Newspaper Page Text
16 Tl
Contributed
IS THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN
AMERICA BEING ROMANIZED?
Certain considerations have called this
question to the attention of many
thoughtful Protestant people in our land
during these last days. A minister of
no mean standing and who has given
this subject careful study has said to
me on several occasions: "It is my
deliberate opinion that the most serious
assault that Rome will make upon the
Protestantism of America will come
through the Romanizing of the Episcopal
church." This opinion has been repeated
frequently to those whose opinion
on this subject would carry weight with
all who know them, and they have all,
with larger or less emphasis, concurred
in the above judgment.
I have recently heard of "a mission"
held in a Protestant Episcopal chuwh
by certain "Fathers" of the Order of the
Holy Cross, which seems to give good
ground for .the question at the head of
this article. The members of this order
"wear a distinctive habit at home and
abroad" similar to that worn by the
Roman priest, and they take the threefold
vow of "poverty, chastity and
obedience" the same as the Jesuits of
the Roman church and they teach for
doctrine some things that are not only
unscriptural, hut distinctly and peculiarly.
Roman.
Dr. Charles, in his tract, gives as one
of "thirty-two Bible reasons why I am
not a Roman Catholic" this: "In Matthew
23: 9 the Saviour said,123412345
father upon the earth for one is your
Father in heaven" * Yet", from the
Pope to the lowest of their clergy, they
teach all of their people to call them
"father." \Jrhy an Episcopal .minister
should follow this practice of Rome in
taking to himself this Roman title is
not apparent, unless it indicates his
Roman predilections. J never knew an
Episcopal minister to insist on being
called "father" who was not at heart
more of a Romanist than a Protestant.
"almost altogether more," except for
t^Hcelibacy of the priesthood. In the
l^P>f my ministerial friends I find the
^^ts of a number of Episcopal clergynnd
the only one who had an itchHar
for this Roman title gave as
i^JRiief reason for not going into the
Roman Communion, "This wife and these
children."
Whatever may be the purpose of these
"fathers of the Holy Cross," it is certain
that with this Roman title and
"the distinctive habit" of the Roman
priest and the threefold vow which is
also taken by Koman Jesuits ana tne
Roman doctrines which they teach so
plausibly they are, to the extent of their
influence and opportunities, Romanizing
the Episcopal Churoh in America. The
reasons they assign in defense of their
threefold vow of poverty, chastity (or
celibacy) and obedience (not to God.
but to the man who is their official superior)
are the same as those assigned
by the Roman church.
They taught as a duty that people
should confess their sins to the priest
IE PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SOU1
and yet the confessional is the most notorious
source of immorality in every
priest-ridden country.
They taught that the priest has power
to forgive sinst and yet this false claim
furnishes the priest with that power
over the consciences of men which has
made ecclesiastical tyranny the shame
of church history.
They called absolution a sacrament
a la Rome and other like things they
did and taught, which tended to Romanize
the Episcopal church in which
this ' mission" was held, ana sr> far
as their teachings were not rejected.
It is generally known that for a number
of years past vigorous efforts have
been made, and with most regrettable
results in some sections, to Romanize
the Episcopal church of England. The
relations between the Protestant and the
Romanized ]>artles In that churoli arc at
this time so strained that some of the
prominent clergy are of the opinion that
disestablishment would be followed by
an open rupture when the Romanized
party would go into the Roman Communion.
With the facts of that effort
in England before me and especially as
they are given in that book of startling
revelations called, "The Secret History
of the Oxford Movement," and with the
"Fathers of the Holy Cross" holding their
missions in the Protestant Enisconal
churches of this country I think it worth
while to call attention to the question.
Is the'Episcopal Church of America Being
Romanized?
A SOCIAL PROGRAM FOR THE
CHURCH.
A prominent theological professor in
our church has written recently on the
question, "Has the Church the right to
have a social program of any kind?"
