Skip to main content

Full text of "Christian Union Quarterly"

See other formats




Herbert Lockwood Willett 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 

VOL. X NO. 1 

rr God gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. " 




rjnHIS journal is the organ of no party other 
JL than of those, growing up in all parties, who 
are interested in the unity of the Church of Christ. 
Its pages are friendly to all indications of Christian 
unity and ventures of faith. It maintains that, 
whether so accepted or not, all Christians — Greek 
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, 
and all who accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour — 
are parts of the Church of Christ and that the 
unity of His disciples is the paramount issue 
of modern times. 

Edited by Peter Ainslie, Minister Christian Temple, Baltimore, Md. 
Editorial Council: Raymond Calkins, Pastor First Congregational 
Church, Cambridge, Mass.; Alfred E. Garvie, Principal New College, 
London, England; Hughell Fosbroke, Dean General Theological 
Seminary, New York; William P. Merrill, Minister Brick Presby- 
terian Church, New York City; George W. Richards, Professor of 
Church History, Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, 
Lancaster, Pa. 

I JULY, 1920 





Fleming H. Revell Company, New York 

Maruzen Company, Ltd., Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka and Sendai 

Oliphante, Ltd., 21 Paternoster Square, London, E. C. 4; 100, Princes Street, Edinburgh 



I / 


A Journal in the Interest of Peace in the Divided Church of 
Christ. It is issued in January, April, July and October. 

Vol. X. JULY, 1920 No. 1 



The Switzerland Conferences of This Summer 9 


UNITY IN THE MISSION FIELD. Eobert E. Speer ... .16 


UNITY. T. J. Pulvertaft 26 



HOPEFUL PLAN. Eobert Westly Peach 49 

ISTS 56 




TIONAL and is the servant of the whole Church, irrespective of name or 
creed. It offers its pages as a forum to the entire Church of Christ for a 
frank and courteous discussion of those problems that have to do with 
the healing of our unchristian divisions. Its readers are in all communions. 

SUBSCEIPTION PEICE $2.00 a year— fifty cents a copy. Eemittance 
should be made by New York draft, express order or money order. 

Entered as second-class matter in the Post Office at St. Louis, Mo. 


The favorite figure in which the church of the first century set forth its 
conception of the Spirit of Christianity is that of "the Good Shepherd." 
The emblem which appears on this page is a reproduction of one of 
the early Christian gems. 



"No one has written more appreciatively respecting this symbol 
than Dean Stanley in his Christian Institutions. It appealed to all his 
warmest sympathies. 'What,' he asks, 'is the test or sign of Christian 
popular belief, which in these earliest representations of Christianity 
is handed down to us as the most cherished, the all-sufficing, token of 
their creed? It is very simple, but it contains a great deal. It is 
a shepherd in the bloom of youth, with the crook, or a shepherd's pipe, 
in one hand, and on his shoulder a lamb, which he carefully carries, and 
holds with the other hand. We see at once who it is; we all know with- 
out being told. This, in that earliest chamber, or church of a Chris- 
tian family, is the only sign of Christian life and Christian belief. But, 
as it is almost the only sign of Christian belief in this earliest catacomb, 
so it continues always the chief, always the prevailing sign, as long as 
those burial-places were used.' 

"After alluding to the almost total neglect of this lovely symbol 
by the Fathers and Theologians, he says that it answers the question, 
what was the popular religion of the first Christians? 'It was, in one 
word, the religion of the Good Shepherd. The kindness, the courage, 
the love, the beauty, the grace, of the Good Shepherd, was to them, if 
we may so say, Prayer Book and Articles, Creed arid Canons, all in one. 
They looked on that figure, and it conveyed to them all they wanted. 
As ages passed on, the Good Shepherd faded from the mind of the 
Christian world, and other emblems of the Christian faith have taken 
His place. Instead of the gracious and gentle Pastor, there came the 
Omnipotent Judge, or the crucified Sufferer or the Infant in His mother's 
arms, or the Master in His parting Supper, or the figures of innumerable 
saints and angels, or the elaborate expositions of the various forms of 
theological controversy.' But 'the Good Shepherd represents to us the 
joyful, cheerful side of Christianity of which we spoke before. . . . 
But that is the primitive conception of the Founder of Christianity in 
those earlier centuries when the first object of the Christian community 
was not to repel, but to include; not to condemn, but to save. The popular 
conception of Christ in the early church was of the strong, the joyous 
youth, of eternal growth, of immortal grace.' " — Frederic W. Farrar in 
The Life of Christ as Represented in Art. 

Organizations for the Promotion of Christian Unity 

Having its inception in the work of Thomas Campbell, 1809, present or- 
ganization 1910, President, Rev. Peter Ainslie; Secretary, Rev. H. C. Arm- 
strong, Seminary House, Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. For intercessory prayer, 
friendly conferences and distribution of irenic literature, ' ' till we all attain 
unto the unity of the faith. " Pentecost Sunday is the day named for 
special prayers for and sermons on Christian unity in all Churches. 

TENDOM, 1857, President, Athelstan Riley, Esq., 2 Kensington Court, 
London; Secretary in the United States, Rev. Calbraith Bourn Perry, Cam- 
bridge, N. Y. For intercessory prayer for the reunion of the Roman Cath- 
olic, Greek and Anglican Communions. 

Rev. Robert W. "Weir, Edinburgh. For maintaining, fostering and ex- 
pressing the consciousness of the underlying unity that is shared by many 
members of the different Churches in Scotland. 

CHRISTIAN UNITY FOUNDATION, 1910, Secretary, Rev. W. C. Em- 
hardt, Newtown, Bucks Co., Pa. For the promotion of Christian unity 
throughout the world by research and conference. 

CHURCHMEN'S UNION, 1896, President, Prof. Percy Gardner; Hon. 
Secretary, Rev. C. Moxon, 3 St. George's Square, London S. W., England. 
For cultivation of friendly relations between the Church of England and 
all other Christian bodies. 

DER, 1910, President, Rt. Rev. Charles P. Anderson; Secretary, Robert H. 
Gardiner, Esq., Gardiner, Me., U. S. A. For a world conference of all 
Christians relative to the unity of Christendom. 

COUNCIL ON ORGANIC UNION, 1918, Ad Interim Committee, Chairman, 
Rev. W. H. Roberts, Philadelphia, Pa.; Secretary, Rev. Rufus W. Miller, 
Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia. For the organic union of the Evan- 
gelical Churches in the United States of America. 

1908, President, Rev. Frank Mason North; Secretary, Rev. Charles S. Mac- 
farland, 105 E. 22d St., New York. For the cooperation of the various 
Protestant Communions in service rather than an attempt to unite upon 
definitions of theology and polity. 

FREE CHURCH FELLOWSHIP, 1911, Bev. Malcolm Spencer, Colue 
Bridge House, Rickmansworth, London, N. For the cultivation of cor- 
porate prayer and thought for a new spiritual fellowship and communion 
with all branches of the Christian Church. 

Chairman Executive Committee, John R. Mott, New York; General Secre- 
tary, S. Earl Taylor, 920 Broadway, New York. For giving and accom- 
plishing an adequate programme for Protestantism in the world. 

OF ENGLAND, 1895, President, Rev. Principal W. B. Selbie, Mansfield 
College, Oxford; Secretary, Rev. F. B. Meyer, Memorial Hall, E. O, Lon- 
don. For facilitating fraternal intercourse and cooperation among the 
Evangelical Free Churches in England. 


At the instance of the Association for the Promotion of Christian 
Unity, Pentecost Sunday has been named primarily as the day for 
special sermons on Christian unity in all Churches, along with prayers 
to that end. 

World's Student Christian Federation, Sweden, July 30-August 

Lambeth Conference, July and August. 

Preliminary meeting of a proposed ecumenical conference of Church 
Federations and allied interests at Geneva, Switzerland, August 9-11- 
For particulars write Rev. Chas. S. Macfarland, 105 E. 22nd St.,. 
New York, Secretary. 

Preliminary meeting of the World Conference on Faith and Order, 
Geneva, Switzerland, August 12. Robert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, 
Maine, Secretary. 

International Committee of the World Alliance for Internationa! 
Friendship through the Churches, St. Beatenberg, Switzerland, August 
20th. Rev. Henry A. Atkinson, 70 Fifth Ave., New York City, Secre- 

Bibliography of Christian Unity 

THE BOOKS included in this list are by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Roman 

Catholics, Congregationalists, Unitarians, Lutherans, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, etc. 

CHRISTIAN UNION, Van Dyke, Appleton, 1885 $1.00 

CHRISTIAN UNION, Garrison, St. Louis, Christian Board of Publication, 

1906 LOO 

CHRISTIAN UNION IN EFFORT, Firth, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1911.. 1.50 

Co., 1913 2/6 

CHRISTIAN UNITY, Briggs, Scribner, 1900 1.00 

CHRISTIAN UNITY AT WORK, Macfarland, Federal Council 1.00 



Young, Chicago, The Christian Century Co., 1904 1.00 

HOW TO PROMOTE CHRISTIAN UNION, Kershner, Cincinnati, The 

Standard Publishing Co., 1916 1.00 

LECTURES ON THE REUNION OF THE CHURCH, Dollinger, Dodd, 1872 1.50 
land. 5 Vols 5.00 


Christian Century Co f 50 


Scribner, 1908 1.00 


RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD, London, Swan Sonnenschein & 
Co., 1908 

RESTATEMENT AND REUNION, Streeter, Macmillan, 1914 75 


1895 1.25 

DOM, Tarner, London, Elliott Stock, 1895 

THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE, Wells, Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1905 75 

THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE, Whyte, Armstrong, 1907 25 

THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM, Campbell, St. Louis, Christian Board of Pub- 
lication, 1890 1.00 

THE CHURCH AND RELIGIOUS UNITY, Kelly, Longmans, 1913 1.50 

THE CHURCHES OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL, Macfarland, Revell.... 1.00 

THE LARGER CHURCH, Lanier, Fredericksburg, Va 1.25 

THE LEVEL PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION, Brown, Whittaker, 1910 1.50 

THE MEANING OF CHRISTIAN UNITY, Cobb, Crowell, 1915 1.25 


CHURCH, Ainslie, Revell, 1913 1.00 

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS SECTS, McComas, Revell, 1912.... 1.25 

mans, 1911 75 

delphia. American Sunday-School Union, 1915 75 


1895 , 2.50 


Harnack, Macmillan, 1899 1.00 

UNITY AND MISSIONS, Brown, Revell, 1915 1.50 

WHAT MUST THE CHURCH DO TO BE SAVED? Simms, Revell, 1913.. 1.50 


(Membership in this League is open to all Christians — Greek, Roman, 
Angliean and Protestant, the only requirement being a notice by post 
card or letter of one's desire to be so enrolled, stating the Church of 
which he is a member. Address, Association for the Promotion of 
Christian Unity, Seminary House, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, 
Md., U. S. A.) 


On our need of patience with each other in our approaches toward 
Christian unity. 

On our need of faith that God will bring to pass the triumph of 
His will on the earth. 

On our need of the sense of appreciation of all work that has for 
its end the glory of God. 

On the Switzerland conferences and all summer conferences that 
have to do with the cooperation of Christians and the unity of the 


How wonderful is the way in which, with quite ordinary folk, 
power leaps to our aid in any time of emergency. We lead timid 
lives, shrinking from difficult tasks, till, perhaps, we are forced into 
them or ourselves determine on them, and immediately we seem to 
unlock the unseen forces. When we have to face danger, then courage 
comes; when trial puts a long continued strain upon us we find our- 
selves possessed by the power to endure; or when disaster ultimately 
brings the fall which we so long dreaded, we feel underneath us the 
strength as of the everlasting arms. Common experience teaches 
that, when great demands are made upon us, if only we fearlessly ac- 
cept the challenge and confidently expend our strength, every danger 
or difficulty brings its own strength. — "As thy days, so shall thy 
strength be." — The Spirit (The Psychology of Power.) Edited by 
Canon Streeter. 


ALMIGHTY FATHER, Who art always faithful, look in mercy 
upon us in our unfaithfulness and lead us away from the shrines of 
idolatry and the sins of the flesh into the holiness of Thy fellowship. 
Teach us the way to faith, hope and love until we shall express these 
in terms that are so distinctively Christian that the world shall know 
we have been with Christ; through Him, Whose we are and Whom 
we serve. Amen. 


Ask yourselves these questions. Can a united church find its mind and 
the mind of Christ better than a divided church? And the answer is not in 

Can a united church find its voice and utter the voice of Christ better 
than a broken and dismembered church? And the answer is not in doubt. 

Can one church — one in its passion, one in its spirit, one in its devotion, 
one in its opposition to all evil, one in its consecration to all good, be used 
by Christ, the Head of the Church, in the world 's movement more effectually 
than can the broken and dismembered portions of such a church? The 
answer is not in doubt. — Bishop TV. F. McDowell of the Methodist Episcopal 

= ■> 

I ! 

I I 

(Eijriaitatt luttg jtoastbtitttpa I 

*jftt ta altogrtfyrr poaaibl* for tlj^ QUjorrtj 1 
*** of tl|ta grnrratton to fittf tfyr patlfa of 
nnttg. Sjtatorg ta ahnniant tmttf inatanrra J 
of tip rlfang? of iljr ttjoogljt of a wiljotr j 
nation in a aingl? gyration. ottprr ar£ 
morr rttifonrra tor tljia poaaibilttjj r*garfc- I 
ing nnitg tljan ttfrrr mm for tlfoar poaathil- | 
tttra regarding tljr rlfang? of ttjongfyt in 
matters of pljtloaopljj}, arirnrr unh rtljira. I 
(6o& ran rrratr nrto forcra mljrn tlfr mill of j 
man ia Ijnmht* an& pmitrnt otlf? mtb for 
nnttjj among QUjriatiana ia \\p grratrat mth 
of ttj? wort&. 

» ,JH— .»«— mi— «H— KB— »lt— KM— ua— KII'^IIH— NH— .»H— KM— .»H— .BM— -»H— .UK— »|H— »H— »»— -Hi— IK— »M«— »«|» 


Among New Books 79, 158, 236, 319 

Appeal to All Christian People, an. 89 

Bases of Unity, The. Gaius Glenn Atkins. 179 

Christian Unity in Australia. George Hall 60 

Declaration of Principals Concerning the Lutheran Church and Its Ex- 
ternal Relationship. Being the Action of the Recent Convention 

of the United Lutheran Church in America 188 

Disciples' Programme for Union, The. George W. Brown 121 

Dogmatic Versus the Experimental Approach to Union, The. Alva W. 

Taylor 276 

Fourth Quadrennial Meeting of the Federal Council — Editorial 215 

Has the Denominational School a Place in Present Day Education? 

Peter Ainslie 289 

Inquiry Concerning the World's Waiting and our Tarrying, An. Being 

Addressed to the Editor by Anthony Openeye 211 

Interpretation of the Lambeth Appeal, An. Ethelbert Talbot 169 

Letters to the Editor ..' 156, 230, 317 

Notes and Comments 12 

Outlook for Christian Unity, The. Joseph A. Vance 258 

Paul's Plan for Christian Unity. John B. Cowden... 33 

Pilgrimage toward Unity, A. Charles H. Brent 117 

Practical Steps Toward Christian Reunion. Arthur C. Headlam .249 

Present Possibilities and Future Steps Towards Unity. T. J. Pulvertaft 26 

Priest or Prophet? A Question for the Day. W. H. Griffith Thomas 105 

Re-establishment of Christian Peace, The. Being the Encycle of Pope 

Benedict XV ...__ 201 

St. Louis Conference, The — Editorial 305 

Scottish Church Reunion. Robert Forgan 94 

Some Fallacies Concerning Church Unity and a Hopeful Plan. Robert 

Westly Peach 49 

Suggestions Concerning Conferences Between the Protestant Episcopal- 
ians and Congregationalists 56 

Switzerland Conference of This Summer, The — Editorial 9 

Three Outstanding Conferences — Editorial 1 29 

Towards Christian Unity. Alexander Ramsay 269 

Unity in the Mission Field. Robert E. Speer 16 

What People and Papers Are Saying About Unity 63, 140, 220, 309 




Vol. X. JULY, 1920 No. 1 




In the month of August two important conferences deal- 
ing with Christian unity will be held at Geneva, Switzer- 
land, and one dealing with international friendship will 
be held at St. Beatenberg, Switzerland, which indirectly 
approaches the unity of the Church. 

The first is a preliminary meeting of a proposed ecu- 
menical conference. A call to this effect was issued in 
the autumn of 1914 by the neutral countries in war time 
through the Federal Council in the United States of 
America and through representatives of the Church in 
Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Holland, and later this 
call included two bishops in belligerent countries — Arch- 
bishop of Finland and Bishop Ferenez of Transylvania. 
In 1917 the Archbishop of Uppsala, the bishops of See- 
land, Denmark, and Christiania, Norway, issued an invi- 
tation to an ecumenical conference, which was cordially 
received by orthodox and evangelical parts of the Church, 
only the Eoman Catholics declining. Cardinal Gasparri, 
however, wrote on behalf of the pope. War conditions 
made it impossible to hold the conference at that time. 
The invitation was twice repeated in 1918, but war con- 
ditions again made it impossible. Similar movements 
were in other countries. In 1916 the Federal Council in 


America took definite action. In 1917 two efforts were 
made on the part of the British — one through the British 
Council, which was founded to promote an international 
Christian meeting, and the other through the British 
branch of the World Alliance; likewise similar efforts 
came from Hungary and Switzerland. With this back- 
ground this preliminary meeting promises to be of worth. 

It begins with evangelical Christians only or the Prot- 
estant part of the Church, which will be the first attempt 
at an ecumenical conference in the history of Protestant- 
ism. Its field of action is different from that of the 
World Conference on Faith and Order. It will prepare 
for it and supplement it but the ecumenical conference 
will not deal with matters of faith and order. Instead 
it will deal with well-defined, practical aims in the realm 
of moral or social questions where all Christians can be- 
gin at once to act together. 

Following this will be the preliminary meeting of the 
World Conference on Faith and Order, which had its 
origin in the General Convention of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church of America in 1910. A commission was ap- 
pointed with Bt. Eev. Charles P. Anderson, D.D., of Chi- 
cago, president; Eev. W. T. Manning, D.D, rector of 
Trinity Church, New York, chairman of the Executive 
Committee; George Zabriskie, D.C.L., New York, treas- 
urer, and Eobert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Maine, secre- 
tary. This commission has done a fine piece of states- 
manship work. Three deputations have been sent abroad 
— the first to the Church of England, the second to the 
non- Anglican Churches of Great Britain and Ireland, and 
the third to the continental Churches. Seventy commis- 
sions from as many communions have been appointed to 
take part in the World Conference, only the Eoman 
Catholic Church declining the invitation. The Episco- 
pal commission has moved cautiously. They have not 
been in a hurry and have thereby advanced further than 


had they been in a hurry, for Christian unity cannot be 
hurried. It must grow. Mr. Gardiner has conducted a 
wide correspondence with all communions in all parts of 
the world. 

This preliminary conference is not to decide questions 
of faith and order. These may be discussed, but this con- 
ference is preliminary to the World Conference, which is 
to be held at some time and place to be designated. Such 
a conference will extend over months. This will extend 
only from the 12th to the 20th of August. But in this 
conference there will doubtless be outlined plans cover- 
ing the whole field of the World Conference, such as rep- 
resentation, subjects for discussion and finances, the ap- 
pointing of an ad\ interim committee, which shall work 
constantly until the conference convenes, and many other 
things that fall naturally to a preliminary meeting. The 
preparation indicates a meeting of vast consequence to 
the unity of the Church. 

The third conference will deal with international 
friendship. The first of these conferences was held last 
year at The Hague. A report of it was given in The 
Quarterly of January of this year. This will be the 
meeting of the International Committee of the World Al- 
liance for International Friendship Through the 
Churches, which had its beginning in 1914. The meeting 
of last year at The Hague was the first attempt after the 
war to retie the broken threads of international friend- 
ship. This meeting ought to go considerably further 
than that of last year and doubtless it will. The bringing 
together of representatives from so many nations, deal- 
ing with the great social problems, may be welcomed as 
the beginning of a new day, when many contributions are 
being made for the permanent peace of the world. 


With this number The Christian Union Quarterly 
opens its tenth volume and at the same time in its inter- 
denominational and international service the following 
distinguished persons have been added to its Board of 
Editorial Council: Rev. Raymond Calkins, D.D., pastor 
First Congregational Church, Cambridge, Mass. ; Princi- 
pal Alfred E. Garvie, D.D., New College, London, Eng- 
land ; Dean Hughell Fosbroke, D.D., of the General Theo- 
logical Seminary, New York, Rev. William P. Merrill, 
D.D., Minister Brick Presbyterian Church, New York 
City, and Professor George W. Richards, D.D., Theologi- 
cal Seminary of the Reformed Church, Lancaster, Pa. 
Other names will be added to the board later. The Quar- 
terly belongs to all who are interested in the unity of the 
Church, however widely we may differ regarding the 
method of approach. 

The Interchurch World Movement started right. Its 
purpose as stated by the Committee of Twenty was ' ' To 
present a unified programme of Christian service and to 
unite the Protestant Churches of North America in 
the performance of their common task, thus making avail- 
able the values of spiritual power which come from unity 
and coordination of Christian effort and meeting the 
unique opportunities of the new era." That was well 
said, and had the movement stuck to its original purpose 
it would have had opposition, bitter opposition from ev- 
ery sectarian quarter, but the possibilities of a united 
Protestantism would have been permanently advanced. 
Instead the Interchurch World Movement could rise only 
as high as the denominations are and therefore it became 
a denominational movement, each denomination driving 
for its millions of dollars in order to make its denomina- 
tion stronger than ever, making the purpose of the Inter- 
church World Movement the opposite of that which ap- 
peared to have been its original purpose. There is no 


denomination in Christendom that can be trusted with 
great sums of money without that denomination's using 
that money for its own denominational interest and there- 
fore retarding the progress of Christian unity. 

The Interchurch World Movement was a by-product of 
the World War and it partook fully of the characteristics 
of the governmental drives for loans and securing re- 
cruits for the army. The armies of the allies, however^ 
started in division and ended in unity. The Interchurch 
World Movement started in unity and ended in division, 
each denomination driving for itself and its denomina- 
tional interests. A united patriotism could put over gov- 
ernmental affairs, but a divided Church could not put 
over its programme, from which there ought to be a sig- 
nificant lesson. However, some of the features of unifica- 
tion were not entirely lost, such as the mass meetings and 
surveys, and these will exhibit the increasing failure of a 
divided Christendom. It is to be hoped that there will 
be such survival of these good elements that when the 
Interchurch Movement discovers itself it may be coura- 
geous enough to definitely advise against overlapping of 
Churches in designated communities and advise with 
equal definiteness the unifying of denominational col- 
leges in order that education may be taken out of its 
denominational moulds, giving young men and young 
women of this generation a chance of fellowship with the 
whole Church. Of the movement The Christian Century, 
Chicago, says, 

1 ' But the real cause, as was apparent to all who faced the situation, 
the thing of which least was said in the open session, was the denomina- 
tional spirit that from the first doomed the Movement to a limited suc- 
cess, and threatened a complete failure. More than once the leaders spoke 
candidly of this fundamental weakness of the plan as it was developed. 
Yet they spoke without heat, as those who long ago discovered that they 
had been set to do a great work, and then deprived of the only asset by 
which it could hope for real success — actual unity of effort. 

"When two years ago the missionary leaders sat down together and 
studied the opportunity and responsibility of the post-war situation, they 
saw that two things were essential to the attainment of the vast objective 
of effective Protestant service in the new days of peril ahead — days far 
more difficult than those of the war. Those two tilings were a careful 


survey of the entire field, and a concerted campaign to finance the splendid 
task of meeting the needs disclosed. The vision took the form, fair and 
inspiring, of the united Churches rousing themselves to achieve the united 
work. It was said at that time by one of the most influential leaders 
in the American Church that in a cause so holy and so compelling there 
was compulsion in the thought of a unified adventure, and that no dollar 
of the funds raised should be spent in merely sectarian ways, or without 
the approval of all. 

"It was that conception of the plan which first attracted the sympa- 
thetic attention of the Christian public, and fired the imagination of the 
people. The assurance that the age of sectarian rivalry was closing, and 
that the Churches actually could counsel and campaign together was 
alluring and convincing. It kindled a real glow of satisfaction all over 
the land. If the enterprise could have been carried through on that high 
level, a very different sequel would have been recorded. 

"But a beginning had hardly been made before the self-interest of 
denominationalism was disclosed as an obstruction. One after another 
several of the cooperating bodies served notice that for one reason and 
another they found it impossible to agree to the original plan. One had 
just made a financial drive, and could not repeat the process for some 
time to come, though it has since discovered that it is both necessary 
and practicable to put on almost at once a greater drive than the first 
one. Another found that objection to the Movement as a united plan was 
so pronounced in its ranks that only a solemn covenant that it should be 
permitted to conduct its own campaign in its own way cleared the path 
for any participation at all. Other denominations found equally convinc- 
ing reasons for lending only a partial support. So instead of a united pro- 
gramme and a concerted drive for funds, the Interchurch World Movement 
was compelled to content itself with a "united simultaneous ' ' campaign, 
a deliberately confusing and self -annihilating term. 

"Every friend of cooperative work in America, every Christian who 
longs for the progress of the Church, and fears the reaction that may 
come from any apparent failure of great plans, will be much in prayer for 
the divine blessing upon the men and women who are leading in this im- 
pressive work. It must not be allowed to fail of its purpose. Such an 
issue would retard the work of Christianity a generation. What is needed 
is the quiet and humbling mastery of the lesson of the futility of divided 
effort and the longing of men and women of good will throughout the 
nation for a real joining of the forces that claim fellowship with our 
Lord in the imperial tasks to which he is summoning his Church." 

In all problems having to do with the unity of the 
Church we must stand out firmly, but kindly, for unity. 
One may be subjected to severe criticism from the con- 
servative element in his own party, and from all parties 
for that matter, but unity can only come by boldly dis- 
counting the present order and with equal boldness seek- 
ing for the paths of unity. We must be fair to the other 
man's point of view. We must try to put ourselves in 
his place. We must remember that he is our brother and 
because he is our brother schism is sin ; but we need not 


be hesitating whether we should take a stand for unity. 
Halting advocates of a cause do not get very far. 

Unity must come and it will come when every oppor- 
tunity is used to emphasize in no uncertain phrasing, as 
in his address to the synod of his diocese the bishop of 
Montreal said, "Only a Church united can fully present 
Christ to the needs of mankind." When that is said by 
ten thousand pulpits ten million times the people will look 
for action and they will not be disappointed. 

The American Council on Organic Union of the evan- 
gelical Churches of America is proposing a definite un- 
ion. Some will favor it, like the General Conference of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, by appointing an au- 
thorized commission on that subject ; also the General As- 
sembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., by 
directing the presbyteries to vote on it ; likewise both the 
Eeformed Church in the U. S. and the Keformed Church 
in the U. S. A., directing the classes to act. Others will 
follow these. Some will reject the proposal. A few of 
the stronger bodies going ahead will make the road 
smooth enough for the more hesitating bodies to follow. 
President Henry Churchill King wrote in a recent num- 
ber of The C ongr egationalist , Boston, as follows : 

"I do not myself hesitate to say that the action of the Council seems to 
me to be the most hopeful step yet taken toward the organic union of 
the Churches of Christ in America. If that is even partly true, this move- 
ment deserves our most careful attention, 

"It should be said, from the first, that the results were not due to 
any sudden enthusiasm created by emotional appeals of any kind. On 
the contrary, our Congregational delegation — and quite evidently other dele- 
gations as well — came without much expectation of particularly significant 
results. We were ready to listen respectfully, and then to admit that 
nothing vital could be done. But the impression steadily grew upon us 
all, in the course of the Conference, that a great event was taking place; 
that the committee on the 'Plan of Union' had been guided by the Spirit 
of God, and had done a remarkable piece of work; and that the members 
of the Council themselves showed so rare a freedom from selfishness and 
pretense, and so fine a spirit of Christian fellowship coupled with honest 
facing of the facts, as to bear witness to the presence of God in their 
deliberations. ' ' 


By Eobert E. Speer, D.D., Secretary of the Presbyterian Board of 
Foreign Missions, New York. 

I wish to speak of the measure in which cooperation and 
unity have been already achieved in the foreign mis- 
sionary field, for there, more than in any other field of 
Christian endeavor and fellowship, have we made prog- 
ress toward these goals. In the first place we have dis- 
pensed with the names that help to keep us asunder in 
the West. God be praised, many of these names are 
incapable of translation into the languages of the non- 
Christian world. You cannot translate Presbyterian or 
Methodist or Protestant Episcopal into Chinese. There 
are very few languages in the world in which you can 
find any terms that by any stretch of the imagination can 
be made the equivalent of these. Missionaries accord- 
ingly have devised terms and names that fit one body of 
Christians just as well as they fit any other body of 
Christians. And we have not only taken the names off 
our denominational organizations there, but we have 
taken them off many forms of our effort. We have es- 
tablished schools and colleges and most of them bear no 
denominational name. They may bear the name of some 
Christian character, but they very seldom bear any de- 
nominational name. We are doing our work in the great 
non-Christian field under the Christian name alone. 
There are fields like the Philippines, where almost all of 
the Christian churches came together and where they 
agreed on one single name by which they would call all 
of their organizations, the Church of Christ, perhaps, 
and then parenthetically at the end they would put in 
Presbyterian or Methodist. But the parenthesis has been 
happily dropping out here and there and only the Chris- 
tian name stands out to view. We have carried the 
Gospel of Christ and the Church of Christ out into the 
non-Christian world and a great many of these names 


we have left behind, and having left the names behind, it 
has been easier to leave some of the things which the 
names connote behind and by which we are held apart. 
In the second place, in the foreign mission field they 
have adopted the policy of wise distribution of the forces 
that were available for the missionary work. Men have 
seen the absurdity and wrong of crowding little groups 
of Christian workers into one single section while great 
areas went absolutely uncared for. And wise and sensi- 
ble men, in whom the Christian spirit worked, have be- 
gun to apportion this task among themselves. The 
underlying principle was expressed in one of the deliver- 
ances of the Church of England not long ago in the 
Lambeth Conference of 1887 : ' ' That in the foreign mis- 
sion field of the Church's work where signal spiritual 
blessings have attended the labor of Christian mission- 
aries not connected with the Anglican community a spe- 
cial obligation has arisen to avoid, as far as possible 
without compromise of principle, whatever tends to pre- 
vent the due growth and manifestation of that ' unity of 
the Spirit,' which should ever mark the Church of 
Christ." And there are very few missionaries now who 
are not of the same mind with Alexander Duff, who said 
that he would as soon leap into the Ganges as take one 
step to entice a Christian believer away from another 
Christian body or to do work that fell in the natural 
sphere and was the duty of any other Christian organiza- 

Here in this city long years ago the principle was laid 
down on the occasion of Alexander Duff's visit, long 
since forgotten but living in the memory for generations 
of those who heard him. I have talked with old men, 
long since dead, who attended that meeting held on the 
occasion of Alexander Duff's visit and who voted for the 
resolutions that were adopted then : 

Resolved, That considering the vast extent of the yet 



unevangelized world of heathenism, and the limited 
means of evangelization at the disposal of the existing 
evangelical Churches or societies, it would be very de- 
sirable that with the exception of great centers, such as 
the capitals of powerful kingdoms, an efficient pre-occu- 
pancy of any particular portion of the heathen field by 
an evangelical Church or society should be respected and 
left in their undisturbed possession. " 

It was in accordance with these principles that the 
Mexico missionaries some years ago after the revolution 
decided not to go back to their old methods, but that they 
would see that the whole country was apportioned so 
that great areas were no longer neglected as they had 
been by the congesting of forces in certain areas and 
leaving others untouched. And now a map of IMexico 
may be presented showing that whole country portioned 
out, not with the idea of exclusion, but on the principle of 
taking care of the whole task that must be done, and, 
with the exception of two Christian bodies which retain 
still their claim of right to leap over all these boundaries 
and go anywhere, all the rest of the Christian organiza- 
tions are now doing their best to see that the whole of 
Mexico is properly taken care of. That is the second 
great achievement in the foreign mission field. 

In the third place, the foreign mission work has led all 
other Christian activities in the way it has developed 
confidence and cooperation among all the forces engaged 
in it. Here in New York City we began thirty years ago 
an annual conference of all the foreign missionary boards 
of the United States and Canada, It has been held an- 
nually ever since, and it has enabled the missionary 
agencies in the United States and Canada to approach 
their task with a common body of principles and with an 
almost common body of resources. In almost every mis- 
sion field now agencies of the same kind have been de- 
veloped, agencies of cooperation and confidence. In In- 


dia the Anglican Church has been foremost in the great 
movement that has correlated the forces of India. And 
all of these bodies, except the Roman communion, are 
correlating their purposes and laying out their plans not 
in isolation but in common conference and brotherly ac^ 

In the fourth place, there has been in the mission field 
for a hundred years now such a volume of united prayer 
ascending from men and women as has arisen from no 
other section of the Christian Church. What we call the 
Week of Prayer, long since diverted to other purposes, 
sprang out of the missions of India, and was designed by 
these missions to rally the whole Christian Church to 
pray for the evangelization of the non-Christian world. 
Today I will venture to assert there are more foreign 
missionaries united in their prayer than any other class 
of Christians in the world. 

In the fifth place, there have been achievements in 
actual unity which have far transcended anything that 
we have won as yet in any other areas of the Church's 
service. We see it in the united institutions. I could 
name scores of union colleges and theological seminaries 
and hospitals and institutions of every kind. The day has 
gone by when any separate communion undertakes any 
longer to build up alone a great educational institution of 
higher learning on the mission field. We have realized 
that there is nothing in truth that can be sectarian, that 
the great body of truth is common truth and that we 
should unite in undertaking higher educational work. In 
building a missionary university from two to ten different 
organizations will often unite. Further, all the medical 
missionaries in China have gathered in one medical as- 
sociation, and all the missionaries in educational work in 
one educational association. And we have gone far be- 
yond this. One hears the question raised now and then 
as to whether our denominational personalities are ever 


to be merged with others. It is being done all over the 
world to-day. There is scarcely a mission field where 
there is not an example of this. Denominations separate 
in the West are united in the East. In the East, in Japan, 
all the Episcopal Churches have united, likewise the 
Methodist, and more than thirty years ago all the Pres- 
byterian and Reformed bodies, seven of them, still apart 
in the United States, united into one body. In China to- 
day the Presbyterian and the Reformed Churches are 
one, and the Congregationalists are uniting with them, 
no matter what nation they come from. All over the 
world we are witnessing the actual melting together of 
denominations. The missionaries are not afraid to put 
their ideals into words. Here is the resolution of the 
great Missionary Conference in Japan in 1900, adopted 
by the missionaries of all denominations gathered there : 
" This Conference of Missionaries, assembled in the city 
of Tokyo, proclaims its belief that all those who are one 
with Christ by faith are one body; and it calls upon all 
those who love the Lord Jesus and His Church in sin- 
cerity and truth to pray and to labor for the full realiza- 
tion of such a corporate oneness as the Master himself 
prayed for on that night in which He was betrayed.' ' 
Here is the finding of the Centenary Conference in 
Shanghai: "That this Conference unanimously holds 
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the su- 
preme standard of faith and practice and holds firmly the 
primitive apostolic faith. Further, while acknowledging 
the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed as substan- 
tially expressing the fundamental doctrines of the Chris- 
tian faith, the Conference does not adopt any creed as a 
basis of Church unity, and leaves confessional questions 
for further consideration ; yet, in view of our knowledge 
of each other's doctrinal symbols, history, work and char- 
acter, we gladly recognize ourselves as already one body 
in Christ, teaching one way of eternal life, and calling 


men into one holy fellowship ; and as one in regard to the 
great body of doctrine of the Christian faith ; one in our 
teaching as to the love of God the Father, God the Son, 
and God the Holy Ghost ; in our testimony as to sin and 
salvation, and our homage to the Divine and Holy Re- 
deemer of men; one in our call to the purity of the 
Christian life, and in our witness to the splendors of the 
Christian hope. 

"We frankly recognize that we differ as to methods of 
administration and Church government. But we unite in 
holding that these differences do not invalidate the asser- 
tion of our real unity in our common witness to the gos- 
pel of the grace of God. 

i ' That in planting the Church of Christ on Chinese soil 
we desire only to plant one Church under the sole control 
of the Lord Jesus Christ, governed by the Word of the 
living God and led by His guiding Spirit. While freely 
communicating to this Church the knowledge of truth 
and the rich historical experience to which older churches 
have attained, we fully recognize the liberty in Christ of 
the Churches in China planted by means of the missions 
and Churches which we represent, in so far as these 
Churches are, by maturity of Christian character and ex- 
perience, fitted to exercise it; and we desire to commit 
them in faith and hope to the continued safe keeping of 
their Lord when the time shall arrive, which we eagerly 
anticipate, when they shall pass beyond our guidance and 

I have now dealt with five regards in which the foreign 
mission work has gone in advance of us and has achieved 
already what we pray and long for here at home. And 
experience in the foreign mission field has taught us cer- 
tain great and urgent lessons. 

For one thing, it has shown us the possibility of co- 
operation and unity. We ask whether this thing can be 
done. It has been done far and wide throughout the mis- 


sion field to-day. When we ask whether certain prob- 
lems can be solved our answer is they have been solved 
and they have been solved under greater difficulties than 
we encounter here. Here in America we have the Pres- 
byterian Church split into two over the issues that burst 
forth in the Civil War. We have not been able to reunite 
those two sections of the Presbyterian Church. There is 
not a single non- Christian land where we are at work to- 
gether where they are not united. I do not see why if 
Northern and Southern Presbyterians can unite in the 
atmosphere of heathenism they can't unite in a Christian 
land. Not only have we been shown the possibility, we 
have been shown the duty. If it is our duty to draw to- 
gether in the face of these problems that confront us in 
the foreign mission field, is there any less duty before 
the problems that confront us here in America? For 
where are the problems of the Christian Church more 
urgent than here in our own land? Every consideration 
that argues for unity in India or China argues for unity 
here in America. We have no small portion of the for- 
eign mission problem to solve right here on this island, 
and if unity is essential to its solution ten thousand miles 
away unity is essential to its solution here. 

And not only do foreign missions show us the possi- 
bility and duty of unity, but they remind us of the 
method. They show us for one thing the solidarity of a 
common task and a great danger. We used to think that 
the common task had a great cementing power. We real- 
ize now that there is nothing like a common danger to 
combine men together. We have got our common task 
still just as great as we had it four or five years ago. 
Only the shadow of Germany has gone by. And it is 
perfectly obvious that a common conviction cannot do 
what a common peril can. But we have still a common 
task and a common duty and a common peril. An idola- 


trous world is not nearly so great a peril as a world that 
has thrown its ideals away and believes in no God at all. 
We are facing a vastly more perilous world than the old 
world of one hundred years ago, a pagan world, with its 
old evils and sicknesses, all its own economic problems 
of poverty and neglect, with our economic problems flung 
in upon them. Let anyone go out and listen to the whir 
of the spindles to-night in Osaka, let him go up and down 
those long rows of mills in Shanghai and hear the thun- 
der of the great looms, and go in and look at the lives 
being fed into those spindles and woven in those looms, 
and he will realize that the world has far more perils 
and burdens to-day than it had in the old days gone by. 
We cannot divide in the face of a task like that or in the 
face of a peril so great. 

