THE GREAT PERPLEXITY OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
By W. N. G.
The Church of England is sorely perplexed in regard to the validity of its ordinations. As an organization it only dates back to the reign of Henry VIII., in the sixteenth century. Being the product of a secession from the Roman Church, setting itself up as independent of the Papacy, that church will not recognize it. But, the English Church holding to essentially papal principles, many of its “priests” are exceedingly anxious to be able to claim apostolic succession. This is deemed a vital point, seriously affecting the validity of its institutions and ministerial functions. This anxiety continued to increase as the establishment found her influence waning and her authority becoming more and more disregarded. At last, as a kind of forlorn hope, an appeal was made to Rome for recognition of its orders, and after a long pretense of deep inquiry into the merits of the case, the pope decided against her claims. There was nothing for her to do in that direction but to drop all church pretension and return home as a prodigal. But there was still another prospective avenue open; at least such seemed to be the case. That avenue was the Eastern, or Orthodox Greek, Church. The Eastern and Western (Greek and Roman) Churches were once one. The division was primarily on territorial lines, caused by jealousy of the extraordinary prerogatives granted to the bishop of Rome by the emperor. It was not an abrupt, but rather a gradual separation, becoming wider and wider as the Roman, or Latin Church introduced new innovations which the Greek, or Eastern, Church could not adopt. But directly on the point of the Anglican Church’s appeal to the Orthodox body for relief in her great perplexity, we have the following from the Russian Orthodox American Messenger of January 13:— “The arch-priest of our legation church in London, Father Smirnoff, gives in the Russian Review a description of the last periodical Anglican Church Congress, which was held in October last in Shrewsbury (four hours by rail from London). At this congress much was said—among other things (the pope having refused to recognize the Anglican ordinations), on the question of where the Anglican clergy should look for consecration. The Orthodox Church was suggested. One of the Anglican clergymen said to Father Smirnoff:— “‘The doubt of our priesthood’s validity is so great among us, that many of our clergy go to the Old-Catholics, to be reordained by them. The Old-Catholic bishops are quite willing. I myself have been at Bonn, and it was proposed to me that I should receive ordination from Bishop Reinkens. But then their priesthood is no better than ours. If reordination is to be accepted at all, it can be accepted only from you, because your priesthood was never doubted in any respect. Many of our clergymen have been re-ordained by the secret bishops of the association known as “the Corporate Union.” One of these bishops offered himself to re-ordain me. I refused, because I can not believe his own ordination, received secretly from Catholics and Armenians, to be valid in the eyes of the church. There is only one way open to us: to admit the insecurity of our priesthood and apply to the Eastern Church for a new one,—“God help you in this holy beginning,” I replied, “the church will meet you with lovingly open arms.’” “From Father Smirnoff’s letter we learn that, in the reign of Queen Victoria, 7 new bishoprics and 17 vicariates were opened in England, while 57 independent dioceses sprang up in the colonies, and 24 episcopal missions were instituted and placed under the jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Canterbury. If we add hereto the increase in American dioceses, it will be found that in the course of the last 60 years, Anglicanism has grown richer by 159 bishops. This fact certainly demands serious attention. It gives the measure of the aggrandizement of the church which gravitates so strongly towards our own Orthodox Russian Church.” “All the same one sometimes hears strange things from representatives of the Anglican Church. Thus, at this very congress, the Bishop of Litchfield asserted that ‘Darwin deserves the profound gratitude of all true Christians, for having demonstrated and simplified the ways of the Almighty in the creation.’” Another incident showing Anglican solicitude for alliance with the Orthodox Church, is the recent action of Rev. John Williams, of Omaha, Neb., who signs himself an “Anglican priest.” Mr. Williams wrote a letter to the Russian Bishop Nicholas, calling his attention to a colony of Orthodox Syrians in that city—“a flock without a shepherd.” He confided to the bishop the fact that the Roman Church had a Syrian priest “seeking to draw this flock [about fifty] off to the Latin obedience.” This charitable Anglican had very graciously advised them to “remain true to their own confession until such time as God sends them an Orthodox priest.” He also expressed a willingness, until he could hear from the bishop, to “give them any service that was actually necessary,—bury their dead, baptize their children, or marry them.” He had also advised them to appoint a reader of their own number, and offered them the use of his church for meetings. One of the number was sick, and Mr. Williams wanted instruction from the bishop as to what he should do “about giving her the Blessed Eucharist” in case she should come to her death-bed. The reply of Bishop Nicholas to this obsequious letter is decidedly emphatic, and indicates quite clearly that the Anglican priesthood in its present status stands as little chance of recognition by the Greek Church as it did at Rome. Here is part of his reply:— “More than once already I have been the recipient of letters like the above, from clergymen of other confessions—especially so-called episcopals with offers of service to the Orthodox members of my flock. Both here and in San Francisco and in other localities of the United States, even bishops have offered me an exchange of good offices in matters similar to those reported in this same letter. Of late the writers of such communications have been, with especial frequency, drawing my attention to certain cases in various places, some of which occurred even in the midst of the Orthodox clergy. More lately still my attention has been directed to other similar cases, said to have occurred in Russia, and—saddest of all—Orthodox persons, and even a few priests, mention offices for the dead performed by members of the Orthodox clergy for Papists, Lutherans, Armenians, etc. “In view of all these facts, I hold it my bounden duty to declare once for ever both to my own Orthodox people and to Christians of other confessions who address us on the subject of intercommunion, that I can not do as they wish, because I have neither the right nor the authority thereto.” There is a shorter way to a far higher recognition, which we would commend to the Anglican ministry. The Lord Himself says: “If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples.” John 15:7, 8. Now if any man would be inseparably connected with the apostles, all he has to do is to get onto “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.” Eph. 2:20–22.