an Apostle (Epis. Rom-SDB) , but
if not, then it, like the Church of Antioch, was founded
by laymen, who, in establishing a Church, both preached
and baptized. The preaching, with its accompanying
baptism by Philip, was the exercise of rights entirely un
connected with his ordination. This qualified him merely
to the "serving of tables" ( Acts vi, 2-5 ) . He preached and
baptized as a layman merely. Indeed, Hatch is undoubt
edly correct in representing that at the first, laymen exer
cised all ministerial functions in the Church, and that they
only lost these powers with the development of the official
Ministry (Organ. Early Chris. Ch., p. 127). From all
this we gather that it is impossible to see in Matt, xxviii, 1 8-
20, a commission given to the Christian ministry alone but
rather to the whole body of believers, to be exercised by
each, severally, when occasion demands.
And now I come to a matter emphasized by Bishop
Hall from the usual ecclesiastical standpoint, which is one,
however, which I have long been convinced utterly fails
to solve the problem at issue. In viewing the " Twelve "
aposdes as the special if not exclusive ministerial envoys of
pur Lord, Dr. Hall intimates that Jesus chose diis par-

APPENDIX. 481
ticular number of disciples in order that they, as fully
knowing of, might bear personal testimony to. His life
and Ministry. That, individually, their fitness to be one
of this specially elected Twelve included the possession
of such knowledge, goes without saying, but that this par
ticular number was ordained merely, or even primarily for
the sake of witnessing to that with which they were person
ally acquainted, finds no support in Scripture. The apos
tolic number " Twelve," Dean Robinson informs us, bore
a symbolic correspondence to the twelve tribes of Israel
(Aposde-Ency. Bib.). Of the " Eleven " Prof. Thatcher
says, " they still expected to be the great ones in the king
dom, that is, the restored state with its twelve tribes, and
hence it was necessary that their broken number should
be completed. Their action shows that they thought of
their mission as political, and as being directed first of all,
if not exclusively, to the Jews." (Apostolic Church,
p. 69ff; Actsi, 6, 16-26.)
Now so far as I am aware, no complete attempt in any
work intended for the general reader has been made to
explain why our Lord chose from His many disciples the
two specific numbers of "Twelve" and "Seventy."
Doubtless the usual neglect of this Investigation is In
volved in the difficulty of clearly presenting a satisfactory
explanation of the New Testament doctrine of the " Pa-
rousia," or Second Coming of our Lord. Nevertheless, of
this we may be certain, that no attempt to rightly estimate
the position of the Twelve apostles in the Infant Christian
Church, will ever be successful if undertaken apart from

482 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the discussion of the view of the Messianic kingdom as
given In the New Testament and known to have been held
by the first disciples.
In referring to the speedy return of Jesus to complete
the kingdom founded. Prof. Thatcher says of this ex
pectancy, " That this formed a part of the common belief
ought to be beyond question " (ib., p. 1 26) . The authors
of the article "Parousla" (HDB), say, "The expectation
of a speedy Advent of Christ to establish the Messianic
kingdom Is one of the most prominent features of the Apos
tolic hope." But how had this hope become a possession
of the first disciples? There can only be one answer, viz.,
from their interpretation of certain statements by Jesus
touching this kingdom. Just before the Ascension the dis
ciples had asked Jesus whether at this time He would re
store the Kingdom to Israel (Acts 1., 6, 7, 1 1 ). It must
not be forgotten that the Twelve had each been promised
a throne from which they should judge the twelve tribes
of Israel (Matt, xix, 28), so that in their question we
can see that they were still thinking of the restoration of
an earthly Jewish theocracy (Prof. Lindsay on "Acts").
Prof. Schwartzkopff is of opinion that the historical Jesus
never contemplated a mission beyond the Jews, and he
infers that the "Eleven" added a twelfth Apostle merely
to keep Intact their mission as originally bestowed upon the
leaders of the first community. Finally, he refers to the
emphasized opposition of the original disciples to the evan-
geHzIng of the Gentiles as proof that Jesus Himself had
never contemplated any such extension of His commission

APPENDIX. 483
(The Prophecies of Jesus Christ, pp. 220, 225, 288;
Matt. X., 5; cf. XV., 24). That Jesus inaugurated His
mission under the belief that it was limited to the Jews
is evident from the Scripture quoted, especially in its
further testimony that this particular personal mission of
the Twelve was to take up the entire time between Its
inception and the return of Jesus In Glory (Matt, x, 23;
Parousia-HDB, p. 677a) . Are we then, with Schwartz
kopff, to attribute to Jesus an entirely mistaken notion as to
the extent of His mission? On the contrary, it seems to
us that the difficulty of the problem finds solution in the
acceptance of the view that the disciples of Jesus from their
lack of spiritual insight failed to keep abreast with their
Master's development In His conception of His mission.
Submitting His spirit from the beginning to be taught
by the same gradual revelation which comes naturally to
all great minds. He had at first arranged merely for a
mission to the Jews, since He was divinely conscious that
He had been sent primarily to them as their Messiah. It
was not until the approach of death that He saw clearly
how absolutely they had rejected Him, and He then be
came conscious that His mission had actually comprised
the whole world and not merely the kingdom of Israel.
Thus it was that after His resurrection He bestowed a
universal commission upon a larger circle of His disciples,
such as the five hundred brethren, a final commission in
which that previously given to the Twelve was absorbed,
and its exclusiveness lost forever. But His Jewish dis
ciples, as led by the " Eleven," were slow to realize the

484 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
change, if indeed they ever realized it, which is doubtful.
They seem to the last to have been incapable of breaking
away from the belief that the Gospel message meant pri
marily the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. It was
not one of the Twelve but a Hellenist that first proclaimed
the end of Judaism, declaring that neither the Temple
nor the law of Moses was necessary to the worship of God.
The following year the Samaritans received the Gospel
from another Hellenist, and the two Apostles, Peter and
John, were sent to confirm the work done. Yet it was not
till eleven years more that any approach was made to the
Gentiles, and then it required a special revelation to Peter
to show him that the Gentiles were to be fellow-heirs with
the Jews. The Church of Jerusalem, after hearing his
report, while willing to acknowledge the facts, never
theless insisted upon a sharply drawn dividing line between
the Jews and Gentile Christians (Gall, n, 9, 12, 13.),
finally entering into an arrangement for Peter, as their
representative, going to the Jews, and Paul to the Gen
tiles. Their failure, however, to understand the scope of
the Gospel lost the Twelve their leadership In the spread
of Christianity, this honor passing to others, for upon the
death of Stephen, laymen were the first to commence the
Church's missionary work (Acts xi, 19).
Now in Bishop Hall insisting that the original Apostles
were the specially appointed officers or organs of the
Church, he is attempting to bring once more into activity
the original policy of the completed Twelve in their effort
to confine the Gospel to the renewing of Judaism. Indeed,

APPENDIX. 485
his defense of the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is, as
the great English Nonconformist expressed it, — "an at
tempt to build a Jewish portico on to the Christian Tem
ple." But this can no more be done to-day than it could
in the days of the Apostles themselves. These latter failed
in such an attempt, and no wonder, seeing that it was
entirely contrary to the final teaching of the Master. If
then the Apostles failed, is it to be expected that their
so-called representatives will have any better success?
The mistake made by Bishop Hall and his school, so
it seems to us. Is their belief that a man's religion
is to be under as complete external supervision as his
medical or legal affairs (p. 4). They seem to forget that
the symbol of the rent temple veil implies that hence
forth the individual may pass at once into the very pres
ence of God and learn of Him direct what is needful for
his spiritual Hfe. A further mistake is Dr. Hall's refer
ence to the apostolic fellowship of Acts ii, 42 (p. 11),
with the inference that this term merely signifies compan
ionship or association, whereas it may equally mean distri
bution (Hammond on Acts) . The disciples brought to
the Apostles their goods, receiving from them as each man
had need, and it was this apostolic communication that
they continued in and not a mere fellowship. Nor is Dr.
Hall any happier in his selection of Scriptural references
to prove that the Churches were subject to apostolic au
thority (ib) . Prof. Gwatkln says that "the Apostle is not
a regular ruler in the same sense as a modern Bishop, but
an occasional referee, like the visitor of a college, who acts

486 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
only in case of special need" (Apostle-HDB). Prof.
Sanday, after a thorough examination of the question, finds
no trace that the Twelve Apostles were invested with any
specific authority as rulers of the Churches (Conception of
Priesthood, p. 42, ff). Prof. Lindsay is also of opin
ion that the Apostles did not exhibit any evidence of their
exercising an exclusive or sole authority over the Churches
(Acts, pp. 44, 83). The Prophets of the New Testa
ment seem to have acted with authority equal to the
Apostles except that they did not share in the care of the
Churches. This fell to the Apostles although equally to
the Elders associated with them. To conclude, there is no
evidence anywhere that the Apostles had peculiar func
tions and responsiblHties which were not equally shared
by others (p. 11).
The association by Dr. Hall of Chillingworth's ut
terance on Episcopacy with that of the Preface to our
Ordinal Is unfortunate, since what the former actually in
dicates is that from the time of the Apostles, Episcopal
government has continued to this day through an un
broken succession of its own particular order, whereas all
that this Preface as originally worded indicated, is that the
orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons have existed from
the time of the Apostles. A complete Episcopal govern
ment necessarily Includes Episcopal ordering of the Minis
try. This, consequently, Chlllingworth represents to have
been universally received in the Church presently after
the Apostles' time. But this, Bishop Wordsworth is
able to maintain only from the time of the case of Collu-

APPENDIX. 487
thus in A. D. 324 (Mln. Gra, p. 169). For many years
after the time of the Apostles the Churches of Rome and
Alexandria had their Bishops consecrated by Presbyters.
Indeed, both Bishops Lightfoot and Wordsworth show
that in other churches, for some time after the Apostles
had all passed away. Presbyters were their sole rulers.
Exclusive Episcopal government may have been the rule
of the Catholic Church from the beginning of the fourth
century, but it certainly was not prior to that period.
Cranmer composed the original Preface to our Ordinal,
and there is abundant evidence to show that he absolutely
rejected the idea of Episcopacy as essential to the ordering
of the Ministry. As amended In 1 662, our present Pref
ace so indicates, but such an inference is utterly contrary
both to Scripture and early Church history.
Bishop Hall next quotes the testimony of the apostolic
fathers. He begins with Clement of Rome. But Clem
ent's evidence makes against, and not for. Bishop Hall's
contention. He would have us believe that the other dis
tinguished men of Clement xllv, 1-3, correspond to men
of apostolic appointment, like Timothy and Titus, to whom
the right of appointment to the Ministry was committed,
that Is, by the Apostles (p. 24, note). Sanday, however,
rejects this view, seeing here no one in a direct line of
descent from the Apostles, but merely "those whom the
Church most trusted" (ib., p. IT). Bishop Hall quotes
Lightfoot as testifying to the Episcopate of Clement, but
Wordsworth sees in Clement no more than the president
of a college of Presbyters (id., p. 106), while he thinks

488 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
that down to A. D. 140 Rome was still governed by a
body of Presbyters. Here he is supported by Lightfoot,
who places the adoption of the Episcopal form of govern
ment by Rome in the middle of the second century (Apos
toHc fathers. Vol. 1, part ii, p. 384) .
We are next referred to Ignatius who, we are told, knew
of no other than an Episcopal form of government. This,
Bishop Hall concludes from his statement, "the bishops
that are settled in the furthest parts of the earth." But
Lightfoot dismisses this with the explanation that "At the
most it is a natural hyperbole."
Now Bishop 'Hall wrote his charge with Lightfoot's
"ApostoHc Fathers," and Lindsay's "The Church and
the Ministry," within reach of his hand, and yet he misrep
resented both writers. We are told to refer to this work
of Lightfoot, the inference being that he confirms Dr.
Hall's contention that Ignatius knew of no other than the
Episcopal form of Church government (p. 26) . On the
contrary, he does the very opposite. In referring to the
manner in which Polycarp had addressed the Church of
Philippi, " to the Presbyters and Deacons," he adds. " If
Ignatius had been writing to this Church, he would doubt
less have done the same." Ignatius, however, wrote to the
Church of Rome without any reference to its Bishop.
Lightfoot thinks that Rome had an Episcopacy in some
form or other at this time, but that it was not developed as
in Asia Minor. He even thinks that it had so far de
veloped that here it was already a distinct office from the
Presbyterate (ib., p. 381., cf. 383, 384). At the same

APPENDIX. 489
time, in his "Dissertations" he tells us plainly that we must
not suppose Clement to have occupied " the same Isolated
position of authority as was occupied" by his contempo
raries, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna. He
was rather "the chief of the Presbyters than the chief over
the Presbyters." These words somewhat modify his state
ment that at this period the Episcopate existed as a distinct
office from the Presbyterate in the Roman Church, while
they corroborate his subsequent representation in the same
work, that Episcopacy was not introduced into Rome
until the middle of the second century. All this shows
the inaccuracy of Bishop Hall in representing Clement as
"what would have been designated In later times by the
name of Bishop" (p. 24). Indeed, by his further state
ment already quoted, that Ignatius evidently knew of no
other than an Episcopal form of ecclesiastical govem
ment, one would Imagine that he had never read Light
foot's " ApostoHc Fathers," or, at least, that he had read
this work to no purpose. Writing of the conception of
Episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles, Lightfoot says of the
author, "There Is no indication that he is upholding the
Episcopal against any other form of Church government.
It is the recognized authority of the Churches
which the writer addresses " (Apos. Fat., Vol. I, part ii, p.
382 ) . This, therefore, is the explanation why Ignatius did
not refer to its Bishop in his letter to the Church of Rome.
Its Episcopacy was not that which he had been so strenu
ously advocating throughout his various letters. Its Bishop,
if it had one at this time, was merely the chief of, and not