And not only have we been shown how a great task and 
peril can unite, but our experience has revealed the 
power of fellowship in living to unite men in spite of 
their intellectual disagreement and their divergent tem- 
peraments. After all, one wonders whether we have di- 
agnosed correctly the real causes of our continued sepa- 
ration. One wonders whether it is doctrine or faith that 
divides, or whether, after all, a great deal more of divi- 
sion does not spring from property and temperament, 
and that if only we could deal with property and temper- 
ament we could not take care of the questions of polity 
and creed. Human friendliness is a great unifier. Bishop 
Boone used to take all the newcomers in Shanghai into 
his home. There were times when many denominations 
of missionaries slept together under his roof. 

And foreign missionaries have shown the method of 
unity which is to be found not in detailed comparison, but 
on the principle of transcendence, a larger principle than 
any that controls us now, that will enable us to see things 
in a conspectus in which we cannot see them now. 


And not only are we to-day learning from foreign mis- 
sions the method by which unity can be achieved, but we 
ought to learn and practice these lessons now. Shall not 
the horrors of the discord and the alienation and the dis- 
unity, out of which we have not yet emerged, make us 
ashamed of our divergence? The one great need of the 
world to-day is unity. The central principle of Christian- 
ity is unity. The fundamental element of all life is unity. 
How can we, in the Christian Church, obscure or qualify 
that principle by our diversions? We have learned the 
peril of conscientiousness. No man is justified in any 
course of action merely because he can conscientiously 
take it. Germany was just as conscientious as we. "The 
day will come," said our Lord, "when those who kill you 
will think that they do service unto God." Does con- 
scientious murder make a man innocent? We have hid- 
den behind our conscientiousness too long. We must be- 
ware of letting conscientiousness harden us to the risk 
of missing truth. 

And to-day as never before unity is of such importance 
as to demand any necessary sacrifice, such sacrifices as 
men have never been willing to make before. And I set 
foremost among those sacrifices our false loyalty to the 
past. What is loyalty to the past? Loyalty to the past 
does not consist in trying to stay within it. Loyalty to 
the past consists in trying to rise above it. The past 
that did not prepare for a better future is an unfulfilled 
past. Truth that is truth opens the gates to larger truth. 
And those men are faithful to what lies behind them, who 
say to the past, "I see thy meaning. Thy meaning was 
that greater things were to be made possible by thee and 
I am loyal to thee only when I heed thy voice and go on 
to those greater and richer things." True loyalty does 
not consist in holding fast to an unchanged and unchange- 
able order that has been. It consists in standing faith- 


fully upon the foundations that have been laid and open- 
ing ourselves to all the new light and truth and guidance 
which God is waiting to give to the Church if, like the 
path of the just, the Church is not a stagnant station, 
but a golden way that grows brighter and brighter to the 
fullness of the day that has not yet been, but that may 
yet be. 



By Rev. T. J. Pulvertaft, M.A., Vicar of St. Paul at Kilburn. 

The time has come when in the interests of unity ambigui- 
ties should cease and we should approach the question 
with clearness of vision and a determination to go straight 
to the heart of the problem. The theological as distinct 
from the ecclesiastical aspect demands insistence upon 
the claim that history cannot be thrown to the winds. We 
are faced by earnest and honest assertions that the twen- 
tieth century will not accept a Christianity that holds the 
miraculous element essential to its profession. For my 
part I can conceive of men who have been nurtured in 
Christian principles and have a profound devotion to 
our Blessed Lord as the Son of God maintaining their 
faith while rejecting or explaining away the miraculous 
in the Gospel. What a few have been able to attain in 
the stress of modern conceptions of nature and an exag- 
gerated attachment to current hypotheses is a very dif- 
ferent matter from acceptance of the historic Figure who 
is portrayed in the Gospel story. In the web of His 
life, the warp of His deeds and the woof of His words 
are so bound up with miracle that we cannot disentangle 
the natural from the supernatural element — I use the 
words in their plain sense — and the whole faith of the 
primitive Church as well as the Church throughout the 
ages has been based on a living Christ who rose from 
the dead. We cannot divorce our faith from history. 
We are convinced that the sinless One was so unique 
among men that His deeds can only be described as mirac- 
ulous, while really natural as being the works of One who 
was God incarnate, and it is impossible for us in the in- 
terests of unity without being false to the revelation of 
God and writing down the apostolic Church as founding 
itself on a series of lies, to make concessions that will re- 


duce our faith to a series of propositions that cannot be 
squared with the contents of the only documents we have 
as the source of the life and teaching of the Son of God. 

It may be that individuals will be ready to acknowledge 
His divinity while rejecting the fact of His resurrection 
from the dead. I do not exclude them from brotherhood 
— that is their own affair, not mine — but the basis of be- 
lief that will form the foundation of the great Church 
the future will see united in one by bonds of spirit and 
a common orientation of faith, must hold the ultimate 
fact of the resurrection if it is not to perish through 
lack of faithfulness to its sources and belief in its history. 
Mithraism was the great rival of Christianity. It had its 
ennobling ideals and gripped some of the best minds of 
the early Christian ages. It broke down through an 
idealism divorced from fact — historic fact — and the 
doom, not the reconstruction, of Christianity will be pro- 
nounced by any acceptance of a creedless Christianity or 
a studied vagueness that is supposed to meet the require- 
ments of a kaleidoscopic age. Creeds do not give spirit- 
ual life. They do not even guarantee moral consistency. 
A man may be as orthodox as the devil and as wicked too. 
But Christian truth is a matter of the intellect as well as 
an emotion of the heart. We must know what we believe 
concerning Him who is our life. That knowledge is con- 
tained in the New Testament, and the evacuation of its 
plain meaning can only end in the overthrow in time of 
the faith we profess to hold. 

On the other hand the institution that the faith has 
created as a permanent home for its followers is of less 
importance than the faith itself. Just as intellectual defi- 
nitions are inferior to the person of Christ, so the human 
instrumentality that constitutes the home of the faithful 
is inferior to the Christ Himself. The Church to be true 
to its function is a body founded on Christ that grows up 
into Christ its living Head. It is a means to an end — not 


an end in itself. If this be true concerning the Church, 
it is still more true concerning its organisation. Mem- 
bership of the Church, for its vitality depends finally on 
no outward link uniting individuals with the body, but 
on personal living union with the Saviour Himself. Spir- 
itual life is as great a reality as animal life. We are 
aware that we are alive as men. We must be equally 
alive to the fact that our spiritual life is a reality de- 
pending on our sharing the life of Christ. The way in 
which this knowledge comes into consciousness may elude 
definition — it is there when the soul of man rises above 
the temporal and homes itself in God. All who truly love 
and follow the risen Christ are true sons of God — joint 
heirs with Jesus Christ. Collectively they constitute the 
Church of the living God, and all the organisation of the 
Church is a means for maintaining corporate life in an 
historical institution, and preventing it from becoming 
inefficacious as an instrument for the extension of the 
Kingdom of God. 

Today we suffer from either an unstudied or a delib- 
erate ambiguity in the use of the words Church, ministry 
and apostolic succession. I am not sure that we have not 
created a new ambiguity in the employment of the phrase 
historic episcopate. Until we have a definite and ac- 
cepted interpretation of these phrases all thoughts of 
Christian unity with any hope of permanence may be dis- 
missed as a fatuous dream. We have schemes discussed 
that imply the Church of God to be definitely limited to 
an institution that has a certain type of ministry — com- 
monly called the Church — with an impassable gulf be- 
tween it and the laity. The ministry is confined to men 
ordained by one of the orders of the ministry, and that 
order has its claim to superiority resting on a supposed 
historical transmission from age to age by a certain proc- 
ess of setting apart men for the ministry. All who wish 
for unity must either now or in the future submit to that 


ideal, and we are told that unless those who submit to or- 
dination acknowledge by their action the theory involved 
as true there is no room for them in the Church. That 
ideal is in no sense the ideal found in the New Testament 
or in primitive Christianity. The upholders of this the- 
ory have to face the awkward fact that in Egypt to the 
middle of the second century nothing was known of the 
alleged necessity of episcopal ordination for a valid exer- 
cise of the ministry. Today it is forced on us by the ex- 
perience of our home work and the triumphs of the mis- 
sion field that the non-episcopal ministries and work are 
as richly blessed as those of episcopal Churches, and it is 
only a purblind logic that asserts we find ministries of 
grace valid for the members of the non-episcopalian 
Churches, and not valid for those who are privileged to 
be members of episcopal Churches. If the real test of 
churchmanship be living union with the head of the 
Church, then the fact that a ministry is truly a ministry 
of grace involves that all who are brought under its influ- 
ence and are participators of its worship — whether they 
be Episcopalians or non-Episcopalians — are in the way 
of receiving grace. The implication that a type of min- 
istry honoured by God should be dishonoured by men, 
who in agreement with a supposed Christian principle 
abstain from participating in its sacraments, means that 
man sits in judgment and pronounces an adverse verdict 
on the work of God. 

The sooner, therefore, we free ourselves of any supe- 
riority on account of our historical position as specially 
privileged recipients of the grace of God, the better for 
our Christian life. I cannot for one moment write down 
as spiritually inferior, or as organically spurious, the 
great non-episcopal Churches whose numbers far exceed 
those of the Church of England, and whose work has 
been signally honoured by God. I hold as firmly as any 
man the fact that until the unity of the Church was broken 


by the sins and failures of episcopal Christianity, epis- 
copacy was the prevailing form of Church government for 
more than a millennium — but it was not a millennium of 
healthy, spiritual development and moral progress, or 
justifiable institutional growth. The fifteenth century, 
with its united Western Church, is not a model to be 
aimed at by those who wish to follow the King and do 
His will. The verdict of the Council of Trent is sufficient 
proof of that. We must aim at a flock with many folds, 
not a Church with a number of orders whose present state 
is in complete contrast with the spirit that gave rise to 
their existence. They may be, as they have been, institu- 
tionalised out of all relation to their aims and ideals. 

In practice we must be prepared to admit the full valid- 
ity for all Christendom of the orders of men who are set 
apart for the ministry by the great non-episcopal 
Churches. Re-ordination will confer no new grace — will 
not regularise in the sight of God their ministry, although 
it may regularise it from the standpoint of individual 
communities — folds of the one flock. There is absolutely 
no hope or prospect of the non-episcopal Churches accept- 
ing re-ordination as a gift from God necessary for in- 
creased validity or Church catholic regularity of their 
ministry. They know this, and while willing to accept 
the overseership of bishops, they are not ready to accept 
the theory attached to episcopacy without which episco- 
pacy is meaningless in the opinion of those who insist on 
the Church acting as if their view of episcopacy is the 
only possible one. The day will come when that theory 
will be frankly abandoned, after undergoing many trans- 
formations in the desperation of its upholders to defend 
it in the light of modern knowledge. That day is not yet, 
and until it comes we must maintain our strong protest 
against the claims put forward in its support. 

We have come to see that until the Table of the Lord is 
acknowledged to be the Table round which all His follow- 


ers, irrespective of their denominationalism, may freely 
gather, we cannot talk of Christian unity. Anything 
short of this is a caricature of the Spirit of Christ. When 
the fruits of a godly life and the profession of a living 
faith in the Saviour are vouched for by a responsible 
Christian community, there is something almost blas- 
phemous in man saying, "The gift of the holy sacrament 
is not for you — it is only for those who accept it as exclu- 
sively theirs on whom episcopal hands have been laid." 
Surely such a doctrine and practice is nothing but a sin 
against the whole teaching of Him who said "do this in 
remembrance of Me!" If baptism can be administered 
by a layman, why should the Lord's Table be confined to 
those who have received episcopal confirmation, to those 
who have either been confirmed directly as in England, 
confirmed in bulk as in some continental countries, con- 
firmed by a priest in infancy with the chrism consecrated 
by a priest? There is something repulsively magical in 
the contention that will admit the indirectly confirmed by 
the bishop with the oil he has blessed, and will exclude 
men whose life and work are honoured by God and His 

The principle laid down will involve our not refusing 
to communicate at the Lord's Table when the consecra- 
tion has been the act of a non-episcopally ordained man 
full of the Holy Ghost and of faith. To do this is not rea- 
son to our Church, which is one of many folds. Brother- 
liness demands it when occasion arises, and abstention 
from so doing partakes of Pharisaism when we look upon 
the position with the eyes of the New Testament saints. 
The Table of the Lord gives the great opportunity for 
showing our brotherhood. That opportunity must be re- 
ciprocal if it is to be in any sense real. 

The hour has arrived for a step forward, and it is only 
in accord with the findings of the past for us to declare 
that no ministry of grace blessed by God is not in accord 


with His will, that no ministry has any inherent superior- 
ity in His sight over other ministries of a different insti- 
tutional type, that unity is not the child of a uniform 
Church government, and that the Table of the Lord is the 
place where the spirit of unity must be shown before any 
real federated institutional unity in one great Church 
with many folds and many forms of government faces 
the world that has to be won to God. 


By Eev. John B. Cowden, Nashville, Tenn. 

A study of .Paul's plan for Christian unity should be pref- 
aced by a study of his teaching on Christian liberty and 
loyalty, because the three are closely associated and inter- 
dependent upon each other. A correct understanding 
and application of the loyalty and liberty of Christian 
worship is, therefore, essential to the unity of the same. 
These three must be studied and kept together, other- 
wise their Scriptural use and meaning will be missed. 
The Catholic Church has unity without liberty, and the 
Protestant Church has liberty without unity; but the 
apostolic Church had unity with liberty, which is Chris- 
tian unity. Unity and liberty were inseparably con- 
nected in the New Testament Church, and the connecting 
link between the two was loyalty. Liberty, loyalty and 
unity constitute the Scriptural trinity, the three in one, 
of the New Testament Church ; or, in other words, Chris- 
tian unity can not be without the broadest liberty that 
loyalty will permit; nor is any one of the three truly 
Christian without the other two. However, whenever it 
is necessary to choose between the three, loyalty to Christ 
must be always placed before unity and liberty. Paul 
often had to choose between liberty and loyalty, and 
he always chose the latter. Luther was offered unity 
without liberty within the Catholic Church at the sacrifice 
of loyalty ; and he chose the latter by nailing up his theses 
and burning the Papal decree at the gates of Wittenberg, 
thereby laying the foundation of his great Eeformation 
upon loyalty and liberty; however, in doing so, liberty 
was over-emphasized and unity was lost. The over-em- 
phasis of liberty soon led to divisions, which have con- 
tinued to multiply from that day to this. Luther solved 
the problem of loyalty and liberty, but was unable to solve 
the problem of unity, which has come down to us an un- 
solved problem. 


This does not mean, however, that it can not be solved. 
In fact, we ought to be more able and in a better position 
to solve this problem than were our forefathers; other- 
wise Christian progress and development mean nothing. 
Christ evidently thought that all his followers could and 
would worship together sometime, for He prayed that 
' ' they may all be one, ' ' and stated, ' ' They shall become 
one flock, one shepherd." So, then, the unity of Chris- 
tian worshipers is not a dream of the millennium or some 
religious Utopia, but a possible and probable state, for 
which Christ prayed and Paul worked, and which actually 
existed for several hundred years in the apostolic Church. 
However, it must be frankly admitted that we are still 
far from the final solution of this problem. Divisions 
and sectarianism are still abroad in the land, with all 
their attendant evils ; and the Church of Christ has been 
rent asunder with strife and contention into many war- 
ring sects and parties, until today there are nearly two 
hundred separate religious bodies in the Christian world. 

However, the pendulum has begun to swing back to- 
ward unity. The Churches have at last realized the evils 
of division, and are seeking the way to unity. The de- 
nominations, which a few years ago were the pride and 
glory of Christians, have few apologists today, while 
many eloquent tongues and pens in every denomination 
are pleading for unity with all God's people, and the 
whole Church seems to be possessed with a passion to re- 
turn to "the one fold and one shepherd/' This wide- 
spread desire for unity has found its way even into the 
seclusive and exclusive Roman Church, which for centu- 
ries has dwelt behind its high "walls of partition"; but 
today there has arisen the Modernist Movement in the 
Catholic Church, that seems to be trying to find its way 
into the great common fold of Christ. Of this movement 
Abbe Houtin says: "0 sons and heritors of the Reform- 
ers of the sixteenth century, you see beginning in the 


Church of Borne, which condemned your fathers without 
listening to them — you see beginning a religious struggle 
more far-reaching than that of Luther and Calvin." 
The Roman Catholic scholar, Mehler, a Modernist, says : 
"Both communions [Protestant and Catholic] should 
stretch out a friendly hand to one another in the con- 
sciousness of a common guilt. This open confession of 
guilt on both sides will be followed by the festival of rec- 
onciliation. ' ' And Father Tyrrell adds : "In the light 
of these centuries of necessary but costly experience, may 
not the problem of liberty and authority now admit of 
some happier solution, and on the ruins of two opposing 
systems be built up something more durable than either 1 ' ' 
On the other hand, the advocates of Christian unity in the 
Protestant Churches are too numerous to quote or men- 
tion. The desire for Christian unity is so far spread to- 
day that it is hardly worth while to spend time in show- 
ing that unity is the desirable thing. This has been the 
chief objective of the preaching and writing on Chris- 
tian unity in the past ; but this is very largely, if not al- 
together, conceded today. Whatever was lacking to con- 
vince all of the desirableness of Christian unity has been 
supplied by the great World War, which clearly demon- 
strated both the weakness and sinfulness of divisions, 
and the strength and efficiency of unity. This almost 
unanimous desire for unity is the first pre-essential to 
Christian unity, because the desire is the father of the 
deed. Only people that greatly desire to unite can unite. 
In fact, the prevailing feeling today toward unity is 
more than a desire; it is a necessity. In view of the 
greatness and the urgency of the world's need today, and 
the greatness of the task to supply this need, the Church 
must unite, or fail in its mission to the world. The sup- 
plying of the world 's temporal and spiritual needs today 
is too big a task for a divided Church, just as it was 
too big a task during the great World War. When that 


great, world-wide conflagration of suffering and death 
broke out in the world, men and women turned to the 
Church saying: "Where is the Church 1 Can not the 
Church prevent this awful war?" And some began to 
ask : ' ' Has the Church failed % ' ' Yes, the Church did fail 
— failed because of its division. A united Church could 
doubtless have prevented this war. Furthermore, as the 
war progressed, with its awful suffering and untold 
deaths, suffering and dying humanity again turned to the 
Church, saying : ' ' Can't you feed us ? Can't you bind up 
our wounds? Can't you pour in the oil of consolation 
and salvation in the hour of our death!" And again, on 
account of division, the Church had to sit helpless and un- 
able to respond to this world call, while such institutions 
as the Y. M. C. A., the Red Cross, the Knights of Colum- 
bus, the Salvation Army, etc., did this work that the 
Church of Christ was organized to do. If there have- ever 
been tears shed in heaven, undoubtedly they were shed 
then, when Jesus Christ looked down upon this starving, 
bleeding, dying world crying for help, and His Church, 
weakened and incapacitated through division, unable to 
respond to these needs. But you say: "The above insti- 
tutions that did this work are Christian institutions." 
That is true ; but they are not the Church, and the Church 
as an institution had to sit idly by, while the world suf- 
fered and died, because it was too big a task for a divided 
Church. While the war has passed, the need for a united 
Church is no less now than during the war, because the 
Church today is confronted by other world tasks and 
problems that are too big for a divided Church. The war 
brought the nations of the earth together in a common 
cause, and bound their welfare and destiny together in 
such a way that the world today is one, and the tasks and 
problems that confront us today are world problems and 
tasks. National seclusiveness is a thing of the past. 
Nothing short of a united League of Nations can meet 


and solve the governmental problems and tasks of the fu- 
ture, and nothing short of a united Church can meet and 
solve the religious problems and tasks of the future. 
Wherefore, the time has come when the Churches must 
unite. It is not a time to preach Christian unity, but to 
practice it. 

But is Christian unity possible ? Surely Christ would 
not have prayed for an impossibility, nor would He have 
declared, " There shall be one fold and one shepherd," 
if such were impossible; and Paul declares: "I can do 
all things in Him that strengthened me. ' ' What people 
can do depends largely on the impelling motive behind 
the deed. With a sufficient motive, Christian unity is 
not only possible, but highly probable. The strongest 
motive power of which men and women are capable, says 
Paul, is love, which he sets forth as the only influence 
sufficient to effect and maintain Christian unity. "Who 
shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribu- 
lation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or naked- 
ness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written, 

For thy sake we are killed all the day long ; 
We are counted as sheep for the slaughter. 

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors 
through Him that loved us. For I am persuaded that 
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor 
things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor 
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able 
to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ 
Jesus our Lord." Paul asks the question, "Who shall 
separate us from the love of Christ?" and then answers 
it by affirming that absolutely nothing can break this tie 
in Christ. He mentions some of the greatest alienating 
causes, such as tribulation, anguish, persecution, famine, 
nakedness, peril and sword, so, if none of these terrible 
experiences can alienate us from Christ, then there is 


nothing that can. We, therefore, have a tie in Christ that 
binds in spite of all the alienating causes. 

Note, furthermore, that this tie not only binds, but it 
triumphs. "We are more than conquerors through Him 
that loved us." We are victorious in spite of all difficul- 
ties that may arise in life or death, from principalities 
and powers in high places or low, or from any creature 
whatsoever. We, therefore, have a tie in Christ Jesus 
our Lord that binds and triumphs in spite of all the alien- 
ating causes and defeating difficulties that beset the pil- 
grimage of Christian life. 

Love is the only motive power that can bind and tri- 
umph over all opposition in this life. There are other 
motive powers that can bind and triumph for awhile. 
For instance, hatred, the opposite of love, can bind peo- 
ple together for awhile, and lead them to victory over 
some difficulties, as it did in the case of the enemies of 
Christ, who were bound together by a common hatred, 
and were led by the same to the victory of His death; 
but they did not remain together long, but soon parted, 
and the cause of Christ triumphed over them. Hope also 
is a strong motive power in one's life, and those that are 
led on by the bright star of hope accomplish great vic- 
tories ; but hope is not invincible. ' ' Hope deferred mak- 
eth the heart sick" — is easily discouraged and gives up 
the fight. Also, the human will is a great motive power, 
so great that there are few limitations on what those that 
say, ' ' I can and will, ' ' can do ; but even the human will is 
not invincible. Mr. Henley was mistaken when he said : 
"I thank God for my unconquerable soul.' ' The human 
soul is not invincible. There are roads too rough and 
mountains too high to be traveled and scaled by the hu- 
man will ; and there are burdens too heavy to be borne by 
the human will; such burdens as poor, frail, delicate 
women are carrying to-day — loads that would crush the 
will of the strongest man in the world. The only reason 


that any one can carry such a burden is that love is under- 
neath the load. Love can carry any burden, and endure 
any hardship. In other words, love alone is invincible ; 
and this is what Paul meant when he said : ' ' We are more 
than conquerors through Him that loved us." 

But has not Paul in his zeal overstated the power of 
love? Not so, when we take into consideration Paul's 
conception of love. Love, to Paul, is the vital, central 
motive power that controls and regulates the whole so- 
cial and spiritual world. Love is to the spiritual uni- 
verse what the force of gravity is to the physical uni- 
verse. When God created the universe, He created and 
set in operation the law of gravity that was to control 
and regulate everything in the universe; and through 
the operation of this great law of matter everything is 
held in position, and moves on in such perfect unison 
and harmony that, listening, you can almost hear the 
music of the spheres. However, there come times — times 
of storm, — when it seems that the world is about to go to 
pieces ; but you know that down beneath the storm is a 
mightier power than the storm, the power of gravity, 
which you can trust to hold the world together ; and so it 
has been with all the storms that have assailed the earth. 
The storm in all its fury passed; and, with the excep- 
tion of a rent here and a gash there, the old world was 
left the same. Just so there come storms in the social and 
spiritual world that threaten and disturb the safety and 
peace of the world for the time, and at times it looks as 
if everything is going to pieces. Especially was this the 
case in the last war, which was the greatest social 
storm that this world has ever seen; but we have seen 
it pass, and the old world is left largely the same as it 
was. God is still at the center of things, and His love, a 
great attractive force, permeates the whole social uni- 
verse, and holds things together, and will continue to do 
so even to the end. Wherefore Paul says, "We are more 


than conquerors through Him that loved us ; ' ' which is 
no exaggerated statement of the power of love, but the 
simple truth that underlies the whole social and spiritual 
world; and through this love as the motive power, and 
through it alone, Christians can and will unite. 

Yes, they can unite, but will they! In view of their 
great differences and strong feelings, will they be will- 
ing to lay these aside and let love have its way? If they 
have the love of which Paul speaks above, they will, and 
it matters not how great the differences and how bitter 
the feelings. One illustration will suffice to show this. 
A husband and wife became alienated, and separated ; a 
third party undertook to reunite them. He talked to the 
man first, and he thought that he never heard a man say 
uglier, meaner things about any woman than the husband 
said about his wife. He talked with the wife next, and 
then he decided that the man had not said anything about 
his wife. Well, he concluded, of course, that it was use- 
less to try further to get these people together. They 
were too far apart, and their feelings toward each other 
were too bitter and intense. But they were united, and 
how? They had a little child; and this little child came 
over to the father, and, taking him by the hand, led him 
over to the mother; and they fell on each other's necks, 
and wept, and were united again. They had a common 
love ; they both loved that little child ; and this common 
love brought them together and kept them together. 
Christians have a common love; they all love Jesus 
Christ; and Paul says that this tie binds in spite of all 
alienating causes and difficulties. If Christians would 
only let Christ bring them together, where they could see 
the nail-prints in His hands and the sword-thrust in His 
side, they could, and would come together and unite. 
" Nothing/ ' says Paul, " shall be able to separate us 
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our 


Note, next, to what this tie unites us. In the first 
place, it unites us to God; and what a blessed thing it 
is to be united to God! In the second place, it unites 
us to each other. Paul says that nothing shall be able 
to separate "us," not me, from the love of God. The 
Christian tie is not an individual tie, but a fraternal tie. 
It is a tie that binds Christians together, and thus united 
they are united to God. No Christian can separate him- 
self from his brethren, and claim an individual tie with 
God. * ' For he that loveth not his brother whom he hath 
seen, can not love God whom he hath not seen." Love is 
the only influence in the world that can bring people to- 
gether and keep them together. Love is the only tie that 
can keep a home together, and it is the only tie that can 
keep a Church together. Many Christians have trusted 
a common faith to keep them together. They believed 
the same things, and they trusted this tie to keep them 
together in the bond of peace ; but it failed. A common 
faith, however strong, can not maintain the bond of 
Christian brotherhood. Only a common love can do this. 
The strong heat of a fervent common love is the only 
influence that can melt and unite human hearts in a last- 
ing bond of Christian unity ; but this can, and will, unite 
all Christians that allow the love of God to have its way 
in their hearts and over their lives. 

But love is not the only essential to Christian unity, 
as some seem to think. Love only makes unity possible 
or probable. It is the only possible approach to unity, 
and the only probable way of realizing the same; yet 
love alone can not unite the Christian world. Love is 
the only impelling motive that can surmount all diffi- 
culties in the way of unity, but the way to unity must 
be made practical. Love alone is not practical, but 
rather visionary, so love alone can not be trusted to lead 
the way to unity. In addition to love, Paul says there 
must be ' ' faith working through love ; ' ' and through this 


working combination all Christian problems can be 
solved. " Faith is assurance and conviction;" or, in 
other words, faith rests upon evidence, and follows the 
light of reason, and is, therefore, practical in its lead- 
ings and conclusions. So, then, we look to faith for the 
practical side of unity. Any unity that does not fulfill 
the requirements of faith can not be a practical or a 
lasting unity; and, furthermore, it must satisfy the re- 
quirements of a Scriptural faith, otherwise it would not 
be Scriptural unity. Scriptural faith is " faith that 
Cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." 
Wherefore, we look to the word of God for the practical 
realization of Christian unity. 

Before Christian unity can be made practical, a prac- 
tical plan, by which, and upon which, all Christians can 
unite, must be found. This seems to be the one thing 
lacking to-day to make unity practicable. In answer to 
this demand for a practical plan for Christian unity, 
four plans have so far been offered. The Eoman Cath- 
olic Church proposes a return to the mother Church, 
where, they claim, there was unity until Luther and 
other reformers broke it up. This plan would undoubt- 
edly secure unity, but it would do so at the price of two 
things in the world that are worth more than unity; 
namely, loyalty and liberty, without which, as we have 
shown, it would not be Christian unity ; and besides, such 
a unity would not satisfy the requirements of Scriptural 
faith, and could not, therefore, be Scriptural unity. The 
Episcopalians also have a plan to bring the Christian 
world together. The Protestant Episcopal Church has 
always claimed to be a sort of half-way house between 
Catholicism and Protestantism, and has hoped to bring 
Eome down and Geneva up to this common level ; and to 
this end this communion offers what is known as the 
Lambeth Quadrilateral as a practical plan for Christian 
unity. But one of the items in this plan is the historic 


bishopric, or apostolic succession, which excludes its 
acceptance by all congregational or democratic com- 
munions. The Presbyterians, Congregationalists and 
Methodists propose a federation of all the Churches, 
which, of course, is not unity at all, and, for this rea- 
son, has not been seriously considered by the Churches. 
Another plan, first proposed by the Campbells and ad- 
vocated to the present by those committed to this plan, 
is a restoration of the apostolic Church and unity upon 
the same. But there have arisen differences as to what 
the apostolic Church was in all respects, and some doubt 
the propriety of restoring the apostolic Church in some 
respects, so this plan has so far failed to unite the 
Churches. There is good in all the above plans, but all 
of them have so far failed to restore the unity of the 
Church ; however, they have taught us some very impor- 
tant negative lessons. 

In the first place, the failure of the above plans has 
taught us that Christian unity can not be an ecclesias- 
ticism, where one man or a number of men constitute the 
head of the Church; that has always been religious tyr- 
anny and spiritual despotism. Not a union of denomina- 
tions, where one denomination swallows up all the oth- 
ers; that would be a denominational monster, or mon- 
strosity. Not a federation of sects, where each sect is 
fitted into its allotted niche and place, and agrees to oc- 
cupy as little space as possible ; that would be stagnation 
and death. Not an aggregation of unreconciled sects, 
where each has signed an armistice ; that has always re- 
sulted in renewed hostilities. Not a peace by compro- 
mise, where all agree to maintain a respectful silence 
such as the tombs of a graveyard ; that would be a living 
death. Not a bargain, where one thing is given up by 
one, and another thing is given up in return by another ; 
that would be selling out. Not a forced union, where all 
speak the same thing through slavish fear ; that would be 


a new edition of "The Book of Martyrs." Not a uni- 
formity of opinions, where each one sneezes when the 
other takes snuff; that would he religious hypocrisy. 
Not a union of all the theories and philosophies of the re- 
ligious thinkers and dreamers of the past ; that would be 
a religious museum. Not a union of all the modern cults 
and isms ; that would be fanaticism, of which the world 
is full already. Not a union in theory or name only, but 
a real, practical, organic union of the dismembered parts 
of the divided body of Christ ; and that which is needed 
most to eif ect such a union is a practical, acceptable plan. 

In view of the failure of the above plans, which were 
wrought out of the best thought and experience of the 
past, and in view of the fact that the Churches of to-day 
have no other to offer, where shall we look for a better 
plan! When we have exhausted all human resources of 
the past and the present, where do we usually look for 
help? "My help cometh from Jehovah, who made 
heaven and earth." Yes, but God has not given us any 
help at this point ; He has left us in the darkness to find 
our own way out of the confusion of division into the light 
of unity. If this be true, Christian unity is indeed a hope- 
less undertaking. However, is it not strange that Christ 
would have prayed for the unity of all His disciples, and 
commanded them to work for the same, without giving 
them some plan and basis for unity? Furthermore, if 
"the scriptures furnish us completely unto every good 
work," as Paul says they do, is it not strange that they 
do not give us a practical working plan for Christian 
unity, the greatest of good works? Before we conclude 
that there is no Scriptural plan for Christian unity, 
let us search the Scriptures for light on this point. 

We find in Paul's letter to the Ephesians a plan out- 
lined, which united the religious sects of that day, both 
Jews and Gentiles, who hated each other with all the 
animosity and bitterness of which the soul is capable. 


The religious sects of to-day are no further apart, and 
have no greater hatred for each other, than they had 
in Paul's day, so a plan that united the sects of that 
day can, we believe, do the same to-day. This plan is as 
follows : 

"For He [Christ] is our peace, who made both one, and brake down 
the middle wall of partition, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, 
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that He might 
create in Himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might 
reconcile them both in one body unto Cod through the cross, having slain 
the enmity thereby: and he came and preached peace to you that were 
far off, and peace to them that were nigh: for through Him we both have 
our access in one Spirit unto the Father. So then ye are no more strangers 
and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the 
household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each 
several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the 
Lord; in Whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in 
the Spirit" (Eph. 2:14-22). 

By analytical study of the above plan, outlined by 
Paul, it will be found to contain seven basic items or 
fundamental principles (a heptagon instead of a quad- 
rilateral), which constituted the plan and basis for unity 
in Paul's day, and which, we believe, is sufficient for 
unity to-day: 

(1) A common standard of authority. "For He 
(Christ) is our peace, Who made both (Jews and Gen- 
tiles) one." (2) The removal of differences. "And 
brake down the middle wall of partition, having abol- 
ished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of command- 
ments contained in ordinances ; that He might create in 
Himself of the two one new man, so making peace." (3) 
Reconciliation. "And might reconcile them both in one 
body unto Christ through the cross, having slain the en- 
mity thereby." (4) A common access unto the Father. 
"Through Him ive both have our access in one Spirit 
unto the Father. (5) A democratic brotherhood. "So 
then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are 
fellow -citizens with the saints, and of the household of 
God." (6) The foundation of unity. "Being built upon 
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ 


Jesus Himself being the chief corner stone/' (7) The 
units of union. "In Whom each several building, fitly 
framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; 
in Whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of 
God in the Spirit." 

This is Paul's plan, so let no individual or denomina- 
tion make claim to the same, but let all accept it, and 
unite by it. It is the only undenominational plan, be- 
cause it was formed centuries before any of the modern 
denominations existed, so it has no denominational bias 
or sectarian associations to prejudice any one against it- 
It is also the only Scriptural plan, because all that is 
claimed for other plans is that they are only deductions 
from the Scriptures, while every step or item in the 
above plan was expressly prescribed verbatim by the di- 
vinely inspired apostle Paul. While we have analyzed 
and commented on the several items or steps in this plan, 
we were careful to add to or take nothing from it. The 
comments are ours; the plan is Paul's. Furthermore, 
it is the only truly catholic plan, the only plan that all 
can accept. It contains nothing more nor less than the 
final essential deposit of Christianity, as conceived and 
stated by Paul, the master builder of Christianity. No 
other plan offers a programme that appeals to all com- 
munions. It is also the only practical plan, because no 
other plan has succeeded in uniting a divided Church, 
while it successfully united all the sects of Paul's day, 
and maintained unity in the Church for several hundred 
years ; and it will do the same to-day, if it is only given 
a fair trial. Unity by this plan, of course, would be a 
drastic and far-reaching step on the part of the Churches 
to-day — one that involves many denominational sacri- 
fices. This is what makes all hesitate and draw back 
from such a union. To be sure, only by the sacrifice of 
everything sectarian and denominational, can Christian 
unity be realized, because unity, purchased at any less 


price, would be only a continuation, more or less, of sec- 
tarianism. Lastly, Paul's plan is the only perfect plan, 
lacking nothing necessary to unite the whole Christian 
world, except to be accepted and tried. 

Yes, but will this ever be! If the signs of the times 
and the words of many of the religious leaders are to 
be believed, such a union can and will be realized. There 
are evidences on all hands of an increasing acceptance 
of Paul's plan, or the New Testament basis for Chris- 
tian unity, as the following quotations from leaders to- 
day clearly show : 

"We must go back to essential New Testament principles, for their 
ancient programme, re-emphasized in the largest way, is the conquering pro- 
gramme of the future. " — Rev. Oliver HucTcel, D.I). (Congregationalist), 
Baltimore, Md. 

"The only solid basis of Church union is the general abandonment of 
doctrines, traditions, theories and rites not found in the New Testament. 
So long as Christians cling to the traditions of the later fathers, and re- 
fuse to go back to the plain teachings and simple ordinances of the New 
Testament, there will be irreconcilable divisions in the body of Christ. 
The true basis of the union of Christendom, for which so many to-day are 
longing, is a general return to primitive Christianity. It is not difficult to 
determine what that is, for it is writ large on the pages of the Book. 
Let us all cheerfully give up every dogma, every ceremonial, not found 
there, and Christian and Church union will come of itself. Any attempt 
at union on a lower plane will prove a failure. " — Examiner (Baptist). 

"All things are calling us just now to give ourselves and our Church to 
primary things, and to keep out of the way all secondary things, how- 
ever good and true, however much we prize them. It is time to rally to 
the defence of our common Christianity, and let our private, partisan and 
denominational pecularities shift for themselves. If they die, so much gain 
for the kingdom of God." — Br. Wm. P. Merrill (Presbyterian). 

"We, the representatives of the Presbyterian, the Methodist and the 
Congregational branches of the Church of Christ in Canada, do hereby set 
forth the substance of the Christian faith as commonly held among us. 
In doing so we build upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. ' ' — From * ' The Published 
Basis of Union.' 1 

"There is a necessity of a return to first principles; we must get be- 
hind the prejudices, interests, errors and associations of history to the 
fountain-head of Christianity; we must sit at the feet of the Master, and 
move again in the company of the apostles. We must become in temper 
and in spirit, and not merely in name and in claim, an apostolic Church." 
— Canon Hensley Henson (Episcopalian). 

"The Church that we need is a Church that stands for the simplicity 
and the sufficiency of the religion of Jesus Christ, calling itself by no name 
but one. The best men in all the Churches are seeking to a common basis 
of union, to come together on some large Christian confession, and to live 
with one another as becomes disciples of Christ." — Dr. John Hunter, of 
Trinity Church, Glasgow, Scotland. 

"We do hereby affirm that Christian unity, now so earnestly desired by 


the memorialists, can be restored only by the return of all Christian com- 
munions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided catholic 
Church during the first ages of its existence, which principles we believe 
to be the substantial deposit of Christian faith and order committed by 
His apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and, therefore, 
incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained 
to be its stewards for the common and equal benefit of all men." — The 
Bishops of the Episcopal Church to the Whole Church. 

"We want a Christianity more pure, more practical, more conformed to 
the original Gospel. " — Catholic Modernist. 

