Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 15.djvu/181

 UNION

151

UNION

their individual members are free to hold or reject thesR doctrines, or even condemn them, without for- feiting their right to its membership.

"Comprehension not compromise" is a phrase often employed to express what is considered fitting and possible. The rcimiting Churclu's are not to be asked to renounce any of the beliefs and practices to which from long usage they have become attached. They are to come in just as they are — all, that is, who are agreed as to a substratum of fundamental doctrines and institutions — and on this basis they are to be in recognized sacramental communion with one another everywhere. This .system seems to its advocates not only to remove the chief difficulties in the way of reunion, but to have positive advantages. Instead of a dull and deadening uniformity extending through- out, it will give unity in variety, a "synthesis of dis- tinctions", in which each reuniting Church will con- tribute to the general harnony some special gift which, under the Providence of God, it has cultivated with peculiar care and success. Under a slightly changed form we have here the self-same scheme, based on the distinction between essentials and non- essentials, which in the past has been put forward so often, and always so unsuccessfully. Is it likely to succeed any better now? First, what are to be deemed essentials? Is this a point on which agree- ment is likely to be reached? We have seen what four conditions the Pananglican Conferences have laid down as in their estimation essential, and we may be inclined to wonder at the liberality of the conces- sions involved in it. This "Quadrilateral" had in view, so it was understood, the Nonconformist Churches in England and perhaps the Presbyterians in Scotland and elsewhere. But general and indefi- nite as it is, it does not seem to have found favour with any of these; it does not go far enough for them.

But it will be found to go much too far for the East- erns, leaving it open, as it does, to anyone to believe that the sacraments are efficacious channels of grace or only nude symbols of the same, to believe that in the Holy Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present or really absent, to believe that besides the two sacraments explicitly included there are or are not five others equally instituted by Christ and equally partaking of the true nature of sacraments, to beUeve that the historic episcopate does or does not involve the transmission of a mystic power over the sacraments such as is wont to be called the grace of Holy orders. Secondly, what guarantee is there that the assignment of essentials agreed to at the moment of union will continue to satisfy the contracting parties? What makes this question so pertinent is that in the "Quadrilateral", for instance, the stipula- tion is only that the reuniting Churches shall in fact be agreed on these four points; there is no stipulation for any formal principle of unity. It will be said, perhaps, that the first-named condition, that Holy Scripture is to be accepted as containing all things neces.sary to salvation and hence is the sufficient rule of faith, is this formal principle. But does this mean, as it appears to mean, that the individual is to be the judge of what Holy Scripture contains? If so, surely it is a bold thing, .after these four centuries of dis- astrous experience, to put forward this rule as calcu- lated to ensure an all-pervading and durable doctrinal agreement. Or does it mean that the governing au- thorities of the reuniting Churches are to decide what is contained in Scripture, and are to be qualified to en- force their decisions? If so, another crop of difficul- ties springs up. Why is this further condition, su- premely important .as it is, not included in the first article of the "Quadrilateral"? And what is to be the nature of these governing authorities, and of their relation to one another? Are they to be each an<l all autonomous, and, if so, what guarantee is there that they will all agree — for instance, that the Easterns will

not insist that the Bible shall be interpreted accord- ing to the decrees of the seven oecumenical councils, and the Anghcans that at least the decrees of the Seventh, which sanctions the veneration of images, shall be deemed inadmissible? Or are these govern- ing authorities of the reuniting Churches to be sub- jected to one supreme authoritj', and, if so, what is to be its nature (the papacy being, of cour.se, out of the question)? Also, is the submission of the individual to the decisions of the heads of his own Church, or the submission of the reuniting Churches to the supreme authority they have recognized as over them, to be treated as imposed under pain of sin by some Divine sanction, and, if so, what is that sanction, and why is it not explicitly stated in the "Quadrilateral"? Thirdly, if we grant the impossible, and assume that the system will be found to work on the lines indi- cated, could the result be claimed as a becoming realization of Christian unity? Although the essen- tials are to be firmly fixed and accepted by all, each reuniting Church is to be free to retain the further beliefs and methods it has built on this foundation; in fact, it is just through this superstructure of its own that it is to make its own contribution to that "synthesis of distinctions", from which unity in variety is expected to result. But is it this that will result? If the Easterns, for instance, are to insist as they now do on the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the necessity of confession, on the invocation of saints and veneration of their icons; and the Anglicans, or at all events the Nonconformists whom we must suppose to have joined in likewise, are to teach that confession is soul-destroying; the Mass and invocation of saints idolatrous — will that be a synthesis of distinctions, and not rather a synthesis of contradictions? In short, if this system of "comprehension not compro- mise" were to obtain the general acceptance desired for it, in what respect would it differ from the present sj'stem of divisions, which is felt to be so scandalous, except that it would add the further element of scan- dal that tho.se who preached these conflicting doc- trines would come up together to the altar-rails, as if to show what light value they attached to the points about which they none the less contend so stub- bornly?

Evidently, "comprehension not compromise" can- not be a guiding principle for those who wish to re- store to Christendom such unity as our Lord prayed for, and the world will be constrained to recognize as an evidence of Divine handiwork. Neither can com- promise help us, for truth does not admit of com- promise, and what it is desired to restore throughout the world is unity in truth. What we do require is neither comprehension nor compromise, but convic- tion; for unity in truth must mean that all whom the system embraces profess one and the same creed in all its parts, that they are honestly convinced that in professing it they are adhering to the simple truth, and that in reahty they are professing only the truth. How can a unity of that kind, a unity of conviction which is also a unity in truth, be brought about in such wise as to include the many separated Churches of Christendom and their members? That is the problem on which serious reunionists should concen- trate their attention. They may begin by observing that in societies of all kinds — in kingdoms, armies, trade-unions, clubs, and even Churches — the prin- ciple of unity which holds them together is the au- thority of their chief rulers. If they submit to these — be they kings or presidents, bishops or moderators, parliaments, or committees, or conferences — they be- come one with them in their action, and (if the rulera have a recognized right to impose opinions) in their opinions also; and by way of con.sequence become one among themselves. On the other hand, in propor- tion as the members refu.se suhmi.ssion to this ruhng authority they become disunited and, if the insub-