490 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
the chief over its Presbyters. Evidently, therefore, to avoid
any misunderstanding he addressed his letter to the Romans
in the name of the Church and not of its officials. Bishop
Hall quotes Prof. Lindsay as admitting that "according
to the conception of Ignatius, every Christian community
ought to have at its head a Bishop, a Presbyterium or
session of Elders, and a body of Deacons," but he failed
to quote his previous statement that the writings of Ignatius
"are not to be taken as proof that the Ignatian conception
of what the threefold Ministry ought to be existed in any
part of the Church whatever." Here Lightfoot agrees
with Lindsay, consequently. Bishop Hall is without one
shred of evidence for asserting that Ignatius knew of no
other than an Episcopal form of Church government;
while, as we have seen, he misrepresents both of these
writers In attempting to prove his unfounded assertion.
Irenaeus is next quoted, but to no effect, since Lightfoot
has shown that this father did not regard Bishops and
Presbyters as distinct in order, but only in office. In other
words, that they formed but one order and differed only
in degree (Dissertations).
Finally, Tertullian is quoted, who, however, we think,
rather tends to destroy Bishop Hall's contention, since
this father while appearing to make much of apostolic
descent, nevertheless affirms, "That which has constitu
ted the difference between the governing body and its
ordinary members is the authority of the Church" (Hatch,
p. 124). In an appendix. Bishop Hall endeavors to dis
credit this statement on the ground that it was made after

APPENDIX. 491
Tertullian had left the Church, a circumstance, however,
which, even if ecclesiastically true, in no sense affects its
accuracy. Further, in his anxiety to account for Tertul
lian's sanction of the celebration of the eucharist by a lay
man, with his apparent denial of any real difference be
tween a layman and a Priest (p. 47), Bishop Hall seems
in this Instance to have entirely overlooked the Church's
acceptance of the validity of lay-baptism, together with
the fact that in the early Church, as recorded even in Scrip
ture itself (Acts u, 46), laymen celebrated the eucharist
as a usual thing. Apart from this evidence, however,
which we are about to consider, it is a mere matter of
common sense that if a layman is qualified to administer
baptism, he is equally qualified to administer the commun
ion, no greater authority being required for the one than
the other. Bishop Hall is of course shocked that Tertul
lian should intimate that there is no real difference between
a Christian layman and a Christian Priest, except, of
course, what the Church Itself makes. But a Priest in
the Anglican Church Is nothing but a Presbyter, and a
Presbyter is nothing but an officer appointed by the
Church to administer in an orderly manner functions which
belong equally to every member. This was the unanimous
opinion of the Anglican Reformers, as may be seen in
Tyndale's own words when explaining the meaning of
Presbyter (Blakeney on The Book of Common Prayer.
p. 521). And this is fully accepted by Bishop Light
foot, who in denying that the Sacerdotal or Priestly title Is
ever conferred upon the Church's officers, affirms, "The

492 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
only Priests under the Gospel . . . are the saints,
the members of the Christian brotherhood" (Disserta
tions) .
And now we come to the examination of Acts 11, 42.
Here we are told that after their daily attendance at the
Temple the general body of disciples, numbering over
three thousand souls, broke bread at home. It is an er
roneous exegesis that sees here the breaking of bread in the
particular "upper room," or several rooms appointed for
the purpose. The meaning of the statement is, as Stanley
explains, that the "believers at Jerusalem are described
as partaking of a daily meal in their private houses, as
part of their religious devotions" (Chris. Institu., p. 44).
Clement of Alexandria, who died in A. D. 213, shows
that in his day this Jerusalem custom was still in vogue,
the head of the house in each home being the celebrant
(Allen-Chris. Institu., p. 522). In discussing Clement's
representation. Dr. Bigg shows that here "the house father
is the house Priest" (Christian Platonists of Alexandria,
pp. 1 02-1 06) . So it must have been at first in Jerusalem,
as this is not only to be inferred from the expression " at
home," as the place where the bread was broken (Acts
11, 42. RV), but the more than three thousand disciples
could not have been accommodated with daily meals of
which the eucharist formed the closing part, except in
their own homes. Further, as there were at this time
but the Twelve Apostles occupying an official position,
these could not have distributed themselves to be present
in all these homes to daily celebrate the eucharist. All

APPENDIX. 493
this shows that it must have been celebrated by laymen,
and Clement's testimony to this end settles the matter
conclusively. As for TertulHan's statement that "where three Chris
tians are, though they be laymen, there is a Church," this
is borne out by Christ's assurance that where two or three
are gathered together in His name He is with them (Matt.
xviu, 20) . Indeed, Tertullian finds further support in the
statement of the supposed champion of Episcopacy, Igna
tius, who says, "where Jesus Christ Is, there is the Catholic
Church" (Epis. Smyr.).
In summing up the evidence drawn from the Fathers
quoted. Bishop Hall claims to have shown that from the
first the established method of conveying ministerial au
thority was limited to the Episcopate. But this, we beg
leave to assert, he has not shown by one definite statement
to that effect. In his " Dissertations," Lightfoot showed
that early In the second century " Episcopacy did not exist
at all among the Philipplans," and similar evidence shows
that it was not yet established In Corinth or Thessalonica.
Indeed, the same evidence upon which Lightfoot concludes
that there was no Bishop at Philippi early in the second
century, that is, nothing beyond the presidency of a
chief Presbyter in these Churches, shows that at this period
there was no Bishop of Rome. Thus Allen is justified in
asserting that in calling Clement Bishop of Rome,
as apparenriy Bishop Hall desires to do (pp. 24, 26) , it
"is an anachronism if we speak from the point of view
of his own age " (lb., p. 54). I note of course that Dr.

494 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Hall says that Clement "must have been in fact what
would have been designated in later times by the name
Bishop." But this only brings out more clearly Dr. Hall's
mistake. There was no actual analogy here, but at the
most a mere slight correspondence between the supposed
Episcopate of Clement and that even of his contemporaries
Ignatius and Polycarp, let alone of a later age, a corre
spondence so slight that Bishop Wordsworth feels no
hesitation in representing that there was no Bishop of
Rome at this period (MG, p. 126). As for Dr. Hall's
attempt to show that the transmission of the Ministry has
been limited to the Episcopate, the canons of Hippolytus
show conclusively that, as Dr. Lindsay claims. In the early
Roman Church Presbyters consecrated Bishops (The
Church and the Ministry) ; while Bishop Wordsworth is
of opinion that at Rome and Alexandria to the beginning
of the middle of the third century, the Bishop, if a Pres
byter, required no further ordination (lb., 129 136).
It is somewhat amusing to find Bishop Hall, after laying
down a most positive theory of the Apostolic Succession,
which shuts out all those not ordained through an historic
Episcopate, calmly asserting, " At the same time it is right
to say that the acceptance of no theory of the Apostolic
Succession is required of either the lay people or the
Clergy. ... So long as the generally accepted
rule of the Church is observed, varying conceptions as to
the grounds of its necessity may be held. This, as I under
stand it, is the legitimate interpretation of the phrase 'the
Historic Episcopate ' " (p. 38) . Now this means simply

APPENDIX. 495
that the Historic Episcopate as understood by Bishop Hall
and his school must be accepted without any question as to
its warrant in Scripture or early Church history, although
privately its accepter may hold any opinion of it he pleases.
Finally, he describes what is meant by the Apostolic Suc
cession as the sharing of the ministerial commission with
as full authority as those whom Christ first sent in His
name. But how is this authority to be acquired? One
way is by entering into the fellowship of those whom
Christ first sent forth. But as the gateway into this fel
lowship is the Historic Episcopate as understood by Dr.
Hall, someone after all is to hold a very definite theory
as to what actually constitutes the Apostolic Succession.
Surely we have here both confusion and contradiction. In
concluding his charge. Dr. Hall objected to the
phrase " Back to Christ," preferring the looking " up
to Christ" as present to-day in grace and power,
since the knowledge of Christ after the flesh counts for
very little (pp. 42, 43). It is, he tells us, "the upward
gaze which gains a right conception of His person. And
so with regard to the Ministry, its mission and authority.
We must not be content with looking back to Jesus in
Palestine ; we must look up to Him at God's right hand,
and therefore in the midst of His Church, now sending and
enabling His Ministers, with whom and through whom
He works by the Spirit which He breathes on them,
as on His first Apostles."
Now just before the above words. Dr. Hall had con
ceded that the warrant for a Ministry sent by Christ could

496 THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
be shown "by extraordinary signs of His commission;
yet he closes with the statement that "anything short of a
whole-hearted acceptance of the claim of an Episcopal
Ministry would be an unsatisfactory basis for union "
(p. 53) . Now surely here, as in the matter of the Apos
tolic Succession, we have both confusion and contradiction.
What are the extraordinary signs of Christ's commission
which a Ministry must show as warrant for the exercise
of its functions? Is more required than was exhibited by
Paul? It was his success amongst the Gentiles that won
him the right hand of fellowship of the leaders of the
Church of Jerusalem (Gal. n, 8, 9). It was his suc
cess with the Corinthians which he took to be the seal of
his Apostleship to them (1 Cor. ix, 2). Have not the
great orthodox Churches, in their success at home and
abroad in winning souls for Christ, shown as much evi
dence to their call of God as Paul showed by the success
of his work? Why then are they to be denied the right
hand of fellowship except through the medium of an Epis
copal Ministry? Bishop Hall and his school in their
insistence upon the ApostoHc Succession are supported
neither by logic nor Scripture, while to us their whole ef
fort to defend their position is characterized by confusion of
thought and Inaccuracy of historical statement.

INDEX

A ARON and Moses, not founders
^^ of the Jewish Sacerdotal priest
hood. 129.
Abbott, Prof., remarks concerning the
celebrated case of Travers who,
though only in Presbyterian orders,
exercised his Ministry in England,
432f.
Age, advantage of, to Churches, 5f.
Age of Church, not a guarantee of
superiority in ecclesiastical organi
zations, 315.
Alford, Dean, asserts the doctrine of
Apostolic Succession through the
Episcopate to be without founda
tion in New Testament, 393f.
Allen, Prof., supports Republican
doctrine of the equality of non-
Episcopal with Episcopal minis
tries, 208.
America, the natural stage for the in
auguration of world-wide Repub
lican movements, 193.
Analogies, of Episcopate provided for
in the Level Plan for Church
Union with the Ignatian Congre
gational Episcopate, 197.
Ananias of Damascus, Dr. Hort shows
that he was a layman when he
baptized St. Paul, 148f.
Anderson, Bishop, on the possibility of
Church union, 372.
Anglican and American Episcopates,
historicity of, not the same, 187.
Anglican Catholics, leadership of,
would be ruinous, 106.
Anglican Churches, undoubtedly Prot
estant, 95, 106f; Protestant and

must continue so, 11 Of; their plan
for Church union, 192; natural
centers of national unity, 194; doc
trine of their Sacerdotalists con
cerning Apostolic Succession, 202.
Anglican ordinal, its design, institution
to an office; not the giving of
ministerial character, 120f.
Anglican Presbyter, his answer to
Bishop Hall's " The Apostolic
Ministry," xxii.
Anthropologist, on the heathen origin
of the doctrine of Apostolic Suc
cession, 128.
Antioch, Church of, founded by lay
men, 448f.
Antiochian Elders, Dr. Hort shows
them to have been laymen when
they ordained Sts. Paul and Bar
nabas, !48f.
Apollos, a layman preacher, 140f.
Apostles, a grade, not order, in the
New Testament ministry, 125
had no official successors, 126
those of Jesus and Wesley, 135f
the commission of Jesus to, based
on love, not authority, 1 38 ; the
commission of the Church given
to the people as a whole, not to
them alone, 428f.
Apostolate, not originally the exclusive
source of ministerial authority, 430.
Apostolic Age, the, in the Ten Epochs
of Church History quotation from,
in justification of the basis upon
which the Level Plan for Church
Union is rested, 320.
Apostolic Fathers, quotations from, in

498

support of the original equality of
Elders and Bishops, 46f.
Apostolic Succession, Presbyterian doc
trine of, xii; doctrine of, as held
by High Churchmen of fifty years
ago, 6f; evidence for and against
the High Church doctrine, 6f; in
the Nev»f Testament, Christian as
sociations are called Churches be
fore possessing an apostolic min
istry, 16; doctrine of, as applied
to the monarchial Episcopate not
general before A. D. 200, 45;
doctrine of, said to have been
promulgated first fay Irenaeus, 47;
Romans reject Anglican claim to,
I17f; Greeks reject Anglican
claim to, 1 1 7f ; if there is any
such succession, it has lapsed in
the Anglican Churches, 120f;
three facts showing that Sacer
dotal doctrine of, will not stand,
121 ; doctrine of, derived from
heathenism, 128; originally be
lieved to be concerned with the
Gospel doctrine, not ministerial
authority, 15If; a conclusive fact
against the Sacerdotal doctrine of,
151; quotation from Dean Saba
tier respecting the worthlessness
of the tradition upon which it is
founded, 306f; Bishop Hall's ad
mission that the transmission of
ministerial authority is not limited
to the Episcopate, 317; Bishop
Hall's admission that no theory re
specting it is of ecclesiastical obli
gation, 318; Bishop Hall's admis
sion that the difference between
Episcopal and non-Episcopal ordi
nation is a matter of changeable,
ecclesiastical discipline, not of un
changing faith, 318; assertion of
Professor Ramsay that the evolu
tion of the Episcopate was yet
far from having reached the mo
narchial stage when I Peter was
written, 328; doctrine of, not
known to the primitive Church nor
fully accepted until the 5th cen

tury, 339f; declaration of Alford,
Robinson and Rashdall as to its
being without historical basis, 393f ;
declaration of Anglican Reforma
tion Bishops to the effect that Epis
copacy is of human origin, 405f;
quotation from St. Jerome against
the doctrine, 405f; tradition re
specting the founding of Episco
pacy by St. John, 405f; canons
of Hippolytus and a Republican
Episcopate, 452f; Bishop Gore
and Dr. Stone do not include
within the covenant members of
the Churches which are without
the Historic Episcopate, 452f; the
assertion of Bishop Gore and Dr.
Stone that the New Testament
Elders constituted a plural Epis
copate with power to perpetuate
the Apostolate by ordination, re
futed, 454f; admission of Abbe
Duchesne that Bishops were or
dained by Presbyters, 455f; Pres
byterial and Episcopal Succession
identically the same, 465f; doc
trine of, cannot be proved, 470f;
Canon Wilson's call for a rein
vestigation of its historical basis,
476f. (See also " Bishop " and
" Episcopate.")
Appeal for a Republican ministry,
231f; to the Churches, 371.
Appendix, it and Introduction to The
Level Plan for Church Union,
excellency of, xix; its original ar
guments in favor of author's posi
tion, xix f ; its answer to Bishop
Hall's " The Apostolic Ministry,"
xxii; value of, from view of mod
ern scholarship, 83.
Aquila, a lay preacher, I40f.
Ark, God's care of it because of Noah
and his family, 24f.
Arkansas, State, in people, not in Gov
ernor, 102; Diocese, in people, not
in Bishop, 102; an illustration
showing episcopal jurisdiction to
be limited to souls, not by terri
torial boundaries, 246.

aj.Yx/i:f.