From the above statements it is clear that there is a 
decided leaning in all the Churches toward Paul's plan 
for Christian unity, which is indicative of the coming of 
this union. In fact, it is already being realized in a large 
degree on the foreign field, as is seen from the following 
from J. Campbell Gibson, Presbyterian missionary in 
China: "When we met in Shanghai two years ago, the 
representatives of over fifty missions of the Western 
Churches, we found ourselves able to declare cordially 
that we are one body in Christ, and we assured the Chi- 
nese Church that we desire only to plant one Church un- 
der the sole control of the Lord Jesus Christ, governed 
by the word of the living God and led by His guiding 
Spirit. When you speak the words of division, your 
voice is the voice of strangers; and the flock of Christ 
will neither hear nor follow. ' ' He who said, ' ' Christian 
unity will proceed from the circumference to the cen- 
ter, ' ' seems to have been a true prophet. Christian unity 
can be fully realized everywhere, both at the center and 
on the circumference and throughout the whole of Chris- 
tendom, if only Paul's plan for unity is accepted and 
followed. While this plan for unity and the vision of a 
united Church come to us out of the distant past, yet it is 
not a passing dream of the dark, closing night, but a sure 
promise of the red, opening dawn ; and, if all the signs of 
Christian unity on the horizon of the future are to be 
believed, the glad day of the unity of all God's people in 
the Church of His Son, when all shall bow down and wor- 
ship Him together, is not far distant; and we pray God 
that it may speedily come. 


By Eev. Eobert Westly Peach, D.D., Bector Emanuel Reformed Epis- 
copal Church, Newark, N. J. 

The unity of Christ's people for which He prayed is 
indisputably a spiritual unity. He compares it with His 
own unity with the Father : ' ' That they may be one, even 
as we are one ' ' (v. 22) . It is the communion of those who 
avow Him as their Saviour, obey Him as their Lord, be- 
cause they believe in His coessential deity with the Fa- 

This spiritual unity has not yet been attained by the 
whole body of people who call themselves by His Name. 
Even after eliminating those who are not sincere, there 
remain those who deny His deity, and those who in their 
thought destroy it by division in deifying His mother. 
Throughout the centuries, a partial fulfilment of His 
prayer has been granted. For the sum total of all true 
believers in Him as Saviour, Lord, and God, we have an 
ancient and honored title : ' ' The Holy Catholic Church. ' ' 
This is a Church invisible, a spirit disembodied. Is it the 
only possible unity of His people on this sphere, or in this 
dispensation? Is it, with its progressive enlargement, 
the nearest possible fulfilment of the Saviour's prayer? 

Those who believe that it is, and who advance argu- 
ments against every movement to bring together at least 
and at first some of the scattered branches of the visible 
Church, and equally some of those who believe in a visible 
unity and set forth arguments in favor of a oneness of 
order or of modes, make some contentions which are 
clearly fallacious. It is the purpose of this article to 
deal with a few of these fallacies. 

(1) The Spiritual Fallacy. — This is the argument that 
because the unity for which Christ prayed is spiritual, 
therefore a visible embodiment of this unity would be 


contrary to His wish. That is, man being a spirit, his en- 
templing in the flesh is contrary to the creative purpose ; 
that is, the Son of God, equally with the Father and the 
Father and the Holy Ghost, being a spirit, His incarna- 
tion was a violation of the divine will. Nay rather, as 
St. Paul voices the universal desire, even now and all the 
more after the decay of this earthly body we have and 
shall have the ' ' longing to be clothed upon with our habi- 
tation which is from heaven' ' (2 Cor. v. 2) ; and he adds 
to this the assurance of God's sanction (v. 5). And as 
to the Christ, St. Paul says, "He Who was manifested in 
the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16), and St. Peter adds, "was mani- 
fested at the end of the times for your sake" (1 Pet. 
1:20). For man's sake, yea also, for Christ's sake, that 
is, for His glory, a body for the spiritual unity of His 
people is worthily to be longed for. 

And now, leaving the first century for the twentieth, let 
us consider some of the current erroneous arguments. 

(2) The Egotistical Fallacy. — This is the argument 
that the union of one's Church, or one's branch of the 
Church, with another or others would be a lowering of 
its standard. They have not so valid and historic a min- 
istry; or so close fidelity to the Scriptures; or so great 
missionary zeal and beneficence ; or such a venerable and 
beautiful liturgy, if any; or such evangelistic enthusi- 
asm ; or such a necrology of great names ; or such a ros- 
ter of living leaders of eminence; or educational stand- 
ards so high ; or comparable religious statesmanship ; or 
what not? The argumentum ad hominem is the reply: 
"by their fruits ye shall know them." The devotional 
classics, the great hymns, the noblest sermons, the famous 
commentaries, of our literature were produced by the 
ministers and members of no one Church but of many. 
Heroic missionaries, Pentecostal evangelists, self-sacri- 
ficing pastors, have not emerged preponderatingly from 


any one denomination but from many. The saintliest 
lives in any community will not be found confined to any 
one of its Churches, and in the country at large they will 
surely be found proportionately dispersed throughout all 
the communions. The genius of every denomination has 
wrought out some distinguishing merits and developed 
some structural weaknesses. A union of two or more of 
these bodies would uncover their several defects for rem- 
edy and bring into relief their several elements of 
strength for development. 

(3) The Homogeneal Fallacy. — This argues the fear 
that combination of branches of the Church would de- 
stroy the homogeneity now characterizing any one of 
them. The argument is premised upon a condition non- 
existent. In a single denomination are found evangel- 
icals, sacramentalists and rationalists; Calvinists and 
Arminians; premillenarians and postmillennialists ; 
open- and close-communion advocates; believers in the 
verbal inspiration of the Bible and higher critics; and, 
for an extreme example, believers that foot-washing is 
an ordinance, who differ as to whether one or both feet 
should be washed therein. Without contradiction, the 
fallacy is exposed by a fact precisely the opposite ; there 
is an outstanding and far more characteristic homogen- 
eity now appearing in the worship, the preaching and the 
work-methods of the divided Churches; so that given a 
non-liturgical Church, the visitor who does not know its 
name will not be able to tell from the service, and even 
ordinarily from the sermon, whether he is worshiping in 
a Methodist or a Baptist or a Presbyterian or a Disci- 
ples ' or a Congregational or a Reformed or a United 
Brethren, or some other sanctuary. 

(4) The Regimental Fallacy. — How often we have 
heard it declared, each time with an air implying an 
original figure of speech, "We are all regiments of the 


one great army." Let us follow that figure in an illus- 
tration: Two national guard regiments are ordered out 
on a practise march and encampment. The colonel of 
one locates a field as the sun is westering and commands 
the regiment to halt and fix camp. As the work nears 
completion the other regiment approaches from the op- 
posite direction, and its colonel commands it to halt and 
fix camp on the same spot, his men to run a row of tents 
down the middle of each company street and beyond, and 
to erect a mess-tent on the site selected by the first for 
a drill-ground. The results can easily be imagined. Yet 
this is precisely what our Churches of different denom- 
inations have long been doing. New parishes crowd into 
fields already fully occupied, either to succeed by rob- 
bing the older parishes or to fail with complete loss of 
all labor and money spent. The Interchurch World 
Movement survey of Southern Ohio has revealed many 
settlements in which such overcrowding has resulted in 
practically killing all the Churches in such communities, 
so that there is not left a single resident minister or a 
single Church with regular weekly services. Of course 
the illegitimacy-rate and the death-rate in these places 
have been found abnormally high. Eegiments of the 
same army do not fight each other to depletion or mutual 

(5) The Numerical Fallacy. — This argument runs 
thus: Denominationalism has not resulted in over- 
churching, save in exceptional places; there are plenty 
of people to fill the churches if only pastors and people 
would go out after them; empty pews are not found in 
churches where men of ability and unfeigned piety 
preach with freshness of presentation and with unction 
the blessed old truths of the Gospel. By way of illustra- 
tion some exceptional cases of a crowded church where 
the latter conditions are fulfilled are cited. By way of 


refutation multiple cases of half -empty churches where 
the same conditions are fulfilled may be adduced. The 
implicit charge in the statement is a cruel misjudgment 
and a slander. Devout men of learning and eloquence 
and fidelity to the Son of God Whom they proclaim, 
filled with love for their fellow men, are preaching in 
all denominations all over our country to small and grad- 
ually diminishing congregations. And why? because 
there are not available people enough to fill their 
churches by half. Based upon figures drawn from the 
religious census of the United States of America for the 
years 1906 and 1916, if on a given day by edict all people 
could be ordered to abandon work at a given hour and 
assemble in the houses of worship of their choice, and if 
the order were obeyed, the synagogues and the Roman 
churches would be filled to suffocation and the streets in 
front crowded from curb to curb; while the Protestant 
churches, supposing that the ill were borne on stretchers 
and the infants in arms, would still not be filled. It may 
be added that the 1920 estimate by the Federal Council 
of Churches of the entire Protestant population of our 
country falls short by three millions of the 1906 census 
estimates of the seating capacity of six-sevenths of the 
Protestant churches ! 

(6) The Ordinal Fallacy. — Here is an adjective forced 
into an unusual meaning, because there is no other ad- 
jective that will serve. The fallacy so described is not 
used by opponents of organic union but by advocates 
who can see no possibility of such union without unifor- 
mity of ordination of all ministers by successors of the 
Apostles of Christ. Eschewing all controversy, it will 
suffice simply to state that the great majority of Protes- 
tant ministers believe that there is no Scriptural warrant 
or historical proof of the doctrine that there is anywhere 
in the world a line of tactual succession from the Apos- 


ties, down which apostolic authority has been transmit- 
ted. A fundamental of unity must be respect of the 
standing of communicants of the uniting Churches and 
of their ministers. Either re-confession or re-ordination 
as a condition would block any movement toward union, 
— as would, to take another case, re-baptism of those who 
had not been immersed. The fallacy lies in overlooking 
the fact that the true unity is that of the spirit, and that 
the visible expression of that true unity may be attained 
by agreement of the divided Churches of the evangelical 
faith to dwell together as one body. As I have said else- 
where, the only feasible organic unity is of organization, 
not of order. 

With every one of these and many other fallacies we 
who advocate organic union must grapple. Cool intel- 
lectual assent to the principles of union will not suffice ; 
we must have glowing zeal. 

Happily, we are not left to-day without a definite plan 
to advance. There is, indeed, a better plan, for complete 
organic union, held in abeyance, because the time for it 
seems not yet at hand. The plan for federal organic 
union is now before the Churches. It is the plan of union 
of the American Council on Organic Union of the Evan- 
gelical Churches which was fully presented in the April 
number of The Christian Union Quarterly. This plan 
is being presented to the supreme governing or advisory 
body of every evangelical Church in our country. After 
it has been adopted by at least six of these denomina- 
tions it will become operative, and they will unite as the 
"Churches of Christ in America," each retaining its 
present name and organization, and uniting in a super- 
body with delegated functions and authority, legislative, 
judicial and executive, after the pattern of the federal 
union of the states. In this the present evils of over- 
churching, overlapping efforts in missions and educa- 


tion, etc., will be dealt with and progressively elimi- 
nated; constructive programmes will be adopted; the 
United Churches will present a solid front to the forces 
arrayed against Christ and His Kingdom. Doubtless 
the number of uniting Churches will increase from year 
to year, until the evangelical Christians of our land will 
nearly all be represented in the United Churches. Until 
then, and thenceforth, Forward ! Let not the good work 
drag. It means the revivifying of Christ's people; it 
means the winning of thousands in place of hundreds of 
recruits for the army of the Lord ; it means the greatest 
step in modern ages toward the fulfilment of our Sav- 
iour's prayer, "That they all may be one." 


The word Church is used in the New Testament in two 
distinct senses. Our Lord, as His words are recorded in 
the Gospel of St. Matthew, used twice, and twice only the 
word ecclesia, and it cannot be otherwise than significant 
that He employed the word with these two connotations. 
When He said, ' * Upon this rock will I build My Church, ' ' 
it is manifest He did not mean a single, local congrega- 
tion. When He said, ' ■ Tell it to the Church, ' ' it is mani- 
fest that He did not mean a world-wide company existing 
through the centuries. 

This distinction is in accordance with apostolic usage. 
The Church is the whole company of the disciples of 
which the risen Lord is the spiritual and living Head, 
which St. Paul has in mind when he says, "Christ also 
loved the Church, and gave Himself up for it; that He 
might sanctify it, * * # that He might present the 
Church to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or 
wrinkle or any such thing. "It is this all comprehensive 
Church which is the one body possessing ' ' one Lord, one 
faith, one baptism," which is "built upon the foundation 
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself be- 
ing the chief cornerstone. ? ' 

But again the New Testament uses the word Church re- 
ferring to a local congregation, ' ' the Church which is in 
Corinth/ ' "the Church of Galatia," "the Church which 
is at Cenchreae," "the Church that is in the house of 
Prisca and Aquila." When the Apostle exhorts the Cor- 
inthian congregation to discipline the unworthy members 
it is clearly action by the local Church that he has in 
mind. Early Church history furnishes abundant exam- 

*A paper adopted at a meeting of the two commissions of the Protestant Episcopal 
and Congregational Churches regarding the proposed canon. 


pies of this two-fold usage. An appeal therefore to Scrip- 
ture and to Christian history in defense of the one or the 
other of these emphases is alike possible. Both present 
real and important truths. Both should be equally kept in 
mind. Unfortunately Christian history too often shows 
the emphasis on the one aspect of the Church at the ex- 
pense of the other. An over-emphasis on the organized 
unity has resulted in the papacy, with consequent rigidity 
of uniformity, centralization, and the stupendous asser- 
tion of infallibility. 

An over-emphasis on the unity of the local Church re- 
sults in independency, in the obscuration of the sense of 
historic continuity, and in the weakening of the feel- 
ing of the organic whole of which the local congregation 
should be a part. 

Yet each of these aspects and uses of the word Church, 
consecrated by apostolic usage, contains truth which can- 
not be ignored, and both must be recognized as we seek 
a greater unity among the now divided membership of 
the household of God. 

The time is now fully come when each Church is called 
upon to consider anew its own position in relation to the 
whole Church of God in the world. Each Church is to 
judge for itself, as it would be judged by its Lord, 
whether it so hold its own position as to prevent any 
other part of the Church from communion with the whole 

In the providence of God there has been laid upon this 
Joint Commission the solemn responsibility of consider- 
ing in what manner it may become possible for the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church and the Congregational 
Churches to overcome at a particular point the separa- 
tion between them which is deplored alike by them all. 
The point so specified is central and vital. It means one- 
ness at the very place, in the same act, in which the whole 
Church had its beginning in the presence of the Lord — 


in the upper chamber and at the Last Supper. This is the 
vital significance of the proposals and the questions sub- 
mitted by the action of the last General Convention of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church and the response of the 
National Council of the Congregational Churches. By 
this concurrent action the entire discussion of Church 
unity is brought down from the air and placed before 
the Churches as a practical question, which requires 
definitive action. 

It will be obvious to thoughtful men that we may vainly 
hope to render any worthy and effective answer if we be- 
gin merely by restating our respective ecclesiastical posi- 
tions and then proceeding by some give and take method 
of compromise to some merely external adjustment of our 
differences. Our respective communions may well re- 
quire of us to render an answer to the particular points 
submitted to us which shall be more than an endeavor to 
throw a temporary bridge of expediency over the exist- 
ing separation between us. 

In entering therefore upon the duties with which we 
are charged we deem it to be our first obligation to de- 
termine together a method of procedure in which most 
hopefully the visible organic unity of the Churches may 
be sought until it shall be found. Such method seems to 
us to be not far to seek. 

First, and always throughout our conferences and dis- 
cussions, we are to keep in mind our part and obligation 
as partakers in the one succession of the life of Christ 
with His disciples. In the continuity of His life, spirit- 
ually and historically, always with His disciples, is the 
continuity of His Church in the world. Consequently the 
Christian method to be pursued in relation to the particu- 
lar questions before us becomes clearer. (1) It will lead 
us first to seek out the religious values of the distinctive 
beliefs and customs of our communions. (2) These vital 
values are to be found both in their historical develop- 


ment and in the present religious experience and worship 
of the Christian communions. (3) Given these values, we 
may then proceed to inquire of one another what guaran- 
tees, certified in our history or now of approved worth 
among us we may give to one another in Christ's name 
and for the extension of His rule in our time throughout 
the world. (4) Then, and by these signs, we may by the 
grace of God find ourselves prepared to render an as- 
sured account to the two Christian bodies, whose action 
has committed to us this great and solemn engagement, 
and meanwhile we may appeal to all the brethren in their 
conferences and discussions to labor with us for these 
same ends, and, in methods beyond all controversy, pray- 
ing that in this providential hour of history the living 
Christ may be made manifest through His Church as 
Lord of the nations, and Redeemer of our civilization. 


By Eev. George Hall, ex-President Methodist Conference, Eiverton, 

South Australia. 

Such a movement as that undertaken by the promoters of 
the proposed World Conference on Faith and Order can- 
not be expected to advance very rapidly because of its 
proportions and the number of persons and interests to 
consider. There has, however, already been a definite 
advance. The war has given the movement a decided 
momentum. The desire for a closer union of all the 
Churches is becoming more and more pronounced in 
nearly every part of the world. If an organic union can- 
not be achieved comparatively early, some form of fed- 
eration, to prevent the overcrowding of agencies, must 
be attempted at once, while organized union remains the 
objective. Meanwhile the idea that the Churches are 
working in antagonism to each other is very wide of the 
truth. There is really a fine spirit of unity ; but, lacking 
visibility, it does not sufficiently impress men. During 
the octave — January 18-25 — Christians in every land 
were called upon to offer ardent supplication to God for 
the fulfilment of our Lord's prayer for the visible unity of 
all the followers. The appeal came from the leaders of 
the proposed World Conference on Faith and Order ; and 
in South Australia it is supported by the bishops of the 
Episcopal Church, the president of the Methodist Confer- 
ence, and the chief officers of some of the other Churches. 
In many social and political questions Great Britain has 
followed the example of Australia, and why should we 
not set an example in Church union! We have only to 
satisfy ourselves that a united Church is the will of God, 
and we are at liberty to work to realize it. 

To-day all Methodism in every part of Australasia is 
one, and very happily one. The Presbyterian Churches 
many years ago became substantially one. The Congre- 


gationalists and Baptists have their Australian general 
Assemblies in which their unity is manifested. The joint 
meetings of the various Church commissions on faith and 
order, and the happy conference of Anglican and non- 
Anglican Churches held in this city a year ago prove a 
disposition to bring about a real spiritual unity, until a 
visible unity shall be found practicable. Just now the 
most interesting attempt at organic union in the common- 
wealth is that initiated by the chief courts of the Pres- 
byterian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches in 
1906 and 1917. A basis of doctrine and polity was pre- 
pared and agreed to at a conference of representatives 
from all the states, which met in Melbourne in Septem- 
ber, 1918. This basis has since been submitted to the 
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Austra- 
lia and the Congregational Union of Australia and 
New Zealand, and with reservations was accepted by 
large majorities. The question has also been consid- 
ered by the annual assemblies of the three Churches and 
by the presbyteries of the Presbyterian Church, and the 
district synods of the Methodist Church in all parts of 
the commonwealth. Every quarterly meeting of Austra- 
lian Methodism has discussed the same basis. Should 
the negotiation be continued beyond May, the question 
will probably be also submitted to all the members of the 
Methodist Church. The voting thus far on the accept- 
ance or otherwise of the proposed basis shows these re- 
sults: — 1. Presbyterian Church. — Six state assemblies, 
236 for; 100 against. Presbyteries — 26 " approved/' 18 
' ' disapproved. ' ' Persons at presbyteries voting ' 6 Yes , ' ' 
259; voting "No," 208. 2. Methodist Church.— Voting 
in 38 synods— 1,058 ' 'Yes ; ' ' 278, " No ; " 47 neutral. Vot- 
ing 351 circuit quarterly meetings. — Persons present — 
7,359; "Yes," 5,138; "No," 1,748; neutral, 473. 3. Con- 
gregational Church. — Victorian Union — 83 "Yes;" 11 
"No." N. S. W. Union— 72 "Yes;" 3 "No." Trien- 


nial Union of Australia and New Zealand. — 81 "Yes," 4 
"No." The question will receive further attention from 
the Methodist Conferences after which the verdict of all 
the chief states' courts will be known. The voting is ac- 
companied by many suggested amendments of the basis, 
and those will be dealt with by State committees and the 
general committee in Melbourne, and probably also by 
the joint general committee or its executive. The oppo- 
sition by Presbyterians in New South Wales and in Vic- 
toria is encouraged by the Presbyterian Church Defence 
Association, which, under the direction of Professor Ren- 
toul, D.D., is issuing an extensive literature, and other- 
wise carrying on an active propaganda; but even this op- 
position to an organic union claims to desire some effec- 
tive form of federation. It will be unfortunate if the 
Presbyterians should again be responsible in Australia, 
as they are in Canada, for preventing a union of Churches 
which are practically one in doctrine, and the leaders of 
which agreed on a policy of Church government that 
seems to retain the most desirable features of each 
Church. The Australian Churches are interested in the 
coming American conference^ and already the Bishop of 
Willochra has been appointed to represent the Anglican 
Church of the commonwealth. It is hoped that the aims 
of the promoters of that World Conference will be ad- 
vanced by the general and earnest observance of the Oc- 
tave of Prayer. 


In The Constructive Quarterly, New York, Dr. Newman 
Smyth has an article under the heading ' ' A Proposed Ap- 
proach Towards Unity in the United States," giving the 
history of the proposed concordat between the Episcopa- 
lians and the Congregationalists, which reaches back to 
the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops in London 
in 1908. The documents appeared in the July Quarterly 
of 1919 (page 41). One of the Episcopal bishops writes 
Dr. Smyth, "We have put the key in the lock." Dr. 
Smyth, commenting on this statement, says, "At least it 
may be said that a door has been put ajar in the waif of 
separation between these two communions, which if once 
it shall be opened, no man can shut." Continuing he 

"Its reception was such as usually befalls any new departure of faith. 
Thoughtful men waiting to see what may be the leading of the Spirit for 
the Churches in this time, refrained from hasty judgment, while extremists 
on both sides were quick to condemn it, and, apparently unconscious of it 
themselves, from quite similar reasons. Indeed, it is interesting and some- 
what instructive to observe how extreme denominationalists and extreme 
churchmen threw back and forth very much the same ecclesiastical stones 
at each other. If their objections were printed in one column, and their 
names printed in parallel columns on both sides of it, the names might be 
easily transposed; it does not seem to have occurred to them to seek first 
for the fundamental unities of the Kingdom of God. But more than ever 
the intrinsic values of our beliefs are to be sought for, like hid treasures, 
and when found put to use in exchange, if the Churches shall do the 
Lord's business for our world now as good and profitable servants. When 
each Church shall cease to think of the Church in terms of its own inter- 
ests, and think rather of the things that are its own in terms of the 
whole Church of God, then the day of the visible and efficient unity of the 
Church will be at hand. 

"Emphasis is to be laid on the method which has been followed in this 
approach towards unity. 1. It aims at a particular point. It does not 
begin by submitting a complete plan for Church union. It does not in- 
volve a general ecclesiastical reconstruction. The point from which it 
proceeds is central, not peripheral; vital, not governmental. It would be- 
gin where Christ began with His disciples — the Communion. 2. The pro- 
posed canon consequently is a common endeavor to find some way in 
which the chief obstacle to the desired intercommunion of believers may be 
removed. It would seek to do this without violence to the principles or 
disregard of the conscientious scruples of any who hold the sacrament to 


be a gift of Christ to His Church to be kept and administered as a sacred 
trust. The great difficulty in the way has been the question of a valid 

' l The proposed canon opens a way round the, divisive obstacle of validity 
of ordination, so that we may meet on the other side of it and go on our 
way rejoicing. It offers to accomplish this by giving guarantees which in 
the estimation of both may be sufficient for the right administration of 
the sacrament. It offers a guarantee which it is believed may be accept- 
able to the scruples of the strictest episcopal theologian, while at the 
same time it may be freely acceded to by a minister of another communion 
without violence to his own denominational convictions. The concordat 
offers a way to solve the vexed question of the validity of orders. It 
does not raise the question of differences of views concerning the inten- 
tion of the sacrament. It is to both a divinely instituted means of grace 
— a visible means of realizing the presence of Christ. ' ' 

Dr. Wendel, formerly a Congregational minister, 
now an Episcopal rector, writing in The American 
Church Monthly, New Brunswick, N. J., (Episcopalian) 
says : 

"Is it the purpose of the proposed amendment to our constitution and 
of the proposed new canon on ordination to make an easy way for Con- 
gregational ministers to enter the ministry of our Church, while they 
still hold fast to their old status of Congregational ministers'? I have no 
doubt that there are those who think that these supplementary orders 
would actually enable Congregational ministers to serve our Churches, and 
that they could pass from the pastorate of one of their societies to the 
rectorate of one of our Churches with the same facility with which they 
pass from a Congregational to a Presbyterian pastorate, and vice versa. 
Also by such supplementary orders they and many of our Broad Church 
rectors would consider the way open to a free and untrammelled 'exchange 
of pulpits/ with all that implies. 

1 ( And what of our mission field I I fear in many a New England village 
where Congregationalism is strong and our Church is weak, a Congrega- 
tional pastor with supplementary episcopal orders, could so exercise his 
functions, as either to prevent the formation of a new mission, or to 
swallow up an old but weak mission, unless the people were unusually 
strong in their churchmanship. ' ' 

In commenting on the concordat The Living Church, 
Milwaukee, (Episcopalian) says: 

"All of us must keep an open mind as to this question, for the two 
commissions are trying earnestly and honestly to answer it, and by no 
word of ours shall the answer be made more difficult. If a relationship 
is to become possible, it is certain that the people, as well as the minister, 
must become active parties to it; that it must be made perfectly clear to 
them that the sacrament that will be administered to them by their priests 
will be different in Trind from what they have been accustomed to. They 
must show by their changed attitude toward it that in that sacrament they 
truly 'discern the Lord's Body.' They must prepare for it, as the de- 
vout of all ages have prepared. We should suppose that the confirmation 
of the entire congregation by the bishop (so far as they were baptized and 
desired to become communicants) would be the step, in which both parties 
would agree, by which the congregation would give evidence of its accept- 
ance of the new relationship. 


"We believe, too, that the provisions as to the celebration of Holy 
Communion noted in the resolutions of General Convention can only be- 
come effective by means of a form fox such celebration. This need not 
be our own Order for Holy Communion, but any form submitted should 
be passed on not only by the bishop of the diocese but by a commission of 
experts representing the national Church. 

"And finally, we believe that for the protection of the Congregational 
priest he must be brought within the purview of at least a considerable 
part of our canon law, or its equivalent. 

"These three observations seem to us to cover the chief essentials, other 
than those that have already been made clear, if such a relationship as is 
proposed shall be worked out. And if that form of relationship be desir- 
able at all, we cannot believe that the eminent Congregationalists will 
take exception to any of the propositions. Without these the plan would 
certainly fail. On our own side, the relationship, though anomalous, and 
only an 'approach' to unity, would not be absolutely without precedent, 
for the early connection of the Swedish Churches in Pennsylvania and 
Delaware with the American Church presented somewhat similar anomalies. 
And strict logic is a poor guide in things spiritual." 

Eef erring to the concordat in his recent convention ad- 
dress, the Rt. Rev. F. F. Reese, Bishop of Georgia, says : 

' ' There are some things for us to remember in this connection. This 
is an effort on the part of our own Church and certain distinguished and 
godly members of Congregational Churches to find an approach toward 
Christian unity. As such it merits our sympathetic, reverent, and prayer- 
ful consideration. If the Church has been sincere and honest in its efforts 
to promote such unity, if we meant what we said in the Chicago -Lambeth 
Declaration, we cannot reject or repudiate this effort without stultifying 
ourselves in the sight of God and of all honest men. If we say we are 
willing to confer with our Christian brethren on the basis of our declara- 
tion, but really mean to say that we intend to stand pat and require all 
men to repudiate their own past, humbly to offer themselves to us on our 
own terms alone and to become Protestant Episcopalians in every jot and 
tittle, we may be in our judgment most unimpeachable catholic church- 
men, but we shall be mighty lonely in the world and deservedly so. Our 
attitude will be understood only at the Vatican, for it is precisely similar 
to it's attitude. But the Vatican will not be drawn to us nevertheless, for 
it has its own opinion of what it calls our pretensions. It understands the 
stand-pat attitude but it reserves to itself the privilege of maintaining it 
as a basis of unity. In the meantime Christian unity so far as we are con- 
cerned will be an irridescent dream. 

"There are indeed, principles of catholic faith and order for which 
we are responsible and which it would be disloyalty not only to our historic 
heritage but to the Christian world to impair or surrender. But let us 
be sure that what we so denominate are really such principles. Nothing 
in the past has so promoted division as an obstinate temper, and a nar- 
row misconception of what constitute principles. Unreasonable and nar- 
row conscientiousness is one of the most fatal endowments of mankind. 
Ecclesiastical self-complacency and hauteur is not an attractive but a 
repellent force. There can be no unity or approach to unity without sweet, 
reasonableness and without mutual friendliness and respect and without 
the spirit of reasonable and brotherly compromise. 'In essentials, unity, 
in non-essentials, liberty, in all things charity.' " 


The following announcement has been sent out by the 
Commission of the Protestant Episcopal Church on the 
World Conference on Faith and Order, which will hold 
its preliminary session at Geneva, Switzerland, August 

"The Spirit of God is moving over the chaos of the divisions of Chris- 
tians and slowly, but surely, the world is coming to see, first, that only by 
universal obedience to Christ's new commandment of love is there any 
hope for the future of civilization and for enduring peace and righteous- 
ness, international, industrial or social. Next that only the visible unity 
of Christians can convert the world to Christ and so establish that new 
commandment. Then that only through fervent and regular prayer can 
Christians obtain grace to surrender their wills to God's, that His will for 
unity may be achieved and Christ, the one Way, the one Truth, the one 
Life, be all in all. Lastly it has become clear that if Christians be truly 
filled with Christ 's love, they will seek unity through conference, not con- 
troversy, for in conference they can understand and appreciate one another 
and so help one another to a more complete comprehension of infinite truth. 

1 1 So the World Conference on the Faith and Order of the Church of 
Christ seems now assured, and a preliminary meeting to discuss how best 
to proceed further, and perhaps to fix the date and place of the World 
Conference itself, will be held, God willing, at Geneva, Switzerland, August 
12 (western calendar), 1920. All the great family groups, save one. of 
the Churches which worship Jesus Christ as God Incarnate and Saviour 
will be represented by delegates from every quarter of the earth, and of 
almost every race and every tongue. Invitations have been sent to, and 
been accepted by, all Europe, Australia and America, all Christian Asia and 
Africa, and the islands of the sea. The languages of the various dele- 
gates will be English, French, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Dutch, 
Italian, Russian, Greek, Roumanian, Bulgarian, Serbian and perhaps Ar- 
menian and Arabic. 

' ' Notices of the appointment of delegates to the Geneva meeting are be- 
ginning to be received. Already the following have been named: 

Protestant Episcopal Church. — Rt. Rev. C. P. Anderson, D.D., 1612 
Prairie Avenue, Chicago, Illinois; Rt. Rev. William T. Manning, D.D., 187 
Pulton Street, New York, New York; Robert H. Gardiner, 174 Water 
street, Gardiner, Maine. Seventh Bay Baptist General Conference: Rev. 
Gerard Velthuysen, Jr., 22 Weteringplantsoen, Amsterdam, Holland. 
Ecumenical Patriarclmte, Constantinople: His Grace Germanos, Rector of 
the Theological Academy, Halki, via Constantinople, Turkey. Church of 
Greece: Very Rev. Archimandrite Chrysostom Papadopoulos, The University, 
Athens, Greece; Dr. Hamilcar Alivisatos, 7 Odos Massalias, Athens, 
Greece; Very Rev. Constantine Callinicos, B. D., Hr. Broughton, Man- 
chester, England. Methodist Conference of New Zealand: Rev. E. O. 
Blamires, care W. Aykroyd, Methodist Times, London, England, Bisciples 
of Christ: Rev. Peter Ainslie, D.D., Seminary House, Baltimore, Mary- 
land; Rev. F. W. Burnham, LL.D., Carew Bldg., Cincinnati, Ohio; Rev. 
F. S. Idleman, D.D., 142 West 81st Street, New York, N. Y.; Rev. R. H. 
Miller, Kansas City, Mo. (Alternate) ; Rev. H. C. Armstrong, 504 N. Ful- 
ton Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland (alternate). Church of Serbia: Rt. 
Rev. Nicolai Velimirovic, D.D., Bishop of Zicha, Serbia (to be accompa- 
nied by two priests). Beformed Church in the United States: Rev. James I. 
Good, D.D., 3262 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, P'a.; Rev. George W. Rich- 
ards, D.D., Lancaster, Pa. ; Rev. Charles E. Schaeff er, D.D., 422 South 50th 
Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland: 


Rev. J. E. Roberts, M. A., B.D., 32 Heaton Road, Withington, Manchester, 
England; Rev. F. C. Spurr, 3 Dartmouth Road, Brondesbury, London, N. 
W. 2, England. Presbyterian Church of New Zealand: Rev. W. Gray 
Dixon, M.A., Roslyn Manse, Dunedin, New Zealand. Church of Norway: 
Rt. Rev. Bishop J. Tandberg, Christiania, Norway; Prof. Dr. Juris A. 
Taranger, LL.D., Slemdal, Christiania, Norway; Rev. N. B. Thvedt, M.A., 
C. T., Nils Juelsgt 4, Christiania, Norway. Alternates: Archdeacon J. 
Gleditsch, D.D., Vor Frelsers Kirke, Christiania, Norway; Supreme Judge 
Edward Hambro, Oscarsgt, 78b, Christiania, Norway; Pastor V. Koren, 
Nordstrand, Christiania, Norway. 

1 i The Commission of the American Episcopal Church is deeply grateful 
to God who has permitted it thus to accomplish its function of securing 
the cooperation of the Churches of the world in this great effort to pre- 
pare the way for that visible unity of Christians which will set free the 
power of the Gospel of man's redemption. That Commission has fre- 
quently urged the paramount need of prayer. It now repeats that request 
and especially begs that all the Christian world will make the next Feast 
of Pentecost, or Whitsunday, May 23 (western calendar), a special day 
of earnest prayer that God the Holy Spirit will preside over the meeting 
at Geneva and guide the diversity of race and tongue, of modes of wor- 
ship, of creedal statements, toward visible harmony in the one faith they all 
share in common in the one Lord. 

"And we urge our brethren of the Roman Catholic Church to join with 
us in prayer that day. We are grieved that they will not be represented 
officially at Geneva, and we know that our grief will be shared by many 
thousands of them, all over the world, who are looking with eager hope to 
this movement. ' ' 

William T. Manning, Chairman Executive Committee. 

Robert H. Gardiner, Secretary. 

Then follows another communication addressed to the 
members of the Commission as follows : 

To all the members of all the Commissions on the World Conference on 
Faith and Order, and to all the delegates to the 'preliminary meeting 
at Geneva: 

To avoid waste of time, the meeting at Geneva next August will need 
to adopt a programme to guide its discussions and concentrate its thoughts. 
The following suggestions have come from different sources, but for them 
no Commission or individual is specially responsible. It is hoped that out 
of them, with the help of careful criticism by all who are engaged in the 
undertaking, a useful programme can be made, to be proposed at the first 
session for adoption or amendment. 

This paper is sent not only to all the delegates to Geneva of whose 
appointment notice has been received, but to all the members of all the 
Commissions, in the hope that they will contribute their criticisms. 

Suggestions should be sent immediately to Robert H. Gardiner, 174 
Water Street, Gardiner, Maine, U. S. A. Letters which cannot reach him 
before July 1, 1920, should be addressed in care of Lombard Odier and 
Co., Geneva, Switzerland. 

The Commission of the American Episcopal Church, having practically 
completed the work of issuing the invitations for participation in the 
movement, now looks to all the Commissions to join in the active prepara- 
tions for the Geneva meeting and for the World Conference itself. 

Our Lord prayed for the unity of His disciples as the evidence potent 
to convince the world of His mission by the Father. Therefore the object 
of the World Conference is to prepare the way for effective lifting up 
of Christ before the world. 


The World Conference is world-wide, including in its scope every Church 
which confesses Jesus Christ as God made man. 

The World Conference is not to undertake direct effort for unity, but to 
prepare the way for such efforts by the clear statement and full consid- 
eration of those things in which we differ, as well as of those things in 
which we are at one. 

It will take time to complete the preparations for the World Conference. 
The object of the Geneva meeting is to consider the lines of preparation, 
and what should be done to spread the spirit of conference, as distin- 
guished from that of controversy and proselytism, among the Churches, and 
to prepare the minds and hearts of the faithful for the results of the 
World Conference. 

During the preparation, partial and local efforts at reunion should be 
encouraged, for every success in such efforts may spread the desire for 
complete reunion, foster the conference spirit, and show that difficulties 
may not be insuperable. 


1. Do the Churches meanwhile need, as a part of the preparation for 
the Conference, a deeper and more efficient recognition of the necessity 
of a genuine and true repentance for their sins in their relations with one 
another ? 

2. Do we need to dwell more on the unity of personal devotion to Christ? 

3. Should the distinction be made more clear between matters of opin- 
ion and the faith once delivered to the' saints? 

4. How far are matters of order and government necessary to essential 
unity ? 

5. How far can the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, or either of them, be 
taken as statements of our agreements in matters of faith, and as guides 
for the effort to understand our differences? 

6. What are the actual groups, considered with regard to their standards 
of faith and order, which should be represented at the World Confer- 

7. How far can groups which hold certain positions in common (for 
example, Congregational, Presbyterian or Episcopal polities), act in com- 
mon with regard to those positions? 

8. How shall the ultimate Conference be composed so as to include 
adequate representation of the different communions or groups of com- 
munions ? 

9. What preparations should the representatives of the different groups 
be called upon to make, and what ad interim committees should be ap- 
pointed to bring them about? 

10. What further invitations, if any, shall be issued for participation 
in the movement? 

11. Date and place of the ultimate Conference. 

12. Appointment of a committee representative of various views on 
faith and order, to make all further arrangements for the World Con- 
ference. Or shall there be a very small executive committee with a cen- 
tral office? Shall there be one or more executive secretaries, in either 
case ? 

13. What, if any, publications or preliminary reports shall be issued? 
Who shall edit them? 

14. How shall the expenses of the movement, after the adjournment of 
this meeting, be met? 

The awakening of the Orthodox Eastern Chnrch in 
Christian nnity is attested by The Ecclesiastical Truth r 
Constantinople, as follows: 


"Union when attained will undoubtedly centralize the spiritual, moral, 
and material forces already separately operative, and will dispose and 
direct them to better effect, so that the great and high purpose which 
underlies the teaching of the Lord may be realized to the fullest extent. 
But is it easy (someone will ask) to do away so readily with the discords 
and differences existing between the Churches, differences which have 
worked like leaven in the Churches, and which have formed a substantial 
part of their individual life? Psychologically, is it easy for Church A 
or Church B to proclaim today publicly as unfounded that which for cen- 
turies it has held as well-grounded and right? Is not hypersensitiveness 
common to the Churches too? And will it not be kindled the more by the 
very idea that by the denial and rejection of this or that opinion their 
attraction and prestige would risk diminution in the eyes of their own 

"Admittedly, from such a standpoint, the question appears pretty hard 
to solve. But the difficulty or ease of its solution depends chiefly upon 
the dispositions in which participating Churches assemble, and the basis 
upon which the discussion is placed. 

