Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/180

 UNION

150

UNION

selves: (1) The Holy Scriptures as the rule of faith; (2) the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds, as the state- ment of the Faith; (3) the two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself; (4) the historic episcopate locally adapted in the methods of its administration to vary- ing needs. This offer, which has come to be known as "the Lambeth Quadrilateral", has been renewed by the subsequent Pan-Anglican conferences and has been frequently discussed, but so far has not attracted any of those for whom it was intended. The same Com- mittee of 1888 looked wistfully towards the separated communions of the East, but did not venture to do more than repudiate the idea of wishing to proselj'tize among them, and recommend that a statement of the Anglican position should be drawn up for their bene- fit. Subsequent Conferences have gone a little far- ther in this du-ection, and the Conference of 1908 went so far a.s to recommend in one of its resolutions that there should be an interchange of ministrations offered and accepted between members of the Orthodox and of the Anghcan communion, in places where none of their own clergy were within reach — a recommenda- tion which, as alreadj' mentioned, was for the moment reciprocated not indeed by the official representatives of the Orthodox Churches, but by two of their prelates in America. In the earher Pan-Anghcan Conferences the attitude taken up towards the Churches in union with the Holy See was hostile rather than friendly, warm sympathy being extended to those who had re- cently abandoned its communion. In the Confer- ence of 1897 there was a shght improvement in this respect, and in the most recent of these Conferences, held in 1908, whilst recognizing, as they could not but do, that it would be useless to propose any terms of intercommunion to the Holy See, as they could offer none which it would accept, the Committee of Re- union and Intercommunion recorded their "convic- tion that no projects of union can ever be regarded as satisfactory which deliberately leave out the Churches of the great Latin Communion" and then went on to urge the importance of cultivating friendly relations with the ecclesiastical authorities of that communion abroad, an excellent recommendation which will be cordially reciprocated by the authorities in question, whether abroad or at home.

Of individual workers in the cause of reunion four names should certainly be mentioned. Father Igna- tius (George) Spencer (1799-1864) was reconciled to the Catholic Church in 1829; in due course he was ordained priest, and in 1849 joined the Passionists. During the last twenty-six years of his hfe, both in England and on the Continent, he laboured with the utmost zeal to arouse men's minds to a sense of the importance of reunion and to engage them in system- atic prayer for that object. Mr. Ambrose Philhps de Lisle (1809-77) was another convert from Anglican- ism and an intimate friend of Father Ignatius Spen- cer. He took up the same crusade and formed the most sanguine expectations of a consoling result. In 1877, in co-operation with the Anglican, Dr. Frederick George Lee, he founded the .Association for Promoting the Union of Christendom, to which reference has already been made. Mr. de Lisle failed to see the theological impropriety of Catholics joining an asso- ciation of this kind under Protestant management, but the sincerity of his faith and the single-mindedness of his zeal were beyond all question. Newman's appre- ciation of these qualities in him caused him to say to de Lisle in 18.57: "If England is converted, it will be as much due, under God, to you as to any one." It might seerii strange to count Dr. Pusey among prom- inent reunionists in view of his "Eirenicon", of which the first part was published in 1864. But this book, as its name intimates, was written to promote reunion by rai.sing a friendly discu.ssion on certain point.i of Catholic practice which to Anglicans of the wTiter's party caused difficulty. Inadvertently he used lan-

guage in describing these Catholic practices which gave offence, and brought down upon him from the Cathohc side a torrent of reproaches that was rather excessive. This, however, should not bhnd us to the underlying fact that Dr. Pusey came forward with the best intentions, as a pacificator, not an assailant, and was prepared to use his powerful influence on behalf of a reconciliation. Viscount Hahfax has identified himself with a method of reunion which can never be practical, because it overlooks the essential character of the Cathohc system. It was this that frustrated his well-meant overtures to Leo XIII in 1894-6, and stamps with hopelessness the movement connected with his name. None the less he stands out as the man who has done more than any other to set the attractive ideal of Cathohc unity before the eyes of the present generation. "Pubhc opinion ", he said, in his famous Bristol speech of 1895, "will never be in- fluenced if we hold our tongues. It is influenced by those who, without any concealment, have the cour- age of their opinions. It is the interest of the whole church of Christ, it is the interest of poUtical order, it is the interest of the human race that these estrange- ments in the Christian family should cease. The cause is good, we have no need to be ashamed of it. Let us frankly avow it to be our own." These words may be regarded as the text of his untiring public action. And so far as they go, nothing could be more encouraging.

VI. Conditions op Reunion. — The longing for the restoration of unity to Christendom, which is active in these and other ways, must be regarded by Cath- olics as one of the most precious features of the pres- ent age, and should enhst all their sympathy. Even if these reunionists be working on lines that are in themselves hopeless, at least their desire is for a high object, and desires fondly cherished and energetically pursued tend to the acquirement of solid experience, and so eventually to the discovery of the true course for the attainment of their object. Nevertheless their schemes cannot have been worked out with much insight, for the principles on which they are based are such as could not possibly sustain a fabric of Chris- tian unity — are in fact, the self-same principles which we have seen to be the cause of disunion in the past. What they contemplate is corporate reunion, that is to say, the reunion of whole Churches as such, each of which is to come into the union with its organization intact, its clergy remaining in their respective ranks, and the general body of its laity in theirs. It is from this standpoint that we need to consider the possi- bility of their projects. We ask, then, what kind of corporate reunion do they hope for and consider likely to prove satisfactory? The idea of reunion on a purely undenominational basis has been generally re- jected by Anglican reunionists, and rightly. For, if it means anything, it must mean that the reuniting communions are to coalesce into a huge undogmatie Church in which the utmost license of religious opin- ion will be allowed, as long as it does not claim to be more than opinion; and in which, on that understand- ing, the sacraments will be accessible to all who seek them. Still, it is not out of place to reflect on this system, inasmuch as it is the system which, though not in any way sanctioned by its formularies, practi- cally prevails in the modern Anglican Church, those of its members who hold the most subversive doctrines being not only allowed to approach its sacraments un- checked when they desire to do so, but often pro- moted to its posts of trust and authority. An indi- vidualism equally subversive has invaded the ranks of some of the Nonconformist bodies. Obviously, this scandal will need to be suppressed by a drastic disci- pline before the Churches affected by it can be in a position to propose a scheme of unity to other Churches. It is of little use for a group of Churches to pledge themselves to definite doctrines as long as