;x.

499

Asia Minor, why Bishops are found
here instead of Presbyters, 29f;
Congregational Churches of New
Testament times the same as De
nominational Churches in the
United States, 211 f.
Athanasius, validly baptized by a child,
226f.
Author, position of, xxviii; his friendly
challenge, 84; his theory of the
Episcopate, 1 1 5f ; his changes of
view respecting the necessity for re
ordination of non-Episcopal Min
isters, 183f.
BANCROFT, his doctrine of the
Episcopate, 113; first Anglican
to assert Divine right of Bishops,
443f.
Baptism, Tertullian's testimony as to
its administration by laymen, 14f;
validity of, when administered by
a layman, 98f; validly adminis
tered to Athanasius by a child,
226f; lay, 270; it and the Holy
Communion, not originally cele
brated as Sacerdotal Sacraments,
336f; effects of, supernatural, but
not unnaturally so, 348f; benefits
of, a change of relationship, not
the infusion of the Christ life,
362; right to administer given in
the commission to the five hundred,
442f.
Baptist Church, has Episcopate, 190;
It, Presbyterian, Methodist and
Disciple Churches, possibility of
their uniting, 377.
Barlow, regarded ordination to Epis
copate as institution to an office not
a creation of an Episcopal char
acter, I20f.
Barnabas, St., ordination of, could not
have been an infusion of minis
terial character, 147f; Dr. Hort,
shows that he was a layman, 148f.
Barry, Bishop, statement of, the doc
trine of Episcopacy, 393f; quota
tion from, on Episcopal ordination,
393f; remarks of, concerning the

celebrated case of Travers who,
though only in Presbyterian orders,
exercised his ministry in England,
432f.
Basis for Church Union, necessarily
level, 97; that of Level Plan for
Church Union, the assumption of
no essential difference between
Christian churches and ministries,
244.
Bilson, Bishop, first Anglican to fully
assert, in 1593, the doctrine of
Apostolic Succession, 41 3f.
Bingham, his interpretation of Ter
tullian respecting the appointment
by the Apostles of Bishops, open
to question, 1 1 .
Bishop, use of title not confined to
Christianity, 12f; use of the title
in the Septuagint, 12f; use of title
in Greek literature, 12f; St. Peter's
two-fold use of the title, 12f; a
title synonymous with that of Pres
byter, 12f; duties of, 12f; office
of, came into being as the result
of a natural development, 12f;
Bishops and Deacons appointed to
their offices by the people, 12f;
origin and identity of the Episco
pal and Presbyterial offices, 27;
why found at Philippi, Crete and
Asia Minor instead of Presbyters,
29f; first appearance of, as sepa
rate order claiming to be successors
of the Apostles, 32f ; Bishops and
Elders, quotations from the Apos
tolic Fathers showing their original
equality, 45f; a grade, not order
in ministry, 125; originally or
dained by Presbyters, 145; those
of the New Testament not officials,
189; continuity of the Protestant
Episcopal Church not dependent
upon them, 242; originally re
garded as the representatives of the
Lord, not of the Apostles, 339f;
Bishops and Presbyters constitute
but one order, 399f; English, of
Reformation period, their declara
tion as to the human origin of

500

INDEX.

Episcopacy, 405f; the doctrine,
no Church without a Bishop, re
futed, 413f; Abbe Duchesne, ad
mission of that Presbyters ordained
Bishops, 455f. (See also "Apos
tolic Succession " and " Episco
pate.")
Bonaparte, Napoleon, validity of the
ministrations of non - Episcopal
ministries proven by references to
his official acts, 227f.
Book of Common Prayer, its justifica
tion of the Level Plan for Church
Union, 319.
Briggs, Prof., quotations and remarks
showing that the ordinal does not
justify the doctrine of the Divine
right of Episcopacy, 119; sup
ports Republican doctrine of the
equality of non-Episcopal with
Episcopal ministries, 208; his in
sistence upon the identity of Pres
byterial and Episcopal Succession,
465f.
Bright, remarks of, concerning the cele
brated case of Travers who,
though only in Presbyterian orders,
exercised his Ministry in England,
432f.
Bruce, Canon, declares Ignatius knew
of no institution of Bishops by
Apostles, 405f.
Bucer, regarded ordination to Episco
pate as institution to an office not
a creation of an Episcopal char
acter, I20f.
Burnet, Anglican Bishop, his testimony
to the effect that reordination was
not required of the Continental
Clergy by the Church of England
previous to 1662, 170.
r^ AMBRIDGE, it and Oxford, sug-
^^ gestion of colonial missionary to
their authorities temporarily met in
the Level Plan for Church Union,
xxii f.
Campbell, Alexander, service of, in
emphasizing the simplicity of the
primitive Christian belief, 294.

Canons, evidence of, that the Episco
pate did not supplant the Presbyt
erate without a struggle, 32f; of
Hippolytus and a Republican Epis
copate, 452f.
Canon xix, memorial against, creates
necessity for explanation of the
crucial fourth article of the Quad
rilateral, 166.
Caste, theory of ministry could not have
been held by the New Testament
Christians, 121f; Imperial concep
tion must give place to Republican,
150.
Cathedral, St. John the Divine, New
York City, illustrative of author's
vision of Church union, 162.
Catholic, sense of its use in the Level
Plan for Church Union, 94;
Anglican Churches Protestant, 95;
leadership of, would be ruinous to
Anglicanism, 106; their program
impossible £md undesirable, 1 1 Of ;
triumph of, would be a misfortune,
153.
Challenge, the author's, 84.
Christ, the only Priest, 158.
Christianity, institutions of, result of
evolutionary development, 79; a
Protestant movement, 105.
Christians, each generation of, free to
act without slavish reference to its
predecessors, 81; all belong to same
ministerial order, lOOf; primitive,
impossibility of their having held
the Sacerdotal theory of the min
istry and Sacraments, 121.
Christian Unity, conciliatory course
necessary to its promotion, 5f; the
problem of, the creation of an
inter-Church ministry regularity,
361 f; argument showing the un-
justifiableness of division, 382f.
Church, may be, according to doctrine
of Tertullian, constituted by three
laymen, 14f; Christian associations
were called Churches in New Tes
tament before possessing an apos
tolic ministry, 16; those of the
New Testament and sub-apostolic

INDEX.

501

times resembled the Protestant
Churches of modern times as to
diversity of their ministries, yet all
were Churches in communion with
each other, 18; ministry of, a
development due to experience,
18; Congregational, recognized by
the Apostles as true Churches,
18f; Presbyterian, recognized by
the Apostles as true Churches,
18f; built for the realization of
the great Gospel truth of man's
personal relationship to God, 24f;
an unive];sal commonwealth, a
great democracy, 24f; a Demo
cratic lay institution, 28; proofs
that its organization was by the
people on the lines of familiar
institutions, 29f; why it did not
retain the primitive synagogue or
ganization, 32; Presbyterians, Con
gregationalists, Episcopalians and
Papalists, quote primitive docu- '
ments in support of their respective
governments, thus proving that orig
inally there was no uniform gov
ernment, 35 ; organization of, in
solution as late as A. D. 140, as
proven by Didache, 44; reorgani
zation of, admissible and neces
sary, 80; living and therefore not
necessarily bound by precedents,
81 ; divisions of, place her behind
other institutions of modern civili
zation, 91 f; Protestant doctrine as
to seed of, 97f ; three laymen may
found one, 98; inherent in whole
people not in ministry alone, 101 ;
in people not Bishop, 102; chief
objects of, 107; no more Divine
than State or Family, 108; all
equal as all families are equal,
109; New Testament, were con
gregational, 125; not founded by
Jesus, 134; in New Testament
times of the Quaker type, 135;
organizers of, not Jesus and the
Twelve, but St. Paul, Ignatius,
Cyprian, Constantine and the
Popes, 141 ; may be reorganized,

1 54 ; non-Episcopal Churches, right
of, to create their own Episco
pates, 172; continuity of, not inter
rupted by the carrying out of the
Level Plan for Church Union,
176; proof of her divinity, 178;
non - Episcopal Churches, under
Level Plan for Church Union,
could create their own Episco
pate, 186; all Churches have the
Episcopate in one or another form,
190; Baptist, has Episcopate, 1 90 ;
Catholic," origin of, 207; non-
Episcopal Churches, only way in
which they can secure Bishops,
210; reorganization of , by Ignatius,
Cyprian and Constantine, 214; an
cient Churches, representatives of,
should remember that the modern
Churches are the brides to be won,
232 ; Protestant Episcopal, name
of, proves that Sacerdotalists are
wrong in identifying her with the
Roman and Greek Churches rather
than with the Protestant Church,
236; all Churches are sects, none
really Catholic, 238; "the Church, "
no such Church in existence, 238f ;
the Church of the United States,
not in existence, must be developed,
239; Roman Church, a sect, 240;
Greek Church, a sect, 240; An
glican Churches are sects, 240;
superior claims of some to alle
giance, 240f; Protestant Episco
pal, her superior claim to allegiance
of Americans, 240; continuity of,
not dependent upon the Ministry,
241 ; continuity of, not dependent
upon the Episcopate, 243 f; seed of ,
is faith, not the Ministry, 243f;
non-Episcopal, regularity of their
ministries, 244 ; Anglican Churches,
responsible for many overlapplngs
of Episcopal jurisdictions, 245;
reorganization of, both a possibihty
and necessity, 248f; reorganiza
tions of, such as the Level Plan
for Church Union provides for,
249; the Church of the Future,

502

INDEX.

an evolutionary reorganization of
the Churches of the present, 251 f;
cannot continue in its present di
vided state, 253 ; state ahead of
the Churches because of their
abandonment of Imperialism, while
they still hold to Sacerdotalism,
257; Corinthian, its history shows
that the Sacerdotal doctrine of the
Historic Episcopate is based on a
worthless tradition, 273f; the seed
of, according to Tertullian, a
transmitted Apostolic faith, not a
transmitted Apostolic Ministry,
284f; age of, does not necessarily
imply superiority, 315; divinity of,
due to the people, not lo its age
or officers, 315; equal divineness
of all Churches that help on to
wards an universal and complete
civilization, 316; sense in which
living modern Churches are as old
as the ancient, 316; not founded
by the Lord, but nevertheless nec
essary as an embodiment of His
spirit, 337; it and State, the
family the basis of, 355 ; reorgani
zation of, objection to, answered,
374f; the doctrine, no Church
without a Bishop, refuted, 413f;
commissions of the Lord given to
it as a whole, not to the Apostles
alone, 428f.
Church of Antioch, founded by lay
men, 448f.
Church of England, prefers the Epis
copal government, but does not
assert necessity of it, 432f.
Charch Times, its statement of the
Sacerdotal theory of the Episco
pate, 393f.
Church Unity, prayer for, viii; change
of attitude towards, 76; the set
tled things of the problem, 85 ;
lines along which the problems
must be solved, 94; primitive,
promoters of, 144; author's vision
of. Illustrated by a cathedral, 161 ;
change in the author's vision of,
162; various plans for securing it.

1 63 ; inter - Church Conference
plan for, 163; Roman plan for,
163f; Anglican plan for, 163f;
not obtainable through a one-sided
or reciprocal reordination, 1 70 ;
center of, not a doctrinal system
but an institution, 182; character
of, provided in the Level Plan for
Church Union, 200; plans for,
must be in line with the govern
ment of the country, 218; the
claim of ministerial superiority the
great obstacle, 225; the problem
of, 232; must begin with Prot
estantism, 234f; Roman plan for,
an impossible anachronism, 236;
a common ministry the known
factor of the problem, 238; ad
vantages and benefits of, 381 f;
touching appeal of Missionary for,
382f.
Churches, Anglican, Protestant and
will continue so, 1 lOf.
Churches, National, necessary compre
hensiveness of, 79.
Churchman, The, endorses Republican
ism of the Level Plan for Church
Union, 469f.
Civilization, future of, with Republic
anism not Sacerdotalism, 191.
Clement, he and Tertullian, silence of
Ignatius and Polycarp offsets their
testimony respecting the Johannean
origin of the monarchial Episco
pate, 38f.
Clergy, evidence of the decline of
Sectarianism among them, 38 1 f.
Clergy and Laity, no essential differ
ence between them as shown by
Prof. Hatch, 155.
Clerical associations, a method for in
augurating and carrying out the
Level Plan for Church Union
through them, 220f.
Colleges of Bishops, origin of, 144f.
Commission, that of the Father to Jesus
and of Him to the Apostles, based
on love, not authority, 138; the
great, " Go ye into all the world,"
given to the 500, not to the Apos-

INDEX.