"If each Church comes to the conference-table convinced that its points 
of view and its arguments are the only right and well-founded ones, and has 
determined in advance to insist steadily upon them, with intent to impose 
its opinions dictatorily upon the others, without any doubt the hope of 
union will again be frustrated and the chasm between the Churches will 
be still further widened. If, on the contrary, each Church is possessed by 
the holy desire and the pure disposition to see this destructive disunion 
ended, and, guided thereby, proceeds with efforts at reconciliation and con- 
cession wherever and to whatever extent it gives way without injury to 
things of importanc, the success of the union of all will inevitably be as- 
sured. ' ' 

The bishop of Uganda contributes an article in The 
Nineteenth Century, London, dealing with the way to 
Christian reunion and says : 

"What shall we say of the fact that, with the Apostles themselves still 
living, with the new order but just established, God chose Saul of Tarsus, 
a man who stood outside the apostolic succession, disclaiming expressly any 
authority from Jerusalem? * * * Actually He is so working to-day. 
However strongly we may hold to the doctrine of apostolic succession as 
the means through which God normally works, we cannot close our eyes 
to the fact that actually, in every part of the world to-day, He is work- 
ing also and equally through other means. " 

Sherwood Eddy, associate general Y. M. C. A. secre- 
tary for India, writing in The Christian Work, New 
York, says: 

"The Syrian Church has not yet taken final action on the proposed 
union. But their Committee on Union has drawn up a report which shows 
the spirit of the Church. We quote it in part: 


'As a Committee on Union of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, we have 
received the invitation from certain pastors of the Anglican Communion 
and the South India United Church who met at Tranquebar, May 1 and 2, 
1919, in the Ministers' Conference on Church Union, requesting the mem- 


bers of the Mar Thoma Syrian Church prayerfully to consider with them 
the question of uniting the divided Churches of Christ in India. This 
appeals to us the more deeply as we ourselves have been praying fervently 
for years for the healing of the sad divisions which have rent asunder the 
Church of Christ. These divisions have been particularly disastrous and 
destructive in India, where the Church has at times become almost a by- 
word among the non-Christians, where religion which was meant to unite 
mankind has actually divided it. 

'We agree with you that union is the will of God, and that instead of 
being responsible for perpetuating the divisions of Christ's Church we 
should seek to answer our Lord's prayer that we all may be one. 

' We also believe that the awakening of a new national consciousness 
in India and the entry upon a new era of responsible government makes it 
imperative that the Church also, instead of wasting its strength in internal 
strife, should face the new conditions and work for unity in order to meet 
the overwhelming demand of the hour. After centuries of the bitter ex- 
perience of disunion we, like yourselves, do not desire to perpetuate such 

'We are glad to see that you propose union not on any basis of com- 
promise but on one of comprehension, where each body shall contribute its 
treasures and tradition to the enrichment of the whole. We understand 
that you do not ask us to change our long cherished convictions, principles 
and practices, which we have maintained for centuries in the face of bit- 
ter persecution. We also understand that you do not ask us to surrender 
our autonomy or lose our freedom of action in things pertaining to our own 

' (1) We have held that the Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary 
for salvation and have stood for the principle of the open Bible, which 
has never been forbidden to the people. 

' (2) We have always held the Nicene Creed and it forms a part of our 
regular services. While we accept all the doctrines contained in the Apos- 
tles' Creed, it has not been our practice to use it in formal worship. 

' (3) We have always held the two sacraments of Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper, administered with Christ's words of institution and the 
elements He used. 

' (4) We have always stood strongly for maintaining the historic episco- 
pate, but we agree with you that it is no part of our duty to call in ques- 
tion the validity of each others' orders. 

'From 1054 A.D., when the Western and Eastern Churches divided, we 
stood with the Eastern Churches and maintained the original word- 
ing of the Nicene Creed, objecting to the later Western in- 
sertion of the single word filioque (from the Son). We even now say that 
the Holy Spirit "proceeding from the Father is worshipped with the 
Father and the Son.'.' (St. John 15:25.) While under this controversy 
there lay deep race prejudice between the East and West, and the firm 
refusal of the East to admit the growingly exclusive claims of the Papacy, 
we nevertheless feel to-day that it is incomprehensible to think of perpetu- 
ating the division of the Church of Christ and shattering its strength over 
a contention about a word. Confronted to-day by the call to return to our 
original obligation of winning the world, we find ourselves united by a 
common task and in the very presence of Christ our Lord lifted to a plane 
which transcends the medieval dissensions which formerly divided us. A 
century ago a mission of help was sent by the Anglican Church which led 
to the quickening and vitalizing of our own isolated communion. Deeply 
indebted as we are for the self-denying labors of the representatives of 
the Anglican Church on our behalf, we are all the more glad that the pro- 
posal for union comes also from the Church to which we have been so long 
indebted. * * * 


'We are ready to consider union now that a definite proposal has come 
from members of the Anglican and South India United Churches. As the 
Church of England has for three decades suggested conditions for union, 
we hope that our synod will also favorably consider the same and take 
steps for effecting union upon this common ground. We understand that 
there is no question of the absorption of one Church by another, but that 
standing on the principle of spiritual equality before our common Lord, we 
shall each seek to contribute the riches of our own spiritual inheritance to 
the united Church of the future. We shall be glad if this union brings 
the long desired dawn of a new day of Christian unity, when there shall 
be neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither East nor West, but 
as our Lord prayed we shall all be one in Him. 

'While writing unofficially without committing our Metropolitan and the 
synod of our Church, which will have to take final action upon the matter, 
we as the Corresponding Committee on Union of the Mar Thoma Syrian 
Church, with the blessing of God, agree to pray and work toward union 
upon such a basis. 

1 Abraham Mar Thoma, Malabar, Suffragen. 

'C. P. Philipose. 
'V. P. Mamman.' 

( l The coming together of these three Churches upon the mission field 
would unite in one body the converts of the mission work of England, 
Scotland and America. The Anglicans would contribute the strength and 
world communion of the Western Church, the Syrians would bring their 
loyalty to primitive, apostolic tradition, while the South India United 
Church would bring its evangelistic fervor, its development of the laity 
and its abundant life and service. 

1 i These three bodies in South India _alone have some 550,000 Christians. 
Would not this be the first time in nine hundred years that the breach be- 
tween the East and the West has been healed? It will be remembered 
that the split between the Eastern and Western Church came over one word 
in the Creed, the Latin word filioqu&, ' ' and the Son. ' ' Should the Churches 
of Christendom be divided forever over the question of a single word, ever 
disputing concerning dogmas and doctrines? The whole world, in des- 
perate need, calls for the whole Church to face in unity such a titanic 
task. Would it not be the first time in four centuries the great division 
between the Episcopal and non-Episcopal Churches has been united? Surely 
all who desire the realization of spiritual unity and its embodiment in 
corporate and visible union will hope that these Churches may not only 
effect such a union, but may bring their message to the divided Churches 
of the West. May not these Churches upon the mission field be leading 
the way toward the Church of the future and the reunion of a divided 
Christendom ? ' ' 

The manifesto signed by seven hundred British Wes- 
leyan ministers presents their attitude both toward 
Methodist reunion and the larger reunion as follows : 

"In view of the suggestions submitted to the last Conference by the 
Committee on Methodist Union, we think the time has come when we should 
make known our attitude in regard to the whole question. We desire to 
state most clearly that we are not in any sense hostile to union with the 
other Methodist Churches, or any other branch of the Christian Church, and 
are willing to do all in our power to promote union, earnestly desiring to 
see the speedy fulfilment of our Lord's prayer, 'that they may all be one.' 


But since we value the heritage bequeathed to us, not only or mainly for 
reasons of sentiment, but as the product of experience in actual Church 
life and work from "Wesley's to the present day, we question the wisdom of 
effecting a small measure of reunion by abandoning principles and a posi- 
tion which peculiarly fit us for reunion on a much larger scale. We are un- 
willing to take any step which would destroy or weaken the distinctive fea- 
tures and traditions of our Church, and keenly desire to preserve those 
traditions which have always made Wesleyan Methodism to be conspicu- 
ously a Church which is the friend of all schools of ecclesiastical and po- 
litical faith, and the enemy of none. We maintain therefore that if union 
is to be effected with the other Methodist Churches, the following condi- 
tions are essential:— 

"It shall be a union that will really unite Methodists, and not cause 
numerous defections on the one hand of such Wesleyans as preserve their 
traditional sympathy with the Church of England, or, on the other hand, 
of such Methodists as lean to independency and to political partisanship. 

"The pastoral office shall be so guarded as to make it quite clear that 
ministers are employes of the Church, but men ordained to exercise specific 
functions set forth in the Pastoral Epistles. 

"The general Wesleyan custom, sanctioned by the almost unbroken 
usage of the Church, shall be preserved in regard to the sacraments — 
namely, that the administration be confined to ordained persons. 

"There shall be safeguards assuring that nothing be done so contrary 
to the conception of orders in other Churches as to make wider reunion more 

"The Conference in its pastoral session shall in no sense be a sub- 
committee of the Conference, submitting any of its decisions to that Con- 
ference, but shall be in every way independent of any relation thereto, and 
that legally, as at present. The Pastoral Conference, too, shall continue 
to give access and voting power to all ministers as at present. 

"We appeal therefore to all who in general agree with the views here 
set forth to join us in taking such action as may be deemed advisable. 
There is clear evidence that if some action or protest be not made soon 
we shall be committed as a Church to some scheme on the lines of the sug- 
gestions made to the last Conference, and told that we have gone too far to 
be able honourably to turn back." 

Upon this The Guardian, London, (Anglican) com- 
ments as follows : 

"Clearly, then, the Wesleyans, in relation to the minor bodies on the 
one hand and to the Church of England on the other, have reached a posi- 
tion precisely analogous to that of the Church of England in relation to 
Nonconformity on the one hand and to the two great branches of the 
Catholic Church on the other. They desire reunion with the separated 
Methodists just as we desire reunion with the Nonconformists, and they 
have the question of the larger reunion in England to consider, just as we 
have to consider the ultimate reunion of Catholic Christendom. Hence 
their embarrassment and ours. They naturally desire the reunion of all 
that shares the common name of Methodism, but they recognise that they 
would be paying too dear for that reunion if it should imperil the re- 
union of English Christianity. We also naturally desire the reunion of all 
that shares the common heritage of English Christendom, but we are as- 
sured that thereby to imperil the reunion of Christendom at large would 
be in the highest degree unwise. 

What, then is the way out of this embarrassing situation for the Wes- 
leyans and for ourselves? Already it is clear that there is no prospect 
whatever of a return to absolute uniformity. We may deprecate the Ref- 


ormation as much as we will, but it remains a fact of history that, ever 
since the Eeformation, Englishmen have claimed the right to do as they 
like in the matter of Church allegiance, and they have done it and will 
do it. We shall always have to reckon with the fact that any man who 
happens to be dissatisfied, and to possess enough money to build a meet- 
ing-house, is at liberty to start a new sect, and no power exists to hin- 
der him. Within the Church of England itself there is now more freedom 
than was ever dreamt of in the early centuries of the Church's history. 
It is one of the sources of our strength though it may also be a source of 
embarrassment in our ecclesiastical administration. Anything therefore in 
the way of a reunion which is to be practicable or possible must be based 
upon a liberal toleration of everything not absolutely contrary to the 
Catholic faith and use. The advice we would give to the Wesleyans, if 
they ask for our advice, would be that they should by all means seek the 
reunion of Methodism upon a broad and tolerant basis, but that they should 
resolutely and steadfastly withstand any surrender of principles which they 
regard as vital and should cheerfully accept the consequence, whatever it 
may be. " 

Lord Hugh Cecil, in the London Morning Post, pleads 
for an international Christianity rather than national 
and says: 

"If Christian reunion means only the reunion of British Christians, I 
do not even desire it. If it were possible to join together all the Chris- 
tians of Great Britain except those of the Eoman communion in one Brit- 
ish Church, I should view that Church with profound dislike and distrust. 
For it would be saturated with nationalism, and we ought to have learnt, 
if never before then from the war, how alien nationalism is from Chris- 
tianity. It was nationalism that made the war; we hope to chain that 
evil spirit even in secular affairs by the League of Nations; let us not 
suffer its wicked influence in the Church. A great British Church could 
not hope to escape this danger. What we need in Christian reunion is to 
gain that element of catholicity which the Church of England and the 
Free Churches alike now lack— namely, an international character. It 
is in this respect that popery may most fairly claim to be more catholic 
than the Church of England. If we want to shut the mouths of Eoman 
critics here is their strongest theme. Here they have the advantage of us, 
and we can but be silent and 'ashamed. 

Is it a dream to fancy the divisions of Christendom reduced to four — a 
Papal Church, an Episcopal Church, a Presbyterian Church, and a Congre- 
gationalist Union of Churches? All four would be international, all four 
would be world-wide. This would certainly make the remaining process 
of reunion easier. Strong bodies can more flexibly concede; they do not 
stand on points of dignity; they are not afraid of being swallowed up and 
lost in some larger and more powerful body. Moreover, in a world-wide 
religious body there would be a different atmosphere. National prejudices 
and peculiarities would be exorcised. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and 
Congregationalists would all be better catholics than to-day." 

The Living Church, Milwaukee, (Episcopalian) re- 
gards all Churches as reflecting national characteristics 
and says : 


"All national Churches present particular types and characteristics- 
National Churches that are self-governing differ in many respects from each 
other. In that manner the Catholic Church, though spiritually one, is ev- 
erywhere presented with local variations. 

"It may probably be said that in no single land is the Church per- 
fectly catholic; that is to say, so devoid of local or national characteris- 
tics as to reflect perfectly all the long history of the Church, unmarked by 
the particular history or bias of the particular Church. 

"It follows that the totality of Christian experience throughout the 
whole Catholic Church much exceeds the experience of the Church in any 
one land. Roman theory to the contrary notwithstanding, the Latin 
Churches are the poorer for being at swords' points with the conservative 
Churches of Greece and Russia and the radical Churches of England and 
the United States; and our own Churches are the poorer for their isola- 
tion from the intimate life and thought both of the Greek and of the 
Latin communions. The balance between the national and the catholic 
has been sadly wrenched by the loss of unity between the three groups of 
Churches, and the three types that have thus been created are probably, 
all of them, provincialized. What is common to them all is 'catholic'; 
wherein the groups differ among themselves they are, respectively, Roman, 
Greek, and Anglican. ' ' 

The Mansfield resolutions, which appeared in the Jan- 
uary Quarterly (p. 8), are faring badly. The Chris- 
tian World, London (Free Church), speaking of the in- 
terpretation made by Canons Temple and Lacy, says : 

"The Free Church members of the Mansfield College Conference have 
had little to say about it, but the High Anglican members have been kept 
busy since trying to placate their alarmed friends. Their explanations are 
a little disappointing. They say the Free Church members quite under- 
stood that episcopacy was taken for granted in the reunited Church, and 
the phrases of the resolutions were clearly chosen and accepted as a sort of 
camouflage. Both Canon Temple and Canon Lacy meant, and mean, by re- 
union that the Anglican Church organization and doctrine are to be ac- 
cepted by the Free Churches, and that all ministers, sooner or later, must be 
ordained under the apostolic succession. 

' ' Canon Temple says plainly in last week 's Church Times that he cares 
more for the present unity of the Anglican Church than for any union 
with Nonconformists, and adds: 'I would rather wait indefinitely than 
drive out from the Church even the extreme ''Catholic" section or outrage 
the consciences of any devout churchmen.' The two canons, when they 
signed the statement that the different denominations 'are equally, as cor- 
porate groups, within the one Church of Christ,' now explain that they did 
not mean that they are 'on terms of perfect equality in status and func- 
tion.' All they meant (they say) is that the various groups are 'equally 
within' the Church. This is only juggling with words, and we remain 
pretty much where we were. ' ' 

Sir Robertson Nicoll of The British Weekly, London, 
(Free Church), says: 

"We earnestly and respectfully remonstrate against the continuance 
of these conferences. It ought to be evident to the dullest eyes that any 
little concession made is immediately retracted, or rather, we ought perhaps 
to say, is expressed so doubtfully that it may mean anything or nothing. 


"It is our deliberate opinion that those mischievous meetings have done 
more to separate Nonconformists from the Church than to attract them. 
It is a great evil that some of our leaders have talked as if episcopacy must 
be the form of government for the future Church. To that we have the 
very strongest objection. Episcopacy has not worked so well either in 
England or Scotland as to give ground for any such belief, and those Free 
Church leaders who have conceded it are not speaking of the rank and 
file, who are watching this question and have their minds made up. Cou- 
rageous Christian bishops and clergymen may do much by taking their own 
line, and the fulminations of their opponents only provoke ridicule among 
the general public who are not narrow and take small account of ecclesias- 
tical and doctrinal differences. ' ' 

At the instance of Canon T. A. Lacy, of Worcester, 
according to Public Opinion, London, the English 
Church Union adopted March the 24th the following res- 
olutions : 

"This council, humbly adhering to the prescriptions of the sacred 
canons and the practice of the Catholic Church in regard to the avoidance 
of communion with schismatics, approves the following propositions in 
principle: — 

"(1) Corporate groups of Christians, separated by schism, ought to 
be received into communion by the proper authority, if they show a de- 
sire to close the schism and are found orthodox. 

"(2) They may then lawfully continue as corporate groups, retaining 
such features of their former organisation as are consistent with catholic 
faith and practice. 

"(3) Their ministers, if they desire it and are found to be personally 
qualified, should forthwith be admitted to Holy Orders. ' ' 

"A rider in the following terms was moved by the Eev. C. B. Lucas and 
adopted, together with the resolution: — 

"That the council cannot accept the Mansfield College statement on 
reunion since this statement is at least capable of being interpreted as lay- 
ing down a position with reference to the Church which the council cannot 
admit, and as obscuring the truth as to the necessity of episcopal ordina- 

The Challenge, London (Anglican), has this to say re- 
garding the Mansfield resolutions: 

"A group of leading churchmen have issued a manifesto in reply to 
the _ Mansfield resolutions; they claim that reunion is only possible on the 
basis of the episcopal succession. So far we entirely agree. We think 
the authors of this manifesto might in ordinary fairness have inserted 
words to show that they recognize the fact that many signatories of the 
Mansfield resolutions also agree with them, and signed those resolutions on 
that understanding. This, however, is relatively unimportant. Our trouble 
with this manifesto is that, like most utterances proceeding from the 
'Catholic school, it offers no suggestion for advance beyond the neces- 
sity for maintaining the principle of episcopacy. The Council of the 
English Church Union did lately issue a pronouncement which, though 
couched in terms unfamiliar to our generation, made a very substantial ad- 
vance; if the Mansfield Conference has no other effect than the calling 
forth of that pronouncement, it will have done great good. For the prob- 


lem of reunion on this side is mainly a problem of preserving what the 
Catholic school specially upholds. It may be that when the problem of 
reunion with Rome or the East becomes a matter of practical politics, it 
will be chiefly a problem of preserving what Evangelicals specially uphold. 
Any advance on the definitely Catholic side towards reunion is of immense 
importance. Meanwhile, the most important task is to explain the reasons 
why we uphold the principle of episcopacy so rigorously. It is because 
we believe that we have here something of supreme value to the spiritual 
life of the Church. We do not even desire that it should be accepted as 
a concession to our prejudices or convictions; we do not desire that it should 
be accepted in the spirit that prompts the enquiry 'If we do this for you, 
what do you propose to do for us?' We believe episcopacy to be of su- 
preme value; we hope that those who are now without it will come to de- 
sire it for itself, just as we desire certain gifts which they have in greater 
measure than ourselves." 

Commenting on the proposals of Mansfield Conference 
The Challenge, London, again says, 

"Indeed, the principles insisted on by that Conference command our 
complete support. The first of these is that the great denominations 
should be dealt with as 'Churches,' really constituent part of the one 
Holy Catholic Church. This is fundamental. Members of those bodies 
cannot consent to negotiate on any other terms, not from reasons of 
corporate self-respect or pride, but because to do so would be to deny 
their own experience of the grace of God and therefore to commit blas- 
phemy. Many Anglicans still hope for reunion by way of submission; 
that cannot come and ought not to come. It is not only that the 
Free Churches ought not to deny their own experience of divine grace; 
the peculiar emphasis and balance which each of them has achieved 
represents something of permanent spiritual value, which the united 
Church will need. It appears, therefore, that both principle and expe- 
diency require the recognition of the separated denominations as being 
^orporately, and as groups, within the One Body of Christ, and of the 
reality of their ministries. In this connection it will be an advantage 
if we can leave behind the technical questions of guarantees and turn 
our attention to the operation of the Holy Spirit, as a matter of indis- 
putable fact, in those denominations. Our attitude to them cannot be 
more grudging of recognition than was the Apostolic Church of Jeru- 
salem towards the Gentile Christians. Among them as amongst our- 
selves we recognise Christ in His members. 

"From that starting point we pass to the consideration of practical 
steps. If these are to lead towards reunion they must be taken by the 
whole body in every case and not isolated demonstrations by individuals 
who represent only themselves. Owing to the immense emphasis laid 
by the Free Churches on the ministry of the Word it is natural for them 
to desire that recognition of their Church status should express itself 
in an occasional 'interchange of pulpits.' The phrase is unfortunate, 
but it has established itself in popular usage. Further we agree with the 
Oxford resolutions in their desire that, subject to the same authority, 
there should be mutual admission to the Lord's Table. This does not 
mean any encouragement to Anglicans to communicate with Free church- 
men or vice versa; it means exactly what it says, namely, that when a 
communicant member of one body presents himself at the altar of another 
he should be received and not repelled. Indeed, we believe it is already 


the law of the Catholic Church that no man so presenting himself of his 
own motion can be repelled unless he is personally and individually ex- 
communicate. We would especially urge upon Anglicans that just be- 
cause we believe that we are entrusted with a special treasure in the 
communion celebrated according to Catholic order, we should be ready to 
welcome those who are not Anglicans so that they may begin to ap- 
preciate what we have and they lack. If such persons begin to attend 
frequently, they must of course be asked to accept the full discipline 
of the Church of whose ministrations they are availing themselves. But 
we would discourage Anglicans from communicating with Free churchmen 
just because it is here that we have something to safeguard; our own 
position in the matter of order is not so secure in the recognition of 
Christendom (to put it mildly) as to permit us to compromise it, and 
what is sometimes called 'The return visit' is bound to lead many to 
suppose that we attach little importance to order in relation to the 
Eucharist. Yet one great part of the significance of the Eucharist — 
fellowship with the Church of all times and all places — is liable to be 
lost if the expression of it in an episcopally ordained ministry is allowed 
to lapse. if 

The recent general Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church in the U. S. A. made interesting record in its 
favorable attitude toward unity. Of the meeting The 
Congregationalist, Boston, says: 

''The Presbyterian General Assembly, meeting in Philadelphia, was 
able to take a joyful share in great forward strides toward the reunion 
of the Churches of its order. First presented themselves the delegates 
of the Welsh Presbyterian Church, representing a communion of some 
15,000 members, which has just merged itself with the main current of 
Northern Presbyterianism, with power to perfect that union. Next came 
news of the unanimous vote by which the Southern Presbyterian Church 
had adopted the plan for the union, or perhaps it would be more correct 
to say, the confederation of the Reformed bodies holding the Presby- 
terian system. The plan involves the retention of a legal autonomy by 
the present communions, with a biennial General Assembly in which all 
would be represented. Difficulties would thus be avoided in regard to 
endowments and all that is valuable in the history and traditions of the 
now separate bodies retained. It is expected to unite under this con- 
federation the larger Presbyterian Churches North and South, the Dutch 
and the German Reformed Churches and other Presbyterian bodies." 

In The Contemporary Review, London, Eev. J. Scott 
Lidgett writes under "The Anglican Church and Evan- 
gelical Nonconformity, ' ' as follows: 

Limiting the subject, then, to that of the Reunion of the Anglican 
Church and the non-Episcopal Evangelical Churches it may confidently 
be affirmed that any projects of reunion will be hopeless from the out- 
set unless they satisfy the four following conditions: — 

"1. They must be based upon the amplest recognition, in regard to 
all concerned, not merely of common Christianity but of common church- 


manship. To adopt words that have already been used by the conference 
held in Oxford last January, all those who seek to negotiate reunion 
must be in entire accord in a 'common recognition of the fact that the 
denominations to which they severally belong are equally, as corporate 
groups, within the one Church of Christ ; and that the efficacy of their 
ministrations is verified in the history of the Church/ 'All dealings be- 
tween them should be conducted on the basis of this recognition.' Not 
only must no repudiation of the past, however adroitly veiled, be re- 
quired from any of the non-Episcopal Churches, but their place in the 
divine ordering of history must be fully accorded to them and must be 
recognised in the terms of reunion. 

' ' 2. Care must be taken to gather together and preserve for the united 
Church all the permanent deposits of faith and order by which the va- 
rious uniting denominations have been enriched, and through which they 
have severally made their respective contributions 'to the building up 
of the Body of Christ.' In this spirit the Lambeth Quadrilateral may 
well be accepted as the basis of a constructive effort which will seek 
to embody in a new declaration of faith and a reformed constitution all 
the living products of the Spirit working in and through the uniting 

"3. There must be no attempt to substitute uniformity for diversity, 
or to subject the united Church, or any parts of it, to autocratic rule. 
Reunion must stand for something other and less than fusion; for some- 
thing other and more than federation. There must be a supreme order, 
and a common organisation that is sufficiently free and elastic, not 
merely to tolerate, but to encourage such freedom and diversity as may 
serve to carry on outstanding historic traditions and to satisfy different 
temperaments within the harmony and fellowship of the whole. Within 
such an order the appropriate place must be found for a reformed epis- 
copate, a fully recognised presbyterate, a restored diaconate, and, not 
least of all, for the laity, with the rights of both sexes secured and 
'liberty of prophesying' guaranteed. 

"4. Finally, there must be the abrogation of the existing state es- 
tablishment, in order that the united Church may have complete free- 
dom and full power of shaping its life and action in the exercise of the 
amplest spiritual autonomy. 

"Undoubtedly a strong body of opinion within the Anglican Church, 
representing what is broadest and most thoughtful in all its schools of 
thought, would accept, and even contend for, these principles in any 
scheme of reunion. Without them, it is safe to say that no considerable 
section of Nonconformists would consider any plan of reunion, however 
eagerly they may long for reunion if it be possible without sacrifice of 
what they regard as divine authority and of essential importance. 

As we go to press this word comes from Mr. Eobert 
H. Gardiner, secretary of the Commission on the World 
Conference on Faith and Order: 

"We are assured of the presence at Geneva of representatives of at 
least forty different commissions, representing every part of the world, 
and more important than the number is the fact that in almost every 
case, each commission is sending those who are among its strongest men. 
It will be the most representative assemblage of Christians which has 
been held since the schism between the East and West." 


Principal James Denny, D. D. Author of ' ' The Death of Christ, ' ' 
"Jesus and the Gospel," etc. The Cunningham Lectures for 1917, 
New York: George H. Doran Company. 339 pages. 

Among the books that have appeared in recent years, this would be named 
in any group of a dozen of the best. Dr. Denny was the possessor of an 
unusual mind, and in the historical, critical and constructive discussion of 
the central truth of the New Testament he has left us a path of thinking 
that is surrounded by an exhilarating atmosphere of spiritual truth. The 
first problem facing us in a life so short and difficult as human life is to 
adjust ourselves to the laws and possibilities of that life. Our task is to 
know how to release our original and indefeasible unity with nature. 
Philosophers like Spinoza, Goethe, Kant and Wordsworth have thought 
with a great deal of attraction in this field. The reconciling power is in 
the historical Christ, not merely of Palestine two thousand years ago, 
but the historical Christ of now, for the Spirit of God not only makes 
Him present and eternal, but gives Him actual intercourse with the sin- 
ful. Here He appears as both minister and mediator of reconciliation. 
These facts are made plain in our realization that Jesus is the same yes- 
terday, to-day and forever. 

The Church established its dogmas of the Trinity and the Incarnation, 
but it has never established in the same sense the dogma of reconciliation. 
While there was much thinking on this subject through the centuries prior 
to the Reformation, it was not until after the Reformation, when dogmas 
in the old sense had become impossible, that the various branches of the 
Church began to form statements about the way of Christ 's reconciling man 
to God, and especially about the meaning of His sufferings and death. 
Reconciliation was to be treated on the basis of experience. The more 
distressing the experience of sin, the more serious must be the problem of 
redemption and reconciliation. Consequently it has to do more with 
ethics than metaphysics. 

The ideal is absolute faith in Christ, when neither the flesh nor the 
law can depress or discomfort the believer. There are instances in the 
life of Paul, as when he wrote the eighth chapter of Romans, that he 
seems to have realized it. Reconciliation to God is a blessing which is 
fully enjoyed in the present time on the abandoning of self to the sin- 
bearing love of Christ. The greatest need in human experience is recon- 
ciliation to God. Augustine was perfectly sure that he could not save 
himself from his sins; without divine help he was a lost man. Christ lived 
in our nature an absolutely sinless life. His sufferings had to do with 
sin and on that ground alone He achieved our reconciliation to God. His 
reconciliation is realized in human life, reaching out into the unseen and 
sustaining the hope of immortality. The closing sentence of the book 


sums up in fine, practical fashion the elevating and satisfying presenta- 
tion in these pages : ' ' The Christian 's faith in reconciliation does not 
find its full expression till it finds it here." 

Straton, D.D., Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, New York City,, 
New York: George H. Doran Company. 253 pages. 

This volume of fifteen sermons deals with those practices that are in- 
sidiously substituting immorality for morality. Dr. Straton is one of 
the fearless American preachers who is not afraid to condemn where 
condemnation should be given and uncover where sins have been covered 
under the guise of religion. He speaks in the terms of wrath and judg- 
ment regarding modern conditions. These sermons cover a period of twc^ 
years, not being delivered in a series but periodically as the occasion de- 
manded. His merciless arraignment of worldly practices in the Church 
is a healthy call at an opportune time. 

OF CONDITIONS IN THE ARMY. Issued by The Committee on the 
War and the Religious Outlook. Association Press, New York, 1920. 

The work published under the above title is more than a book. It is 
the constructive report of a widespread and thoroughgoing investigation 
concerning the status of religion among American men as reflected by the 
attitudes of the American soldier. It is the first of a series of such 
studies being prepared by the Committee on the War and the Religious 
Outlook, a committee made up of representative men and women of the 
various Protestant Churches and appointed "to consider the state of re- 
ligion as revealed or affected by the war, with special reference to the 
duty and opportunity of the Churches, and to prepare these findings for 
submission to the Churches." 

The Report deals with all phases of the Church's problem as reflected 
in the attitude of men of the army toward religion and the Church. 
Necessarily it gives much space to the Church's chief problem; namely, 
that of division and reunion. In this connection the findings of the Com- 
mittee are unanimous and emphatic. Indifference to denominationalism is 
an outstanding fact. "The soldier knew very little about doctrinal 
differences between Churches and cared less. It seemed senseless to him 
that the Protestant Church should be divided into denominations." 

Among the chaplains there was found a real desire for unity and the be- 
lief in the possibility of union; in fact, a large proportion of the chaplains 
interviewed regarded unity as the end most desirable. Their general atti- 
tude is seen in the following reply to the questionnaire sent out: 

"It is time that the Church put a stop to its competition and strife 
among denominations and applied itself definitely and unreservedly to 
ministering to the deep social and religious needs of mankind." 

VOL. X NO. 2 

"God gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. " 




rHIS journal is the organ of no party other 
than of those, growing up in all parties, who 
are interested in the unity of the Church of Christ. 
Its pages are friendly to all indications of Christian 
unity and ventures of faith. It maintains that, 
whether so accepted or not, all Christians — Eastern 
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, 
and all who accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour-*- 
are parts of the Church of Christ and that the 
unity of His^disciples is the paramount issue 
of modern times. 

OCTOBER, 1920 





Fleming H. Revell Company, New York 

Maruzen Company, Ltd., Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka and Sendai 

Oliphants, Ltd., 21 Paternoster Scpiare, London, E. C. 4; 100, Princes Street, Edinburgh 



The favorite figure in which the church of the first century set forth its 
conception of the Spirit of Christianity is that of "the Good Shepherd." 
The emblem which appears on this page is a reproduction of one of 
the early Christian gems. 



"No one has written more appreciatively respecting this symbol 
than Dean Stanley in his Christian Institutions. It appealed to all his 
warmest sympathies. 'What/ he asks, 'is the test or sign of Christian 
popular belief, which in these earliest representations of Christianity 
is handed down to us as the most cherished, the all-sufficing, token of 
their creed f It is very simple, but it contains a great deal. It is 
a shepherd in the bloom of youth, with the crook, or a shepherd's pipe, 
in one hand, and on his shoulder a lamb, which he carefully carries, and 
holds with the other hand. We see at once who it is; we all know with- 
out being told. This, in that earliest chamber, or church of a Chris- 
tian family, is the only sign of Christian life and Christian belief. But, 
as it is almost the only sign of Christian belief in this earliest catacomb, 
so it continues always the chief, always the prevailing sign, as long as 
those burial-places were used.' 

"After alluding to the almost total neglect of this lovely symbol 
by the Fathers and Theologians, he says that it answers the question, 
what was the popular religion of the first Christians? 'It was, in one 
word, the religion of the Good Shepherd. The kindness, the courage, 
the love, the beauty, the grace, of the Good Shepherd, was to them, if 
we may so say, Prayer Book and Articles, Creed and Canons, all in one. 
They looked on that figure, and it conveyed to them all they wanted. 
As ages passed on, the Good Shepherd faded from the mind of the 
Christian world, and other emblems of the Christian faith have taken 
His place. Instead of the gracious and gentle Pastor, there came the 
Omnipotent Judge, or the crucified Sufferer or the Infant in His mother's 
arms, or the Master in His parting Supper, or the figures of innumerable 
saints and angels, or the elaborate expositions of the various forms of 
theological controversy. ' But 'the Good Shepherd represents to us the 
joyful, cheerful side of Christianity of which we spoke before. . . . 
But that is the primitive conception of the Founder of Christianity in 
those earlier centuries when the first object of the Christian community 
was not to repel, but to include ; not to condemn, but to save. The popular 
conception of Christ in the early church was of the strong, the joyous 
youth, of eternal growth, of immortal grace.' " — Frederic W. Farrar in 
The Life of Christ as Represented in Art. 


A Journal in the Interest of He conciliation in the Divided Church 
of Christ. Interdenominational and International. Each Com- 
munion may svealc with Freedom for itself in these Pages as to 
what Offering it has to bring to the Altar of Eeconciliation. 

Vol. X. OCTOBER, 1920 No. 2 




By Robert F organ 

By W. H. Griffith Thomas 


By Charles H. Brent 


By George W. Brown 


Three Outstanding Conferences 129 




THE CHRISTIAN UNION QUARTERLY is issued in January, April, 
July and October. It is the servant of the whole Church, irrespective of 
name or creed. It offers its pages as a forum to the entire Qhurch of 
Christ for a frank and courteous discussion of those problems that have 
to do with the healing of our unchristian divisions. Its contributors and 
readers are in all communions. 

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.00 a year— fifty cents a copy. Remittance 
should be made by New York draft, express order or money order. 

Entered as second-class matter in the Post Office at St. Louis, Mo. 


Quadrennial meeting of the Federal Council of the Churches of 
Christ in America, Boston, Mass., Dec. 1-6, 1920. Eev. Charles S. 
Maefarland, 105 E. 22d Street, New York City, Secretary. 

World's Evangelical Alliance announces the Annual Universal 
Week of Prayer, Jan. 2-8, 1921. Henry Martyn Gooch, 19 Eussell 
Square, London, General Secretary. 

American Council on Organic Union, some time in 1921. Eev. 
Eufus W. Miller, Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia, Secretary. 

Universal Conference of the Church of Christ on Life and 
Work, two or three years hence. Eev. Charles S. Maefarland, 105 E. 
22d Street, New York City, Provisional Secretary. 

World Conference on Faith and Order, time and place unnamed. 
Eobert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Maine, Secretary. 

At the instance of the Association for the Promotion of Christian 
Unity, Pentecost Sunday has been named primarily as the day for 
special sermons on Christian unity in all Churches, along with prayers 
to that end. Eev. H. C. Armstrong, Seminary House, Baltimore, Md., 


(Membership in this League is open to all Christians — Eastern, Bo- 
man, Anglican and Protestant, the only requirement being a notice 
by post card or letter of one's desire to be so enrolled, stating the 
Church of which he is a member. Address, Association for the Pro- 
motion of Christian Unity, Seminary House, 504 N. Fulton Ave., 
Baltimore, Md v U. S. A.) 


FOE the conferences dealing with Christian unity held in various 

parts of the world, especially those in Switzerland. 

FOE the opportunity of facing great problems in the life of the 


FOE the kindly approach of Christians toward each other. 

FOE the dawn of hope in the discovery of better understanding 

among Christians. 

FOE the promise that He will never leave us nor forsake us. 


O LOED, the one Father whom all Thy children confess, we be- 
seech Thee for Thy church that its life may be more truly one life 
as its faith is one faith. We would confess the failure and weakness 
of the church through its divisions and its sectarianism. In a world 
whose many and grave needs demand a united body for Thy spirit to 
dwell in, we own in humility and penitence the unworthiness of the 
body we offer Thee. Thrust our hearts through with the shame of 
our divisions. Smite our consciences with the guilt of hindering Thy 
Spirit by our party pride and rivalry and strife. Show us how use- 
less and how false are our sectarian claims. How meaningless must 
they seem to Thee, O Lord! 

Call us all, we beseech Thee, from our separate altars, these way- 
side shrines where now we tarry — call us away from them to the one 
altar where our hearts find true peace. We do not wish to come to 
Thee by any partisan path, in any private way, but we would ap- 
proach Thee by the common road whereon all men of simple faith 
seek Thy presence. Deliver us from those over-refinements of thought 
which enslave us and obscure from our sight the common human 
way. When we stand at Thine august altar, Thou God of the burly 
realities, how unreal and hollow seem those nice distinctions by which 
we separate ourselves from our brothers! Deliver us from this nar- 
rowing pride of opinion, this microscopic and selfish view of truth and 
life and of Thee. Teach us the spiritual art of finding agreements 
with those from whom we differ, and make us glad to work and 
worship with all who seek in sincerity to do the will of God. 

Quicken in all the churches the sense of their common share in 
the one church of Christ. Pour out Thy favor upon all the efforts 
now being made to bring Thy followers of many names closer together 
in acquaintance, in sympathy, in fellowship and in common work. 
By this workaday and open pathway lead us out of the follies into 
which our creeds have lured us, and bring us at last and speedily 
into the unity of spirit and of body for which our Saviour prayed. 
It is in his name we ask it. — Amen. 

— The Christian Century. 


Minister Christian Temple, Baltimore, Md. 

Editorial Council 


Pastor First Congregational Church, Cambridge, Mass. 


Minister Dutch Reformed Church, The Hague, Holland 

Professor in the University of Berlin, Germany 

Principal of New College, University of London, London, England 


Dean General Episcopal Theological Seminary, New York City 


Minister Brick Presbyterian Church, New York City 


Professor of Church History, Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, 

Lancaster, Pa. 


