Finally the communion becomes a bond of fel lowship between Christ and believing souls, and between all those who acknowledge him as Lord. They have communion with him and with all his people. This Church makes no effort to ex plain the mysteries connected with this sacrament. It rejects as unsatisfactory the view that the Lord's Supper is solely a help to memory, and refuses on the other hand to accept the view that there is an actual change in the elements whereby the bread and wine become veritable flesh and blood. It believes in a presence of the Lord in the sacrament, but it is spiritual and only per ceptible by the spiritual nature of those who come by faith. It believes in the sacredness of the observance and teaches reverence and holy awe, as it bids men prepare themselves to draw near to the Lord's table. It encourages fre quent receptions of the communion in that it makes provision for frequent celebrations and calls men to the oft receiving of it while they are in health.
The ritual of this sacrament allows room for great simplicity and also for great elabora tion, and consequently we find many variations in the details as we compare parish with parish. But, however it is celebrated, it becomes the sacrament of blessing. and men who come to it with faith go from it with uplifted mind and heart.
(4) The Apostolic Order of the Ministry. The ministry of this Church consists of three ranks, bishops, priests and deacons, and it declares that these three orders of ministers have always existed in Christ's Church. It further declares its unwillingness to regard any man as a lawful bishop, priest, a deacon in this Church, unless he has been episcopally set apart. This declara tion of the Church brings before us what is often spoken of as "The Historic Episcopate," and draws a line of separation between it and the surrounding Protestant bodies. It makes a distinc tion between the ministers of this Church and other ministers. It asserts a difference. Its own ministers have had Episcopal ordination. These other ministers have not had it, and therefore, whatever else they may be elsewhere, they arc not received as ministers of this Church, because this Church follows the method of the early cen turies in ordination. If they are received they must be Episcopally ordained.
If this position seem to be harsh, it must be re membered that no judgment is expressed as to their right to officiate in their own denominations. Nothing is said as to their piety and attainments. It is simply declared that not being Episcopally ordained they are not Episcopal ministers. Ad mitting now that they are not Episcopally or dained, does this invalidate their right to preach the Gospel and to do the work of Christ? Upon this point this Church utters no judgment what ever. The proving of their commission is with them. This Church simply says that it will cling to that which was apostolic, and which has come down to the present. In its judgment of what
is best for the Church at large, it proposes that all shall accept the Historic Episcopate with whatever local and special adaptations may be possible.
When we ask for some clear definition of what is meant by the Historic Episcopate, we find our selves in the region of controversy. The con stituted authorities have not adopted any definition thus far, and there are diversities of view among Episcopalians as to what is really contained in Episcopacy, what is the difference between the being and the well-being of the Church, what is apostolic succession and many like points. There is, however, agreement among all in this Church (and the view is shared by many outside of it) that as a fact in history, there have always been the three orders in the Christian Church. If so, there come two questions: As they have always been, why should they not continue? And is there not some way by which non-Episcopal min isters may become united with this Historic Epis copate? This Church has virtually left this matter of the Historic Episcopate in the shape indicated by these two questions. It has nat put it into any dogmatic form. Its own members are not yet agreed upon its definitions. Perhaps there are as many divergent views in the Episcopal Church on some questions arising from a consideration of the Historic Episcopate as are held outside of the Church. This point, while it emphasizes the clear historic fact, suggests that many of the con nected questions need not be settled in advance of the union which it advocates. Inasmuch as many of its own members differ in their explana tion of the Historic Episcopate, may it not be sufficient for others outside to accept the one fact that Episcopacy was primitive, and that it pro vides a bond of union? There have always been these three orders of ministers. The bishops have always exercised supervisory powers in the Church. Can we not all get back to this old way and so become one? It is a mistake to suppose that the Episcopal Church, in urging the acceptance of the Historic Episcopate, is urging all bodies of Christians to become "Episcopalians" in the sense of being ab sorbed in the present organization, and of adopt ing everything as it now stands in that organiza tion. • Christian Unity does not mean merely a larger Protestant Episcopal Church. Attention has already been called to the fact that this Church has expressed itself willing to leave out of consideration much that is precious. For ex ample, it would not insist upon the use of vest ments or the same liturgical services. It would not make all parishes alike. It would recognize a diversity of "uses," leaving all persons free to adopt what they thought best, provided, of course, that the substance of the faith be kept entire.