503

ties alone, 429f; that to leach and
baptize given to laymen, 448f.
Common Inter-Church Ministry, impos
sibility of securing it on Sacerdotal
basis, 208.
Communion, Holy, the benefit of, not
an infusion of life, but the de
velopment of it, by sustaining the
relationship established by baptism,
362f.
Confederation, an essential part of the
Level Plan for Church Union, 182.
Confession, the author's, xv.
Congregational, New Testament
Churches were, 125.
Congregational Churches, their doctrine
of the ministry, xii; recognized as
true Churches by the Apostles, 18f.
Constantine, his plan for Church union
in alignment with the Level Plan,
211.
Continuity, carrying out of the Level
Plan for Church Union involves
no interruption of, 176; ecclesias
tical, not dependent upon the
Episcopate, 243f.
Convention, General, 1910 session of,
called upon to explain fourth ar
ticle of Quadrilateral, 166.
Corinthian Church, history of, illustra
tive of the worthlessness of the
tradition upon which the Sacer
dotal doctrine of the Historic Epis
copate is based, 273f; without the
poorly lighted tunnel which has
been so convenient a refuge of
Sacerdotal controversialists, 274.
Cosin, remarks of, concerning the cele
brated case of Travers who, though
only in Presbyterian Orders, exer
cised his ministry in England, 432f .
Council, Inter-Church National, an es
sential part of the Level Plan for
Church Union, 172; Inter-Church
National, constituency of, 172;
Inter-Church, property holding in
corporation, I72f; Inter-Church
National, not the "Historic" Epis
copate, the core of the Level Plan
for Church Union, 175f; national.

a pre-requisile institution of union,
182; a common feature lo the Ig
natian, Cyprianlc, Constantinian,
and of the Level Plan for Church
Union, 213; national, Inter-Church,
necessity of and precedent for ad
mitting different types of the Epis
copate to it, 216.
Covenant, Bishop Gore, and Dr. Stone
do not include within it members
of the Churches which are without
the Historic Episcopate, 452f.
Cranmer, Archb., doctrine of the Epis
copate, 113; regarded ordination
to the Episcopate as institution to
office not a creation of an epis
copal character, 120f; uses the
word order as synonym of degree
or office, 41 7f.
Creed, primitive simplicity, 294 ; Apos
tles' quotation from Dean Sabatier
showing worthlessness of the tra
dition upon which it is founded,
306f.
Crete, why Bishops are found here in
stead of Presbyters, 29f.
Critics, historical, entitled to recognition
as reformers, 82 ; historical, our in
debtedness to them, 264f; histor
ical, quotations in justification of the
basis upon which the Level Plan
for Church Union is rested from:
(1) author of the Apostolic Age
in the Ten Epochs of Church
History; (2) Moshelm, Prof.;
(3) Ramsay, Prof.; (4) Light
foot, Bp.; (5) Wernle, Prof.;
(6) Harnack, Prof.; (7) Hatch,
Prof., 320.
Cromwell, Oliver, validity of the min
istrations of non-Episcopal minis
tries proven by references to his
official acts, 227f.
Cyprian, St., his plan for Church
Union in alignment with the Level
Plan, 211; his declaration, no
Church without a Bishop, refuted,
413f.

504

INDEX.

P\ AVIS, Jefferson, validity of the
^-^ ministrations of non - Episcopal
ministries proven by references to
his official acts, 227f.
Deacons, they and Bishops, appointed
to their offices by the people, 12f;
election of, shows that the or
ganization of the Church was left
to the people, 26f.
DeLaune, remarks of, concerning the
celebrated case of Travers who,
though only in Presbyterian orders,
exercised his ministry in England,
432f.
Denominational Churches cannot in all
cases be charged with schism, 471 f.
Denominationalism, temporary continu
ation of, under the Level Plan for
Church Union, 1 72f .
Denominationalism and Romanism,
neither can give the unity required,
252.
Devolution, Sacerdotal doctrine of a
devoluted ministry an anachronism,
88.
Diaconal and Presbyterial, officialism
of, a development after Episcopal
officialism, 145f.
Didache, quotation from, regarding the
appointment of Bishops and Dea
cons by the people, 12f; shows
that as late as A. D. 140 the or
ganization of the Church was in
solution, 44; contemplates the elec
tion and appointment of ministers
by the people, 445 f.
Diocesan Episcopate, a synonym of the
Historic Episcopate, 214.
Diocese, not a primitive Christian in
stitution, 32; in people, not in
Bishop, 102.
Disciple, Presbyterian, Methodist and
Baptist Churches, possibility of
their uniting, 377.
Divine right, not a prerogative of the
Episcopate, 119.
Division, conciliatory course necessary
to its healing, 5f.
Doane, Bishop, against unity by ab
sorption, 89; interpretation of the

Preface to the Ordinal respecting
the necessity of ordination by
Bishops, 240f.
Dogs and horses, why they cannot, like
men, create divine institutions, 31 5f.
Duchesne, Abbe, his notable admission
that Bishops were originally or
dained by Presbyters, 455f.
EDUCATION, advantages to, of
Church union, 179f.
Elders, they and Bishops, quotations
from the Apostolic Fathers show
ing their original equality, 45f; a
grade, not order in ministry, 125;
originally laymen, 126; the asser
tion of Bishop Gore and Dr. Stone
that the New Testament elders
constituted a plural Episcopate with
power to perpetuate the Apostolate
by ordination, refuted, 454f.
Elders - Bishops, hyphenated because
they are different names for the
same Ministry, 130.
English Reformers, object of, in contin
uing the Episcopate, practical, not
doctrinal, 118.
English speaking people, comparative
gain of, 193.
Episcopacy, Congregationalists, Presby
terians, Episcopalians and Papal
ists, quote primitive documents in
support of their respective govern
ments, thus proving that there was
no uniform government in the
early Church, 35; its service lo
humanity and civilization, 53; its
abandonment not originally con
templated by the Continental Re
formers, 58f; difference of views
among English Reformers concern
ing its origin and authority, 60f;
necessity of, to Church unity, but
a new Episcopate would answer
as well as an old, 90f; essential
principles of which it is the em
bodiment, 91 ; importance of, due
to natural causes, not to super
natural origin, 92; theory of Ro
man theologians, 112; came into

INDEX.

505

being as the result of an evolu
tionary process, 113; Providential
development of, 174; necessity of,
to Church union, 1 75 ; evolutionary
theory of its origin increases rather
than decreases estimation of, 203f ;
St. Peter had nothing to do with
the founding of it, 298; St. John's
part in the founding of it, 301 ;
historic, no guarantee against di
vision or heresy, 313; divine right
of, a Roman doctrine, 413f; Dr.
Fulton's assertion that it is an
Apostolic institution, refuted, 4I7f.
Episcopal and Presbyterial succession
identically the same, 465f.
Episcopal Colleges, origin of, 144f.
Episcopal officialism, the development
of, before Presbyterial and Dia
conal officialism, 145f.
Episcopal jurisdictions, overlapping of,
245 ; limitation of, to souls, not by
geographical boundary lines, 245f ;
limitation of, by geographical
boundaries fictitious, 246; over
lapping of, by Apostles, if they
were Bishops, 247; overlapping of
at Rome, if St. Paul and St.
Peter were Bishops and were there
together, 247; limitation of, by
geographical boundaries a fetish,
247.
Episcopalianism and Presbyterianism,
Sacerdotalism of, points of agree
ment, 97.
Episcopate, originally the bond of
unity, why not now? 4; theories
of its origin, 4; its mission and
failure, 4; investigation of, the ob
ject of the League of Catholic
unity, 5; may it not be an ecclesi
astical rather than an apostolical
institution and yet be regarded as
having a Divine character? 6f ; no
historical evidence in support of
the tradition that St. John founded
it, 8; origin and development of,
8f; causes of the difficulty of ar
riving at unbiased conclusions re
specting its origin and authority, 6f ;

its relation to unity, 8f ; course to be
pursued on the Republican theory
that it is an ecclesiastical rather
than an apostolic institution, 10;
came into existence as the result
of a natural development, 12f; no
more than germ of found in New
Testament, 17f; should it be de-
nominatlonalized and how? 20f;
how it came to supplant the Pres
byterate, 28f; an inquiry into Its
origin and relationship to the
Apostolate, 29f; canons of early
Church prove that it did not sup
plant the Presbyterate without a
struggle, 32f; silence of Ignatius
and Polycarp concerning the
Johannean origin of, offsets the tes
timony of Clement and Tertullian,
35, 38f ; theory of its Divine right
has for its historical basis a per
haps, 38f; evidence of, reluctance
to accept it, 42f; doctrine that
the monarchial Episcopate was of
apostolic constitution not gener
ally accepted until the beginning
of the third century, 45; if St.
John had anything to do with its
establishment, it was only to give
it apostolic recognition and bless
ing after it had naturally grown up,
50f; representatives of, not origi
nally ordained, but simply elected,
51 f; originally extended through
the Churches by a plan resembling
the Level Plan for Church Union,
5 1 f ; two views of, 66 ; not held
by English reformers to be neces
sary to a regular ministry and
valid Sacraments, 1 1 1 f ; not ac
cording to English reformers a
distinct order in the Ministry, 112;
principles of which it is the em
bodiment, 116; several embodi
ments of Episcopal principles,
116; all embodiments of Episco
pal principles both Divine and
human, 1 1 6f ; the Level Plan for
Church Union, new embodiment
of the Episcopal principles, 117;

506

INDEX.

Sacerdotal theory of fictitious, 1 1 7f ;
Anglican Ordinal makes no pro
vision for a Sacerdotal succession,
and accordingly, if there is any
such thing, it has lapsed in our
Churches, 120f; first representa
tives of, were laymen, 124; im
portance of, due to development
not devolution, 142; originally
strictly congregational, 144; rep
resentatives of not originally or
dained by Bishops, 1 45 ; "His
toric," three plans by which it
might be locally adapted, 167;
necessity of a new Level Plan
for securing it, 174; Inter-Church,
that of each Church autonomous,
1 77 ; " Historic," not a sectarian
asset, 1 87 ; Interdenominational,
provided for in the Level Plan
for Church Union, inevitably Re
publican, 197; cause of its Di
vinity, 201 ; different kinds of,
205; its essential characteristics,
209 ; Congregational, originally
ordained by Elders, 215; ecclesi
astical continuity not dependent
upon it, 243f; "Historic," Sacer
dotal doctrine of, based on a
worthless tradition, 273 f; in what
sense and to what degree St. John
may be said to have had anything
to do with the establishment of it,
300; Bishop Hall's admission that
the transmission of ministerial au
thority is not limited to the Epis
copate, 317; Bishop Hall's forced
admission that the difference be
tween Episcopal and non-Episco
pal ordination is a matter of
changeable ecclesiastical discipline,
not a matter of unchanging faith,
318; doctrine of Apostolic Suc
cession not known lo the primi
tive Church nor fully accepted un
til the fifth century, 339f; ques
tion as to function of, constitutes
crux of Church union problem,
393f; possesses no exclusive dif
ferentiating function, 393f; con

troversy as to whether its use in
Quadrilateral included doctrine of
Apostolic Succession, 396f ; decla
ration of English Reformation
Bishops to the effect that it is
of human origin, 405 f; St. Je
rome's account of its origin irrec
oncilable with the theory of
Apostolic Succession, 405f; ordi
nation not an exclusive preroga
tive of, 412f; origin assigned in
report of committee on Quad
rilateral overture not supported by
history, 423f ; commission given by
the Lord to the Church as a
whole and not to the Aposdes
alone, 428f; not a distinct order
before the fourth century, 437f;
the bene esse not the esse of the
Church, 439f; canons of Hip
polytus and a Republican Episco
pate, 452f; Bishop Gore and Dr.
Stone do not include within the
covenant members of the Churches
which are without the " Historic "
Episcopate, 452f; the assertion of
Bishop Gore and Dr. Stone that
the New Testament elders consti
tuted a plural Episcopate with
power to perpetuate the Apostolate
by ordination, refuted, 454f; ad
mission of Abbe Duchesne that
Presbyters ordained, 455f. (See
also, " Apostolic Succession," and
" Bishop.")
Erasmus, quotations from, showing that
it was not originally the intention
of the Continental reformers to
abandon Episcopacy, 58f.
Evangelists, a grade, not order in min
istry, 125.
Evolution, all institutions products of,
204.
Ewing, the Rev. Quincy, quotation from
regarding the supematuralness of
sacramental ordinances, 354.
Ezra and Nehemiah, founders of the
Jewish priesthood, 129.

INDEX.