Canon of Westminster, London, England 


Archbishop of Uppsala, Sweden 

ALL editorial communications should be addressed to Peter Ainslie, Editor THE 
CHRISTIAN UNION QUARTERLY, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS may be sent direct or placed through Fleming H. Revell Com- 
pany, New York City; Maruzen Company, Ltd., Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka and 
Sendai; Oliphants, Ltd., 21 Paternoster Square, London, E. C. 4, or 100 Princes 
Street, Edinburgh. 

SUBSCRIPTION price $2.00 a year— 50 cents a copy. 



FOR JULY, 1920 


The Switzerland Conferences of This Summer . 9 



WARDS UNITY. T. J. Pulvertaft 26 


Cowden 33 


AND A HOPEFUL PLAN. Robert Westly Peach 49 







O Lord, we thank thee that in spite of our di- 
visions, Thou hast loved us and art ever seeking 
to make Thyself so known to us that we may 
love each other fervently with pure minds and 
true hearts. Shine thou upon us that we may 
have light enough to find the way to each other, 
for there is a path of brotherhood among men 
as sure as there are paths for the stars. For- 
give us in that we have found the upper path, 
but are still stumbling across the earth in 
search of a path which thou didst make of old 
and which in our blindness we know not of. 
Guide us, O Lord, that our footsteps may honor 
thee, Whose we are and Whom we serve. 


No mortal need fancy that he shall have the honour of devis- 
ing either the plan of uniting Christians into one holy band of 
zealous cooperation, or of converting Jews and Gentiles to the 
faith that Jesus is that seed in Whom all the families of the 
earth are yet to be blessed. The plan is divine. It is ordained 
by God; and, better still, it is already revealed. Is any one 
impatient to hear it? Let him again read the intercessions of 
the Lord Messiah in the seventeenth chapter of John. Let him 
then examine the two following propositions, and say whether 
these do not express heaven's own scheme of augmenting and 
conservating the Body of Christ. Nothing is essential to the 
conversion of the world but the union and cooperation of 
Christians. Nothing is essential to the union of Christians 
but the Apostles' teaching or testimony. Or does he choose 
to express the plan of the Self -Existent in other words? Then 
he may change the order, and say — The Testimony of the Apos- 
tles is the only and all-sufficient means of uniting all Chris- 
tians. The union of Christians with the Apostles' testimony is 
all-sufficient and alone sufficient to the conversion of the 
world. Neither truth alone nor union alone is sufficient to sub- 
due the unbelieving nations; but truth and union combined are 
omnipotent. They are omnipotent, for God is in them and with 
them, and has consecrated and blessed them for this very pur- 
pose. — Alexander Campbell. 

TF a man isolates himself 
from other Christians on 
the theory that he is better 
than others personally or 
theologically, pray for that 
man, for he has a plague that 
is the most deadly disease in 
the world. 


From the Bisnors Assembled in the Lambeth Conference of 1920 

We, archbishops, bishops metropolitan, and other bishops 
of the Holy Catholic Church in full communion with 
the Church of England, in conference assembled, real- 
izing the responsibility which rests upon us at this 
time, and sensible of the sympathy and the prayers of 
many, both within and without our own communion, 
make this appeal to all Christian people. 

We acknowledge all those who believe in our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and have been baptized into the name of 
the Holy Trinity, as sharing with us membership in the 
universal Church of Christ which is His Body. We be- 
lieve that the Holy Spirit has called us in a very solemn 
and special manner to associate ourselves in penitence 
and prayer with all those who deplore the divisions of 
Christian people, and are inspired by the vision and 
hope of a visible unity of the whole Church. 

I. We believe that God wills fellowship. By God's 
own act this fellowship was made in and through Jesus 
Christ and its life is in His Spirit. We believe that it 
is God's purpose to manifest this fellowship, so far as 
this world is concerned, in an outward, visible, and 
united society, holding one faith, having its own recog- 
nised officers, using God-given means of grace, and in- 
spiring all its members to the world-wide service of the 
kingdom of God. This is what we mean by the Catholic 

II. This united fellowship is not visible in the world 
to-day. On the one hand there are other ancient epis- 
copal communions in East and West, to whom ours is 
bound by many ties of common faith and tradition. On 
the other hand there are the great non-episcopal com- 
munions, standing for rich elements of truth, liberty and 
life which might otherwise have been obscured or neg- 
lected. With them we are closely linked by many affini- 


ties, racial, historical and spiritual. We cherish the 
earnest hope that all these communions, and our own, 
may be led by the Spirit into the unity of the faith and 
of the knowledge of the Son of God. But in fact we are 
all organized in different groups, each one keeping to 
itself gifts that rightly belong to the whole fellowship, 
and tending to live its own life apart from the rest. 

III. The causes of division lie deep in the past, and 
are by no means simple or wholly blameworthy. Yet 
none can doubt that self-will, ambition, and lack of char- 
ity among Christians have been principal factors in the 
mingled process, and that these, together with blindness 
to the sin of disunion, are still mainly responsible for the 
breaches of Christendom. We acknowledge this condi- 
tion of broken fellowship to be contrary to God's will, 
and we desire frankly to confess our share in the guilt 
of thus crippling the Body of Christ and hindering the 
activity of His Spirit. 

IV. The times call us to a new outlook and new 
measures. The faith cannot be adequately apprehended 
and the battle of the kingdom cannot be worthily fought 
while the body is divided, and is thus unable to grow 
up into the fulness of the life of Christ. The time has 
come, we believe, for all the separated groups of Chris- 
tians to agree in forgetting the things which are behind 
and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited Catho- 
lic Church. The removal of the barriers which have 
arisen between them will only be brought about by a new 
comradeship of those whose faces are definitely set this 

The vision which rises before us is that of a Church, 
genuinely catholic, loyal to all truth, and gathering into 
its fellowship all "who profess and call themselves 
Christians," within whose visible unity all the treasures 
of faith and order, bequeathed as a heritage by the past 
to the present, shall be possessed in common, and made 


serviceable to the whole body of Christ. Within this 
unity Christian communions now separated from one an- 
other would retain much that has long been distinctive 
in their methods of worship and service. It is through 
a rich diversity of life and devotion that the unity of the 
whole fellowship will be fulfilled. 

V. This means an adventure of goodwill and still 
more of faith, for nothing less is required than a new 
discovery of the creative resources of God. To this ad- 
venture we are convinced that God is now calling all the 
members of His Church. 

VI. We believe that the visible unity of the Church 
will be found to involve the whole-hearted acceptance 

The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revela- 
tion of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ulti- 
mate standard of faith; and the creed commonly called 
Nicene, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, 
and either it or the Apostles' Creed as the baptismal con- 
fession of belief : 

The divinely instituted sacraments of Baptism and the 
Holy Communion, as expressing for all the corporate 
life of the whole fellowship in and with Christ : 

A ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church 
as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but 
also the commission of Christ and the authority of the 
whole body. 

VII. May we not reasonably claim that the epis- 
copate is the one means of providing such a ministry? 
It is not that we call in question for a moment the spir- 
itual reality of the ministries of those communions which 
do not possess the episcopate. On the contrary we 
thankfully acknowledge that these ministries have been 
manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as ef- 
fective means of grace. But we submit that considera- 
tions alike of history and of present experience justify 


the claim which we make on behalf of the episcopate. 
Moreover, we would urge that it is now and will prove 
to be in the future the best instrument for maintaining 
the unity and continuity of the Church. But we greatly 
desire that the office of a bishop should be everywhere 
exercised in a representative and constitutional manner, 
and more truly express all that ought to be involved for 
the life of the Christian family in the title of Father-in- 
God. Nay more, we eagerly look forward to the day 
when through its acceptance in a united Church we may 
all share in that grace which is pledged to the members 
of the whole body in the apostolic rite of the laying-on 
of hands, and in the joy and fellowship of a Eucharist 
in which as one family we may together, without any 
doubtfulness of mind, offer to the one Lord our worship 
and service. 

VIII. We believe that for all the truly equitable ap- 
proach to union is by the way of mutual deference to one 
another's consciences. To this end, we who send forth 
this appeal would say that if the authorities of other 
communions should so desire, we are persuaded that, 
terms of union having been otherwise satisfactorily ad- 
justed, bishops and clergy of our communion would will- 
ingly accept from these authorities a form of commis- 
sion or recognition which would commend our ministry 
to their congregations, as having its place in the one 
family life. It is not in our power to know how far this 
suggestion may be acceptable to those to whom we offer 
it. We can only say that we offer it in all sincerity as 
a token of our longing that all ministries of grace, theirs 
and ours, shall be available for the service of our Lord 
in a united Church. 

It is our hope that the same motive would lead min- 
isters who have not received it to accept a commission 
through episcopal ordination, as obtaining for them a 
ministry throughout the whole fellowship. 


In so acting no one of us could possibly be taken to 
repudiate bis past ministry. God forbid that any man 
should repudiate a past experience rich in spiritual bless- 
ings for himself and others. Nor would any of us be 
dishonouring the Holy Spirit of God, Whose call led us 
all to our several ministries, and Whose power enabled 
us to perform them. We shall be publicly and formally 
seeking additional recognition of a new call to wider serv- 
ice in a reunited Church, and imploring for ourselves 
God's grace and strength to fulfil the same. 

IX. The spiritual leadership of the Catholic Church 
in days to come, for which the world is manifestly wait- 
ing, depends upon the readiness with which each group 
is prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of a common 
fellowship, a common ministry, and a common service 
to the world. 

We place this ideal first and foremost before ourselves 
and our own people. We call upon them to make the 
effort to meet the demands of a new age with a new out- 
look. To all other Christian people whom our words 
may reach we make the same appeal. We do not ask 
that any one communion should consent to be absorbed 
in another. We do ask that all should unite in a new 
and great endeavour to recover and to manifest to the 
world the unity of the Body of Christ for which He 


By Eev. Robert Forgan, D.D., Minister United Free Church, 

Aberdeen, Scotland 

The specific subject of this paper is the movement 
towards union between the Church of Scotland and the 
United Free Church of Scotland. This is not the occa- 
sion on which to discuss the duty or desirability of 
Church union in the abstract, or to enlarge upon the high 
spiritual aspects of the subject. Let it suffice to say 
in one word that while an ecclesiastically engineered 
amalgamation of Church machinery might do very little 
for the real religious good of Scotland, a genuine incor- 
porating union of the two Churches concerned, if carried 
through in an earnest and sympathetic spirit, ought 
surely to result in a great quickening of the religious 
zeal and the spiritual life of our Scottish people. Tak- 
ing that for granted, I propose to come to close quarters 
at once with the actual movement towards union about 
which I am to write in these brief pages. First of all, 
I shall briefly set forth the object, origin, and course of 
the movement, and then second, I shall try to state as 
exactly as possible the position which the movement has 
now reached. 

The object of the movement has from the first been 
severely practical. Every step taken has had in view 
the removal of the main causes which at present keep 
the two Churches apart in the hope of preparing the way 
for the reunion of Presbyterianism in Scotland. It is 
essential to remember this practical aim, otherwise we 
may all too easily find ourselves bogged and befogged in 
a discussion of theoretical abstractions. We cannot in- 
deed avoid referring to certain historical fundamental 
principles. These have to be dealt with, but always with 
the practical object of the movement in full vieAv. 

The origin of the movement dates from the "Church 
crisis ' ' of our United Free Church, which followed upon 


the House of Lords' judgment in the Church Case in 
1904. That judgment, though not so designed, seriously 
affected by implication the doctrinal position of the 
Church of Scotland. And one immediate result was that 
in the Act of Parliament passed to put right the wrong 
done to the United Free Church, occasion was taken to 
insert a clause empowering the Church of Scotland to 
adjust its relation to the Confession of Faith by chang- 
ing the formula of subscription. But that was not all. 
Lord Balfour of Burleigh has publicly stated that from 
the day of the House of Lords' judgment he felt that a 
union of the Churches would be the result. It is one 
more illustration of the fine irony of Providence that 
Lord Halsbury's "smashing blow to Non-conformity," 
as he called it, should first render the Established 
Church doctrinally restive and then lead to proposals 
for union on terms which involve the absolute setting 
aside of the positions he laid down. 

In 1906 came our United Free Church Declaration of 
Spiritual Independence. With this declaration very 
many in the Church of Scotland sympathised. They dis- 
liked the position of antiquated exclusiveness assigned to 
them by the law as interpreted by Lord Halsbury. They 
felt it was not true that they were the only body in Scot- 
land entitled to be regarded as a Church. To their 
credit, they perceived that the situation was intolerable. 
Something had to be done. The more they reflected, 
the more clearly they recognized the value of the great 
principle of spiritual freedom for which we of the United 
Free Church had so long fought and so often suffered. 
The upshot was a growing desire that the two Scottish 
Churches should draw together. Thus the movement 
originated. Now we come to the course it has followed. 

The first proposal made by the Church of Scotland in 
1908 was that the two Churches should appoint commit- 
tees to confer on possible methods of cooperation. To 


this proposal the United Free Church replied that while 
informal cooperation might be possible, officially organ- 
ised cooperation on equal terms seemed impracticable, 
and suggested that, instead, the two Churches ought to 
appoint committees to enter upon unrestricted confer- 
ence regarding the main causes which keep the Churches 
apart in the hope of thereby promoting the reunion of 
Scottish Presbyterianism. This suggestion the Church 
of Scotland accepted, and in 1909, the two committees 
were appointed. The members were largely strangers to 
each other, and for a time progress was slow ; but by and 
by a spirit of mutual confidence arose, and on both sides 
an educative process was entered upon, A profound im- 
pression was produced by the results of a careful inves- 
tigation of the religious condition of the country. A 
report and a map, largely prepared by Dr. Henderson, 
showed that where the population was greatest, i. e., in 
the belt of country between Edinburgh and Glasgow, 
there the Church provision was least, while in other parts 
of the country where the population was least, there the 
Church provision was greatest. The absolute moral 
necessity for a vast re-adjustment of agencies and re- 
sources was demonstrated, and the urgent desirability 
for a union of the Churches with this practical object 
in view was tremendously reinforced. The task even 
for a reunited Church was seen to be a formidable one, 
but the religious future of Scotland demanded that it 
should be faced. 

Thus more than ever convinced of the need and the 
duty of union, our friends of the Church of Scotland now 
made a disconcerting discovery. By the terms of their 
connection with the State, they found themselves unable 
to carry through any effective union. They had not suf- 
ficient power of independent action. They could not 
change their methods or transfer their resources. By 
the sheer necessities of the situation they were accord- 


ingly compelled to reconsider their relation to the State. 
At this stage, a great day of hope dawned when at a 
meeting of the two committees Dr. Wallace Williamson, 
then simply a private, though, of course, an influential 
member, bravely and frankly declared that he was no 
longer to be hampered by shibboleths, or by controver- 
sial terms such as establishment or disestablishment, but 
was out to discover the right relation between Church 
and State, and to go in for that, whatever might be the 

Soon after this there appeared in 1912 the epoch-mak- 
ing "Memorandum" of the Procurator, Christopher 
Johnston, (now Lord Sands). This statesmanlike 
memorandum outlined a course of procedure which 
seemed to point in the direction of a possible solution of 
the main difficulties which had been found to block the 

The principal proposal was that the Church of Scot- 
land should draw up certain Articles declaratory of its 
constitution in matters spiritual, and get these recog- 
nised by Parliament as lawful, because it was clear that 
only then would the Church of Scotland be in a position 
to enter with free hands into negotiations for a possible 

In response to this memorandum, we of the United 
Free Church naturally requested to see a draft of the 
Articles in this proposed constitution. This draft the 
committee of the Church of Scotland set itself to pre- 
pare, frankly welcoming help from our committee and 
more especially in an informal way from some of our 
leading members. The avowed object, I repeat once 
more, was the practical one of placing the Church of 
Scotland in a position in which it would be free to enter 
on negotiations for union in an honourable way, not by 
one Church absorbing the other, but by each acting in 
its corporate capacity and so securing a union on terms 


of equality as Churches. In May, 1914, a draft of the 
Articles was presented to the General Assembly, which 
ordered them to be sent down to presbyteries for discus- 
sion. But the war broke out in August, and the presby- 
teries found themselves too preoccupied ; and for several 
years no further progress was made except that in many 
parts of the country ministers and congregations of 
both Churches were drawn together in mutual helpful- 
ness and cooperation by the exigencies of the situation 
such as the absence of ministers as chaplains and the 
like. At length, however, the Assembly of the Church 
of Scotland, in 1918, instructed their committee to re- 
sume its work and to report on the whole matter in 1919. 
Last May this was done, and the draft constitution was 
sent down to presbyteries for their approval or other- 
wise as a basis of approach to the Government with a 
view to ascertaining whether facilities would be given 
for an Enabling Bill. The presbyteries were instructed 
to report to the Commission of the Assembly, and did 
so last December. As 88 per cent of the presbyteries 
signified their approval, the Commission, as empowered 
by the Assembly, authorised the committee to approach 
the Government and reported the result to the Assembly 
in May, 1920. 

Having thus set forth the object, origin and course of 
the movement towards union, I come now to say some- 
thing of its present position. And as I have already had 
to indicate the position of the Church of Scotland so far, 
I must now deal more particularly with the position of 
the United Free Church. Where, then, does our Church 
stand in relation to all these doings on the part of the 
Church of Scotland 1 We have neither been idle specta- 
tors nor neutrals. Our committee has gladly and sym- 
pathetically given all the help in its power, directly and 
indirectly, formally and informally, and on the part of 
some members very confidentially. But let us not for- 


get that we have necessarily had to wait, and are still 
waiting, until the Church of Scotland gets into a position 
in which it will be free to consider a plan of union and 
give actual and practical effect to any plan of which they 
and we may together finally approve. Suppose, how- 
ever, that the proposed Enabling Bill should be passed, 
what will follow? The turn of the United Free Church 
will then have come for making a momentous decision. 
The Church of Scotland will then have it in its power to 
adopt these Articles as declaring its constitution in mat- 
ters spiritual. Can we then regard it as a Church with 
which we can hopefully enter into negotiations for an 
incorporating union? 

Before venturing to suggest how our Church should 
answer that momentous question, let me clear the ground 
a little by referring here to two subordinate points. 
First, what about consulting our kirk sessions and con- 
gregations? Our General Assembly has already twice, 
if not three times, sent down our committee's reports 
on this important matter and invited and received ex- 
pressions of opinion from presbyteries, sessions, and 
congregations. And though I have no formal decision to 
go by, I fully expect that further expressions of opinion 
will be similarly invited; and for myself, I should like 
every session and congregation to be given the opportu- 
nity of formally voting "Yes" or "No" on the question 
of union before the presbyteries and the Assembly take 
the final constitutional decision in the matter. 

The second point is a point of strategic or tactical im- 
portance. It is not very commonly known, but the 
Church of Scotland has plainly stated that it is not for- 
mally to adopt the Articles or send them down under the 
Barrier Act for adoption except as part and parcel of a 
scheme of union. The Enabling Act of Parliament will 
leave the Church free to adopt or not adopt these Articles 
as it sees fit. From the point of view of spiritual free- 


dom, this is as it should be, for such Articles ought not 
to be imposed or even ratified or confirmed by Parlia- 
ment. It is enough that they be recognised by Parlia- 
ment as "lawful." But observe what this involves. If 
negotiations were entered on and broke down over any 
matter, say, over the disposal of the endowments, then 
the Church of Scotland intends to fall back on its present 
position and let the Articles become a dead letter. Some 
critical persons say that this will give the Church of 
Scotland a certain leverage in dealing with us. But as 
against that, it seems to me sufficient to point out that 
it will not be easy for the Church of Scotland, after go- 
ing to Parliament for liberty to adopt these Articles, 
lightly to turn round and say they won't make any use 
of them. That would put them in a very unfavourable 
position in the eyes of the nation. So we may set aside 
all unworthy suspicions that the dice are to be loaded 
against us. Both Churches ought to negotiate the plan 
of union unhampered by any fear of public opinion, and 
trust to the sense of honour in each Church not to take 
any unworthy advantage in the interval. 

After these digressions, I now come back to the one 
great question which lies before our United Free Church 
— Are we prepared to unite, or is there any fundamental 
principle forbidding our Church to unite, with a Church 
possessing, or willing to adopt these Articles as the pre- 
vailing and over-ruling element in its constitution? As- 
suming our Church's objections to the present constitu- 
tion of the Church of Scotland to be valid, are those ob- 
jections removed by these Articles? There can be no 
question that our Church of Scotland friends believe 
honestly that they have set forth a position on which we 
should be able to meet them. And it is not a position of 
compromise. To my mind there is absolutely no ele- 
ment of compromise in their proposals. The objections 
of the United Free Church to the present constitution of 


the Established Church gather round two matters of vast 
importance — you may call them principles, if you like. 
One is the matter of spiritual freedom, the other is the 
matter of State endowments. Both sections of our 
United Free Church have contended all through their 
separate history for spiritual freedom; and they have 
also more than once suffered grievous material loss 
rather than accept State support under conditions which 
in their view hampered or destroyed that spiritual free- 
dom which they cherished as above all price. Both mat- 
ters, therefore, raise the question of the relation between 
Church and State. And it follows that if that relation 
can be so changed as to vindicate, preserve, and main- 
tain the Church's spiritual freedom, then our objections 
vanish, or ought to vanish. 

Now, I believe it is universally granted that the inher- 
ent spiritual freedom of the Church as a Church of 
Christ is adequately claimed and set forth in the Articles. 
These Articles frankly and unmistakably adopt what 
was the position of the fathers of the Secession and of 
the Evangelical party in the Established Church as 
against the Erastians in the Ten Years' Conflict before 
the Disruption of 1843. If Parliament recognises the 
present Established Church to be still the Church of 
Scotland with the spiritual liberties and powers claimed 
in these Articles, we of the United Free Church are 
bound to confess that, so far at least, the way has been 
cleared for entering upon negotiations for union. At 
the same time, it ought to be borne in mind that when 
negotiations are entered on, our Church's relation to 
these Articles and the exact position which these Articles 
are to hold in the reunited Church will still remain open 
for adjustment. And it ought also to be added here that 
the liberties and powers of action claimed in the Articles 
with reference to changes in administration, mode of 
electing ministers, setting up of new charges, and giving 


ministers seats in the Church courts, transfer of re- 
sources, and the like are not to remain so many mere good 
words, but are to be exercised and acted upon. Some of 
our leaders quite recently felt certain misgivings lest 
possible misunderstandings on these points should break 
out in the reunited Church, and a whole series of most 
testing questions were asked, with the result that our 
Church of Scotland friends were found to be quite pre- 
pared for the most drastic application of the powers and 
liberties claimed in the Articles. 

And now, what of the other matter — the State endow- 
ments 1 Well, all through the old Disestablishment cam- 
paign, the contention was that these endowments were 
national property, and as such ought to be disposed of 
by Parliament. And what do we find to-day? The 
Church of Scotland is ready to agree that a Parliamen- 
tary Commission shall be set up for the express purpose 
of disposing once for all of these national endowments, 
provided only that they are not to be secularised, but 
shall be applied for " pious uses." And still further 
they apparently agree also to the position we of the 
United Free Church have taken up in this matter, viz., 
that when this Parliamentary Commission has done its 
work, the endowments turned into money from commuted 
teinds and the like and paid over in satisfaction of the 
personal interests of ministers and of congregations 
(for surely congregations have pecuniary rights as well 
as ministers), shall become the private property of the 
Church of Scotland in the same sense and to the same 
effect as the property of the United Free Church is its 
private property. And mark what will be the conse- 
quence of this : Not one vestige of State control over any 
part of the Church's property will be left. 

How precisely a Parliamentary Commission will act, 
how much or how little it will assign to the Church, and 
how much or how little to other " pious uses," such as 
education or hospitals or district nursing, it will not be 


in the power of either Church, as a Church, to determine. 
Church members, as citizens and voters, may approve or 
disapprove, but that will be all. 

For the rest, if the Church with which our Church is 
asked to unite possesses all its property on the same 
terms as we possess ours, then it would seem to follow 
that even the keenest voluntary can have nothing to say. 

One other aspect of this matter, however, still requires 
to be referred to. In what position will a reunited 
Church of Scotland, possessing complete spiritual free- 
dom and absolute private ownership of its property, 
stand towards the State? Will it still be an Established 
Church? Or will it have been disestablished and more 
or less disendowed? The answer is that it will be the 
Church of Scotland recognised as such by the State, but 
no longer established on the old disabling conditions nor 
holding endowments subject to any special State control. 
Its historic identity will be formally and officially recog- 
nised and declared by Parliament as remaining undis- 
turbed notwithstanding these sweeping changes in its 
constitution, and it will continue to be and to act as the 
Church of Scotland in all the public life of the nation. 
All ancient statutes inconsistent with the Articles will 
stand repealed ; but the statutory relation of the Church 
to the State will not be violently ruptured, as it would 
be by a formal Act of Disestablishment. All power of 
State interference will have gone, but the historic tie 
will remain, purified from every element of Erastianism 
which in the past has poisoned the relationship to the 
injury of the State quite as much as to the injury of the 
Church. Eemember always in this connection that if 
the proposed union is carried out, it is to be the act of 
the two Churches on terms determined solely by them- 
selves, without even being so much as reported to Par- 
liament. And how a United Church so set up can be 
called a State institution or an Established Church in the 
old sense, I for my part am unable to see. 


Still further, it has been expressly laid down that no 
special position of privilege for the United Church will 
remain of a kind that would either depress the position 
of other Churches in the land or deny their right to be 
regarded by the law as Churches. A statutory dis- 
claimer to this effect has been promised. 

The one serious question about which some may still 
require fuller satisfaction is how much precisely may be 
involved in the statutory relation of the Church to the 
State which is to remain. The difficulty is that in the 
ancient statutes of the Realm of Scotland there are hun- 
dreds of references to the kirk, many of them merely in- 
cidental, and many more mixed up with other legislative 
matters, so that it would be a task passing the wit or 
skill of man to disentangle and repeal every detail which 
may now be deemed objectionable. It is conceivable that 
some ingenious Lord Halsbury of the future might at- 
tempt to find in the terms of one of these statutes ground 
upon which the State might still interfere with the 
Church's spiritual freedom. But against such a con- 
tingency it is to be expressly provided in the Enabling 
Act that in all questions of construing or interpreting the 
ancient statutes the new Articles are to prevail and that 
provision seems to offer as full security as is humanly 

For the rest, some risks must be run, if any changes 
at all are ever to be made either in Church or State. 
And in view of the extraordinary, and, I will add, the 
noble advance towards our position made by the Church 
of Scotland as it is at present constituted, it seems to me 
that our Church is being asked to take by far the smaller 
risk in the matter. They have done a bold thing, and it 
requires much less courage on our part to respond to 
their offer and grasp the hand they hold out to us. May 
God give to both Churches the vision and the faith with- 
out which nothing great or good can ever be achieved. 



By the Eev. W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., Professor of Systematic 
Theology, Wyeliffe College, Episcopal, Toronto 

In the Old Testament, and also in the New, the fact of 
a "ministry" is clearly recorded. In the former the 
ministry consists chiefly of two orders or classes of men 
— the priests and the prophets, each with its own sphere 
more or less clearly defined, and with a work of great 
importance and absolute necessity, because of divine ap- 

The essence of the priesthood was the representation 
of man to God; the essence of the prophetic office was 
the representation of God to man. Anything else done 
by priest or prophet was accidental and additional, and 
not a necessary part of his office. The essential work 
of the priest was expressed in sacrifice and intercession, 
and may be summed up in the word "mediator." The 
essential work of the prophet was expressed in revela- 
tion and instruction, and may be summed up in the word 
"ambassador." The priesthood meant propitiation; 
the prophetic office, revelation. The priest was con- 
cerned with the way of man to God; the prophet with 
the will of God to man. The two offices were thus com- 
plementary and, together, fulfilled all the requirements 
of the relationship between God and man. 

The ministry of the New Testament is equally clear 
and undoubted, but with certain great and notable dif- 
ferences. There is absolutely nothing about a special 
order or class of men called priests. The only priest- 
hood, apart from the Lord's, is the spiritual priesthood 
of all believers. There is, however, much that answers 
to the essential ministry of the Old Testament prophet, 
but with this difference, that ministry in the New Testa- 
ment is not confined to any one class of believers, it is 
the privilege and duty of all. Diversities of gifts in that 


ministry there are most assuredly, but ministry gener- 
ally and of some kind is for all. Indeed, the various 
gifts are for the express purpose of "equipping the 
saints for their work of ministering" (Eph. 4:12, Greek 
and E. V.). 

Whether, then, we think of the ministry of the priest 
or of the prophet, it is clear from the New Testament 
that there is no class of believers to which spiritual func- 
tions exclusively belong as of absolute and divine ap- 
pointment. What is required for "decency and order" 
is quite another question, and though important and es- 
sential, is assuredly secondary to the above-named fun- 
damental principle of the New Testament. 

From these differences between the Old and New Tes- 
taments the subject of this paper emerges, viz., "The 
Silence of the New Testament as to any Special Order 
of Priests and Its Insistence on the Ministry of the 



This silence is a simple fact. There are twenty-seven 
books, and. not a single reference can be found to a spe- 
cial human priesthood. But this conveys only a little 
of the strength of the evidence. The New Testament 
is not so much a volume as a library, and its evidence 
consists of several independent parts, and has a cumu- 
lative force. Let us take seven of these representative 
and distinctive parts and notice the result, (a) There 
are the instructions of our Lord to His disciples and 
apostles in the four Gospels, but not a word about a 
special priesthood, (b) There is the first book of gen- 
eral Church history, the Acts of the Apostles, but not a 
hint of such a priesthood, (c) There is the first detailed 
picture of one particular Apostolic Church in the Epistles 
to the Corinthians, but not a sign of any such priest- 


hood, (d) There are the two great doctrinal Epistles 
for Gentile Christians, Eomans and Ephesians, but no 
instruction whatever as to such a priesthood, (e) There 
is the great doctrinal Epistle for Jewish Christians, He- 
brews, but nothing in it except our Lord's priesthood, 
(f ) There are the three Epistles of pastoral and eccle- 
siastical instructions, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, but not 
a word of any special priesthood, (g) There are the 
mature writings of the two great Apostles of the Circum- 
cision, St. Peter and St. John, but no trace whatever of 
this priesthood. This evidence taken separately in its 
parts is striking, but taken as a whole it is cumulative 
and absolutely overwhelming. 

This silence is a striking fact. Here twenty-seven 
books, covering a period of at least forty to fifty years, 
referring to the foundation and early history of the 
Church amid differences of place, country, race, capacity, 
and conditions of life. Yet there is no provision for a 
special order of priesthood. It is also a striking silence, 
because (with one possible exception) all the writers 
were Jews, and, as such, steeped in sacerdotal ideas, 
language, and associations from their earliest childhood. 
The Apostles use sacrificial and sacerdotal language on 
several occasions to describe certain elements and aspects 
of the Gospel, notably, St. Paul in Eomans 15 :16, where 
he speaks of his preaching as his sacred and sacrificial 
service, and his Gentile converts as his sacrificial offer- 
ing. But this, as the whole context shows, is manifestly 
spiritual and symbolical in meaning, and is at once de- 
scriptive and illustrative of his work as a " prophet' ' or 
preacher of the Gospel. But not one of them ever used 
the word a sacrificing priest, to distinguish a Christian 
minister from a layman. How can we account for the 
avoidance of this familiar term? 

Bishop Westcott is recorded to have observed in some 
of his lectures at Cambridge that this avoidance was the 


nearest approach lie knew to verbal inspiration. Some 
of us would venture to go a step further, and claim it 
as an unmistakable example of the superintending con- 
trol of the Holy Ghost in the composition of the Scrip- 
tures. Humanly speaking, the chances against avoiding 
the use of Upeus in this connection are as ten thousand to 
one. Indeed, we may almost say that to refuse to ex- 
plain it by the guiding of the Holy Ghost is to require 
for its explanation what is virtually a miracle of human 
thought, foresight, and mutual pre-arrangement among 
several writers. 

If it be said that the question is one not of words but 
of things, we reply with Bishop Lightfoot, "This is un- 
deniable ; but words express things, and the silence of the 
Apostles still requires an explanation' ' (Philippians, 
Essays, p. 264). Neither the word nor the thing can be 
discovered in the New Testament. 

This silence is a significant fact. It is what Bishop 
Lightfoot calls "the eloquent silence of the Apostolic 
writings" (Ut supra, p. 182). There is no mention be- 
cause there is no place for it and no need of it in the 
New Testament. In the Jewish economy a mediatorial 
priesthood was necessary, because of alienation from 
God, because sin was not put away, because the way to 
God was not open. But now sin has been put away, the 
way into the holiest is manifest, and for this Christ, our 
divine Priest, is all. This the burden of the teaching of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews ; the one and only priesthood, 
inviolable, undelegated a7ra/oa/?aTov, (Heb. 7:24), of our 
Lord. Christ's priesthood is unique, perfect, and per- 
manent; and as long as He is Priest there is no room 
for and no need of any other mediator. 

This silence as to a special human priesthood shows 
that such a priesthood is irreconcilable with the letter 
and spirit of Apostolic Christianity. In this respect 
"Christianity stands apart from all the other religions," 


It is the "characteristic distinction of Christianity" 
(Lightfoot, ut supra, p. 182) to have no such provision. 
Where there is no repeated offering, there is no need of 
an altar; where there is no altar, there is no sacrifice; 
where there is no sacrifice, there is, there can be, no 
priest. The benefits of the sacrifice once for all offered 
are now being continually bestowed by Christ and appro- 
priated by the penitent believer without any human medi- 
ator, because "the kingdom of Christ * * * has no sacer- 
dotal system" (Lightfoot, p. 181). 

Of late, however, the argument has been frequently 
used that ministerial priesthood, or the priesthood of the 
ministry, is only the universal priesthood of believers ex- 
pressed through their representatives, that as the human 
body acts through its members, so the Church as the 
Body of Christ acts through the ministry as its instru- 
ments and that, consequently, when the "priest" is ex- 
ercising his ministerial functions, it is really the Church 
acting through him. 

To this line of argument the answer seems clear: — 
(1) There is an entire silence in the New Testament as 
to this special, and, as it were, localized priesthood. 
Surely if the ministry had been regarded as exercising a 
priesthood distinguishable from the priesthood of all be- 
lievers, or regarded as the priesthood of the Church 
specialized, it would have been necessary to show that 
this ministerial priesthood existed in the Christian 
Church. Yet there are no priestly functions associated 
with the Christian ministry as such in the New Testa- 
ment. The priesthood of all believers is inherent in their 
relation to Christ. This is the divine warrant for it and 
there is no such warrant for any narrower or modified 
form of it. 

(2) Is it not at least unsafe, even if not perilous, to 
base such a novel and far-reaching claim on a metaphor, 
the figure of the human body? 


(3) The Scriptural use of this metaphor never dif- 
ferentiates between the spiritual body and its instru- 
ments, but only between members and members. 

(4) The modern use of the metaphor now in question 
proves too much, for while in the natural body certain 
members alone can act and "minister" in certain ways, 
as the hand does in one way and the foot in another, 
in the Scripture idea of the Body of Christ each member 
has real "priestly" functions. "That which every joint 
supplieth" (Eph. 4:16). These differences of function 
are only of degree, not of kind, and do not constitute 
the ministry a special and localized priesthood, a posi- 
tion which would involve a difference of kind. 

(5) This idea of a ministerial priesthood as expressive 
of the universal priesthood is a novel and significant de- 
parture from the older and still generally accepted idea 
of the sacerdotalism of the Christian ministry. It rep- 
resents an almost entire shifting of the ground. The 
prevalent conception of the priesthood of the ministry has 
been that of an order of men in direct touch with Christ, 
and, as such, acting on the body rather than for it. But 
the new use of the metaphor really implies that the in- 
struments act for the body and through the body, in the 
sense of not being immediately in contact with the Head. 
The older sacerdotalism maintains that the priesthood 
receives and represents "an attribute of grace distinct 
from" that received by the Church, "by virtue of which 
grace, men are brought into such relationship with God 
that through this instrumentality they obtain the prom- 
ised blessings of the covenant under which they live" 
(Canon T. T. Carter, On the Priesthood, p. 99). But 
this view involves much more than a concentration of the 
priesthood of the whole of the Church in a part of it. It 
represents another line of grace different from the gen- 
eral one in kind as well as in degree. Yet Scripture 
knows nothing of two separate lines of grace, one from 

P E I E S T OR P R O P H E T f 111 

the Head direct to the Church, and the other from the 
Head to the ministry. 

The older and nearer views of the priestly character 
of the ministry are therefore incompatible, and sacerdo- 
talists cannot have both. It is impossible on any true 
analogy to distinguish between the spiritual body and 
its ministerial organs in such a way as to make the or- 
gans the instruments of the body, according to the new 
view, and yet in authority over it, according to the old 
view. Upholders of ministerial priesthood must choose 
between these positions, though for neither of them is 
there any warrant or authority in the Word of God. 

(6) The functions of the Christian ministry, as such, 
and considered in themselves, are those of a personal 
medium, not of a priestly mediator; they are prophetic, 
not priestly, they are exercised on behalf of Christ rather 
than on behalf of the Church, and represent the Head 
rather than the Body. And even so far as they may be 
said in certain aspects to represent the Church, the 
functions are "representative and not vicarial" (Light- 
foot, Philippians, p. 267). In short, the essential idea 
of the ministry is 8ia*ona, not UpdTevfia, service, not sacer- 
dotalism, and it can never be too frequently asserted 
that the fundamental conception of the Christian min- 
istry is that it represents God to the Church rather 
than the Church to God, that it is prophetic and not 

(7) It is scarcely too much to say that this new idea 
or application of "ministerial priesthood" is the refuge 
of men who have been driven from the older position by 
the logic of Scripture truth concerning the priesthood of 
all believers, the uniqueness of our Lord's priesthood and 
the entire absence of any essentially sacerdotal functions 
(such as offering sacrifice) from the New Testament con- 
ception of the Christian minister. In so far, therefore, 
as the new view implies a modification of, or rather a 


departure from the older sacerdotal view, it may be wel- 
comed as at least a significant change, but it cannot be 
accepted as a means of bringing back and preserving the 
old view. As already stated, the two positions are in- 
compatible, and if the new be true the old was false. But, 
in fact, neither the new nor the old view is Scriptural, 
and it may be stated fearlessly that there is no function 
or office of the Christian priesthood which cannot be ex- 
ercised by any and every individual believer in Christ 
of either sex, wherever and whatever they may be. Dif- 
ferences of function in the Christian ministry there are, 
but in the Christian priesthood there are not. So we 
return to our point and call renewed attention to the 
simple, striking and significant silence of the New Testa- 
ment as to any new and special order of priests. 

Side by side with this silence as to any new order of 
priests we find 



The Neiv Testament emphasizes the nature of the min- 
istry. — The ministry of the New Testament is twofold, 
for evangelization and edification: the ministry to the 
sinner and to the saint. There are at least seven series 
of titles associated with the ministry which show the 
character and necessity of it in the Church. The min- 
ister is a herald (K.rjpv$ and cognates), a messenger of 
good news {dayyeXicrr^ and cognates), a witness {pAprvs 
and cognates), an ambassador (Upearpevo)) , a servant 
(8ia/covos and cognates), a shepherd (iloi/^i/, obcovofws, and 
cognates), and a teacher (SiSaovmAo?, Upo<f>rjrr^ 9 and cog- 
nates). The variety and fulness of reference plainly 
show the paramount importance placed on the ministry 
of the Word. 