We would naturally expect a reply to
this query based on the authority of
the Scriptures. Strangely enough, the
writer goes back forty-two years, to a
"covenant," entered into in 1867 between
the Synod of Kentucky and the
"SAiithfirn" ProoKvtnri o *-? V? * *
mwmvmwi 14 x i wuj bvi tan V/llU1 UU. r 1UIII
this union he argues that we, as a
Church, are pledged under the sanctions
of a solemn covenant, to the position
thai "the Church can have no social
program"; and that "the doctrine
that it may have such a program is unscriptural
and pernicious."
It might be asked whether, inasmuch
as the Synod of Kentucky is now an
integral part of our Church, it has not
shown itself to partake more or less of
the tendency to a "social program," by
having been drawn more closely than
any other part of our body into closer
relations with the Northern branch of our
Presbyterian denomination. Surely, the
majority of the Synod of Kentucky can
not see in a Council, even with a "social
program," any such danger as
would prevent It from uniting in the
actual work of education with the North
ern Church.
Again, the question might be raised by
some of us, whether the very existence
of such bodies as "Northern" and "Southern"
churches of the same faith and order,
is Justified at all, upon the basis
of that closer unity of the Church which
we conscientiously believe to be the
mind of its King and Head. If thp
[ H. March 24, 1909.
Synod of Kentucky and the Southern
Church were drawn together in 1867, may
it not be that the same tendency acting
today, may draw together larger
bodies, for the purpose of greater Christian
aggressiveness?
But leaving these considerations aside,
let us venture to look into the Scriptures
themselves, to ascertain whether
the Cliurcli has "any right to a social program."
We can not, however, accept th9
definition given of a social program as
"a formally modified set of social or
economic changes for the effecting of
which the Church is pledged to devise
ouiiciuii: ways ana means, and to the
effecting of which she is pledged to devote
her energies, as opportunity may
afford."
A program is simply "an outline or
sketch of the order of proceedings or
subjects of any public performance:
hence, a line of conduct or action proposed
to be followed." It is something
proposed?not pledged, until finally
adopted. Whether the Church, as a
whole, may not throw her weight and
her influence into the social scale to promote
righteousness, purity, peace and
sobriety would seem to be, at least, an
open question. Although the negative is
proved not by an aA)eal to the Scriptures,
but to Professor Peabody and Dr.
Harnack, there may remain some reasons
to warrant a great Council of
Churches in asking the question: Is
there any way by which we can instill
into the mass of the social organism, the
vital principles of Christianity?
It is true that our Lord "was not a reformer
but a revealer," and that "his
mission was religious." It is also true
that our Lord said little or nothing about
nu..?v. * ?
itic vuuau, us lorm, us organization,
its ceremonies, its creeds, above all, its
"denominations." How much of the
structure of the modern Church?in its
widest extent?actually embodies the
"mind of Christ," it would be difficult to
prove. All that can be said is, that the
same Holy Spirit who descended at
Pentecost upon the disciples and began
the revival of true religion, is still working
in and through the Church, however
rent and divided, and bringing souls into
fellowship with the Father and with
his Son, Jesus Christ.
ivet us iook at tne facts of our Lord's
teaching. The central truth of his doctrine
was the Kingdom of God. This was
the announcement of the Baptist, it was
the earliest message of Christ, it forms
the center of the Sermon on the Mount.
It is the center of the Lord's prayer,
"Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done
on earth, as it Is in heaven." We may
venture to define the Kingdom of God
as the perfect reign of God upon earth,
in a social system, based not on material
necessity, but on brotherly love,
through Jesus Christ. Paul leaches the
great truth in I Cor. 12, that the body
of Christ is one organism, knit together
by a single vital force, and modified in
various ways for the upbuilding of the
whole. Our Lord teaches that the Kingdom
of Qod is like unto leaven, which
Is to leaven the entire mass. His disciples
are the salt of the earth, to preserve
it not by isolation, but by communicating
their conserving power to the
mass. The function of the Church is the