507

PAMILY, social unit from which
^ State and Church sprang, 108;
Republican not Imperial or Sacer
dotal, 109; every family should
be a church and its head a priest,
229; the basis of Slate and
Church, 355.
Farnell, the anthropologist, on the
heathen origin of the doctrine of
Apostolic Succession, 128.
Federation, the only possible Church
union, 88f.
Field, Dean, his claim that ordination
has been reserved as the exclusive
right of Bishops, refuted, 4I9f.
Fig Tree, that cursed by the Lord rep
resents Sacerdotalism, 311.
Fulton, Dr., assertion that Episcopacy
is of Apostolic origin, refuted,
417f.
GAYFORD. asserts that the first
ministry was voluntary, 442 f.
Geikie, asserts that the commissions of
the Lord were given to the Church
as a whole, not to the Apostles
alone, 429f.
Gibraltar, Prof., Hatch's great work
against Sacerdotalism compared to,
154f.
God, moral conception of, against Sac
erdotalism, 137.
Gore, Bishop, books of, on Church,
Ministry and Unity covered by
the Appendix, 83; his untenable
theory as to Elders being Bish
ops, 149; and Moberly, great
champions of Sacerdotalism, 263f ;
and Moberly, their works sum
marized and interpreted, 268f;
and Moberly, grudgingly admit
validity of lay Baptism, 270; and
Moberly, points of agreement be
tween them and the author, 271 ;
and Moberly, acknowledge the uni
versality of the Priesthood, 271 f;
quotation from, by Bishop Hall,
answered, 290f; and Moberly,
failure of, to establish the doc
trine of Apostolic Succession,

399f; statement against the evolu
tionary theory of the Ministry
answered, 426f; his mistake in
considering original Apostles as the
exclusive source of ministerial
power, 430f ; remarks of, concern
ing the celebrated case of Travers
who, though in Presbyterian orders,
exercised his ministry in England,
432f; and Dr. Stone, put mem
bers of the Churches not having
the Historic Episcopate, without
the covenant, 452f; and Dr. Stone,
their assertion that the New Testa
ment elders constituted a plural
Episcopate with power to perpetu
ate the Apostolate by ordination,
refuted, 454f.
Gospel, Sacerdotalism not found there
in, 95f; its religion, a layman's
movement, 150.
Gospel RepubHcanism, the basis of
Christian unity, 82.
Governors and Presidents, as the con
tinuity of the American people is
not dependent upon them so the
continuity of the Church is not
dependent upon Bishops, 242.
Greer, Bishop, of New York, his ex
perience showing the impossible
character of the Sacerdotal pro
gram for Church union, 168.
Guardian, The, quotation from, against
Bishop Perowne, 432f.
Gwatkln, Prof., supports Republican
doctrine of the equality of non-
Episcopal with Episcopal minis
tries, 208; quotation from, respect
ing the equivalence of the Episco
pal and Presbyterial offices, 404f;
declares Ignatius knew of no insti
tution of Bishops by Apostles,
405f ; the Apostolate not originally
the exclusive source of ministerial
authority, 430f; Gwatkln and
Lightfoot, regard the Christian
ministry as springing from the
Church, 442f; his assertion to the
effect that the Apostles were lead
ers, not rulers, owing their place

508

and influence to deference, not to
the appointment and authority of
Christ, 448f.

HALL, Bishop, his " The Apostolic
Ministry " answered in Appen
dix, xxil; on the relative magni
tude of the Sacraments, 229; reply
to his charge, " The Apostolic
Ministry," 281 ; points covered in
the author's reply to his charge
on the Apostolic Ministry, 282;
his quotation from Tertullian in
support of the Sacerdotal doctrine
of Apostolic Succession, shown to
be wholly inapplicable, 282f; his
mistake in use made of quotation
from Tertullian due to the erro
neous supposition that the seed of
the Church is a transmitted min
istry Instead of a transmitted faith,
284f; his objection to Tertul
lian's testimony as to the validity
of Baptism and the Holy Com
munion when administered by
laymen will not stand, 288 ; his
quotation from Bishop Gore an
swered, 290f; his use of Ter
tullian's testimony to Apostolic
Succession shown to be due to a
misconception, 298 ; conclusions
reached in his charge, 312; inter
pretation of his statement respect
ing Church principles, 313f ; wrong
in admitting that the ministry is
not a caste while insisting thai min
isterial character is given at ordi
nation, 317; his wrong use of St.
Paul's comparison of the Church
with the human body, 317; his
forced admission that the transmis
sion of ministerial authority is not
limited to the Episcopate, 317;
possibility of carrying out the
Level Plan for Church Union on
the basis of his admission respect
ing the transmission of ministerial
authority without Episcopal ordina
tion, 317f; his admission that the
difference between Episcopal and

non-Episcopal ordination is a mat
ter of changeable ecclesiastical dis
cipline, not a matter of unchanging
faith, 318; agreement of, with the
author, 319; agreement of, with the
author in identifying the benefit
of the sacramental ordinances with
prayer, 351.
Hammond, asserts that the commissions
of the Lord were given to the
Church as a whole, not to the
Apostles alone, 429f.
Harnack, Prof., Identifies Anglicans
with Protestantism not Catholi
cism, 95 ; his interest in and en
dorsement of Prof. Hatch's Or
ganization of the Early Christian
churches, 154f; supports Repub
lican doctrine of the equality of
non-Episcopal with Episcopal min
istries, 208 ; quotation from, in
justification of the Basis upon
which the Level Plan for Church
Union is rested, 337f.
Hatch, Prof., quoted In support of the
position taken by the author, 154f ;
supports Republican doctrine of
the equality of non-Episcopal with
Episcopal ministries, 208; quota
tion from, in justification of the
basis upon which the Level Plan
for Church Union is rested, 338f;
his claim that ordination has been
reserved as the exclusive right of
Bishops, refuted, 41 9f.
Hilary, testimony of as to lay minis
try, 442f.
Hippolytus, canons of, show that no es
sential distinction existed between
Elders and Bishops, 420f; canons
of and a Republican Episcopate,
452f.
Historical Criticism, science of, has
supplanted ecclesiastical tradition,
93 f; an established science, 291.
Historical Critics, entitled to recogni
tion as Reformers, 82 ; our in
debtedness lo them, 264f; com
pared with the Reformers, 265.
Historic " Episcopate, necessity for

INDEX.

509

defining its meaning, 165f; three
plans by which it might be locally
adapted, 167; no essential rela
tionship to the Level Plan, 173f;
local adaptation of, provided for in
the Level Plan for Church Union,
195; not the basis of the Igna
tian and Cyprianlc plans for
Church Union, 213f; basis of
Constantlne's plan for Church
union, but not of the plans of
Cyprian and Ignatius, 214; a syn
onym of Diocesan Episcopate, 214.
Historicity, not conveyed by ordination,
186.
History and Tradition, relative value
of, 296.
Holy Communion, Tertullian's testi
mony as to Its administrations by
laymen, 14f; validity of, when
administered by a layman, 98f;
originally a simple ceremony often
celebrated by laymen, 228f ; why
an Episcopahan might receive It
In the Presbyterian Church, 229f;
Sacerdotal view of the celebration
of It by ministers who have not re
ceived ordination by Bishops of
the Apostolic Succession, 270f ;
and Baptism, not originally cele
brated as Sacerdotal Sacraments,
336f; effects of, supernatural, but
not unnaturally so, 348f; resem
blance of the table of our Heav
enly Friend to the table of an
earthly friend, 363f ; the commun
ion of the table of our Heavenly
Friend essentially the same as the
communion of the table of an
earthly friend, 363f; the error of
Sacerdotalists respecting its bene
fits, 365; administered by laymen,
448f.
Holy Ghost, He, not Priests, the rep
resentative of God to His people,
99f; He, not the Twelve, the
source of ministerial authority in
New Testament times, I29f; the
early ministry called by Him, not
ordained by the Apostles, 277.

Hooker, doctrine of the Episcopate,
113; quotation from. In support of
Republican theory of Church and
Ministry, 114; argument of in sup
port of Episcopacy, utilitarian not
Sacerdotal, 115; admits that a
Ministry might be created by lay
men, 440f.
Horses and Dogs, why they cannot like
men create divine institutions, 315f.
Hort, showing to the effect that Barna
bas, Ananias and the Antiochlan
elders were laymen, 148f; he,
Lightfoot and McGlffert agree that
the Sacerdotal doctrine of Apos
tolic Succession is without histor
ical foundation, 280.
Huntington, the Rev. Dr. W. R., or
ganizer of the League of Catholic
Unity, 4f; cause of opposition to
his proposed Preamble to the Con
stitution, 270.
ICE, whether produced by artificial
or natural processes being real Ice,
used In Illustration of the equality
of ancient and modern minis
tries, 314.
Ignatian, Cyprianlc and Constantinian
precedents, importance of regard
ing them In efforts to secure
Church union, 216f.
Ignatius, he and Polycarp, their silence
respecting the Johannean origin of
the monarchial Episcopate offsets
that of Tertullian and Clement,
35f; according to tradition, made
a monarchial Bishop by St. John,
41 ; the first to mention the orders
of Bishops, Priests and Deacons
in the Christian ministry, 41 f; held
Presbyters to be successors to
Apostles, 132; his Church union
motto, 212; silence of, respecting
the origin of Polycarp's Episcopal
office proves that he knew of no
institution of Bishops by Apos
des, 405f ; meaning of his declara
tion respecting the necessity of a
Bishop to a Church, 451 f.

510

INDEX.

Imperialism, principle of, same as that
of Sacerdotalism, 88; and Priest
ism, Involve the same non-Gospel
principle, 208f.
Incarnation, doctrine of, contrary to
Sacerdotalism, 146. •
Innocent III., power of, 124.
Institution, office of, does teach official
but not ministerial Sacerdotalism,
94f.
Inter-Church Episcopate Plan for
Church Union, clear statement of,
under three heads, 191.
Inter-Church Conference, Its plan for
the union of the Churches, 163.
Inter-Church National Council, neces
sity of, and precedent for, admit
ting different types of the Episco
pate to it, 216.
Inter-Church Ordaining Committee, Im
portant part of the Level Plan
for Church Union, 185.
Introduction and Appendix, excellency
of that of the Level Plan for
Church Union, xix ; value of,
from view of modern scholarship,
83.
Irenaeus, testimony of, as to the nature
of the Apostolic Succession being
a transmission of faith, 287.
Israel, people of, their historical con
tinuity not dependent upon their
Priesthood, 242.

TAMES, St., did not expect Chrls-
^ tianity to separate from Judaism,
122.
Jerome, St., testimony lo the elevation
of the monarchial Episcopate from
the oligarchal Presbyterate, 339;
quotation from against the doctrine
of Apostolic Succession, 405f.
Jesus, Church not founded by Him,
133; Sacraments not Instituted by
Him, 133; sense In which He was
Founder of a Church, 134; could
not have Instituted official succes
sors, 137; could not have created
a Sacerdotal Ministry, 137f;
Church not organized by Him,

141 ; His relationship lo individ
ual Christians and right doers
rather than to organic Christianity,
142; He was a Layman and this
fact cannot be too strongly insisted
upon, 149f; the great Republican,
217; He and His Apostles, Lay
men, 294.
Jewish Priesthood, that of New Testa
ment times, owed Its existence lo
Nehemiah and Ezra, not to Moses
and Aaron, 129.
John, St., attempt to trace the Angll-
c£m Episcopal succession to him,
xii; tradition respecting his found
ing the Episcopate, 8; when he
Is said to have established the
Episcopate, what Is meant Is that
he recognized an Institution that
had grown up naturally, 50f; did
not expect Christianity to separate
from Judaism, 122; In what sense,
and lo what degree he may be said
to have had anything to do with
the establishment of Episcopacy,
300 ; tradition respecting his found
ing of the monarchial Episcopate,
301 ; tradition upon which the
doctrine of Apostolic Succession
is based, 405f.
Judaism, an ethical not Sacerdotal re
ligion, 105.

J/^ EBLE, remarks of, concerning the
*^ celebrated case of Travers who,
though only in Presbyterian orders,
exercised his ministry In England,
432f. ^
King, Lord, his assertion that there are
only two orders in the Christian
ministry, 41 If.
Kings, continuity of nation, not depend
ent upon, 242.
Knowles, Canon, quotation from his
pamphlet, " Church Unity," illus
trative of the extremes to which
some of the Anglican " Catholics "
go in their Sacerdotalism, 369.

INDEX.