The New Testament emphasises the message of the min- 
istry. — There are two phrases that sum up this message, 


one referring chiefly to its relation to God and the other 
to its relation to man. "The Word" is the message as 
it expresses the mind of God. "The Gospel" is the mes- 
sage as it describes its destination for and acceptable- 
ness to man. Associated with "the Word" we find at 
least seven series of titles of the mesage : The Word of 
God, the Word of Christ, the Word of the Lord, the Word 
of reconciliation, the Word of salvation, the Word of 
grace, the Word of righteousness, the Word of truth, 
the Word of life. There are also seven series connected 
with "the Gospel": The Gospel of God, the Gospel of 
Christ, the Gospel of the grace of God, the Gospel of 
salvation, the Gospel of peace, the Gospel of the kingdom, 
the Gospel of the glory of God. 

These various aspects, so clear, so full, so important, 
may be all summed up in three well-known passages: 
" It is I " ; " It is finished " ; " It is written. ' ' The Person 
of Christ, the Work of Christ, the Word of Christ. Sal- 
vation provided, wrought, and assured. This is essen- 
tially the complete yet remarkably varied message of the 
ministry of Christianity. 

The Neiv Testament emphasizes the purpose of the 
ministry. — The ministry of the Word is intended to bring 
God and man face to face — God revealing, man respond- 
ing. It claims to do for man all that he needs or can 
need. Regeneration, sanctification, edification, glorifi- 
cation, are all associated with the Word of God, and at 
every step of the Christian life the ministry of that Word 
finds its place and power. 

This purpose becomes realized in the response of man 
through faith. The Word of God and faith are correla- 
tives, and faith is emphasized in the New Testament be- 
cause it is the only, as it is the adequate, response to 
the revelation of God. Faith brings the soul into direct 
contact with God, and the result is "righteousness 
through faith." The Gospel is the power of God unto 


salvation, because in it is revealed God's righteousness 
from faith to faith, having faith as its correlative and 
channel from first to last (Eom. 1:16, 17). Faith re- 
sponds to God's Word and appropriates Christ as God's 
righteousness "for us" for justification, and God's 
righteousness "in us" for sanctification. 

This is the New Testament "ministry of the Word," 
and in all it is ministerial and instrumental, not media- 
torial and vicarious. Who are we but ministers through 
whom men "believe"? And this ministry is a perma- 
nent element. " Go ye into all the world and preach the 
Gospel." Among St. Paul's concluding exhortations 
was, "Preach the Word." St. Peter's last teaching em- 
phasizes the Word of God. St. John's closing writings 
exhort to ' ' abiding in the Truth. ' ' The permanent min- 
istry of the Word is a threefold guarantee to the Church. 

It is a guarantee of the purity of the Church. When- 
ever it has been neglected, the course of the Church has 
been deflected ; and whenever, as at the Reformation, this 
has been predominant, her purity has been prominent. 
This is the explanation of every backsliding, the secret 
of every recovery. There must ever be in this sense ' ' a 
reversion to type." 

It is a guarantee of the progress of the Church. When- 
ever it has been honored, there has been extension ; when- 
ever it has been neglected, stagnation. Missionary work 
at home and abroad finds its definite trend and full im- 
petus in the ministry of the Word. 

It is a guarantee of the power of the Church. As a 
protection against all foes and for the good of all friends, 
let us honor the ministry of the Word. There is no 
weapon Rome fears more than the Word of God. It was 
with a sure spiritual perception that Luther emphasized 
justification by faith as the articulus out stantis aut ca~ 
dentis ecclesiae, and it is with an equally sure instinct 
from another standpoint that Rome sees in this doctrine 


her most powerful enemy, and assails it with the most 
virulent opposition. Not because of the supposed dan- 
ger to morality through "Solifidianism," but, as Litton 
well says, because it cuts at the root of all her priestly 
power, Eome wages warfare against justification by 

This truth brings the soul into direct, conscious, 
blessed, satisfying contact and union with Christ, and 
thereby dispenses at once and forever with a human 
mediator. Christ is thereby present and no longer 
merely represented. 

The ministry of the Word, too, is our great power 
against Neo-Anglicanism. In proportion as the sacer- 
dotal element goes up, the ministry of the Word goes 
down. Exalt the priest and you depose the teacher, for 
the inherent tendency of Sacerdotalism is directly op- 
posed to that of the preaching and teaching ministry of 
the Word of God. Let our people be saturated with the 
truth of Holy Scripture, and they will find in it their 
power against all Sacerdotalism. 

The ministry of the Word is also our power against 
the worldliness of the Church and congregation. Let 
the standard of the Word be uplifted and pressed on 
heart and conscience, and the worldly devices and ele- 
ments in our Church life will fall away and die. The 
message of the Word for holiness of heart and life will 
soon settle questionable methods of Church finance, 
Church life, and Church work. And all this will be so 
because of its power to " edify' ' the believer. More and 
better Bible classes, more expository teaching in our ser- 
mons, more individual meditation and study and teach- 
ing of the Word will soon have its blessed effects in the 
individual and congregation life. 

Let us, therefore, honor the Word of God. Honor it 
in the soul, in the home, in the study, in the pulpit, in the 
congregation, in the college, in the university, in the na- 


tion. Preach it out of a full heart, a clear mind, a strong 
conviction, and a consistent life. Keceive it by faith, 
welcome it by love, and prove it by obedience. Then 
shall we have no fear for present or future, for the Word 
is still the seed that quickens, the sword that pierces, the 
light that guides, the hammer that breaks, the meat that 
strengthens, the milk that nourishes, and the honey that 
delights, because it is the Word of God that liveth and 
abideth forever. 


All forms of life are endless; each frail vase 
Is emptied o'er and o'er — but filled again; 
And never tangled is the wondrous maze 
Of nature's melodies through endless days — 
And yet forever new and sweet to men. 

Gleams hint that life upon some future waits ; 

The worm cannot forecast the butterfly — 
And yet the transformation but creates 
A step in the same nature which now mates 

Our own — and may life's mystery untie. 

Mayhap the butterfly this message brings : 

"The law uncomprehended, I obey; 
Although the lowliest of earth-bred things, 
Even I have been reborn with urgent wings, 

And heavenward fly — who crept but yesterday." 

In life 's fair mansion I am but a guest ; 

And life will bring fulfillment of the gleam. 
I trust this last adventure is the best, 
The crowning of this earthly life's behest, 

The consummation of the poet's dream. 

— Jannes Terry White. 


By Rt. Rev. Charles H. Brent, D.D., Chairman of the Preliminary Meet- 
ing of the World Conference on Faith and Order at Geneva, Switzerland. 

Ten years ago a little group of Christians embraced the 
purpose, first conceived at an early Eucharist, of join- 
ing together in a special pilgrimage towards unity in the 
broken Church of Jesus Christ. It was not a man-made 
scheme but a humble endeavor to put ourselves in ac- 
cord with the mind of our Lord expressed in His prayer 
that they all may be one. From this modest beginning a 
world-wide movement has grown, so that at the prelimi- 
nary meeting of the World Conference on Faith and 
Order which has just closed at Geneva, eighty Churches 
and forty nations were represented. This Conference 
marks a stage on our journey and also exhibits the spirit 
of the pilgrims some of whom, such as the Germans and 
the Boumanians, came at great cost to themselves. 

Our journey is a long one. Christians have taken more 
than a thousand years to reach the far country of dis- 
union where they now reside. We cannot return home 
again in a moment. Some of the pilgrims who first 
caught the vision a decade since had hardly hoped to get 
as far as they have in so brief a space of time. The temp- 
tation is to be content with slow progress, and to rest 
satisfied with something less than the goal of God's plac- 
ing — a Church, on earth, among men, visibly and organ- 
ically one. Partial unities seem more possible and feder- 
ation has alluring features, but they fall far short of 
home. Then, too, according to God's design, impossibili- 
ties are the only aim high enough for human capacity. 
We have allowed ourselves to take for granted the ne- 
cessity of Christian disunion, blind to the fact that one- 
ness is the first, not the last, requirement for God's firm 
foothold among men. The tinkling ambitions of separa- 
tion are shocking in the face of a shattered, bewildered 


world that is looking for leadership and finding none. 
The performance of the Churches, first and last, indi- 
vidually and collectively, is pitiful measured by their 
highsounding professions and claims. The failure of 
Christianity — and it has failed — is the inevitable failure 
of a kingdom divided against itself. It will go on failing 
until it manifests unity and all the privileges and wealth 
which each enjoys separately are placed at the disposal 
of all. 

The pilgrims do not maintain that theirs is the only 
method of travel, by the way of conference on Faith and 
Order, but they do contend that theirs is the only goal 
and that the spirit for which conference stands is the 
only spirit for a pilgrim towards unity — the filial spirit 
which embraces God's purpose as its own and the fra- 
ternal spirit which claims each Christian as a brother be- 
loved. Through a long stretch of time controversy has 
burned with fierce flame in the Churches, great and small, 
and has blackened and scorched many a fair subject. It 
is not extinguished yet. The spirit of controversy re- 
joices in dialectic victory — what a hollow triumph it is ! 
— and gloats over a defeated foe. The spirit of confer- 
ence is the slave of the Truth and weeps because gulfs 
remain unbridged and good men are alienated from one 
another. Controversy loves war and conference loves 
peace. Controversy has great respect for its own con- 
victions and little for those of others. Conference ap- 
plies the Golden Kule to the separated and demands mu- 
tual respect for each other's convictions. 

For a week the pilgrims were in conference in Geneva. 
Differences of thought were sketched in clear out- 
line nor did any immediate reconciliation appear on the 
horizon, but never was there a word of harshness or self- 
will. The common conviction at the centre of being, was 
that difficulties boldly exposed and openly met, were the 
only difficulties in a fair way to settlement. "What ap- 


pear as contradictions have, as the secret of their 
strength, riches of being which, when at length put into 
harmonious relation to the whole of God's scheme, will 
be revealed as supplementary elements necessary to per- 
fection. The study of the Church as it exists in the mind 
of God, of what we mean by unity, of the sources of the 
Church's inspiration, of the best expression in language 
of a living faith, occupied the prayers and thoughts of 
the pilgrims during the conference, and for a long time 
to come will continue to occupy them. Faith first and 
then Order. The inner principle of life, the ideal, and 
then the mode of propagating and protecting by organic 
self-government of what is within. 

The competition of Churches received a body blow 
from the united action of the pilgrims. It is a sin against 
love to endeavor to detach a Christian from his own 
Church in order to aid another Church to increase its roll. 
Sheep-stealing in the cattle world is held to be a crime. 
How then ought it to be viewed by the under-shepherds 
of the Good Shepherd 1 That is a question which the pil- 
grims ask of all the Churches. It is not as though the 
whole world were evangelized or there were any dearth 
of opportunity anywhere. The number of unconverted 
and untouchd in almost any given community form the 
majority of that community. A combined effort in the 
direction of those who know not Christ is our elementary 

The Spirit of God was the strength of the pilgrims. 
He made us one in our fellowship. The conference was 
a living body. Life touched life, nation touched nation, 
the spirit of the East held communion with the spirit of 
the "West as perhaps never before. By invitation on the 
last day of the conference we gathered together — it was 
the Feast of the Transfiguration in the Eastern calendar 
— in the Eussian Orthodox Church in Geneva for the sol- 
emn worship of the divine liturgy. Anglican, Baptist, 


Old Catholic, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, Lutheran, Quaker, 
were all there, and all there to worship. The Metropoli- 
tan of Seleukia in a spiritual address spoke to the pil- 
grims of his own joy in the vision of unity, and told how, 
out of the transfigured troubles and pains of the present, 
would rise the glory of the future. We of the West need 
the fragrant, graceful worship of the East. The beauty 
of God filled His temple. We felt that we had been drawn 
within the pearly gates of the Apocalypse, and we came 
away with pain benit and grapes in our hands, and sweet- 
ness in our souls, under the spell of the mystic East. It 
was fitting that we should forthwith consider certain pro- 
posals of the Orthodox Churches, sane and strong, touch- 
ing on cooperation and fellowship. A few minutes later 
and the conference became a fact of history, a hope and 
a vision. 

The pilgrims go home with added inspiration, convic- 
tion and responsibility. No one departed unmoved. 
What another decade will bring forth in this movement 
who can say ? But it is in the hands of God from Whom 
it came and to Whom it belongs. It is ours only so far 
as we recognize it to be His. Directly and indirectly it 
has already reached far. Its possibilities are measured 
only by our willingness to explore them. They will be 
realized fully if we pilgrims continue to aim to do our 
little share as God whose coworkers we are, does His 
great share. Some day there will be one flock under one 
Shepherd. We pilgrims register our active belief in this 
fact and promise to pursue our journey until we reach 
the Heaven where we would be. 


By Prof. George W. Brown, Ph.D., Transylvania College, 

Lexington, Ky. 

The movement of the Disciples was born of a sentiment 
for Christian union. According to Eichardson (Memoirs 
of Alexander Campbell), when Thomas Campbell settled 
in Western Pennsylvania, "the Seceder congregations 
(to which sect Campbell belonged) were much pleased at 
having so important an accession to their ministry, * * 

* * they came to regard him as the most Jearned and 
talented in their ranks. He had not, however, been very 
long engaged in his regular ministrations among the 
churches before some suspicions began to arise in the 
minds of his ministerial brethren that he was disposed 
to relax too much the rigidness of their ecclesiastical 
rules, and to cherish for other denominations feelings of 
fraternity and respect in which they could not share. 

* * * It happened that about this time he was deputed 
to visit a few scattered members of the flock who were 
living at some distance up the Alleghany, above Pitts- 
burg, and to hold among them, in company with a young 
minister, a Mr. Wilson, a communion celebration. This 
part of the country was then thinly settled, and it was 
seldom that ministerial services were enjoyed by the va- 
rious fragments of religious parties which had been 
thrown together in the circling eddies of these new set- 
tlements. Mr. Campbell's sympathies were strongly 
aroused in regard to the destitute condition of some of 
the vicinity who belonged to other branches of the Pres- 
byterian family, and who had not, for a long time, had 
the opportunity of partaking of the Lord's Supper, and 
he felt it his duty, in the preparation sermon, to lament 
the existing divisions, and to suggest that all his pious 
hearers, who felt so disposed and duly prepared, should, 
without respect to party differences, enjoy the benefits 
of the communion season then providentially afforded 


them. Mr. Wilson did not, at that time, publicly oppose 
these overtures, but finding that Mr, Campbell had lit- 
tle respect for the division walls which the different par- 
ties had built up with so much pains, his sectarian prej- 
udices became fully aroused. He felt it his duty, there- 
fore, at the next meeting of the presbytery, to lay the 
case before it in the usual form of ' libel. ' ? ' It was this 
regard for the conditions of others not of his own sect, 
and the resulting opposition of Mr. "Wilson, which led to 
the dispute between Mr. Campbell and the Seceder pres- 
bytery, and eventually to his separation from that com- 
munion, and the establishment of the Disciple movement. 

The great fundamental document of the new move- 
ment, written by Thomas Campbell and given to the 
world shortly after the culmination of the dispute with 
the presbytery, is the " Declaration and Address." Per- 
haps the most significant passage in this great document 
is this one ; ' ' You are all, dear brethren, equally included 
as the objects of our esteem and love. With you all we 
desire to unite in the bonds of an entire Christian unity — 
Christ alone being the head, the center, His word the 
rule, and explicit belief of and manifest conformity to it 
in all things, the terms." Here we have set forth the 
great purpose of the movement, union in Christ; the 
platform proposed is the Word of Christ. Thirteen 
propositions subjoined to the document are intended to 
set forth succinctly the principles of the movement. The 
first one of these affirms that the Church of Christ upon 
earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally 
one ; the second that there ought to be no schisms in the 
Church; third declares that nothing ought to be con- 
sidered an article of faith except what is expressly 
taught and enjoined in the Word of God. The remaining 
articles are explanations of these three. 

It is unnecessary to go further into the early history 
of the Disciple movement. Enough has been said to 


make it clear that union was the primary thing in the 
movement. The programme for union was the whole 
programme. The platform might be stated as loyalty to 
Christ. To be sure, it was a spirit of loyalty to Christ 
which led to the formulation of the programme itself, to 
the initial purpose of the movement. For a desire for 
union might grow out of the ambition to rule, to magnify 
and enlarge one's own sect, or one's personal power or 
influence. But among the founders of this movement 
this was not the case. The desire was to live according 
to the principles of the seventeenth chapter of John. 

A pertinent question is this; Did this programme al- 
ways remain to the front in the consciousness of the Dis- 
ciples f The answer would be, that for a time it did. But 
the movement suffered the same fate that all other great 
movements have suffered. That is, after the first great 
impulse, and especially after new hands took control of 
things, interest was centered more on the mechanics of 
the movement than on the movement itself, more on the 
platform than on the purpose, more on the formal than 
on the spiritual. At first it was a movement for union ; 
it was referred to as a reformation, or the "current ref- 
ormation.'' During their sojourn in the tents of the 
Baptists, the Disciples began to concentrate attention on 
the restoration of the ancient order of things. But this 
was but a means to the end. The interest of the early 
Disciples in the ancient order could not outweigh their 
broad sympathies and their desire for union. After the 
separation from the Baptists, interest in the ancient or- 
der, at least in the minds of some, continued to increase. 
Eventually a new name was proposed for the movement. 
Perhaps a half century after its successful launching as 
a union movement, some began to feel that the primary 
purpose of the movement was the restoration of the con- 
ditions of the early Church, and they began to speak of 
the movement as the "restoration movement." In time 


this view began to be held by a large number of Disciples. 
They placed an ever increasing emphasis on restoration, 
with a constantly decreasing emphasis on Christian 
union. So pronounced did this attitude become that the 
restoration wing of this movement, if I may be permit- 
ted to use the term, finally gave up all direct efforts to- 
ward union, and centered its attention on the elaboration 
of the details of the organization, faith, and polity of the 
primitive Church. To be sure, even this wing professes 
an academic interest in union. It conceives its task to be 
the proclaiming of the conditions of the primitive 
Church. It feels that it is the duty of all to accept these 
conditions, and when this is done, union will come auto- 
matically. Some representatives of this branch may oc- 
casionally be found who go so far as to deny the essen- 
tial Christianity of those who are unwilling to accept 
these primitive beliefs and practices for themselves, at 
least as these are understood by them. To be sure, this 
does not represent the feeling of the great mass of Disci- 
ples. Nor is such a feeling conducive to union; it sim- 
ply makes the holder of such a view quite as sectarian as 
any one else and reduces him to zero as a factor in bring- 
ing about Christian union. 

One can not question the right of a person or a group 
of persons, to change the purpose which dominates the 
person or the group. The Disciples have the right, if they 
choose to exercise it, of changing their original union 
movement into a restoration movement. One can raise 
no question as to the motive which leads some to cease 
emphasizing Christian union and to place their emphasis 
on restoration as an end in itself. But one who has a 
primary interest in union can only regret this, for he can 
not feel other than that if this movement had only the 
present restoration programme before them, they could 
not legitimately be spoken of as having a union pro- 


But not all Disciples have joined in the restoration 
programme. The majority of them still keep before 
them the original union programme. Necessarily, that 
programme has to be modified from time to time in some 
of its details along with the changing thought and life 
of the world. For one thing, when the movement first 
arose there was a practically universal acceptance among 
Protestants of the doctrine of verbal inspiration. Very 
much of the reasoning and some of the specific matters 
advanced have had to be changed because of the fact that 
relatively few thinkers hold to that doctrine to-day. An 
earlier generation considered any statement in the Bible 
as having equal force with all other statements in it, for 
is it not all the Word of God? True, some drew a dis- 
tinction between the Old and the New Testaments. All 
written statements, though, had the same value as some- 
thing said by Christ Himself. But the present genera- 
tion does not so regard the Bible. It looks for its author- 
ity rather in the person and character of Christ Himself, 
and for guidance to the Holy Spirit. Hence there is a 
growing tendency among Disciples, as in the Christian 
world at large, to lay an ever larger emphasis on making 
Christ alone the head, the center, to use Thomas Camp- 
bell's words, with a corresponding tendency to look upon 
the Bible as being the history of God's revelation to man 
through the Jewish people, and the Prophets, Apostles, 
and Saviour who appeared among them. In other words, 
the tendency is to exalt Christ more and more above the 
Book which contains the record of His life and mighty 
works. And so the current union programme of this 
movement, and I use the term in contradistinction to the 
restoration programme advocated by some, centers more 
on Christ than on the practices or polity of the Church. 
It pleads primarily for union in Christ, seeking only to 
restore so much of the primitive Church as may be nec- 
essary to bring about unity, and is not interested in the 


complete restoration of all the conditions of the early 
Church. Union is of greater importance than the re- 
production of early forms; the spirit rather than the 
letter is dominant. 

This movement has a big and positive programme for 
Christian union before it. A large number of Disci- 
ples are most deeply interested in it, and are firmly con- 
vinced that the plea for the reunion of the Church is 
the greatest message which has been given to the Chris- 
tian world since the day of Pentecost. They are heart 
and soul in favor of the content and presentation of this 
plea. Internal differences have kept many silent when 
they would have liked to speak, and have held back many 
because of the lack of strong leadership to take them 
where they want to go. But the yearning is there, in the 
hearts of thousands, who are waiting to hear the clear 
and definite enunciation of a programme which shall 
come from the whole united body. 

The programme of the Disciples, as far as it has been 
formulated, exalts Jesus to the highest possible place, 
finding in Him the revelation of the character of God 
presented to man for his guidance in the long journey he 
is making toward the attainment of the divine character. 
It lays its great emphasis on the Spirit and the Spirit 
filled life. It looks with reverence and respect on all 
who follow Jesus as being fellow Christians, giving them 
all credit for their loyalty to Him, and pleading for union 
with them, not so much on a categorical platform as in 
Christ Himself. It believes that the reconciliation of the 
separated members of the body of Christ is to be brought 
about by love rather than by logic. The programme for 
union presents Christ as the basis of union. 

The present programme for union concurs fully in 
Thomas Campbell's dictum, "That although inferences 
and deductions, from Scripture premises, when fairly 
inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy 


Word, yet they are not formally binding on the con- 
sciences of Christians further than they perceive the con- 
nection, and evidently see that they are so." And prob- 
ably this generation would be much more conservative in 
the making of such deductions than even the generation 
of Thomas Campbell. For since Christ is being pre- 
sented as the basis of union, and the present generation 
is conscious of its finiteness before him, it is extremely 
careful about assuming a dogmatic attitude. For Dis- 
ciples are well aware that many of Christ's followers, 
who are on as high a spiritual level as they are them- 
selves, who have received the earnest of His Spirit as 
well as they themselves have, men who are just as keen 
in intellect and just as loyal in heart to Christ as they are 
themselves, have come to quite different conclusions on 
many matters relating to the Church. And so the Dis- 
ciple who has a union programme does not assume a su- 
perior or dictatorial air; he meets others with humility 
and love, that together they may be able to find out the 
will of God. This programme for union involves a broad 
charity to all, whether of their own brotherhood or not, a 
bearing with differences of opinion and practice, a con- 
stant reconsideration of all the elements which enter 
into the faith and practice of the Christian world. It in- 
volves a lessened confidence in the infallibility of one's 
own judgment, and a greater turning to God, that He 
may lead to the performance of His will. 

The Disciples' programme for union involves harmony 
among themselves. The evil of overemphasizing the 
method to be followed in the obtaining of union rather 
than placing the emphasis on union itself early led to sad 
fruits among them. It led to a very literalistic way of 
interpreting the Bible. Things not mentioned in the 
Scripture as part of the polity or practice of the early 
Church were put under the ban and made a test of fel- 
lowship. There were controversies over the organ, the 


Sunday-school, the missionary society. A large number 
who started with the movement withdrew, and are now 
known to the census as "Churches of Christ." There 
are over 300,000 of these, more than a fifth of the number 
who ought to be travelling the road together. Even now 
there is more controversy. Again the missionary society 
has been brought to the front. Other clouds darken the 
skies. That those who opposed the main current of Dis- 
ciple thought and progress in the past, or who may be 
opposing it at the present have been or are lacking in a 
desire to be loyal to Christ is not to be thought of. No 
doubt here and there persons may be found who from 
some other motive than this may be taking the course 
they have taken, but this is not true of most. They are 
frying, each in his own way, to be loyal to Christ, but 
they differ in their conception of what loyalty demands. 
The ultimate triumph of the Disciples' programme for 
union demands that their discordant elements get to- 
gether and then live and work together in love and har- 
mony. The great mass of Disciples feels a warm sym- 
pathy with all cooperative movements and gladly join 
in conferences with other Christians for the furtherance 
of the unity of the Church. 



Switzerland was the meeting place during the month 
of August of three conferences, so outstanding in their 
results and purposes that it is not inappropriate to 
name them among the definite events of the year that 
make for better conditions among men, especially as 
related to the unity of the Church and good will toward 
all mankind. The first had to do with life and work; 
the second with faith and order; the third with inter- 
national friendship. The three movements are entirely 
independent of each other, but they nevertheless sup- 
plement each other. When men come from all parts of 
the world to confer regarding the principles embodied 
in the phrases descriptive of these movements, these are 
the indications of a new and better day in human affairs. 
The combined delegations would not exceed four or five 
hundred, but the delegates came from all parts of the 
world, so that nearly a hundred different Christian 
Churches were represented from nearly fifty countries. 
Switzerland was the proper place for such gatherings, 
especially Geneva as the starting place, because in Gen- 
eva near the spot where John Calvin had Michael Ser- 
ve tus burned alive at the stake because of some theolog- 
ical differences between them, there now stands a granite 
shaft upon one side of which is inscribed the simple fact 
that at that place Michael Servetus died at the stake, 
October 27, 1553, having been born in the village of 
Agrogan, September 29, 1511. On the opposite side is 
this inscription: 

We the respectful and grateful sons of Calvin, 
our great reformer, condemning his error, which 
was one of his age, and holding firmly to the liberty 
of conscience, according to the true principles of the 
Reformation and of the Gospel, have erected this 
expiatory monument, October 27, 1903. 


There may be as courageous Christians elsewhere 
ready to erect such expiatory monuments as this Swiss 
committee, of which Dr. J. Eugene Choisy, of the Geneva 
University, was chairman, but we have not found them. 
Although three hundred and fifty years intervened be- 
fore this expiatory monument could be erected, never- 
theless it is erected and its confession may be read by the 
whole world. There are ten thousand others like it to 
be set up before we can have permanent Christian unity 
and permanent international friendship. The inscrip- 
tions need not be in stone, but they have got to be some- 
where, especially on the heart. Eepentance is the 
boundary line in our approaches toward all permanency 
in Christian unity and international friendship. Per- 
haps the committees that had charge of selecting the 
places of meeting did not know of this modest monument 
on Champel. It is likely that they did not. Then it is 
all the more evident that the Holy Spirit called us to this 
beginning place for the most difficult lesson in human 


This preliminary conference, which held its sessions at 
Hotel Beau Sejour, Geneva, was composed of eighty-eight 
delegates from fifteen different countries. Out of this 
conference of little more than two days came what ap- 
pears to be one of the most important movements of our 
times. Its emphasis is on Christian life and Christian 
work. It avoids the technical and goes at once to the 
simple and practical. There is a democracy in its prin- 
ciples that must commend it to all who see the world's 
need of a better Christian life and better Christian work. 
Its title indicates the prophetic element and its catho- 
licity includes the whole Church if the whole Church cares 
to meet the world's greatest need. 

The Archbishop of Uppsala has been one of the fore- 
most prophets in this movement, having proclaimed it, 


first in the Scandinavian countries and later throughout 
Europe. Dr. Frederick Lynch and Dr. Charles S. Mae- 
f arland of the American Federal Council of the Churches 
of Christ have been the spokesmen on the American side 
of the Atlantic for internationalizing the Federal Council 
idea. At the meeting of the International Committee of 
the World Alliance for International Friendship through 
the Churches last October at The Hague, the Archbishop 
ably laid this matter before the committee. It was de- 
cided then to make it an independent movement and the 
recent meeting at the Hotel Beau Sejour was the result. 
The plans outlined are adequate for bringing together 
the Christian forces of the whole world. The delegates 
present were larger from that part of Christendom des- 
ignated as the evangelicals. All parts of Christendom 
will be approached relative to cooperation in the life and 
work of Christianity. This makes an appeal for Chris- 
tian unity from an angle that must arrest the thoughtful 
in the cause of unity in all Churches. Our theories about 
the unity of Christendom may be what they may, but 
Christian life and Christian work are two forces that are 
least in the realm of controversy and their service is 
more needed than that of those subjects that are in the 
realm of controversy. 

It is an introduction of the ethical element in the prob- 
lem of Christian unity, which is greatly needed, for it 
is altogether possible that the first basis in Christian 
unity will be ethical rather than theological. The first 
is not entirely new to many who are already pioneers in 
these ethical principles of cooperation. Its newness con- 
sists in its emphasis upon life as well as work and the 
international character of both life and work. Multi- 
tudes of things can be done by this movement and done 
well, while without such a movement divided Christendom 
might indefinitely continue its weak and unsatisfactory 
contributions to the solution of problems that have to do 


with the common needs of all nations. It will take time 
for this movement to properly adjust itself to the imme- 
diate needs, but it is headed toward a great task with 
hopeful results. 


Since 1910 all persons interested in Christian unity 
have been looking forward eagerly to the preliminary 
meeting of the World Conference on Faith and Order. 
No man has been so tireless in bringing this to pass as 
Kobert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Maine, whose secretarial 
service has brought him in touch with all parts of the 
Church in every part of the world. His patient and 
gentle spirit, his strong and unfailing faith in the idea of 
a united Christendom, his world grasp and untiring en- 
ergies have had their reward in this preliminary meeting, 
held at the Athenee, one of the university buildings, 
Geneva, August 12-19, 1920. 

The year 1910 was the year of a general awakening in 
Christian unity affairs. In the early summer of that year 
some American Episcopalians organized the Christian 
Unity Foundation in New York for research and confer- 
ence. That fall the General Convention of the Episco- 
pal Church appointed a committee on a world conference 
on faith and order. On the same dav the American Dis- 
ciples of Christ in their General Convention organized 
their Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity. 
About that time the American Congregational Church 
in their National Council appointed a committee on 
Christian union. The Church of England and the Pres- 
byterian Church in Australia and Tasmania made ap- 
proaches toward each other. Likewise the Eastern Or- 
thodox Church had its interest quickened in the unity 
©f Christendom about that time. The plans of the Amer- 
ican Episcopal commission for a w r orld conference soon 
put it in the position of leadership and the other move- 


ments gladly cooperated with and supplemented in the 
work of the Episcopal commission. 

In this recent preliminary conference eighty Churches 
were represented from forty countries. The purpose of 
this conference was to devise plans for the World Con- 
ference, which is to be held at some time and place not 
yet decided. There was no published programme. The 
business committee arranged the programme for each 
succeeding day as its judgment directed, consequently 
there were no prepared addresses during any of the ses- 
sions, all topics being informally discussed. The first 
topic was "The Church and the Nature of the United 
Church.' ' The point of contrast between the opposing 
views was voiced by Bishop Gore, of England, in the 
questions : Must there be an authoritative creed, authori- 
tative sacraments and an authoritative ministry! Or is 
freedom incompatible with such conditions! The dis- 
cussion of these topics revealed the difficulties of ad- 
justment between the institutional and non-institutional 
interpretations. The sacramentalist and the sacramen- 
tarian see things differently. There is always progress 
in a conference, however, when the differences are clearly 
seen by all parties. The next step is for adjustment. 
Because men are Christians there lies the possibility of 
adjusting Christian principles however widely they may 
appear to differ. This is the work of the World Con- 

The second topic had to do with the question, "What 
Is the Place of the Bible and a Creed in Belation to 
Beunion?" Dr. C. Anderson Scott, of England, in his 
addresses which opened and closed the discussion on this 
subject, recognized the permanent place of the Bible and 
pointed out the necessity of a revised creedal statement 
in keeping with scriptural declaration and modern times. 
This at once raised the question as to the Church's atti- 
tude toward the ancient creeds and again there were two 
groups — those who revered the past so devoutly that they 


felt the ancient creeds such as the Nicean Creed and the 
Apostles' Creed should be incorporated into the life of 
the present day Church, holding continuity with all the 
past, and those who likewise revered the past and honored 
the long line of the faithful in Christ, but who felt that 
we must speak to the people of this day in the language 
of to-day. This was carried further in these questions 
of the Continuation Committee : 

1. What degree of unity in faith will be necessary in 
a reunited Church? 

2. Is the statement of this one faith in the form of a 
creed necessary or desirable? 

3. If so, what creed should be used, or what other for- 
mulary would be desirable? 

4. What are the proper uses of a creed and of a con- 
fession of faith? 

These are the questions for the World Conference. 
Around these and others like them local conferences may 
be and doubtless will be held in preparation for the 
World Conference, so as to find the mind of the whole 
Church on these subjects. 

As important as these subjects are and no one doubts 
their importance, there is another transcendently more 
important, which must have a place in the World Con- 
ference. There is a possibility that in time there may 
be a unanimity throughout the whole Church on the sub- 
jects presented or there will be such adjustment as to 
make it possible for the whole Church to work together, 
but without this third element all agreements would be 
formal and meaningless. Indeed unity cannot come 
without this. It is expressed in the words of Jesus : "By 
this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye 
have love one to another." There may be historic va- 
lidity in the creeds, sacraments, ministry and the Bible, 
but no one of these, nor all of these combined are the 
real evidences of discipleship. Love is that divine in- 
signia. Society has not accepted it. Political govern- 


ments know nothing about it. The Church is largely ig- 
norant of it and the best evidence of its lack of knowledge 
is its complacency in the midst of its multiplicity of 
divisions and its patronage of the inequitable conditions 
around us. Love is so revolutionary that its practice 
would upset the present social order. The way to its 
understanding is not easy. The other subjects may be 
worked out satisfactorily in the library and around 
the conference table, but the meaning of love can only 
be found as Jesus revealed it in his life and death. 
Well might He say to the various Christian commun- 
ions, as He said to His disciples of old, "Are ye able 
to drink the cup that I drink of and be baptized with 
the baptism which I am baptized with?" It is a costly 
pathway, but it is the way to the unity of the Church of 
Christ. The adjusting of other things will help; only 
love will clothe the Church with divine power and we look 
for it. 

The presence of the Eastern Orthodox delegates was 
a fine contribution to the conference. The suggestions 
of the Metropolitan of Seleukia, Bishop Germanos, rela- 
tive to the steps toward unity were as timely and practi- 
cal as though they had been formulated in a conference 
in America. The Eastern Orthodox Church has turned 
its face toward the front with an understanding and pur- 
pose that means a new day in its history as well as a new 
force in the Christian unity problem. Sectional unions 
must come first and the presence of the Eastern Ortho- 
dox delegates in the conference may mean the opening 
of the way toward union between themselves and the 
Anglicans. It would heal one of the divisions in the 
episcopacy to say the least. Such a union would hasten 
the union of the Protestant household, which is already 
discovering itself to be embarrassingly too nearly agreed 
to be apart. Turns in the road indicate new possibilities. 

The Continuation Committee will carry forward the 


work of the conference. Bishop Brent, in his closing 
words as chairman, emphasized that the preliminary con- 
ference is a fact, a reality, a hope, that only the difficul- 
ties that are fairly faced have hope of solution, that we 
are a group of constructionists, that the major difficulties 
are moral rather than theological and that we must 
pray as well as think. A sense of brotherhood was 
estazblished in the conference. The approaches toward 
each other were frank and friendly. A hopeful out- 
look will go from this preliminary conference upon the 
great problems that face us. 


The International Committee of the World Alliance 
for Promoting International Friendship through the 
Churches had its beginning in a conference of represen- 
tatives of the various Churches held in Constance, Au- 
gust 1, 1914 — the fateful day that marked the opening of 
the world war. Every other means having been tried to 
promote the peace of the world and failed, it was the 
belief of some that the only way to secure permanent 
peace would be to bring to bear upon international life 
the principles of Christian fellowship. Many main- 
tained these ideals throughout the war and see now more 
than ever the need of pressing them upon the conscience 
of the world, both for healing the sore of the recent war 
and for preventing further conflicts. 

Last October the International Committee met at The 
Hague. This year it met at St. Beatenberg, Switzerland, 
August 24-28. No more beautiful spot in all Europe 
could have been found — isolated from the world and 
there amid the Alps with Jungfrau, Monch and Eiger 
looking down upon us, as we half way up the sides of the 
opposite mountain at Hotel Victoria looked out upon 
their snow capped peaks thirteen miles away, with the 
glow of the morning reaching from the face of the blue 


waters of Lake Thune up the deep green sides of the 
mountains to the snow and on to the dome of the sky and 
fourteen hours later with sunset draperies covering the 
lake, the vale, the mountains, the sky. Sunday preced- 
ing the conference and the closing day of the conference 
were almost cloudless. The other days clouds hung 
heavy over the mountains far down into the valley as 
though to remind us of the smouldering fires of war, the 
threatening of a clash between the Orient and the Occi- 
dent and the suspicious attitudes of the nations toward 
each other. But with the Psalmist it might be said, 

I will lift up mine eyes unto the mountains: 
From whence shall my help come? 
My help cometh from Jehovah, 
Who made heaven and earth. 

Our help is not in great fortresses and vast arma- 
ments, but in the Lord Almighty. We who are believers 
in Him are to set ourselves to the task of international 
reconciliation by better understanding among the na- 
tions, cultivation of good will and tolerance. The world 
must come to know that the ethical principles that con- 
trol individuals must control nations. A Christian civ- 
ilization can only be maintained by applying the princi- 
ple's of Christ to whole nations as well as individuals. 
The World Alliance has a place in the affairs of the world 
and the recent meeting of the International Committee 
indicated the seriousness with which it is going to its 

There are now twenty-two nations with their national 
councils, which are auxiliaries to the World Alliance and 
these are represented on the International Committee. 
They are the United States, 13 members; Great Britain, 
8; France, 8; Germany, 8; and four to each of the follow- 
ing: Denmark, Holland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Swit- 
zerland, Belgium, Greece, Esthonia, Finland, Hungary, 
Lettland, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Serb-Croat-Slovene 
State, Eoumania, Bulgaria and Japan. Other nations 


will be brought into the movement. Cordial relations 
have been established with the Roman Catholic Commit- 
tee on international studies under the chairmanship of 
Baron de Montenach at Fribourg, Switzerland. The task 
of the national councils is to promote good will between 
the nations. 

