Project Canterbury
Wherein Do We Differ?
Results of a Conference With Reformed Episcopalians
By the Rt. Rev. Frank E. Wilson D.D.
Bishop of Eau Claire
A note on the document: The following originally appeared in The Living Church magazine. While the photocopy from which this was transcribed contains no indication of the date, internal evidence suggests that it was probably published in 1938.
transcribed by the Rev'd Samuel L. Edwards, SSC
AD 2000
"A LITTLE patience and a little generosity," says Bishop Wilson, who is a member of General Convention's Commission on Approaches to Unity, might well heal the 65-year-old schism in the ranks of the American Episcopal Church.
"The House of Bishops extends to the Reformed Episcopal Church its most affectionate greetings and hopes that the time will soon come when we shall all be united in one visible unity."
This resolution was unanimously adopted by the House of Bishops at General Convention in 1937. At the same time the Commission on Approaches to Unity was authorized by a joint resolution of the Convention to open negotiations with the Reformed Episcopal Church.
It will be remembered that the Reformed Episcopal Church broke away from our own Church in 1873 at the time when the "ritualistic controversy" was disfiguring the ecclesiastical landscape. The only serious doctrinal issue was the use of the term "regeneration" in the office for Holy Baptism. The R. Rev. Dr. George D. Cummins, Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, led the secession and resigned form the House of Bishops. The break has persisted down to the present day. The Reformed Episcopal Church is small in numbers, totaling about 8,000 communicants with approximately 65 clergy. Their work is all east of the Mississippi river with headquarters in Philadelphia. They have some work among the Negroes in South Carolina and a small foreign field in India. They operate a theological school in Philadelphia.
As the movement toward Church unity has accelerated in recent years, it has seemed to some of us to be most logical and desirable for us to make a determined effort to close this split in our own ranks. With the subsidence of the old controversial atmosphere, a spirit of reciprocity has seemed to be growing among the Reformed Episcopalians, hence the action taken by General Convention.
A conference was therefore arranged which met at the General Seminary in New York on February 16th of this year. Eight of the Reformed Episcopal Church were present--- Bishop Frank Cloak (Presiding Bishop), Bishop Howard Higgins, the Rev. Dr. Edward Sonne, the Rev. Thomas Percival, the Rev. Robert Rudolf, the Rev. Henry Trotter, Mr. Albert Arndt, and Mr. Henry Sinnamon; and four of ours-the Rt. Rev. R.E.L. Strider, the Rev. Francis J. Bloodgood, the Rev. M. Bowyer Stewart, and the writer.
After some preliminary general discussion we settled down to consider questions of the Holy Scriptures, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and Holy Orders. We sat from 10 in the morning until 5 in the afternoon with a short time out for lunch. It was all quite frank and friendly with everybody participating freely. Our points of difference were mostly incidental---largely differences of emphasis. The Reformed Episcopalians were reluctant about anything which, to their minds, savored of sacerdotalism and they tended to be much more rigid that we are in their rules of ritual and ceremonial.
The single doctrinal question of any particular moment was that of baptismal regeneration. We spent a long time over that, explaining and defining terms. In the end it was difficult to find a great deal of fundamental difference over what we both meant but there was much head shaking over the terms employed. The "matter" and "form" of Baptism are identical with both of us. So are those of the Holy Communion, although in the Reformed Episcopal Church they often use grape juice in place of fermented wine. Confirmation is always administered by their bishops. Their forms of service are very little different from ours. Their Prayer Book is based on the Proposed Book of 1785 with certain points of revision.
There appears to be little reason for questioning their orders. Bishop Cummins was one of our own bishops and he consecrated two new bishops for the Reformed movement before he was deposed form our ministry. They have been very careful to preserve their Episcopal orders. On one occasion, when they were reduced to two bishops, they invited in a Moravian bishop to make up the third in conferring orders on newly elected bishops. At times in the past they have received ministers from non-episcopal Churches into their own ministry with no additional ordination and there is a provision for such reception in the Prayer Book. But they assured us that there were no such instances in their ministry at the present time.
At the close of the conference it would have been hard to find reasons, which would justify the continuance of our present division. There are inherited points of view and there is a residue of hurt feelings from an earlier generation but we were so very near to each other in really essential matters that one who was unfamiliar with the history of 70 years ago would be puzzled to understand why we were still separated.
In view of all this, the following suggestion was thrown into the conference before it adjourned. It was merely a suggestion for future consideration, nobody being authorized to offer any definite proposals. We could go on debating points of difference endlessly without ever arriving at complete unanimity---any more than complete unanimity would be found on all points in the Protestant Episcopal Church itself. Such a blissful state is neither possible nor necessary. But why should we wait for that?
Recognizing certain points of non-agreement, could we not erect a formal concordat by which we would (following the example of our Methodist brethren) come together under the generous title of "The Episcopal Church," of which the Reformed Episcopal would be one part and the Protestant Episcopal another part? We would each retain our corporate titles for legal purposes and would each conduct our own internal affairs just as we do now. But there would be full intercommunion. Our bishops would share in the consecration of their bishops and theirs in ours. Their bishops would be invited to sit in our House of Bishops and ours in theirs. Clergy could move freely back and forth accepting calls to parishes in either direction and communicants would be received without discrimination. Their candidates for Holy Orders could attend our seminaries and vice versa. We would each carry on our work in our own way and let the intermingling solve its own problems over a period of years. As our clergy and laymen were welcomed into their diocesan conventions and theirs into ours (without votes) the differences would soon adjust themselves. The question of the amalgamation of boards, properties, trust funds, etc., could be left for future solution when an atmosphere of working cooperation had been satisfactorily accomplished.
A few matters would have to be ironed out in advance of such an agreementmatters pertaining to mutual respect for the discipline of each of the two bodies. For instance, we would want some assurance about the reception of non-episcopally ordained ministers.
We must respect convictions both ways and we must reckon with inherited feelings. As long as we watch each other over a fence with critical eyes, we shall never get anywhere. If we wait until we have solved all problems in advance, we shall go on conferring forever with no conclusion reached. A little patience and a little generosity from both sides might effectively heal this old wound now.
Another conference is due to be held. Meantime it was agreed that the chairman of their Commission (Dr. Trotter) and myself would write some such statement as this to be published in our respective Church papers and ask for comments to guide us when we meet again.
return to Project Canterbury