511

j AYMEN, many Churches founded
'-^ by, 1 1 ; the Gospel preached by,
11; no essential difference be
tween, 99; New Testament min
isters were such, 132; the hope
of the future, 150; Tertullian's
testimony of the validity of Bap
tism and Holy Communion when
administered by a representative
of the Lay Priesthood, 287; an
evidence of the decline of Sec
tarianism, 380f; decline of Sec
tarianism among them, 380; time
was in the history of Christianity
when there were no Clergy and
such a time may come again, 427f ;
the five hundred, to whom the great
commission of the Lord was given
were not official ministers, 429f ;
can they create a Ministry? 440f;
Holy Communion administered by,
448f; a quotation from Bishop
Lightfoot touching lay ministra
tions, 450f; laymen's movement,
a fulfillment of Bishop Lightfoot's
prophecy, 469f .
Laity and Clergy, Hatch's showing
against Sacerdotalism, 155.
Laud, Archbishop, first Anglican to
maintain in the necessity of Epis
copacy to existence of a Church,
1 12f ; his theory of the Episcopate,
115; tendency of his leadership,
118f; reproval of, for asserting
that there could be no Church
without a Bishop, 41 3f.
Lay Baptism, validity of grudgingly
admitted by Bishop Gore and
Prof. Moberly, 270.
Leadership, first ministers leaders not
officers, 125; superiority of, to offi
cialism, 127.
League of Catholic Unity, its organizer,
constitution, object and lapse, 4f.
Level Plan for Church Union, two
theories upon which the plan pro
ceeds, xviil; ground covered In
the book, xviil f; excellency of
its Introduction and Appendix,
xix; the fundamental contention

which is the basis of the plan,
xix f ; suggested order for reading
the book, xx; should the Historic
Episcopate be denomlnatlonalized
m accordance with its provisions?
20f ; the election or appointment
of Matthias by the people to meet
a special need shows that the
Church is free to adopt this plan,
23 ; sense In which the author uses
the term " Catholic," 94; his
theory of the Episcopate, 115f;
statement of the plan, 167; the
"square deal" plan, 173; the
plan contemplates no organic re
lationship between Episcopal and
other Protestant Churches, 1 75 ; not
a scheme for sectarian aggrandize
ment, 1 76 ; It Involves reorganiza
tion, but not interruption of con
tinuity, 176; does not open the
door to Sacerdotalism, 180; the
plan begins at the top not bottom,
tSOf ; basis of the plan, 185; clear
statement of the plan under three
heads, 191 ; method of carrying It
out, 195; an Important part of the
plan, 196; interdenominational
Episcopate provided for in the
plan, inevitably Republican, 197;
why the plan should be satisfactory
to both Sacerdotalists and Protes
tants, 199f; its provision for the
recognition of all forms of the
Episcopate, 206; adoption of the
plan Involves no sacrifice of prin
ciple, 206f; Its two- fold problem,
209; alignment of this plan with
three primitive plans, Ignatian,
Cyprianlc and Constantinian, 211;
its council a common feature with
those plans for Church Union,
213; identity of the plan with the
plans of Cyprian and IgnatIus,2I6;
an alternative method for inaugu
rating and carrying out the plan,
220; objections to the plan, 232;
Its provision for a common unify
ing Ministry, 237f; Its provision
for development of all comprehen-

513

INDEX.

sive national Churches, 249; the
provision of the plan for the re
quired evolutionary development
which will give to Christendom
and the world the necessary Chris
tian unity, 253; Bishop Hall's
criticism of the plan, 313; possibil
ity of carrying It out on the basis
of Bishop Hall's admission re
specting the transmission of minis
terial authority without Episcopal
ordination, 317f; the plan justi
fied by the Book of Common
Prayer, 319; its provision for the
solution of the great problem of
Church union, which Is how to
secure a regular inter-Church min
istry, 361 f; objections to the plan,
a vision, a dream, Idealism and
theoretic, 373; importance at
tached by It to Republicanism jus
tified, 458f; Republicanism of the
plan supported by Lightfoot, 469f ;
its Republicanism endorsed by The
Churchman, 469f.
Lightfoot, Bishop, Introduction in line
with his essay on the Christian
Ministry, 5 ; his essay on " The
Christian Ministry," 84; identi
fies Anglicanism with Protestant-
Ism, not Catholicism, 95 ; his Chris
tian Ministry, 104; on heathen
origin of Sacerdotalism, 128; sup
ports the Republican doctrine of
the equality of non-Episcopal with
Episcopal ministries, 208; he,
Hort, and McGlffert, agree that
the Sacerdotal doctrine of Apos
tolic Succession Is without histor
ical foundation, 280; quotation
from in justification of the Basis
upon which the Level Plan for
Church Union is rested, 330; de
clares Ignatius knew of no insti
tution of Bishops by Apostles,
425f; quoted against Bishop Gore's
representation that the Ministry
does not owe Its origin to the
people, 426f; the Apostolate not
originally the exclusive source of

ministerial authority, 430f; asserts
that the Episcopate was evoluted
out of the Presbyterate, 437f; he
and Gwatkln, regard the Christian
ministry as springing from the
Church, 442f; quotation from
touching the regularity and valid
ity of the ministrations of lay
men, 450f.
Lindsay, supports Republican doctrine
of the equality of non-Episcopal
with Episcopal ministries, 208 ; af
firms that the change from Pres
byterial to Episcopal government
was without Apostolic authority,
425f; asserts that the commissions
of the Lord were given to the
Church as a whole, not to the
Apostles alone, 429f; his asser
tion to the effect that the Apostles
were leaders not rulers, owing
their place and influence to def
erence not to the appointment and
authority of Christ, 448f.
Lord's Supper, Tertullian's testimony as
to Its administration by laymen,
14f; dramatized by Elders-Bish
ops, 130; Sacerdotal view of the
celebration of It by ministers who
have not received ordination by
Bishops of the Apostolic Succes
sion, 270f; how to get at the core
of the true doctrine of, 363.
Aj\ AN, personal relationship to God
'"^ restored by Jesus, 24f.
Marriage, analogy between It and the
Level Plan for Church Union,
200; Sacrament of marriage dis
proves Sacerdotal hypothesis re
specting the supernatural effects of
Sacraments, 355f.
Matthias, St., election by the 120 dis
ciples shows that the Church re
garded itself as having the Lord's
authority to meet emergencies by
new institutions, 22f.
McCrady, quotation from his Apostolic
Succession and Christian Unity.
393f,

INDEX.

513

McGiffert, supports Republican doc
trine of equality of non-Episcopal
with Episcopal ministries, 208; he,
Lightfoot and Hort agree that the
Sacerdotal doctrine of Apostolic
Succession is without historical
foundation, 280.
Mediator, Gospel makes no provision
for one, 230f.
Memorial against Canon xix, its ref
erence of, to members of Churches
without the Historic Episcopate
as *' so called Christians," 270.
Methodism, parallelism between it and
the primitive Church, 135.
Methodist, it, Presbyterian, Baptist and
Disciple Churches, possibility of
their uniting, 377.
Milman, his assertion that the Church
was founded at Rome before St.
PauVs visit. 1 1 .
Minister and People, on essentially the
same level, 146.
Ministers, New Testament ministers
were laymen, 132; responsible for
ecclesiastical divisions, 224f.
Ministry, two theories respecting its
origin and authority, xi; doctrine
of, held by the Congregational
Churches, xii ; Sacerdotal and
Republican doctrines of, xiii; in
the New Testament, Christian
associations are called Churches
before possessing an Apostolic
ministry, 16; Churches with dif
ferent ministries, existed in New
Testament and later times, 18; a
development due to experience,
18; no satisfactory evidence of
more than two ministerial orders
down to the year A. D., 70. 21 ;
Matthias elected by the people to
meet a special need, 23; Congre
gationalists, Presbyterians, Episco
palians and Papalists quote primi
tive documents in support of their
respective governments, thus prov
ing that there was no uniform
government in the early Church,
35; Ignatius the first to speak of

three ministerial orders, Bishops,
Priest and Deacons, 41 f ; a
Common Inter-Church Ministry,
the hope for unity, 88f; no essen
tial difference between Ministers
and People, 99; constituted of
only one order not three or more,
lOOf; its representatives, servants
not mediators, 103; newly created
Ministries as good as old inherited,
1 04 ; organic continuity not depend
ent upon, 107; first representatives
of the Christian ministry leaders,
not officers, 125; different grades
of, 125; the Holy Ghost, not the
Twelve the source of ministerial
authority in New Testament times,
129f ; the Ministries of both Jesus
and Wesley laymen, 140; sacra
mental grace dependent upon
prayer not on the administrator
of the sacrament, 145f; sister and
daughter Churches will not ac
knowledge superiority of Anglican
orders, 168; equality of non-Epis
copal with Episcopal, 208; claim
of to ministerial superiority the
great obstacle to Church union,
225;. all existing Ministries regular
and all sectarian, 225; validity of
the ministrations of non-Episcopal
Ministries proven by references
lo the official acts of Jefferson
Davis, Oliver Cromwell and
Napoleon Bonaparte, 227f; Gos
pel makes no provision for Apos
tolic Succession, 230f ; appeal
for a Republican Ministry, 231 f;
the Ministry of each Church regu
lar for it, 241 ; continuity of
Church not dependent upon Its
Ministry, 241 ; faith not the Min
istry the seed of the Church, 243 f;
the Christian ministry one of ser
vice, 265f; difference between Its
representatives and laymen, 273 ;
history of the Church of Corinth
shows that the Sacerdotal doctrine
of the Historic Episcopate is based
Upon a worthless tradition, 273f;

514

INDEX.

reply to Bishop Hall's charge on
the Apostolic Ministry, 281 ; Sac
erdotal doctrine of the Christian
ministry a theory, 294f; ancient
Ministries not essentially more di
vine than the modern, 3l4f; equal
ity of all Ministries, ancient, or
modern Episcopal or non-Episco
pal, 316f; Bishop Hall inconsist
ent in the admission that the Min
istry Is not a caste, and yet Insist
ing that ministerial character is
given at ordination, 317; Bishop
Hall's admission that the trans
mission of ministerial authority Is
not limited to the Episcopate, 317;
Bishop Hall's admission that the
difference between Episcopal and
non-Episcopal ordination Is a
matter of changeable ecclesiastical
discipline, not of unchanging
faith, 318; representatives of the
Christian ministry regarded origi
nally as officers in the state, 343 f;
necessary for the same reason that
farmers are necessary, 353; valid
ity and efficacy of sacraments de
pendent upon Priesthood of their
recipients not of their administra
tors, 358f ; the official ministrations
of the ministries of all Churches
are equally regular and valid,
362; but two orders in the Chris
tian ministry, 41 Of; first Chris
tian ministers were laymen without
ordination, 445f; commission to
teach and baptize given to laymen,
448f; quotation from Bishop
Lightfoot touching the regularity
and validity of lay ministrations,
450f ; the assertion of Bishop Gore
and Dr. Stone that the New Tes
tament elders constituted a plural
Episcopate with power to perpetu
ate the Apostolate by ordination,
refuted, 454f.
Missionaries, their prayers of, for unity,
75; a touching appeal of a Mis
sionary for Church union, 389f.
Missionary work, not proselyting, xvi.

Mission Field, possibility of. Its divi
sion under the Level Plan for
Church Union, 1 11 .
Missions, Christian, dependent upon
Protestantism, 236f.
Milligan, Prof., his notable prophecy
concerning the necessity of unity
to the evangelization of the world,
75.
Moberly and Gore, their works summa
rized and interpreted, 263f; grudg
ingly admit validity of lay Bap
tism, 270; acknowledge the univer
sality of the Priesthood, 271 f;
failure of to establish the doctrine
of Apostolic Succession, 399f.
Modernism, a Roman Protestant move
ment, 96; a new, comprehensive
and efficient Republican Prot
estantism, 258; In the Roman
Church, 367f.
Modernist Movement, the, 247.
Modernists, Roman, quotation from re
specting the symbolic character of
the Sacraments, 368f.
Moeller, supports Republican doctrine
of the equality of non-Episcopal
with Episcopal ministries, 208.
Monasticism, originally a form of Prot
estantism to which the credit of
the missionary activities of the
Middle Ages belongs, 237.
Morris, Rt. Rev. Dr., an Illustration
showing Episcopal jurisdiction to
be limited to souls, 246.
Moses and Aaron, not founders of the
New Testament Jewish priesthood,
129.
Moshelm, Prof., quotation from In jus
tification of the basis upon which
the Level Plan for Church Union
Is rested, 323f.
Moule, Bishop, declaration against the
doctrine, no Church without a
Bishop, 413f; remarks of, con
cerning the celebrated case of
Travers who, though only In Pres
byterian orders, exercised his Min
istry in England, 432f; assertion

INDEX.

515

of his belief in a modern or Re
publican Episcopate, 458f.
Moulton, Prof., on schism, 471 f.
IM ATIONAL Churches, necessary
' ^ comprehensiveness of, 79.
Newman, John Henry, on schism, 469f.
Non-Episcopal Churches, right of, to
create their own Episcopates, 172;
under Level Plan for Church
Union could create its own Epis
copate, 1 86.
Q BJECTIONS, to the Level Plan
^-^ for Church Union, (1) primary
reference lo modern rather than to
ancient Churches, 232f ; (2) makes
no distinction between " Catholic "
and Protestant bodies of Chris
tians, or between Episcopal and
non-Episcopal ministries, 235f ;
(3) that the carrying out of the
plan would Involve a break in the
continuity of the Church, 241 f;
(4) that the carrying out of the
plan would involve the overlapping
of Episcopal jurisdiction, l73f;
(5) that the carrying out of the
plan would Involve the reorganiza
tion of Christianity, 248f ; (6) out
of line with the conclusions of the
great Protestant thinkers, 255f.
Officialism, inferiority of to leadership,
127.
Ordaining Committee, an important
part of the Level Plan for Church
Union, 185.
Ordinal, Anglican, its declaration con
cerning object of Episcopacy, 7;
its assertion respecting three orders
in the Christian ministry rests upon
the testimony of Ignatius, 41 f;
framed on the theory of instituting
to an office, not of giving minis
terial character, 120; doctrine of
its preface regarding Episcopal
ordination, 240 ; provides for Epis
copal ordination, but does not teach
ApostoHc Successign, 393f; its

preface does not affirm doctrine
of Apostolic Succession, 41 Of.
Ordination, evidence of Its administra
tion by Presbyters, 31 ; Presbyte
rian validity of recognized by
English reformers, 60f; Apostles,
not recorded as having ordained
successors, 1 3 1 f ; origin of the cere
monial of the laying on of hands,
143; effect of ordination, a change
In relationship not an Infusion of
ministerial character, 146; causes
which led to the Sacerdotal con
ception of, 156; cannot convey
historicity, 186; originally the
elders of each congregation or
dained Its congregational Bishop,
215; Bishop Hall wrong in admit
ting that ministerial character Is
given at ordination, 317; Bishop
Hall's remarkable admission that
the difference between Episcopal
and non-Episcopal ordination is a
matter of changeable ecclesiastical
discipline, not of unchanging faith,
318; doctrine that ordination con
veys ministerial character because
of Its adminstration by Bishops,
not held until towards the close of
the fifth century, 339f ; what ordi
nation does and what it does not
do for the ordinand, 359f; the
necessity of regularity one of the
chief reasons for ordination illus
trated by Its importance to the
marriage relationship, 361 ; ordi
nation to a Common Inter-Church
Ministry, suggested forms for,
396f; the right to ordain not an
exclusive prerogative of Bishops,
412f; Dr. Fulton's claim that it
has been reserved as the exclusive
right of Bishops, refuted, 419f;
first Christian ministry probably
laymen volunteers or Ministers by
apostolic appointment without or
dination, 445f; the assertion of
Bishop Gore and Dr. Stone that
the New Testament elders consti
tuted a plural Episcopate with

516

INDEX.

power to perpetuate the Apostolate
by ordination, refuted, 454.
Origen and Tertullian, among the first
to call Christian ministers priests,
I57f.
Oxford and Cambridge, suggestion of
colonial missionary lo their au
thorities temporarily met in the
Level Plan for Church Union,
xxii f .
DARKHURST, Dr. Charles H.,
^ Presbyterian, criticism of Bishop
Greer's reordination proposal, 169.
Pastoral work, unsatisfactory character
of, under sectarian conditions, 179.
Pastors, a grade, not order in Minis
try, 125.
Paul, St., not the founder of the
Church of Rome, 1 1 ; teaches
unity by federation, 87; ordina
tion of, could not have been an
Infusion of ministerial character,
147f; ordinations by him could
not have infused ministerial char
acter, I50f; Bishop Hall's wrong
use of his comparison of the
Church with the human body, 317.
People, proofs that the Christian
church was organized by them on
the lines of familiar institutions,
29f.
People and Minister, on essentially
the same level, 146.
Perowne, Bishop, declaration against
the doctrine, no Church without a
Bishop, 413f; his remarks con
ceming the celebrated case of
Travers who, though only in Pres
byterian orders, exercised his min
istry in England, 432f.
Peter, St., attempt to trace the An
glican Episcopal Succession lo him,
xii; not the founder of the Church
of Rome, 1 1 ; had nothing to do
with the establishment of the Epis
copate, 298f.
Peters, The Rev. Dr. John P., quota
tion from, commendation of The
Level Plan for Church Union, 262.