The first resolution passed at the St. Beatenberg meet- 
ing indicated the purpose and passion of this movement. 
The resolution is as follows : 

That the members of the World Alliance, gathered 
from many lands and various communions and associated 
for the purpose of promoting friendship and good will 
between nations, declare their convictions that these 
blessings can only be attained by the divine power of 
Christ working upon the hearts of men and creating 
therein the true spirit of brotherhood ; they believe that 
that power may be evoked by a common effort of prayer 
and sacrifice ; and whilst acknowledging their own short- 
comings and unfitness for this task, they hereby humbly 
devote themselves to it as followers of Christ and serv- 
ants of all mankind.' ' 

From this prophetic outlook, the conference passed 
from subject to subject, discussing frankly questions hav- 
ing to do with the double standard of morality, by which 
ethical demands are limited to private life and the evil 
of nations acting by their own standards, when the only 
hope of peace among nations is the application of Chris- 
tian principles to international affairs; the publicity of 
diplomatic transactions; the rights of religious minor- 
ities; foreign missionary activities and the cooperation 
of the foreign missionaries in the work of the Alliance : 
the duty of the Church in putting forth such "fraternal 
effort to overcome the bitterness and rancour of strife' ' 
so that "all may feel themselves to be brethren;" the 
League of Nations as a possibility "to achieve inter- 
national peace and security," especially emphasizing all 
nations to become members as speedily as possible, for 
the ' ' alternative of the League can be nothing else than a 


crushing increase in competitive armaments in all na- 
tions and desperate preparation for a war more deadly 
and destructive than anything the world has seen." 
Other topics of like character followed these. It was a 
meeting for direct action for a better world. 

Eastern Orthodox and Quakers, Anglicans and Non- 
conformists, Christians from various communions in 
America and in Europe mingled together in apparent 
f orgetfulness of their theological differences. All looked 
out upon the immediate needs of a weary world. Dr. 
George Nasmyth did praiseworthy service the past year 
as international organizer. Et. Hon. Sir Willoughby H. 
Dickinson directed the affairs of the Alliance with com- 
mendable statesmanship as the honorary secretary. The 
Most Rev. R. T. Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
was elected president of the Alliance. Rev. Nehemiah 
Boynton, of America, was elected chairman of the Inter- 
national Committee. The St. Beatenberg conference 
furnished a clearing house for some misunderstandings ; 
an open door for service ; an inspiration for the prophets 
of common betterment. Bringing groups together from 
so many nations is of itself a great service. The worth 
of that service is intensified when these groups unite their 
interest for a common cause. The "World Alliance is do- 
ing courageous service and its influence will go to the 
ends of the earth. 


With the Archbishop of Uppsala in Europe and the 
Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America 
agitating a world movement dealing with the life and 
work of the Church a new movement came into being at 
Geneva, Switzerland, August 9-12, 1920, under the 
name, "Universal Conference of the Church of Christ 
on Life and Work. ' ' The brief of the preliminary meet- 
ing as taken from the published records is as follows : 

Actions were taken in response to the request of a preliminary con- 
ference held in Paris, November 17, 1919, at which there were present rep- 
resentatives of the Scandinavian, Swiss and American Churches. This con- 
ference was called by a committee consisting of the Archbishop of Uppsala, 
Bean Herold of Switzerland and Rev. Chas. S. Macfarland of the Amer- 
ican Federal Council. From this meeting invitations were sent by Dr. 
Macfarland as the general secretary. Representatives were selected for- 
mally or informally as the bodies sending them made choice. It was the 
sense of the Federal Council committee that the representatives be selected 
from the Protestant evangelical Churches as a group in each country. In 
those nations where there were federations of Churches, selections were 
made by the federations. In other countries joint action was taken so 
that the delegates represented the Protestant evangelical Churches. 

Prof. Eugene Choisy called the meeting to order in the Hotel Beau 
Sejour, Geneva, on the morning of August 10th and was the chairman of 
the first session. Mr. F. P. Turner, Dr. Yngre Brilioth and Pastor Adolf 
Keller were named as recording secretaries. Dr. Macfarland outlined the 
steps leading up to the present meeting and the Archbishop of Uppsala 
delivered an informing address on "The Idea", Purpose and Need of an 
Ecumenical Conference. ' ' Dr. Frederick Lynch, of New York, followed 
in cordial support of the Archbishop's plans and proposed that the regular 
conference be called two or three years hence or at such time as the com- 
mittee of arrangements may decide which was agreed to. 

Three sessions occupied each day. Dr. A. J. Brown, of New York, Dr. 
J. A. McClymont of Edinburgh, Bishop Harald Ostenfeld of Copenhagen 
and Dr. J. A. Cramer of The Hague were chairmen of the various sessions. 
Suggestions regarding the programme of the conference were fully dis- 
cussed. It was recommended to the committee on arrangements to provide 
for discussion on the programme as follows: 

1. Christian brotherhood and righteousness in international relations. 
Creation of a Christian disposition of mind as a necessary soul to the com- 
monwealth of nations. 2. The Christian conception of the system of law 
as a gift of God; necessity of its extension. 3. Christian principles in 
social life and in the social and economic construction of society. Relation 
to labour movement. It was further recommended that there should be dis- 
cussion of Christian education, liberty of conscience, protection of religious 
minorities, white slave traffic, bad business morals, exploitation of natives, 
intemperance, gambling, protection of family life, recreation, recruiting 


Visitors from the Eastern Orthodox Church were welcomed in an ad- 
dress delivered in Greek by Rev. Herman Neander to which the Metropoli- 
tan of Seleukia, Germanos Strinopoulos, responded, closing his address with 
prayer. The Archbishop of Uppsala replied in a message of good fellow- 

It was decided to invite all Christian communions to participate in the 
proposed conference and that the committee of arrangements be requested 
to consider the advisability of inviting representatives of the outstanding 
auxiliary agencies of the Church. The place of holding the conference was 
left to the committee of arrangements. The nucleus of that committee is 
as follows: Archbishop of Uppsala, provisional chairman, Dr. Chas. S. 
Macfarland and Dr. Frederick Lynch, provisional general secretaries, Dr. 
Ainslie of America, Dr. Aulen of Sweden, Dr. Boynton of America, Bishop 
Brent of America, Dr. Brown of America, Bishop Cannon of America, Dr. 
Chester of America, Prof. Choisy of Switzerland, Dr. Cramer of Holland, 
Pastor Giampiccoli of Italy, Dr. Gleditsch of Norway, Bishop Hurst of 
America, Pastor Keller of Switzerland, Dr. Larsen of America, Dr. Me- 
Clymont of Scotland, Dr. MacGilp of Scotland, Dr. Merrill of America, 
Mr. Nightingale of England, Bishop Nuelsen of Switzerland, Bishop 
Ostenfeld of Denmark, Bishop Raffay of Hungary and Dr. Szabo of 
Hungary. There are to be three groups in the committee of arrangements 
— one in America, one in Great Britain and one on the continent of Europe. 
Each group is to select its own chairman and secretary and three other 
members with power to act in their sphere. Dr. Lynch was appointed chair- 
man for the American group and the Archbishop of Uppsala for the Euro- 
pean group. The executive committee will meet in London in January 
1921. The spirit of the meeting was rich in fellowship. Eighty-eight dele- 
gates from fifteen countries were present. The meeting closed with the 
following appeal for prayer: 

' 'The members of this preliminary international commission at Geneva, 
drawn together by a consciousness of the painful and urgent need of the 
world, and by a conviction that only the Gospel and spirit and leadership 
of Jesus Christ can meet that need, and that only a Church united, conse- 
crated, daring, and self -forgetful can form the body, through which this 
spirit may do His gracious and healing work, earnestly and solemnly ap- 
peal to Christians of every name and form, of every land and race, to pray 
now and continually for the coming of a fuller unity of spirit and of ac- 
tion in the entire Church of Christ throughout the world; for a readiness 
on the part of all Christians to make new ventures of faith, and to take 
more seriously the implications of the Gospel; for the deepening and broad- 
ening of love among all Christ's followers toward all men; for the elimina- 
tion of all passion and prejudice, and the growth of peace and brotherhood; 
for clearer vision of the will of God and of the work of Christ in this day; 
and for all that may further the coming of His Kingdom. 

"Especially do we ask our fellow-Christians, everywhere, to pray for the 
success of the conference which is to consider the place and duty of the 
Church of Christ, and the claims upon it of the Master and of mankind. 
The united and unceasing intercession of all Christians is asked, that, 
through this gathering of Christians from all the world, the Church may 
come to a clear realisation of its unity, its opportunity, and its responsibil- 
ity ; that the spirit of Christ may fill and control His body, the Church ; and 
that, through His mighty and gracious working, mankind may be led into 
the larger life which is in Him, and the whole creation now groaning and 
travailing in pain, may be delivered from the bondage of corruption and 
brought into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. ' ' 


The preliminary meeting of the World Conference on 
Faith and Order was held at the Athenee, Geneva, August 
12-19, and a brief record of the transaction there is taken 
from the report of Eobert H. Gardiner, the secretary, as 
follows : 

The meeting was called to order by the Rt. Rev. Charles H. Brent, 
D.D., of Buffalo, N. Y., in the absence of the Rt. Rev. Charles A. Anderson, 
D.D., of Chicago, who is the president of the American Episcopal commis- 
sion. Bishop Brent was elected as permanent chairman, Rev. John G. 
Taska, D.D., of England as vice-chairman and Robert H. Gardiner as sec- 
retary. Bishop Herzog, of the Old Catholic Churches in Europe, was asked 
to open the meeting with prayer. He gave a few words of welcome, read 
Ephesians 4:1-6, offered prayer in German, concluding with the Lord's 
Prayer, in which all present joined, each in his own language. 

Bishop Brent made an address explaining the objects and method of 
the World Conference on Faith and Order and the functions of this pre- 
liminary meeting. Addresses of welcome were given by Rev. Charles Mar- 
tin, of Geneva, and by Rev. Adolf Keller, of Zurich. It was decided that 
the languages of the conference should be English, French and German and 
those of the Eastern Orthodox Church to speak in Greek if they so desired 
and it would be translated into the three languages already named. Each 
speaker had his remarks translated into two languages different from the 
one in which he spoke so that every person could fully understand what 
was being said and done. A business committee had charge of the details 
of the conference. The registration showed that eighty Churches from 
forty countries were represented. On the topic ' ' The Church and the Nature 
of the United Church, ' ' Prof. W. A. Curtis, D.D., of Scotland, spoke for the 
Presbyterians, the Bishop of Bombay for the Anglicans, reading the Ap- 
peal of the recent Lambeth Conference and commenting on it, Rev. Nehe- 
miah Boynton, D.D., of America, for the Congregationalists, Bishop John 
L. Nuelsen, D.D., of Switzerland, for the American Methodists, Rev. Peter 
Ainslie, D.D., of America, for the Disciples of Christ, the Metropolitan of 
Seleukia, Germanos, for the Eastern Orthodox, speaking in Greek and Prof. 
Alivisatos continuing the same subject in English, Rev. H. M. Hughes, 
D.D., of England, for the English Wesleyans, Bishop Harald Ostenfeld, 
D.D., of Denmark and Prof. G. E. H. Aulen, D.D., of Sweden, for the 
Lutherans. Supplementary statements from others followed these speakers 
who had been named by the business committee to open the discussion. 

Bishop Charles Gore, of England, said that it is necessary, if we are to 
progress, to face fully what our differences are as to the Church and the 
nature of unity. This Conference is only preparatory, not to devise plans 
of unity but to make ready for the World Conference on Faith and Order. 
The present Conference has to appoint committees to deal with certain 
subjects and prepare them for consideration by the World Conference. 
But we need to test whether it will be possible for us to agree on what we 
think the United Church should be. Federation would be short of the New 
Testament ideal. There is a degree of variety which destroys unity. A 
divine discipline upon the tendency to variations seems essential. Must 
there be an authoritative creed, authoritative sacraments and an authorita- 
tive ministry or is freedom incompatible with such a condition? Here per- 
haps is the first point of contact between opposing views. 

Continuing the discussion, Rev. James Vernon Bartlet, D.D., of Eng- 
land, emphasized the necessity of careful consideration of the question of 
how far coercive discipline upon Christian freedom within the Church is 


to go, how far it is according to the genius of the New Testament, and 
the importance of making the watchword to be 'educate/ in which there 
must be no relaxing of effort. Many spoke on the same topic. 

''What Is the Place of the Bible and of a Creed in Relation to Reun- 
ion?" was assigned to Rev. C. Anderson Scott, D.D., of England, to open 
and close the discussion. He assumed that all Christian communions accorded 
to the Bible the supreme place of authority and then spoke at length re- 
garding the value of holding the central idea embodied in the creeds, but 
the necessity of adopting the language of modern experience rather than 
in the term, and phrases of the fourth century. Rev. J. E. Roberts, D.D., of 
England, and others spoke on this subject. 

The continuation committee was requested to secure the proper consid- 
eration and discussion of both of these topics in such manner as is deemed 
most expedient in order that the subjects may be properly prepared for 
discussion at the World Conference. 

A communication was presented from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 
Damianos, inviting the World Conference on Faith and Order to hold its 
next session in Jerusalem. It was voted that the Conference express its 
thanks for the invitation and its joy that events had made it possible for 
such an invitation to be extended. The invitation was referred to the 
continuation committee for consideration. 

In the view of the presence of the Archbishop of Volhynia, Eulogius, 
the following action was taken: 

That the conference put on record its deep regret that the venerable 
Church of Russia has been prevented from sending representatives to its 
meetings, and that the conference express its profound sympathy with the 
Russian Church under her severe afflictions, and assure her of their prayers 
to Almighty God to give her a happy issue from all her sufferings, and 
grant her the reward of faithful endurance. 

The Archbishop of Volhynia addressed the meeting in Russian, and 
Archpriest Orloff of the Russian Church of Geneva, who accompanied him, 
was made welcome to the conference. 

The continuation committee was charged with the duty of carrying on 
the work of preparation for the World Conference on Faith and Order, con- 
ducting correspondence, raising funds, fixing the time and place of the con- 
ference, and performing such other duties as may be necessary in arrang- 
ing for the conference. The continuation committee consists of Bishop 
Brent, chairman, Robert Gardiner, secretary, George Zabriskie, treasurer, 
and for the Anglicans, Bishop of Bombay, Bishop of Willochra, Bishop of 
Winchester, Rev. W. T. Manning, D.D., Rev. W. E. S. Holland; for Ar- 
menians, Archbishop DoUrian, Bishop Abrahamian; for the Baptists, Rev. 
J. E. Roberts, D.D., Rev. W. C. P. Rhoades, D.D., Rev. J. H. Shakespeare, 
D.D., Rev. Cornelius Woelfkin, D.D., Rev. Dr. Ruth; for the Congrega- 
tionalists, Rev. Nehemiah Boynton, D.D., Principal A. E. Garvie, D.D., 
Principal W. B. Selbie, D.D., Rev. Dr. Chang; for the Disciples, Rev. 
Peter Ainslie, D.D. ; for the Eastern Orthodox, Metropolitan of Seleukia, 
Archbishop Platon, Bishop of Timok, Archimandrite Papadopoulous, 
Archimandirte Gheorghieff, Prof. Alivisatos, Prof. Sokolof, Prof. 
Demetrescu; for the German Evangelical, Dr. Freidrich Sieg- 
mund-Schultze ; for the Lutherans, Archbishop Soderblom, Bishop 
Harald Ostenfeld, Bishop Tandberg, Pastor N. B. Thvedt, Rev. Dr. More- 
head, Rev. Dr. Ehmelr; for the Methodist, Bishop James Cannon, Bishop 
McConnell, Rev. George Hall, Rev. H. M. Hughes, D.D., Rev. J. G. Taska, 
D.D. ; for the Old Catholics, Bishop Edward Herzog; for the Presby- 
terians and Reformed, Rev. A. J. Brown, D.D., Rev. Dr. Chester, Rev. Dr. 
Datta, Prof. Alexius de Boer, Principal Alexander Martin, Rev. J. A. 
McClymont, D.D., and for the Friends, Prof. Rufus M. Jones. 


The Lambeth Appeal takes its place among the signifi- 
cant utterances of these times relative to the reunion of 
Christendom. One of the Anglican bishops in Africa 
says that it is only a change in good-will over former 
Lambeth utterances. A British Nonconformist says that 
it is a decided advance. The Bishop of Winchester says 
that it may be described as a change only in the perspec- 
tive. The Guardian, London (Anglican), says: 

"Sufficient time has now elapsed since the issue of the Lambeth ut- 
terances to enable us to form some fairly definite impression of the effect 
produced upon the public mind by that portion of them which relates to 
reunion — the subject which transcends all the others upon which the Fa- 
thers of the Church have pronounced. Speaking generally, the reception 
of the reunion proposals has been such as to warrant warmer hopes than 
would have seemed possible on the first day of the conference. Those who 
are most closely in touch with Church feeling, those who from their great 
central position can most distinctly test the pulse of the Church, although 
they hoped much, were by no means assured of the results that have act- 
ually been achieved. The triumph of conciliation of good sense, and of 
higher qualities than either, has indeed been complete. Men whom there 
was every reason to fear would stand out stubbornly for their own terms 
of reunion have fallen into line with the rest of the episcopate and have 
given their adhesion to decisions the importance of which will probably 
not be fully revealed to this generation. The happy consequence is that 
reunion is no longer merely a pious aspiration, but has come at last into 
the region of practical politics. Candid Nonconformists are bound to ad- 
mit, and many of them have admitted, that the conference has finally dis- 
pelled all possibility of suspicion that the Church of England is in the 
least degree insincere in its desire for reunion, or retains any vestige of 
disdain towards Nonconformity. The Church of England is now irrev- 
ocably committed to reunion, and it is only the Nonconformists who 

This hesitation appears now to be concerned chiefly, if not entirely, with 
the one question of re-ordination, unless it be true that the Nonconformist 
people in general are not yet greatly concerned about reunion. At all events 
it is evident that those of them who care at all care more about re-ordina- 
tion than about any other aspect of the situation. Even this last barrier 
seems slowly to be yielding. Among the Wesleyans, the nearest to the 
Church of all Nonconforming bodies, reunion, with all its implications, is 
surely winning assent, and the more rapidly since it has come to be under- 
stood that it does not mean the abandonment of Wesleyan usages. Of 
the two Wesleyan newspapers, the one which is the organ of the younger 
men heartily advocates it, and the other is finding it necessary to follow 
the younger men's lead, though perhaps a little reluctantly. As to the 
other Nonconformist communions, there are many hopeful indications, 
though here again the most notable opponent of change is that irrecon- 
cilable divine, Dr. Clifford. Nor must we forget that Dr. Fleming and 
other Presbyterians are still stumbling over the roots of the re-ordination 
question — the principle of episcopacy. It is naturally difficult for them 
to dissociate episcopacy from that 'prelacy' which has been their secular 
bugbear. But the two things are not necessarily the same. The Presby- 
terian Church is itself not destitute of hierarchical degrees — -indeed it is 


difficult to see how aDy Church can be entirely without them. Nor are 
what is called the 'monarchical episcopate' and ' episcopacy' quite the 
same thing. The latter is a principle; the former is only a particular ap- 
plication of that principle, and perhaps not the best application. The 
Mansfield College Conferences have accepted the principle without com- 
mitting themselves to details. All they have stipulated for is that episco- 
pacy, to be acceptable all round, must be ' constitutional. ' There may 
be differences of opinion as to the meaning of that word in this connection, 
but so many differences have already been reconciled that there should 
be no very serious difficulty in arriving at an agreement upon this head. 

The same journal further says : 

"The conference, in recognising that reunion must be a matter of time, 
has set out proposals for 'the period when a definite scheme of union is 
maturing.' A general scheme of intercommunion or exchange of pulpits 
is not approved. But bishops, in cases where non-episcopally and episco- 
pally ordained ministers are working towards the ideal union, will be justi- 
fied in 'giving occasional authorisation' for the interchange of pulpits. 
Such interchange, therefore, will depend upon the bishops, and since the 
resolution is their own, it should follow that all those clergy who are work- 
ing towards reunion with non-episcopal bodies will receive the direct en- 
couragement of their diocesans. In their further suggestion that baptised 
but unconfirmed members of non-episcopal congregations should be ad- 
mitted to Holy Communion during the period of the planning of reunion, 
the bishops will have the support of all liberal-minded Churchpeople. They 
will have the support of the same opinion in their resolution that during 
the period of arrangement there should be no celebration of the Holy 
Communion in Anglican churches for members of the Anglican Church by 
ministers who have not been episcopally ordained, and that Anglican com- 
municants should only receive the Sacraments at the hands of ministers of 
their own Church. These are points of the utmost importance, and em- 
phasise the basis upon which the resolutions on reunion have been arrived 
at." • 

Prof. C. Anderson Scott, D.D., of Cambridge (Presby- 
terian), writes in The British Weekly, London, as fol- 

"Perhaps the strangest thing about the Appeal is that, in spite of its 
'address,' it so K completely ignores all others but the 'authorities' or the 
ministers of our Churches. The one arrangement which it contemplates or 
suggests is an arrangement for facilitating ' intercelebration, ' or reciprocal 
functioning of ministers in the Sacrament. We have never suceeded in 
getting our Anglican friends to understand that this is not a thing which 
any of us desires, probably not a thing which many of us would care to 
allow. What we have asked for, and what we do ask for, is the privelege 
in case of need, or when circumstances make it natural, of together par- 
taking at the Table of our common Lord. We ask for it as a symbol, the 
most natural and the most obvious symbol, of that unity of the one Church 
which the bishops so frankly recognise. We ask for it as the best way of 
witnessing to the world that we are one in the Lord Jesus. We ask for it 
as the first step and the one hopeful step towards a completer union, should 
that be in accordance with the mind of God. 

"On this matter, however, which touches us so deeply, the Lambeth 
resolutions show distinct retrogression. The distinct hardening of prac- 


tiee which has been manifest since 'Kikuyu' receives now for the first time, 
if we mistake not, author ative sanction. The report of the committee on 
the subject would appear not to have been accepted; and in its stead we 
have what can only be described as the most guarded and grudging per- 
mission to admit ' unconfirmed communicants of the non-episcopal 
congregations ' 'in the few years between the initiation and the completion 
of a definite scheme of union.' This would appear to be the one concrete 
result of the conference so far as reunion is concerned, and it fills us with 
sadness. And also with perplexity; for the bishops tell us that 'God 
wills fellowship. ' 

"The fact is that either we have been discussing the wrong things or 
we have failed to get the bishops to understand how entirely secondary for 
us are these things with which they deal in this appeal. They appear to 
think that all that is needed is to construct a bridge over which we can 
cross without the loss of self-respect or without incurring reproach from 
the outside world. It must be acknowledged that some of our own people 
have encouraged them in this fallacy, partly by allowing the discussion to 
harp perpetually on this question of reordination. It is perhaps not their 
fault that they cannot see that we could not cross such a bridge to form 
part of a sacerdotal Church without abandoning much treasure, without, 
as we think, impoverishing British Christianity in all its future." 

The Living Church, Milwaukee, (Episcopal) says: 

"In some respects they may be said to have adopted a new line of 
thought on this well-worn subject. They are certainly much more definite 
in their appeal. We can appreciate that it was with grave anxiety that 
some of the bishops cast their vote. Yet all the reports speak of the re- 
markable unamimity with which the pronouncements on unity were adopted. 
The fact that the Bishop of Zanzibar has reviewed the action most sym- 
pathetically in the Church Times, and the Bishop of Edinburgh equally 
so in the Guardian, bears witness that there is no hidden danger lurking 
somewhere in obscure language that can emerge to plague us in later days. 
We may say frankly that there are details that we should not be willing 
to incorporate in the law of the American Church, and there are obscuri- 
ties in which only great wisdom in administration can prevent grave 
danger; yet on the w r hole we deem the action wise and statesmanlike be- 
yond almost anything that has heretofore been set forth by the Anglican 
episcopate. ' ' 

The Congregationalist, Boston, says: 

"The spirit of this Appeal must commend it to thoughtful and prayer- 
ful consideration among all Christian people. It is not, like the famous 
Lambeth Quadrilateral, a statement of conditions without which unity is 
impossible. In its breadth of vision it includes the ancient communions of 
the East as well as the separate communions and Churches of Great Britain 
and America. It sets before us the vision of a universal Church which is 
the body of Christ, not now manifest, but to be manifested by an adven- 
ture with Christ Himself and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in 
recognition and brotherhood. It may become a step toward that ultimate 
attainment of federated unity which is the dream and desire of all true 
followers of Christ. We must be careful, therefore, lest any contemptu- 
ous or narrow word should prove a hindance. We who have always believed 
in the Universal Church, in which each is united to Christ and through 
Christ each to all, must watch this new adventure in fellowship with sym- 
pathy and warm desire to aid. " 


A London correspondent of The Christian Century, 
Chicago, writes : 

' ' They go much further than the most sanguine advocates of Christian 
unity had dared to expect, and reveal a clearer and more generous appreci- 
ation of the Free Church position and point of view than previous similar 
pronouncements from the same source. The membership of all Christians 
in the Church universal is frankly recognized. 'We acknowledge all those 
who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and have been baptized into the 
name of the Holy Trinity, as sharing with us membership in the universal 
Church of Christ, which is His Body. The one body needs not to be made, 
nor to be remade, but to become organic and visible. The fellowship of 
the members of the one body exists. We have only to discover it and to 
set free its activities. ' No repudiation of past ministry is suggested. 
'Free Church ministers have been manifestly blessed and owned of the 
Holy Spirit as effective means of grace. * * * God forbid that any 
man should repudiate a past experience rich in spiritual blessing for him- 
self and others.' Any idea of absorbing any one communion in another is 
likewise disavowed. 'We do ask that all should unite in a new and great 
endeavor to recover and to manifest to the world the unity of the body of 
Christ for which he prayed. ' The bishops' advance is being met by Free 
Church leaders in a spirit of fraternity and responsiveness, the universal 
desire among Nonconformists being to go as far as possible toward meet- 
ing their brethren of the Anglican Church without the sacrifice of funda- 
mental principle.' ' 

The Manchester Guardian, (Free Church) says: 

"There are signs already that the bishops' Appeal for Christian union 
will be seriously and sympathetically received by the Free Churches. An au- 
thority on the Free Church side assured me to-day that in his opinion not 
a single denomination would refuse to take part in a conference between 
the bishops and Nonconformist leaders to explore the possibilities of prac- 
tical action. It is thought that nothing but good would ensue if the Arch- 
bishop were to follow up the appeal by calling such a conference. The 
language of the appeal, with its moderation and generosity, is held to 
mark a great advance on earlier advances from the Anglican side. The 
Free Churches are no longer spoken of as 'other Christian bodies;' they 
are referred to as 'the great non-episcopal Communions.' Then there are 
the vitally important passages in the appeal assuring the other Churches 
that there is no wish to interfere with distinctive methods of worship, and 
saying that the only way to approach union is by ' mutual deference to one 
another's consciences.' " 

A London correspondent in The Living Church, Mil- 
waukee, (Episcopal) says: 

"In the first place, it is evident that most Nonconformists who have 
expressed themselves as favorably disposed towards the bishops' proposal 
have had in view but one aspect of the matter — that of home reunion — 
overlooking the fact that the scheme is of a universal character, and seeks 
to embrace not only Protestant Nonconformity but the Churches of the 
East and the Church of Rome also. Reading the report in the light of 
Protestant reunion only, it is conceiveable that many Free Churchmen 
were puzzled by the offer of the bishops, in certain cases, to submit them- 
selves to a conditional re-ordination if necessary. With the broader aspect 
in view, of reunion with the East and Rome, their lordships' offer is per- 


fectly comprehensible. The bishops are obviously convinced that no prog- 
ress can be made until Nonconformists are willing to submit to episcopal 
ordination; it is certain that neither Rome nor the East would contem- 
plate reunion on any other basis. Many Nonconformists are frankly hostile 
to any such suggestion; others view the proposal with misgivings. Even 
those who accept it appear to assume that the sacramental theory of the 
priesthood has been abandoned by the bishops. That this is not so, is 
made clear by the definite statement in the report that f we (the bishops) 
regard ordination as conferring grace, and not only as a mere setting 
apart to an ecclestical office. ' 

11 Although, as I have said, there are many Free Churchmen who regard 
the proposals as a whole with sympathy, it is useless to disguise the fact 
that there is a strong opposition. Principal Griffith Jones, a leading Non- 
conformist, claims, indeed, that the vast majority of Free Church min- 
isters will never submit to conditions of reunion which include episcopal 
ordination and the Nicene Creed, and will accept no creed as authoritative 
which over-rides their own judgment and conscience. If this is so, it Is 
manifestly impossible to include such thinkers in any scheme of real re- 
union, which must necessarily adopt a common creed, A Christian Church 
must stand to teach something authoritatively. Probably the outcome will 
be to continue the present friendly negotiations with the Orthodox Eastern 
Churches, and do all that is possible to be done in that direction, while 
leaving an 'open door' for the Protestants. Discouragement need not be 
felt, nor surprise that there is not an immediate and favorable response to 
the conference proposals. The non-episcopal bodies may yet recognize 
how far the bishops have gone to meet them, and will be brought to see 
that the cause of reunion is worth every sacrifice that does not involve a 
surrender of principle. 

r 'From the Catholic point of view, it may be said that reunion stands 
out as the most momentous of the problems dealt with by the conference, 
and all good Churchmen will accord the proposals the most careful and 
respectful attention, with a profound sympathy for the high ideal which 
the bishops have set before themselves. There is a strong feeling, how- 
ever, that the prospects of general acceptance of the scheme have been 
handicapped by simultaneously bringing forward the resolutions on the oc- 
casional interchange of pulpits (Resolution 12, A, i) and the ministrations 
of women (Resolution 52). These two proposals stand little chance of be- 
ing accepted by Catholics in England, and their effect on the Eastern 
Orthodox Church will undoubtedly be to postpone reunion in that quarter. 

"It may be mentioned, in connection with the resolutions concerning 
ministrations of women, that the Bishop of Zanzibar has given notice to 
his diocese that in the next session of his sacred synod he will advise them: 

"(a) To ask him not to promulgate resolutions 52 (d) and 53 of the 
Lambeth Conference; 

" (b) To help him to define quite strictly the sense in which the diocese 
expects him to interpret resolutions 46, 52 (a), and 12 A (i). 

"The consideration of the Lambeth resolutions will undoubtedly arouse 
the greatest interest at the forthcoming Church Congress at Southend. 
The view of the Orthodox Churches on the reunion question will on that 
occasion be presented by Mr. Athelstan Riley, than whom no English 
Churchman is in closer touch with the opinions of Eastern ecclesiastics, 
nor better qualified to speak on their behalf. " 

The Eoman Catholic opinion is expressed by the Lon- 
don Tablet, which is the leading British Eoman Catholic 
journal, as follows : 


"Three hundred millions of Catholics, the bulk of the Christian world, 
stand irreconcilably aloof — not, of course, because they do not yearn for 
Christian reunion, but because, as Catholics, they never could accept that 
notion of the Christian Church or that notion of Christian unity which, 
so far, is the only one which the Anglican bishops can afford to propose. ' ' 

Continuing the same journal says : 

"As an abstract aspiration, no doubt, it was meant in all sincerity for 
all Christendom; but as a practical project they must have known that it 
had no chance of being considered by any except their fellow-Protestants, 
the Dissenters, for whom it was definitely intended, and who, we think, 
ought to be deeply grateful for the conciliatory concessions that have so 
generously been made to them. ***** 

"We know, and rejoice to know, that in the Anglican and in the Dis- 
senting bodies, as in the Lutheran and in the Calvinistic (as in the early 
Christian sects), there are multitudes of sincere and earnest souls who are 
pleasing to God by their honesty and their exemplary Christian lives. 
These groups of good Christians do not make the Church holding Christ's 
authority to teach and sanctify the world. * * * It [such a scheme of 
reunion] would mean that she, the Church sent to teach all nations, was 
nothing more than a federation of sects — a Church, not Catholic, but con- 
glomerate — a chaos and confusion of contradictory voices in which no man 
would have anything but his private judgment to tell him the true mean- 
ing of what his Saviour came to teach him. It is a concept of the Chris- 
tian Church which is plainly characteristic of the Reformation in the later 
stage of its experience, and the product of Protestantism, hopeless in its 
efforts to unite its followers in doctrinal agreement, and yet unwilling to 
unchurch any who clung to Baptism and justifying faith in Christ. To a 
Catholic such a notion is irredeemably unworthy and repulsive. 7 ' 

Another Eoman Catholic journal, the Columbus Jo- 
sephinum Weekly, says: 

"Except that it provides an excellent opportunity for a number of 
aged clergymen in different parts of the world to take a pleasant holiday, 
and affords in addition a medium for getting numberless things off their 
minds, it is difficult to see what useful purpose the Lambeth Conference 

The Christian World, London, (Free Church) writing 
of Dr. R. F. Horton's sermon on the subject of the 
Appeal," says: 

i i 

"In his view the Lambeth message is a real turning-point, a bridge be- 
tween the episcopal and non-episcopal Churches. Instead of the old atti- 
tude of 'You must submit,' there was a new spirit of humility and 
gentleness, and a frank acknowledgment of the Free Churches as part of 
the Church of Christ. The response should be as reasonable, as humble, 
and as generous as the invitation. They should consider in a spirit of 
prayerful goodwill whether they could adopt the method proposed. After 
the service a conference was held, to which members of the Church of 
England were invited. The following resolution was passed: — 

"That this conference urges upon the Free Church Council to en- 
deavor to arrange at an early date a conference of representatives of the 


non-episcopal religious bodies, the object of this conference to be to see if 
any practical basis can be found for giving expression to the spirit of the 
bishops' message or to form a reply to the same. " 

Et. Eev. Philip M. Ehinelander, D. D., Philadelphia, 
Pa., a member of the Lambeth Conference, sums up the 
' ' Appeal' ' in these two well worded paragraphs which 
appeared in The British Weekly, London : 

"It is not for me here to commend or explain our 'Appeal.' It must 
speak for itself. I would point out, however, wherein it seems to us who 
put it forth to say a new thing in a new way. It is obviously natural to 
contrast it with the ' Lambeth Quadrilateral.' That contrast really tells 
the story. For in the 'Quadrilateral' not a word is said about the Church. 
It is passed over in a silence which is not less significant because it is en- 
tirely unconscious. The Scriptures are mentioned, and next to them the 
creeds. Then come the Sacraments, and, following them, the ministry. 
But of the Church itself, to which the Scriptures and the creeds bear wit- 
ness, for which the Sacraments and ministry exist, there is no hint, But 
of our new appeal the Church is the beginning and the ending. We are 
concerned with nothing else. Bible, Sacraments and ministry are certainly 
included and insisted on, but they are included in their due subordination 
and proportion. They are the means, the necessary and God-given means, 
to the paramount end of the whole Church's full continuous and indissoluble 
life. They are judged and valued, commended and vindicated, solely with 
that end in view. 

"This notable change in emphasis signifies a corresponding change in 
outlook. In the 'Quadrilateral' we were Anglicans speaking to non-Angli- 
cans. Our proposals were in the nature of a peace treaty between sepa- 
rate and self -sufficient groups. We set down our lowest terms, our mini- 
mum requirements for those who might desire to keep spiritual company 
with us. That was a clear and quite intelligible line to take, and we took 
it in all sincerity and truth. But now we have set our faces in quite an- 
other way. Now we speak, not as Anglicans to non- Anglicans, but as mem- 
bers of the Church Catholic to other members, all of us members who to- 
gether have been made one by Cod's own act and grace in Jesus Christ, 
but who have on every side broken and frustrated that unity which was 
and is the highest gifts of our Father's love, and the most sure proof of 
His Self -revelation in His Son. The knitting together of the broken frag- 
ments of the Body according to His will so that we all together may know 
the fulness of our common heritage, the edification of the whole Fellow- 
ship in all its rich diversity of thought, character and temperament, so that 
'all the nations may flow into it,' each bringing its peculiar differences 
and special gifts, and finding its home and sanctification in one family 
life, this aim and desire spoke in us and controlled us. It marked, for us 
at least, a new and deeply-moving purpose. It came with the authority of 
truth.' ' 

When the whole Church realizes that it is in a schis- 
matic condition there will be a brightening hope of rec- 
onciliation. Concerning this The Challenge, London, 
(Anglican) says, 


"The omens are propitious. In quite recent times there has been a 
remarkable convergence of opinion upon a new point of view, the adoption 
of which would bring the practical accomplishment of re-union immeas- 
urably nearer. It had been customary for ' Catholics ' to maintain that 
only societies constituted and organised in a certain way could be re- 
garded as within the Catholic Church. Eome still adopts this attitude. 
But we hear less of the traditional Anglo-Catholic theory of three branches 
— the Eoman, the Orthodox, the Anglican — as alone constituting the true 
Church. In its place we have the glad confession from many sides that 
there is only one Catholic Church and that the non-episcopalian bodies, as 
truly as the three 'branches,' are even now within it. This was the funda- 
mental principle of the 'Mansfield Eesolutions, ; about which controversy 
lately raged. It has received endorsement from many quarters in which 
the immediate practical proposals of the Mansfield Conference were un- 
acceptable. It provides a new starting point. It does not involve those 
who accept it in any abandonment of their own convictions with regard to 
the order necessary to be preserved and maintained in the re-united Church 
of the future, but it does save any proposals from being or even appearing 
to be an invitation from one body to others that they should join it. If 
Anglicans adopt this principle, we shall not invite Congregationalists (for 
instance) to join the Anglican Communion, but we shall invite them to 
consider with us how we may join together to form the re-united Church. 
For this principle involves the confession that there is no one outward 
society from which others are in schism, and that we are all schismatics 
together. ' ' 

The proposed concordat between the Anglican, Eastern 
Orthodox and old Catholic Churches is receiving some 
interesting comments in the Protestant Episcopal circles 
in America. Kt. Rev. Beverley D. Tucker, Protestant 
Episcopal Bishop of Southern Virginia, writes to The 
Southern Churchman, Richmond, Va., as follows : 

"As a member of the Joint Commission to confer with Eastern Ortho- 
dox Churches and Old Catholics, I wish to make, through your courtesy, 
the following statement: 

"It was with great regret that I had to decline the earnest and court- 
eous invitation of the Bishop of Harrisburg to accompany the members of 
the commission to Europe. I was not present at the meeting of the com- 
mission last winter, as the notification did not reach me, and therefore the 
Preliminary Statement was not seen by me until this week. 

"I have the highest respect for the members of the commission and 
recognize their ability and their pure consecration to the cause of Chris- 
tian unity. In both the Preliminary Statement and the Proposed Terms 
of Agreement, however, there are expressed positions which I cannot take 
conscientiously with my sense of loyalty to the Church of which I am a 

"I find myself unable to disagree with the definition, and what I feel 
to be the limitation of the number of Sacraments given in the Book of 
Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles of our own Church. 

"I cannot join in the apology, which is made in the Preliminary State- 
ment of the American Commission, for the English reformation, nor share 
the regret expressed for the Protestant atmosphere in which the Anglican 
Church was compelled to set forth its liturgy and its foundation of doe- 
trine. Nor can I share in the hope that in the near future, when ' the Cath- 


olic movement of which the Tractarian movement beginning in 1833 is an 
example, ' has reached its zenith, the Church will be thoroughly de-pro- 
testanized. Nor am I ready to accept the decrees of the seventh council 
and to lend my sanction to the worship of relics and icons. 