Pharisees, put Jesus to death because
of His Republicanism, 231.
Philippi, why Bishops are found here
instead of Presbyters, 29f.
Philosophy, importeuice of, to Chris
tianity, 295.
Plummer, quoted against Bishop Gore's
representations that the Ministry
does not owe its origin to the peo
ple, 428f; asserts that the com
missions of the Lord were given
to the Church as a whole, not to
the Apostles alone, 428f.
Polycarp, his silence and that of Ig
natius respecting the Johanneem
origin of the monarchial Episco
pate, offsets the testimony of
Clement and Tertullian, 38f; tra
dition respecting his having been
made a monarchial Bishop by St.
John, 41 ; tradition upon which
the doctrine of Apostolic Succes
sion Is based, 405 f.
Potter, Bishop Henry Codman, states
manship and catholicity Illustrated
by his cathedral foundation, 162.
Prayer, sacramental grace dependent
upon it, not on the ministry, 145f.
Prayers and Sermons, sacreunents
dramatization of, 348f.
Prayer Book, its justification of the
Level Plan for Church Union,
319.
Preaching, world to be saved by, ix;
impediments to, of sectarianism,
177f; unsatisfactory character of,
under sectarian conditions, 178f.
Precedents, ecclesiastical, not to be
slavishly followed, 217.
Presbyter, Anglican, his answer to
Bishop Hall's " The Apostolic
Ministry," xxii.
Presbyter, and Bishop, origin and
identity of the office, 27; why not
found at Philippi, Crete and Asia
Minor, 29f; those who took pari
in ordinations, not Bishops, 31;
validity of ordination by, recog
nized by English reformers, 60f;
those of the New Testament not

INDEX.

517

officials, 189; originally regarded
as the successors of the Apos
tles, 339f ; Presbyters and Bishops,
constitute but one order, 399f;
Abbe Duchesne, admission of that
Presbyters ordained Bishops, 455f.
Presbyterate, how it came to be sup
planted by the Episcopate, 28f;
canons of the primitive Church
prove that it was not supplanted
by the Episcopate without a
struggle, 32f.
Presbyterial and Diaconal, officialism
of, a development after Episcopal
officialism, 1 45f .
Presbyterial and Episcopal succession,
identically the same, 465f.
Presbyterian, it, Methodist, Baptist and
Disciple Churches, possibility of
their uniting, 377.
Presbyterian and Episcopalian Sacer
dotalism, points of agreement, 97.
Presbyterian Churches, doctrine of
Apostolic Succession, xii; recog
nized as true Churches by the
Apostles, 1 8f .
Presidents of the United States and
Bishops of the " Historic " Epis
copate have essentially the same
kind of succession, 152; continuity
of the American people not de
pendent upon their Presidents and
Governors, 242.
Price, Dr., Methodist, criticism of
Bishop Greer's reordination pro
posal, 1 69.
Priesthood, Jewish, of the New Testa
ment times, owed its existence to
Nehemiah and Ezra, not to Moses
and Aaron, 129; Gospel makes
no provision for a mediatorial min
istry, 230f; one of service, other
wise worthless, 266; universality
of the Priesthood acknowledged
by Gore and Moberly, 271 f.
Priestism and Imperialism involve the
same non-Gospel principle, 208f.
Priests, not they but the Holy Ghost
representative of God to His peo
ple, 99f; Priest, not a Nev\r Tes

tament term for Christian minis
try, 101 ; every man his own
Priest, 103, 358f; inferiority of
Priests to prophets, 127; Chris
tian ministers first designated as
Priests by Tertullian and Origen,
157f; every head of a family a
Priest, 229; prayers of, may as
sist no more in making Sacra
ments efficacious than those of the
Sexton, 226.
Primitive Christians, impossibility of
their having held the Sacerdotal
theory of the ministry and Sacra
ments, 121.
Principles, Church, alternative views,
313.
Priscllla, a lay woman preacher, 140f.
Prophets, a grade, not order in minis
try, 125; superiority of to Priests,
127.
Proselyting, not missionary work, xvi.
Protestant, Anglican Churches, Prot
estant, 95; Churches, difference
between English and Continental,
1 1 1 f ; Episcopal Church, why the
logical leader in the Church Union
Movement, 1 92 ; Anglican Churches
are Protestant, not " Catholic,"
235.
Protestantism, disorganization of, 92f;
unification of, a prerequisite of the
republlcanlzation of Romanism,
234; Modernism a new form of,
258.
QUADRILATERAL, Chicago-
Lambeth, cause of its rejection
by the other Protestant Churches,
3 ; disappointment of Episcopalians
at its rejection, 3; Its overture;
does it go far enough? 71 ; quoted,
164f ; a basis not a plan for union,
165; author's interpretation of It
is the Level Plan for Church
Union, 173; resemblance of its
provisions to those of the Level
Plan for Church Union, 181;
must fail or fall in with Repub
licanism, 210; appeals to the

518

INDEX.

Protestant rather than the Roman
and Greek Churches, 232f; secret
of Its failure, 207.
Quakerism, constitutes a Church as
truly as Romanism, 134.

RAMSAY, Prof., Identifies An
glican with Protestantism, not
Catholicism, 95; supports Repub
lican doctrine of the equality of
non - Episcopal with Episcopal
ministries, 208; quotation from, in
justification of the Basis upon
which the Level Plan for Church
Union is rested, 326; his assertion
that the evolution of the Episco
pate was yet far from having
reached the monarchial stage when
I. St. Peter was written, 328.
Reciprocal reordination, author's
change of view respecting Its ne
cessity, I84f.
Reformation, Its promoters did not at
first contemplate the abandonment
of Episcopacy, 58f; that of Six
teenth Century, Impossible on sacer
dotal theory of the Church, 245.
Reformers, historical critics successors
to, 265.
Reformers, difference in their views
concerning the institution of the
Episcopate, 60f; according to the
testimony of the historian, Hallam,
and of Lord Bacon, the validity
of Presbyterial ordination was
recognized by them, 60f ; English,
object of, in continuing the Epis
copate, practical, not doctrinal,
118. '
Regularity, the necessity of, one of
the chief reasons for the Sacra
ment of ordination illustrated by
its importance to the marriage re
lationship, 361 ; ministerial, the
problem of Church union Is how
to secure a regular inter-Church
national ministry, 361 f.
Reordinatlon, the one-sided proposi
tion a hindrance to Christian
unity, 170; the reciprocal propo

sition an impracticability, 171;
idea of any reordinatlon aban
doned because of Its Sacerdotal-
Ism, 183; author's change of view
respecting its necessity, 183f.
Republican, Jesus, the great, 217.
Republican and Sacerdotal, theoretical
character of their doctrines con
cerning the Christian ministry,
296.
Republicanism, Republican and Sacer
dotal doctrines of Christian min
istry, xiii; Gospel of Republican
ism the basis of Christian unity,
82; use of the term justified, 84;
facts In favor of Republicanism,
104; the essence of the Gospel
and therefore must triumph over
Imperialism and Sacerdotalism,
143; the only basis for Church
union, 173; Its outlook, 191; its
Importance to Church union, 192;
guaranteed by the Level Plan for
Church Union, 196f; taught by
Jesus, 231 ; basis of all progressive
institutions, 231 ; Modernism a
new, more comprehensive and ef
ficient form of Republican Prot
estantism, 258; canons of Hip
polytus and a Republican Epis
copate, 452f; the Importance at
tached to it In the Level Plan for
Church Union, 458f.
Republican Ministry, appeal for, 23 1 f.
Republican Protestants and Sacerdotal
Catholics, arguments showing that
there Is no difference between them
that justifies existing divisions,
389f.
Roman Catholicism, decline of, 86.
Roman Church, founded before the
visit of St. Peter, 1 1 ; originally a
Greek institution, 15; without a
Latin head for several generations,
13; a continuation of Judaism,
Heathenism and of the Roman
Empire, 123f; its plan for union,
163f ; its denial of Apostolic Suc
cession to the Anglican Churches,
202 ; union of Anglican Church

INDEX.

519

with, undesirable, 233; resem
blance of to an Iceberg, 233f ; Re
publlcanlzation of, dependent upon
unification of Protestantism, 234;
union of Anglican with, impos
sible, 235 f.
Romanism, not essentially Sacerdotal,
105f; decline of, 106; necessity
of Its republlcanlzation, 191 ; re
publicanized will furnish the head
and body for united Christendom,
197f; neither It nor Denomina
tionalism can give the unity re
quired, 252.
Row, on probable influence of the syna
gogue upon the Church's organiza
tion, 27f.
C ABATIER, Dean, supports Repub-
^ lican doctrine of the equality of
non-Episcopal with Episcopal min
istries, 208; quotation from, re
specting relative value of history
and tradition, 306f.
Sacerdotalism, its theory of the origin
and authority of the Christian min
istry, xi f ; doctrine concerning the
Christian ministry, xiii; contrary
to the Gospel, 87; parties In all
Churches, 95; no part of the
Gospel, 95f ; Its doctrine of salva
tion, 97; facts against, 104; es
sentially heathen, 104; inevitable
decline of, 106; impossibility of
its having been held by Primitive
Christians, 121 ; its foundation
superstition, not Scripture nor his
tory, 124; Cyprian the founder
of, 131 ; moral conception of God
against It, 137; Its fatal mistake,
188; Its outlook, 191; Its concep
tion of the Apostles and their suc
cessors as mediatorial Priests will
not stand, 202f; unreality of Its
contention, 209; on Its theory of
the Church the Reformation would
have been impossible, 245f; the
cause of division, the obstacle to
Church Union, the explanation of
modern Indifference to organic

Christianity, 263; origin of, 263;
great champions of, Bishops Gore
and Moberly, 263f ; literary class
ics of, 264; its claim that uni
versally received traditions are of
same value as established historical
facts, 293; theoretical character
of the Sacerdotal and Republican
doctrines concerning the Christian
ministry, 296; Jewish Imported
from Babylon, 306f; that of An
glicanism a two-edged sword, 313;
assertion of Prof. Ramsay that the
evolution of the Episcopate was
yet far from having reached the
monarchial stage when I. St. Peter
was written, about A. D. 64, 328;
basis of Its doctrine the assump
tion of an unnatural supematural
ness connected with the Sacra
ments, 351 f; the untenableness of
Its sacramental doctrine illustrated,
352f; it and Imperialism, their
flourishing condition during the
Mediaeval age, no evidence that
they are native to Christianity,
365f; doctrines of, compared to
grafts from a sour upon a sweet
apple tree, 366; " Catholics ' and
Republican Protestants, no reason
why they should not come together
into one ecclesiastical organization,
382f.
Sacraments, validity of, when adminis
tered by laymen, 98f; Sacerdotal,
not instituted by Jesus, 1 33 ; super
natural effect of, not denied, 147;
efficacy of, due to the prayers of
the people, of the sexton as much
as the priest, 226 ; Sacerdotal view
of the ministration of them by
ministers who have not received
ordination by Bishops of the
Apostolic Succession, 270f; are
dramatized sermons, 345f ; grace of,
347f; effects of, supernatural, but
not unnaturally supernatural, 348f ;
untenable Sacerdotal hypothesis of
the benefits of. Involving the Idea
of the repetition through them of

520

INDEX.

the incarnation and of the Sacri
fice on the Cross, 350f; the un
tenableness of Sacerdotalism con
cerning their unnatural super
natural effects, 352f; the Sacer
dotal doctrine of the super
natural benefit of, disproven by
the Sacrament of Marriage, 355f;
benefit of, a change of relation
ship, 357; validity and efficacy
of, ultimately dependent upon the
priesthood of its recipient, not upon
the minister by whom it is cele
brated. 358f ; impossibility of
union on the basis of the Sacer
dotal doctrine respecting them,
365.
Sadduccees, put Jesus to death because
of His Republicanism, 231.
Sanday, Canon, quotation from, re
specting the equivalence of the
terms Presbyter and Bishop, 405f ;
declaration against the doctrine, no
Church without a Bishop, 41 3f;
the Apostolate not originally the
exclusive source of ministerial au
thority, 432f; remarks of, con
cerning the celebrated case of
Travers who, though only in
Presbyterian orders, exercised his
ministry In England, 432f; his as
sertion to the effect that the Apos
tles were leaders, not miers, owing
their place and Influence to defer
ence, not to the appointment and
authority of Christ, 448f.
Saravla, remarks of, conceming the
celebrated case of Travers who,
though only in Presbyterian or
ders, exercised his ministry in Eng
land, 432f.
Schism, is to Church what revolution
is to State and may be quite justi
fiable, 244f; what it is, 471 f.
Scribes put Jesus to death because of
His Republicanism, 231.
Second Coming, doctrine as held by
early Christians Inconsistent with
Sacerdotalism, 121f.
Sectarianism, overlapplngs of, xv; in

consistency of, 76f; Sacerdotal
ism the cause of, 263; danger of,
373 ; decadence of, with the Laity,
379; decadence of, with the
Clergy, 381 ; showing its unjustifi-
ableness, 382f.
Sects, the Roman Church one of them,
239f.
Sermons and Prayers, Sacraments are
dramatizations of, 348f.
Servant, Ministers servants not medi
ators, 103.
Sexton, prayer of, may assist in mak
ing Sacraments efficacious, as much
so as those of the Priest, 226.
Seymour, Bishop, his contention that
the Historic Episcopate and Apos
tolic Succession are synonymous
phrases, 396f.
Short, Bishop, remarks of, conceming
the celebrated case of Travers
who, though only in Presbyterian
orders, exercised his ministry in
England, 432f.
Smith, W. R., his assertion to the ef
fect that the Apostles were leaders
not rulers, owing their place and
Influence to deference, not to the
appointment and authority of
Christ, 448f.
Smythe, Dr. Newman, the Level Plan
for Church Union not out of line
with his, " Passing Protestantism
and Coming Catholicism, 255; his
Idea respecting reordinatlon, 399f.
Social realm, departments of, 108.
State and Church, the family the basis
of, 355.
Stales, the Churches behind them, be
cause of their holding to Sacer
dotalism while they have aban
doned Imperialism, 257.
Statistics, showing that the leadership
in Church union movement natu
rally belongs to the English speak
ing peoples, 194.
Stone, Dr., and Bishop Gore put mem
bers of the Churches not having
the Historic Episcopate, without
the covenant, 452f.

m i)£,x.

521

St. Peter's Church, Rome, and the
pastor of the Winfield Memorial
M. E. Church, Little Rock, 225.
Sunday School, teachers, lay preachers,
141 ; inferiority of, under sectarian
conditions, 179; experts, necessity
of, 179.
Supernatural, in sacramental ordinances,
not the unnatural supematuralness
of Sacerdotal doctrine, 314; no
reason why an unnatural super-
naturalness should be attributed to
the Sacraments, 361.
Swallowing, impossibility of Church
union by this process, 86f; ab
surdity of hoping for unity as a
result of, 90.
Synagogue, model of Christian church,
a Democratic lay Institution, 28.
Syria, Congregational Churches of
New Testament times, same as
Denominational Churches of the
United States, 21 If.

TTAFT, President, he and Bishop
¦* Tuttle occupy essentially the
same basis as to their ministries,
99f; his succession to George
Washington disproves the Sacer
dotal hypothesis of Apostolic Suc
cession, 152f; he and Bryan, their
relationship to the people of the
United Stales Illustrative of the
difference between ministers and
laymen, 273.
Teachers, a grade, not order in min
istry, 125.
Tertullian, Bingham's interpretation of,
respecting the appointment by the
Apostles of Bishops, open to ques
tion, 11; his doctrine concerning
the founding of the Church and
the administration of the Sacra
ments by laymen, 14f; silence of
Ignatius and Polycarp offsets tes
timony of Clement and Tertullian
respecting the Johannean origin of
the monarchial Episcopate, 35f;

testimony as to the validity of the
administration of Baptism and of
the Holy Communion by Laymen,
287; objection of Bishop Hall to
his testimony as to the validity of
Baptism and the Holy Communion
when administered by laymen will
not stand, 288; on lay ministra
tions of Baptism and the Holy
Communion, 45 1 f .
Tertullian and Origen, among the first
to call Christian ministers. Priests,
157f.
Theologians, resemblance to naturalists
of one hundred years ago, 292 ;
claims of Sacerdotalists that uni
versally received traditions are of
same value as established histor
ical facts, 293.
Theological education, advantages to,
of Church union, 1 79f .
Timothy and Titus, their alleged
Episcopates, 16f; ordination of,
could not have been an infusion
of ministerial character, 147f; or
dination of, by Elders and St.
Paul, 420f.
Titus and Timothy, their Episcopates,
16f ; ordination of, could not have
been an infusion of ministerial
character, 147f.
Tradition, respecting the institution of
the Episcopate by St. John not
supported by historical evidence,
8; that upon which the doctrine
of Apostolic Succession is based,
405f.
Tradition and history, relative value
of, 296; quotation from Dean Sa
batier respecting relative value of,
306f.
Travers and Whittingham, examples
cited by Anglican Sacerdotalists
in favor of their position, 431 f.
Tunnel, poorly lighted, not applicable
to the Church of Corinth, 274.
Tuttle, Bishop, he and President Taft
occupy essentially the same basis

522

INDEX.

as to their religious and civil min
istries, 99f.
Twentieth Century, a Republican era.
193.
Tyrell, Father, on the overlapping of
Episcopal jurisdiction, 247.

IJNITED Church for the United
*— ' States, embryonic incorporation
of, to hold property for common
use of the Churches, 177.
United States, Denominational Churches
of, same as the Congregational,
Syrian and Asia Minor Churches
of the New Testament times, 2 1 1 f .
Unity, Dean Robinson asserts mo
narchial Episcopate to be the sym
bol of unity, 393f; chief barrier
to, 393f.
Unity Church, Prof. Milllgan's notable
prophecy, 75 ; change of attitude
towards, 76; a mark of faithful
ness to Christ, 78; basis of, 79;
Republican Protestantism the only
possible basis, 109f; primitive
promoters of, 144; author's vision
of. Illustrated by a Cathedral,
161; advantages and benefits of,
381 f; argument, showing the un-
justifiableness of division, 382f.
Unity Christian, conciliatory course
necessary to Its promotion, 5f.
Utility, rather than age the test of
superiority, 187f.

WASHINGTON, George, Presi-
' ' dent Taft's succession to, dis
proves the Sacerdotal hypothesis
of Apostolic Succession, 152f.
Wernle, Prof., supports Republican
doctrine of the equality of non-
Episcopal with Episcopal minis
tries, 208; quotation from, respect
ing the value of philosophy to
Christianity, 295; quotation from,
in justification of the Basis upon

which the Level Plan for Church
Union is rested, 332.
Westcott, Bishop, quoted against
Bishop Gore's representation that
the Ministry does not owe its
origin to the people, 428f; asserts
that the commissions of the Lord
were given to the Church as a
whole not to the Apostles alone,
428f.
Whately, Archb., admits that a Min
istry might be created by laymen,
440f.
Whitgift, Archb., declaration against
the doctrine, no Church without a
Bishop, 414f.
Whittingham and Travers, examples
cited by Anglican Sacerdotalists
In favor of their position, 431 f.
Will, human, freedom of, 136.
Wllmer, Dr. C. B., reference of, to
Bishop Hall's admission that the
benefits of Sacramental ordi
nances are of the same character
as the benefits of prayer, 351.
Wilson, Canon, in accord with the Re
publicanism of the Level Plan for
Church Union, 473f; belief that
Articles xix and xxlli were ex
pressly drawn up with the idea of
including non-Episcopal Churches,
475f; a call for the reinvestiga
tion of the evidence upon which
the doctrine of Apostolic Succes
sion rests, 476f.
Winfield Memorial M. E. Church,
Little Rock, imaginary celebration
of the mass in, by the Pope, 225.
Wordsworth, Bishop, his claim that
ordination has been reserved as
the exclusive right of Bishops, re
futed, 41 8f.

'OUNG Men's Christian Associa
tion, an evidence of the deca
dence of Sectarianism, 380f.

AUTHORITIES

The following list of publications Is
given for the convenience of those who
may desire, under the leadership of
other guidance, to Investigate the doc
trinal and historical basis upon which
The Level Plan for Church Union Is
founded. As a complete list of this kind would
be very long and, to the average reader,
confusing, only the books which consti
tute the classics of the libraries for and
against the position taken In the Level
Plan for Church Union are given, and
these are placed, in both cases, in the
order of their importance. Any who
may wish to go into the subject more
fully will be helped In fixing upon
other works by the references to them
that will be found in these books and
In this one, especially In Its Lecture I
and Appendix.
The books of the list are divided into
three classes with reference to their
alignment with the Level Plan for
Church Union; (1) those that are,
speaking broadly, exactly In line with
It; (2) those that are altogether out of
line with it, and (3) those that occupy
an intermediary position with an in
clination towards one or the other of
the extremes.
In these classes the essays of Drs.
Lightfoot, Hall and Sanday, entitled,
respectively, " The Christian Ministry,"
" "rhe Apostolic Ministry," and " The
Conception of Priesthood in the Early
Church and In the Church of Eng
land," are given the first places, not
only on account of thelt excellency, but
also because, while they cover with a
comprehensive and masterly sweep the

most Important part of the ground
' from the opposite sides and via media
I points of view, they are inexpensive
! and easy accessible. Mr. Thomas
Whittaker, 2 and 3 Bible House, New
York City, is the publisher of Bishop
Lightfoot's essay, and those of Bishop
Hall and Professor Sanday maybe had
through him. No one who has not read
these three essays, or their equivalents,
should consider himself competent to
pass an Intelligent opinion respecting
the tenabillty of the position taken In
The Level Plan for Church Union.
I. Bool(S with which The Level
Plan for Church Union is in exact
alignment : " The Christian Ministry,"
by the Rt. Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D. D.,
Bishop of Durham; "The Organiza
tion of the Christian Churches," by the
Rev. Edwin Hatch, M. A., Vice Prin
cipal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford;
" Christian Institutions," by the Rev. A.
V. G. Allen, D. D., Professor of Ec
clesiastical History, Episcopal Theolog
ical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
" Religions of Authority," by the Rev.
Auguste Sabatier, Dean of the Prot
estant Faculty of Theology In the Uni
versity of Paris ; " The History of
Christianity in the Apostolic Age," by
the Rev. Arthur C. McGiffert, D. D.,
Professor of Church History, Union
Theological Seminary, New York
City; "The Christian Ecclesia," by
the Rev. Fenton John Anthony Hort,
D. D., Professor of Divinity, Cam
bridge University ; " What is Chris
tianity? " by Dr. Adolph Harnack,
Rector of the University of Berlin;
" The Beginnings of Christianity," in

534

two volumes, by Dr. Wernle, Professor
of Modern Church History In the Uni
versity of Basel; "The Church in the
Roman Empire Before A. D. 1 70,"
by the Rev. W. M. Ramsay, M. A.,
Professor of Humanity in the Univer
sity of Aberdeen ; " The Program of
Modernism and the Encyclical of
Pius X," Anonymous; " History of the
Christian Church from A. D. 1 to
600," by the Rev. Wllhelm Moeller,
D. D., Professor of Church History
in the University of Kiel; "The
Church, Past and Present," edited by
the Rev. H. M. Gwatkln, D. D., Pro
fessor of Ecclesiastical History, Cam
bridge University ; " Christian Institu
tions," by the Rev. Arthur Penrhyn
Stanley, D. D., Dean of Winchester ;
" Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible,"
and " The Schaff-Hertzog Encyclo
pedia,'' Articles in both on the Chris
tian church, ministry and sacraments;
" The Decay of the Church of Rome,"
by Joseph McCabe, formerly a Roman
Priest. II. Boolis with which The Level
Plan for Church Union is out of
alignment: "The Apostolic Ministry,"
by the Rt. Rev. A. C. A. Hall, D. D.,
Bishop of Vermont; '' The Church
and the Ministry," and " Orders and
Unity," by the Rt. Rev. Charles Gore,

D. D., Bishop of Birmingham; " Min
isterial Priesthood," by the Rev. R. C.
Moberly, D. D., Professor of Ecclesi
astical History In the University of
Oxford ; " The Church of the Apos
tles," by the Rev. Lonsdale Ragg,
B. D. ; " Bingham's Christian Antiqui
ties," and " Blunt's Dictionary of Doc
trinal and Historical Theology," articles
in both cases on the Christian church,
ministry and sacraments.
III. Boo^s with mhich The Level
Plan for Church Union is neither alto
gether in nor out of alignment, but
which should not be passed over b^
anyone who desires to maJ^e a thorough
study of the problem created fcj) the
divisions of Christians: "The Con
ception of Priesthood in the Early
church and in the Church of Eng
land," by the Rev. Professor W.
Sanday, D. D., LL.D.; "The Minis
try of Grace," by the Rt. Rev. John
Wordsworth, D. D., Bishop of Salis
bury; "Passing Protestantism and
Coining Catholicism," by the Rev.
Newman Smythe, D. D. ; " Church
Unity, Studies In Its Most Important
Problems," by the Rsv. Charles A.
Briggs, D. D., Professor of Theo
logical Encyclopedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New
York City.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 9624

Miii,

B>>i i:, ! '

llilll.

ii<l

il.lli

9 I Ml.iii

I

!

:l!' ¦:'I

iH 'ill