For these reasons I have cabled to the chairman of the commission not 
to sign my name as a member of the commission, to either the Preliminary 
Statement or the Terms of Agreement. I do not desire to enter into controv- 
ersy. For my associates on the commission I have a feeling of affection and 
sympathy in their desire to promote Christian unity. Their judgment may 
be better than mine, but I am compelled to follow my convictions and do 
my duty as God seems by His Holy Spirit to indicate it to me. I shall 
reserve the right to express my views, as a member of the commission, when 
its report is presented to the General Convention. ' ' 

That journal commenting editorially says, 

"A committee or commission of the General Convention of many years 
standing, to confer with officials of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the 
Old Catholics, has drawn up certain Terms of Agreement as a proposed ' Ba- 
sis of Restoration of Corporate Unity and Intercommunion. ' This proposed 
Concordat has been accepted, we are informed, by Bishop Herzog, of the Old 
Catholics, and by several dignitaries of the Armenian Church, and has been 
' cordially received' by a Synod of Greek and Russian ecclesiastics at Athens, 
whose formal reply, however, has not yet been published. It is this paper, 
with its < Preliminary Statement' of our Committee, to which Bishop 
Tucker, of Southern Virginia, refers." 

The Protestant section referred to is as follows : 

u We have been informed from time to time that the Orthodox Easterns 
have some difficulty in reconciling certain Protestant aspects of our posi- 
tion and policy with full and genuine orthodoxy — in particular the phrase- 
ology of some of our Articles of Religion, the laxity of our discipline towards 
certain Protestant errors, and the existence, even among many of our clergy, 
of opinions inconsistent with loyalty to the catholic faith and order. For 
a right understanding of these things care should be taken to allow for the 
peculiar and providential mission of the Anglican Churches. 

1 1 When the English reformation took place, those who threw off the papal 
supremacy were driven by serious corruption in the lives and administration 
of the prelates of that day to radical reaction against the system which 
they administered; and they often failed to distinguish between necessary 
elements of Christian faith and order and the corruptions with which they 
were overlaid. The English 'Church alone among those who at that time 
abandoned the papal rule succeeded in retaining the catholic ministry and 
sacraments, and the faith which goes with them. But this Church was beset 
by earnest efforts both from within and from without to go further in the 
Protestant direction. Accordingly, while the English Church retained its 
catholic heritage, it did so under great difficulties, and with the necessity 
of dealing kindly and tactfully with those who were impatient and wished 
to go further. The policy of conformity was adopted. That is, the Prayer 
Booh was set forth, embodying the catholic working system, but in forms 
and language which it was hoped would retain the loyalty of those impatient 
souls. To make their conformity easier the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion 
were adopted as an eirenicon or peace-making platform. In these Articles 
Protestant feelings were allowed for, and as many things as possible were 
said in terms that would be pleasing to them, which explains the Protestant 
flavor that some of these Articles show. But close examination of them, 


and of the use of language in that troublesome period, will prove that 
great care was taken to avoid any statement contrary to the catholic faith 
and order. These are indeed inserted in them. It should be said in this 
connection that in our Article XIX, wherein the possibility of particular 
Churches falling into error is illustrated by examples of erring Churches, 
the Church of Constantinople is not included. Its orthodoxy was plainly 
recognized by the framers of the Articles. The Protestants were not satis- 
fied, and so arose the dissenting denominations in England, and their sub- 
sequent appearance in America and the British Colonies. The political 
association of the Church with an unpopular crown in England had much 
to do with this result, so that Anglicans have felt partly responsible, and 
believe that it is their duty by all means to win Protestants back to the 

"Accordingly, our discipline has always been tender and sympathetic in 
that direction, and we are indisposed to drive out these among ourselves 
who fail to realize the fulness of their catholic heritage, lest we alienate 
Protestants altogether and thus end all hope of winning them. This policy 
has worked as well as could reasonably be expected. Those who fully and 
loyally adhere to the Prayer Book working system do become more and more 
consistently catholic and every revival of loyalty to this working system 
results in what is called a ' catholic movement ' of which the Tractarian 
movement beginning in 1833 is an example. And each new movement of 
this kind is more gratifying in its catholic results than its predecessors. 

The sum of the matter is that our history establishes the catholic nature 
and tendency of our position and system; and the seemingly lax aspects of 
conditions show merely that we are adhering to the great work of helping 
Protestants to recover what they have lost." 

A part of the section referring to the honors paid to 
relics, images and pictures says, 

"With regard to the councils that have been accepted as ecumenical 
subject to an explanation by the Anglicans which is accepted as satisfac- 
tory by the Easterns and by the Old Catholics, we agree in accepting seven 
councils as truly ecumenical, viz., those of Nicea, 325 A. D., Constantinople, 
381 A. D., Ephesus, 431 A. D., Chalcedon, 451 A. D., Constantinople, 553 
A. D., Constantinople, 680-681 A. D., and Mcea, 787 A. D. The explana- 
tions referred to are as follows: 

In view of an impression of many English speaking Christians that the 
decree on image worship set forth by the council of Nicea, 787 A. D., 
which sanctions prostrations, irpoaKvvf]<ns [proskunesis], before images, is equiv- 
alent to a sanction of such adoration as is unlawful when paid to a creature, 
we, the Anglicans, do not feel justified in accepting that council as ecumeni- 
cal without explanation, and without assurance from the Easterns and Old 
Catholics that our explanation is satisfactory. The Anglican manner of 
showing honor differs from that of the Eastern in confining such ceremony as 
npo<rKvvt]<ns to acts of adoration or \arpela [latreia]. We do use and honor 
representations of Christ and His saints, but in less ceremonious ways. 
Therefore it would be misleading and contrary to any meaning that the 
Eastern Christians and Old Catholics would wish to maintain if we should 
without explanation describe the relative honor which we regard as lawfully 
paid to relies, images, or pictures by the term irpoanvriais or its literal 
equivalent, ' prostration \ 

"In accepting the seventh ecumenical council, therefore, we feel it to be 
our duty to explain that we interpret and accept its decree as commending 
no higher honor to be paid to relics, images, or pictures than is involved in 


using them as ereaturely adjuncts of devotion to God. All adoration or 
IMreia being due exclusively to the Divine Being. ■ ' 

The Southern Churchman defends Bishop Tucker's 
position as follows: 

* * * ' ' In the ' Preliminary Statement ' also of our commission to confer, 
etc., is a long section of 'Our relations with Protestants' which is little 
more than an abject apology for the Protestant position of this Church as 
set forth in her articles of Religion and Book of Common Prayer and for 
her 'tender and sympathetic ' attitude towards Protestants within as well as 
without her fold. It is altogether the crudest and most partisan presenta- 
tion we have ever seen from a body of men claiming in any way officially 
to speak for the Anglican Churches. " 

Of Bishop Tucker's attitude, The Living Church, Mil- 
waukee, Wis., (Episcopal) says, 

"That the bishop has deemed this divergence from the view presented 
by the commission so weighty as to justify him in cabling his refusal to 
allow his name to be used among the signatures to the papers is a matter 
for keen regret. A signature to a formal document does not imply indorse- 
ment in every detail, or complete satisfaction with language used, but rather 
a general acquiescence; there could be joint signatures to a few reports on 
difficule subjects if more were involved. In connection with the bishop's 
comments there is not one in which his position would seem to us to make 
it impossible for him to sign the document as jt is expressed, not one in 
which his view may be held to have been excluded from the Anglican position 
as stated by the commission. He has the right to demand that that position 
be so stated as to comprehend himself and his theological associates; he is 
not justified in demanding that it be so stated as to comprehend nobody else. 
His use of the three mooted words is a legitimate use. It is not the only 
legitimate use of them. It would be absurd to demand that Greeks abandon 
their use and accept his, when theirs has at least as many centuries of 
authority behind it as has his own. ' ' 

The C ongregationalist, Boston, says, 

"An announcement of unusual importance in the field of the union of 
the Churches is made by a commission of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
and printed in full in The Living Church. It is a concordat drawn up and 
presented by that commission to the Old (not Roman) Catholic and the 
Oriental (Orthodox) Churches, Greek, Russian and Armenian. Bishop Her- 
zog, of the Old Catholic Church, signed it for that Church in Switzerland 
over which he presides. It was later signed by the Armenian Patriarch of 
Constantinople and the Vicar Apostolic of the Armenian Patriarch of Jeru- 
salem. And it was submitted to the Synod at Athens of the Greek and 
Russian (Orthodox) Churches, the synod appointing a commission, which 
agreed that a confederation of the Churches might be made immediately, 
though further steps would be necessary for a formal union. Such a union 
would give nearly a world-wide Church, the Old Catholics being sparsely 
scattered on the European continent in the strongholds of the Papal Roman 
Catholic Church. 


' ' The concordat traverses the doctrinal, liturgical and governmental points 
at issue between the Churches directly concerned, meeting some debated 
question by complete agreement and explaining differences of tradition and 
usage and of points of view for others, while referring the ancient moot 
point between East and West of the ' procedure' of the Holy Spirit 'from the 
Father/ or from the ' Father and the Son' to an ecumenical council hoped 
for later. As to the question whether there are two or seven Sacraments, the 
difference of opinion and usage is avoided by a re-definition of the word 
'Sacrament' which makes a special place for the two (of Baptism and 
the Supper) and leaves the five (confirmation, penance, holy order, holy 
matrimony and holy unction) as 'Means of grace bestowed by the Holy 
Spirit' and in that wider sense sacramental. The question of prostration 
before relics, pictures and images is also met by definition and allowance. 
Acceptance of the validity of the sacraments administered by any of the 
communions and intercommunion are thus led up to and accepted. 

"What concerns us most directly in these steps toward a union of the 
Eastern, Old Catholic and Anglican Churches is the explanatory statement 
of the Protestant Episcopal Commission which took the initiative in this 
approach and tentative agreement. The commission sketches the history 
of previous attempts to bring together these separated communions and then 
goes on to the historical statement that while the English Church at the 
reformation ' Retained its catholic heritage, it did so under great difficulties, 
and with the necessity of dealing kindly and tactfully with those who were 
impatient and wished to go further in the Protestant direction.' 

"We would not lay a straw in the way of such a reunion of communion 
as this concordat contemplates. That is entirely for the members of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, lay and clerical, and of all schools of thought 
to decide. But there is much in the concordat itself which would make it 
more difficult than ever for the Congregational Churches to enter into an 
agreement with the Protestant Episcopal Church which would in any wise 
commit them to some of the views of worship, Church authority and tradi- 
tions outlined in this proposed union of Churches. " 

The Southern Churchman, Bichmond, Va., drops this 
wise word regarding patience in Christian unity, 

It took about twelve centuries for the sordid ambitions, the short- 
sighted enthusiasms and narrow-minded policies of Christian men, aided 
by the political machinations of the world, to bring the Church of Christ 
into the disorganized and chaotic condition in which it now finds itself, with 
its consequent impotency and failure of trust. It is only about fifty years 
that a considerable element in the Church has been looking for the way 
out of this awful muddle and for the healing of these deadly ruptures in 
the body of Christ. Is it a wonder that in so short a time the whole 
Church has not been brought even to a sincere desire for unity, much less to 
an agreement as to how this ancient and deep-seated evil is to be cured? 
It has been so long lost sight of that not the* wisest of us knows what 
organic union will be like when it comes. Age-long and world-wide errors 
are not corrected in a day. Only one greater mistake can be made than 
to suppose that unity is coming very soon, and that would be to despair 
of its coming at all. 



To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly. 

Dear Sir: — I am asked to write about the problem of Christian unity, 
but what shall I write? I am asked to be free, but how free am I to be? 
Freedom is a very indefinite term. To define its limitations is difficult. If 
as a Congregationalist I should be free in rambling through the fields of 
Congregationalism but dared to include in my freedom the endorsement of 
the concordat and affirm therewith that I was awaiting ordination by the 
Episcopal bishops as soon as the General Convention had passed the dis- 
puted canon, I would have scores of Congregationalists whacking me over 
the head for my departure from Congregational tradition. If as an Epis- 
copalian I should exercise my freedom in inviting non-episcopal clergy- 
men into my pulpit the bishop of my diocese would be calling me to ac- 
count and great numbers of Episcopalians would charge me with violation 
of the vows of my ordination and desecrating the pulpit of the Church. 
If as a Disciple I should be so free in advocating those things for which 
the Disciples stand I would be hailed by them as a champion of their 
traditions. But if on the other hand I should use my freedom on the mat- 
ters of Baptism, receiving into full membership in my church those who 
had been baptized by sprinkling or pouring, there would be an uprising 
among many of those Disciple churches that hold exclusively to member- 
ship on Baptism by immersion only. I might go down the list of all the 
Churches and the fact is that so long as I maintained the tradition of that 
peculiar Church I would be regarded as their champion, but when I at- 
tempted to follow the passion of a larger freedom, the member who sees 
only through the keyhole of his own sect, and usually the keyhole that 
opens into the back yard of his own premises, would charge me with being 
an unfaithful upstart. 

Now the family of that member is larger than the family of those who 
are seeking for freedom. A test vote would give him the majority. It 
would put me in the minority. I think this would be true regarding the 
ministry in particular. I am wondering whether it would be true regard- 
ing the masses of Church membership. Scores of people in the Churches 
are wearied with the policy the ministry is trying to put over on them. 
Talking to a group of ministers recently they expressed the opinion that 
they were unwilling for the people to decide this question, for they were 
sure the people would bolt the traditional methods. The the question is 
whether the time has not come for the people to do some thinking for them- 
selves. The ministry is now divided. They cannot get together on very 
many things. The chief reason for this is that they have been taught 
those attitudes that necessarily keep them apart, but the ministry is fre- 
quently wrong. I think the war illustrated one of the greatest errors in 
the thought of the modern ministry that has been revealed in the whole 
history of the church. Because the war in all countries touched off a uni- 
versal explosion of patriotic enthusiasm and men and women everywhere 
willingly worked for war interests, the ministry concluded that that en- 
thusiasm was religion and most of the ministers took the illusion that the 
nations were undergoing a moral, ennobling experience. To have talked 
otherwise was regarded as both unpatriotic and unwise. The ministry ap- 
peared to have been entirely unacquainted with the facts of history as 
well as human experience, which show that every war has been followed 
by a period of moral apathy and exhaustion. The result of this ministerial 
illusion has been that great numbers of men have left the ministry for 


mercantile pursuits and likewise great numbers of laymen have shown a 
marked indifference in Church affairs. If the ministry that has been trained 
to interpret God drops wholesale and pell-mell into such an illusion in a 
manner so manifest, is it not time for the ministry to take its reckoning 
regarding other matters that are just as vital as this? 

Jesus Christ came to make men free. The slavery of tradition is the 
most difficult servitude from which to be freed in human history. To 
think as one's father thought, to think as one's community thinks, to think 
as one's denomination thinks cannot be accepted as final. Jesus stands out 
as the first freeman of mankind. He took issue with the traditions of the 
past, whether they were incorporated in the Scriptures or not. Every man 
seeking for freedom must be equally fearless in freeing himself from the 
traditions of his Church and other Churches, traditions of his community 
and other communities or his nation and other imtions, unless those tradi- 
tions conform to the great principles embodied in Jesus Christ. 

I recognize that a man can abuse his freedom and go to as dangerous 
and hurtful extreme as the man who nurses his slavery in holding all of 
his traditions with divine sacredness. There is a middle ground and it is 
the middle ground that we as ministers of reconciliation are to find and 
hold. On that ground is to be maintained cooperation, orderliness, tolera- 
tion, long suffering, gentleness, selfcontrol and love. Whatever may be 
the attitudes of men, so these principles predominate rather than the 
principles incorporated in the traditions of a denomination or those incor- 
porated in the traditions of a community, there will cease to be these closed 
corporations, for such is every modern denomination. This is no little un- 
dertaking and many a member of a denomination would hold the way it 
does things on an equality with the way God is trying to do things. I 
sometimes think we have got to discover that much of our way of doing 
things is the highmindedness and stubbornness of man in undoing and 
thwarting the handiwork of God. 

I dropped into a minister's library and after going over his books I 
found there books by Roman Catholics and by Protestants of nearly every 
denomination. I asked him if he made use of all these books and he an- 
swered with some surpise, "Of course I do." I then said, "You mean to 
say you use these to help you preach ? ' ' He said, ' ' Certainly. ' ' Then I 
said, "You use these to help you preach, but you do not associate with 
those denominations to help you live. If you use the books of all these 
denominations to help you preach, are you not under obligation to help all 
these denominations from which you make quotations by speaking in friend- 
ly terms of them and giving them a fair chance to show to you and your peo- 
ple the trust that they hold?" He did not seem to see that one necessarily 
followed the other. The difficulty with us is we are still going around 
selecting something here and something there that suits our notions, making 
a kind of crazy-quilt, when if we practiced fellowship with souls as well as 
with books we could receive such soul enrichment as would help us to a 
larger freedom in the service to our fellows and in the work of God. 

Yours truly, 

Anthony Openeye. 


Being the Bampton Lectures for the Year 1920. By the Rev. A. C. 
Headlam, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Ox- 
ford. John Murray, Albemarle St., W. 1, London. 

This book will command the attention of the thoughtful for years to come. 
It is the fulfilment of a design which Dr. Headlam has carried for more 
than thirty years. It is a book of real merit in that it is scholarly, being 
true to the facts, free without being radical, logical in most instances, 
and an argument of unusual power. Its method is primarily historical, 
examining the evidence and drawing conclusions accordingly. He plunges 
into his subject in the opening lecture with the statement of the British 
Army in France being denied Roman Catholic Church buildings for the 
service of the troops and the Church of England chaplains in Prance re- 
fusing communion to pious members of the Presbyterian and Nonconform- 
ist Churches on the eve of battle, illustrating the evils of a divided Chris- 
tendom, and then through the eight lectures he speaks with such freedom 
that the whole horizon of one's thinking is lighted up with the possibilities 
of that Christian charity which Augustine so frequently emphasized and 
which he manifested in his dealings with the Donatists. 

The eight lectures are divided as follows: "The Origins of the 
Church, ' ' going back for the sources of the Church into Judaism, especially 
emphasizing the significance of the word ecolesia and its later use in the 
Gospels, the significations of the term Kingdom of Heaven, the place of 
Discipleship, Apostolate, the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per, etc.; "The Apostolic Church," finding his authorities in the Acts 
of the Apostles and the Apostolic Epistles, and dealing there with the 
teaching of the Apostles regarding Baptism, Communion, appointment of 
the seven, missionary ministers, authority of the Twelve, position of St. 
Peter, laying on of hands, confirmation, unity of the Church, the ministry, 
living power of the Church, etc.; "The Catholic Church," emphasizing 
the distinction between the Catholic Church, which was the Church before 
divisions occurred, and the Roman Catholic Church, which is the Latin 
Church of the eleventh century and on, and giving an account of the 
changes in the Church, the development of monarchical episcopacy, mean- 
ing of the word Church, its principles and ministry, constitutional position 
of a bishop, theories of orders, etc.; "The Teaching of St. Augustine," 
including the influence of his thought on theology, his arguments against 
the Donatists, the nature of the Christian ministry, the Church and Chris- 
tian charity, etc.; "The Divisions of the Church," including the Nes- 
torian and Monophysite heresies, schism of East and "West, the filioque 
clause, claims of the Papacy, the Medieval Church, the Reformation, Coun- 
cil of Trent, etc.; "The Doctrine of the Church — I," emphasizing the 
teaching of the creed, catholicity, unity of the Church, Roman solution, 
Protestant view, meaning of schism, authority and merits of the creed, 


etc.; "The Doctrine of the Church— -II, ' ' emphasizing the authority and 
value of episcopacy, valid ordination, meaning of orders, apostolic succes- 
sion, recognition of non-episcopal orders, episcopacy and episcopal ordina- 
tion necessary for unity, causes of division, etc. ; ( ' Reunion, ' ' emphasizing 
the right attitude of mind, inadequacy of federations, wrong methods of ap- 
proach, recognition of other episcopal churches and non-episcopal churches, 
unity without uniformity, need of reconciliation, etc. This is only a scant 
and imperfect survey of the book. 

Dr. Headlam speaks at times with astonishing frankness and so true 
to the facts that he awakens confidence and holds it to the close of the 
volume. He has dropped seed thoughts, like Newman, who made possible 
the Modernist movement in the Roman Catholic Church, a fact which many 
perhaps would deny, and like Augustine, avIio sowed the seeds which made 
possible both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The Oxford profes- 
sor has so presented his thought that to the free and thoughtful it shows 
that forms of Church government, not even episcopacy, are of such vital 
consequence as to keep the Church apart, and opens the way to the removal 
of one of the age long contentions of the Church. He, however, holds to 
episcopacy as the organ of unity. He does not prove that it is such an 
organ. He affirms it with a devotion that indicates his reverence for this 
ancient order of Church government, although he likewise affirms that no 
one of the rival systems of Church polity which prevail at the present time — 
Episcopacy, Papacy, Presbyterianism or Congregationalism — can find any 
direct support in the Bible, nor is it possible to trace the process and 
stages of the development of episcopal ordination. He says, "The only 
practical policy for reunion will be based on the mutual recognition of or- 
ders. We know what our feelings are in the Church of England; we will 
certainly have nothing to do with the Church of Rome unless Rome is pre- 
pared to recognize our orders. It is exactly the same with the Eastern 
Church. If they were to come to us and say that our orders were invalid 
or doubtful, and that a condition of reunion would be that our clergy 
should be reordained, do you suppose that we should pay any attention to 
them? If that be so, cannot we understand that that may be exactly the 
position in regard to the Presbyterians? Do you suppose that the Presby- 
terian Church of Scotland would accede to any proposals for reunion unless 
we were prepared to recognize the validity of their orders and ministry? 
And that recognition would have to be mutual. ' ' 

Regarding the Eucharist, which he treats with due reverence, he says, 
"The great mistake that the Christian Church has made from the Middle 
Ages to the present day is to have attempted to define dogmatically what 
no human language can define and what it has never been intended that 
the Church should define, and we shall never end our many troubles concern- 
ing the Eucharist until we have been willing to dispense entirely with defi- 
nitions; and this I would say not intending to depreciate or lower our Eu- 
charist worship. Definition does not explain ; it limits and curtails. ' ' This 
is finely said. But the same argument applies to Jesus Christ, Whom the 
creeds have sought to define, especially the Nicene Creed, whose early 
history Dr. Headlam rightly says is somewhat doubtful. If we should hesi- 


tate to define the institution which Christ established, how much more 
hesitancy ought there to be in defining Christ Himself? And has not the 
attempt to make these definitions the test of Christian fellowship been one 
of the chief causes of disunion? There must be a creed. There can be 
no Church without a creed, but the creed should be in the Person Jesus 
Christ, as in Apostolic times, rather than in a definition of the Person, which 
limits the Person and is a subject of constant controversy. The Nicene 
Creed did not hold the Church together and its terms of expression are too 
archaic to hold it together now. It appears to be more reasonable to find 
the way to unity by faith in and loyalty to Jesus Christ around whom the 
early Church was a united body. There is no necessity of "wiping the 
slate and starting afresh, ' ' which Dr. Forsyth says is impossible. Quite 
so. Jesus Christ, who has been in His Church through all ages, alone gives 
to us the sense of historical continuity. The ancient creeds can be re- 
tained by those who desire them without the slightest molestation, but as 
a basis of reunion it raises another question. 

In Dr. Headlam's holding to the kinder side of human nature, he has 
opened new routes of travel for those who are concerned for the will of God 
in the unity of His Church. Dr. Headlam's contribution must rank by the 
side of the best thought on the subject of reunion. 

CIETY. By Archibald McLean, President. Illustrated. Fleming H. 
Revell Company, New York. 

The record of foreign missionary work is always fascinating. This volume 
is no exception to that rule. Dr. McLean's long presidency of the Society, 
whose achievements ne recites in these more than four hundred pages, has 
made him one of the foremost authorities in foreign missionary activities., 
He traces the origin of this Society from its humble beginning in 1875 to 
its present strength, with stations in nearly every nation on the globe. It 
is a story of a great mission and the author's passion for the whole world 
to have the knowledge of Jesus Christ is clothed in such finely worded 
sentences that it awakens like passion in the hearts of those who peruse 
the pages of this important volume in missionary annals. The time is 
coming when all missionary work in foreign countries will have to be done 
under a general board. That time already is and we look for its realiza- 
tion in the quickening activities of missionary work. The converts to 
Christianity have little interest in the things that separate Christians in 
America and Europe and the likelihood is they will have less as time goes 
on, which means that from the foreign missionary field we are to get our 
finest inspiration for permanent unity. This volume is a help to that end. 

Organizations for the Promotion of Christian Unity 

Having its inception in the work of Thomas Campbell, 1809, present or- 
ganization 1910, President, Rev. Peter Ainslie; Secretary, Rev. H. C. Arm- 
strong, Seminary House, Baltimore, Md., TJ. S. A. For intercessory prayer, 
friendly conferences and distribution of irenic literature, ' ' till we all attain 
unto the unity of the faith. " Pentecost Sunday is the day named for 
special prayers for and sermons on Christian unity in all Churches. 

TENDOM, 1857, President, Athelstan Riley, Esq., 2 Kensington Court, 
London ; Secretary in the United States, Rev. Calbraith Bourn Perry, Cam- 
bridge, N. Y. For intercessory prayer for the reunion of the Roman Cath- 
olic, Greek and Anglican Communions. 

Rev. Robert W. Weir, Edinburgh. For maintaining, fostering and ex- 
pressing the consciousness of the underlying unity that is shared by many 
members of the different Churches in Scotland. 

CHRISTIAN UNITY FOUNDATION, 1910, Secretary, Rev. W. C. Em- 
hardt, Newtown, Bucks Co., Pa. For the promotion of Christian unity 
throughout the world by research and conference. 

CHURCHMEN'S UNION, 1896, President, Prof. Percy Gardner; Hon. 
Secretary, Rev. C. Moxon, 3 St. George's Square, London S. W., England. 
For cultivation of friendly relations between the Church of England and 
all other Christian bodies. 

DER, 1910, President, Rt. Rev. Charles P. Anderson; Secretary, Robert H. 
Gardiner, Esq., Gardiner, Me., U. S. A. For a world conference of all 
Christians relative to the unity of Christendom. 

COUNCIL ON ORGANIC UNION, 1918, Ad Interim Committee, Chairman, 
Rev. W. H. Roberts, Philadelphia, Pa.; Secretary, Rev. Rufus W. Miller, 
Wither3poon Building, Philadelphia. For the organic union of the Evan- 
gelical Churches in the United States of America. 

1908, President, Rev. Frank Mason North; Secretary, Rev. Charles S. Mac- 
farland, 105 E. 22d St., New York. For the cooperation of the various 
Protestant Communions in service rather than an attempt to unite upon 
definitions of theology and polity. 

FREE CHURCH FELLOWSHIP, 1911, Rev. Malcolm Spencer, Colue 
Bridge House, Rickmansworth, London, N. For the cultivation of cor- 
porate prayer and thought for a new spiritual fellowship and communion 
with all branches of the Christian Church. 

OF ENGLAND, 1895, President, Rev. Principal W. B. Selbie, Mansfield 
College, Oxford; Secretary, Rev. F. B. Meyer, Memorial Hall, E. C, Lon- 
don. For facilitating fraternal intercourse and cooperation among the 
Evangelical Free Churches in England. 

SHIP THROUGH THE CHURCHES, 1914, Chairman, Most Rev. Randall 
Thomas Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, Hon. Secretary, Rt. Hon. Sir 
Willoughby H. Dickinson, 41 Parliament St., London, S. W. 1. For joint 
endeavour to achieve the promotion of international friendship through the 
churches and the avoidance of war. 

VOL. X NO. 3 

"God gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. " 





rHIS journal is the organ of no party other 
than of those, growing up in all parties, who 
are interested in the unity of the Church of Christ. 
Its pages are friendly to all indications of Christian 
unity and ventures of faith. It maintains that, 
whether so accepted or not, all Christians — Eastern 
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, 
and all who accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour — 
are parts of the Church of Christ and that the 
unity of His disciples is the paramount issue 
of modern times. 

JANUARY, 1921 





Fleming H. Revell Company, New York 

Marnzen Company, Ltd., Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka and Sendai 

Oliphants, Ltd., 21 Paternoster Square, London, E. C. 4; 100, Princes Street, Edinburgh 



The favorite figure in which the church of the first century set forth its 
conception of the Spirit of Christianity is that of "the Good Shepherd." 
The emblem which appears on this page is a reproduction of one of 
the early Christian gams. 



"No one has written more appreciatively respecting this symbol 
than Dean Stanley in his Christian Institutions. It appealed to all his 
warmest sympathies. 'What,' he asks, 'is the test or sign of Christian 
popular belief, which in these earliest representations of Christianity 
is handed down to us as the most cherished, the all-sufficing, token of 
their creed? It is very simple, but it contains a great deal. It is 
a shepherd in the bloom of youth, with the crook, or a shepherd's pipe, 
in one hand, and on his shoulder a lamb, which he carefully carries, and 
holds with the other' hand. We see at once who it is; we all know with- 
out being told. This, in that earliest chamber, or church of a Chris- 
tian family, is the only sign of Christian life and Christian belief. But, 
as it is almost the only sign of Christian belief in this earliest catacomb, 
so it continues always the chief, always the prevailing sign, as long as 
those burial-places were used.' 

"After alluding to the almost total neglect of this lovely symbol 
by the Fathers and. Theologians, he says that it answers the question, 
what was the popular religion of the first Christians? 'It was, in one 
word, the religion of the Good Shepherd. The kindness, the courage, 
the love, the beauty, the grace, of the Good Shepherd, was to them, if 
we may so say, Prayer Book and Articles, Creed and Canons, all in one. 
They looked on that figure, and it conveyed to them all they wanted. 
As ages passed on, the Good Shepherd faded from the mind of the 
Christian world, and other emblems of the Christian faith have taken 
His place. Instead of the gracious and gentle Pastor, there came the 
Omnipotent Judge, or the crucified Sufferer or the Infant in His mother's 
arms, or the Master in His parting Supper, or the figures of innumerable 
saints and angels, or the elaborate expositions of the various forms of 
theological controversy.' But 'the Good Shepherd represents to us the 
joyful, cheerful side of Christianity of which we spoke before. . . . 
But that is the primitive conception of the Founder of Christianity in 
those earlier centuries when the first object of the Christian community 
was not to repel, but to include; not to condemn, but to save. The popular 
conception of Christ in the early church was of the strong, the joyous 
youth, of eternal growth, of immortal grace.' " — Frederic W. Farrar in 
The Life of Christ as Represented in Art. 


A Journal in the Interest of 'Reconciliation in the Divided Church 
of Christ. Interdenominational and International. Each Com- 
munion may sneak with Freedom for itself in these Pages as to 
what Offering* it has to bring to the Altar of Reconciliation. 

Vol. X. JANUARY, 1921 No. 3 


By Rt. Rev. Ethelbert Talbot, D.D., Bishop of Bethlehem 


By Rev. Gaius Glenn Atkins, D.D., Minister First Congrega- 
tional Church, Detroit, Mich. 

SHIPS 188 

Being the Action of the Recent Convention of the United Lu- 
theran Church in America. 

Being the Encycle of Pope Benedict XV. 


Being Addressed to the Editor by Anthony Openeye. 


Fourth Quadrennial Meeting of the Federal Council . . 215 




THE CHRISTIAN UNION QUARTERLY is issued in January, April, 
July and October. It is the servant of the whole Church, irrespective of 
name or creed. It offers its pages as a forum to the entire Church of 
Christ for a frank and courteous discussion of those problems that have 
to do with the healing of our unchristian divisions. Its contributors and 
readers are in all communions. 

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.00 a year— fifty cents a copy. Remittance 
should be made by New York draft, express order or money order. 

Entered as second-class matter in the Post Office at St. Louis, Mo. 


Week of Prayer for the Churches, January 2-8, 1921, January the 4th 
being in the interest of Christian unity. 

At the instance of the Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity 
a series of Christian unity conferences in America are being arranged. The 
first will be in St. Louis, February 2-4, 1921, at the Second Baptist Church. 
The causes presented will be the World Conference on Faith and Order, 
the American Council on Organic Union of Protestants, the Lambeth Ap- 
peal, the World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, 
the Universal Conference of the Church of Christ on Life and Work, the 
Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. 

There will be a similar conference in Dallas, Texas, the week following. 
For particulars write the Association for the Promotion of Christian 
Unity, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md. 

Pentecost Sunday has been named by both the World Conference on Faith 
and Order and the Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity as 
the day for special sermons on Christian unity, along with prayers to that 


(Membership in this League is open to all Christians — Eastern, Eoman, 
Anglican and Protestant, the only requirement being a notice by post card 
or letter of one's desire to be so enrolled, stating the Church of which he 
is a member. Address, Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity, 
Seminary House, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A.) 


FOR blessing upon all who have confessed Jesus as Lord and Saviour. 
FOE blessing upon all cooperative movements looking toward unity. 

FOR blessing upon editors, authors and speakers whose thoughts contribute 
toward brotherhood. 

Ask, and it shall be given to you: seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it 
shall be opened to you. For, every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that 
seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. For what 
man is there among you, of whom if his son ask bread, will he reach him 
a stone? Or if he ask of him a fish, will he reach him a serpent? If ye, 
then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much 
more will your Father Who is in heaven give good things to them that ask 
Him.— Matt. 7:7-11 (Syriac). 

The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears (ready) to hear 
them: but the face of the Lord is against the wicked. — 1 Peter 3:12 

O Lord, perfect, we beseech Thee, the faith of us who believe, and sow the 
good seed of faith in their hearts who as yet lack it; that we all may look 
steadfastly unto Thee, and run with patience the race that is set before us. 
Give us grace to show our faith by our works; teach us to walk by faith, 
having respect unto the promises: which of Thy mercy make good to us in 
Thine own good time, O our most gracious Lord God and Saviour. Amen. 

— Christina G. Bosetti. 

In the Church of Jesus Christ the whole is far greater than the sum of its 
parts. The future of religion shall not always be endangered by suspicion 
and intolerance and narrowness among professed disciples of truth. It is 
permissible to hope for more union than exists at present among professing 
Christians and among the branches of the Christian Church. In spite of 
legitimate differences on difficult and infinite problems, there must be a 
mass of fundamental material on which a great majority are really agreed. 

— Sir Oliver Lodge. 


Minister Christian Temple, Baltimore, Md. 

Editorial Council 


Pastor First Congregational Church, Cambridge, Mass. 


Minister Dutch Reformed Church, The Hague, Holland 

Professor in the University of Berlin, Germany 

Principal of New College, University of London, London, England 

Dean General Episcopal Theological Seminary, New York City 


Minister Brick Presbyterian Church, New York City 


Professor of Church History, Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, 

Lancaster, Pa. 

Canon of Westminster, London, England 

Archbishop of Uppsala, Sweden 

ALL editorial communications should be addressed to Peter Ainslie, Editor THE 
CHRISTIAN UNION QUARTERLY, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS may be sent direct or placed through Fleming H. Revell Com- 
pany, New York City; Maruzen Company, Ltd., Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka and 
Sendai; Oliphants, Ltd., 21 Paternoster Square, London, E. C. 4, or 100 Princes 
Street, Edinburgh. 

SUBSCRIPTION price $2.00 a year— 50 cents a copy. 




beth) 89 



DAY. By W, H. Griffith Thomas 105 


Brent 117 


George W. Brown 121 

EDITORIAL: Three Outstanding Conferences . . 129 


UNITY 140 




LORD, be Thou patient with us in our 
loyalty to our opinions and traditions, which 
so frequently is disloyalty to Thee. Grant that 
we may see the truth as it is in Jesus. Forgive 
our self-will, teach us through suffering the way 
to brotherhood and lead us by the shadow of 
the cross into perfect submission, for Thou alone 
art the way, the truth and the life. In finding 
Thee we have found the fellowship that is to 
break all fellowships until there shall be one flock 
as there is one Shepherd, through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen. 


And so, when it became clear that He was going to be taken 
from them, on the night before He died, when too it must have 
seemed that it was all a failure except for His own obedience 
to His Father's will, and that all His effort had been thrown 
away — for what distressed Him most of all was that His 
closest friends, on whom everything must now depend, and who 
He had hoped would carry on His work, had failed to pene- 
trate His mind; you remember that they were contending, on 
the night before He died, as regards their precedence in His 
Kingdom — on that night He made a last appeal. He asked 
them very simply to remember Him, and He suggested 
that they could do so best by sharing in a common meal at 
which He said that they would all be one, because they would 
all share in Him, the Body broken and the Blood outpoured. 
He thought too, that this might help them to be like Him, and 
might make them wish to go out into the world and do His 
work, the work which He had hoped to do; so that perhaps it 
might turn out after all that His great work had not been 
thrown away; that men might even yet believe that God had 
sent Him; and that they might realise how, in spite of great 
difficulty, very great difficulty, He had all along most dearly 
loved. — B. H. Lightfoot, from a sermon recently preached in 
Westminster Abbey. 

«S»ii_»hh^—iii:— — iw^— nu^— mi— na— -nn— bh— tin— un— mi— :in— mi— • mi— »««— «i— . hu— — mi— nn— tiu— iih— nu— *?» 

i 1 

I I 

taatnnarg Wntk lalkffc 


U nf % mi^sinnanj work nf j 

tij? tmirift ta balktfin heranH? nf I 

Mtttonns in it}? ©Ijurrlj. Sttrimnna 

I mmt ht remold if % misainnarg | 

I mmt wtmlh aimanr^ Jt te tint a I 

matter of rfjmr?; it is an impelling 

I nmHBitg* j 

I 1 

I I 

I I 

A, — iiu^— m— iiii— mi— mi— nn— an— wi— nu— mi— bu— nu-^iin— mi— »uu— mi— nn— 11,1— n;t= •na— •»!!•— —un— a<& 



I have been requested to give an interpretation of the 
Appeal on reunion to all Christian people issued by the 
252 bishops, assembled at the Lambeth Conference in 
London last July, 1920. 

May I say in the first place that the Lambeth Confer- 
ence has no legislative functions, and its resolutions and 
recommendations therefore must be ratified by the va- 
rious national Churches and dioceses, before they become 
effective. What the Conference recommends however 
would naturally carry great weight throughout the 
Church, as the bishops come from all sections of the An- 
glican Communion scattered throughout the world. 

It is true that both the secular and religious press of 
America at the time published the Appeal and commented 
upon it more or less fully. More recently attention has 
been drawn to it by the published opinions of many 
prominent, religious leaders, both in England and Amer- 
ica. Notwithstanding, a certain measure of publicity 
thus given to this declaration of the bishops, it is still true 
that comparatively few American Christians have had an 
opportunity to study or even to read the Appeal. This 
may be said both of the clergy and laity on this side of 
the Atlantic. Moreover, there are many persons who 
have derived from the newspapers a very inadequate, if 
not entirely mistaken, view of what was actually set forth 
in the statement. It has seemed wise, therefore, before at- 
tempting anything in the way of a commentary on the 
Appeal, that it should be presented fully to the readers 
of The Christian Union Quarterly,* thus giving them 
an opportunity to form their own opinions as well as to 
judge more intelligently as to the correctness of any ex- 
planations I may feel disposed to offer. 

*The Appeal was published in full in the October number of The Christian 
Union Quarterly. 


How wide-spread and unusual an interest has been 
aroused in England upon the subject may be understood 
by the simple statement that in a recent copy of the 
Church Family Netvspaper, of London, six columns of 
short communications from prominent Free Church min- 
isters appear. The recommendations of the bishops are 
heartily endorsed by every one of these various writers 
belonging to many denominations. Dr. Scott Lidgett re- 
fers to the bishop's Appeal on the reunion of Christen- 
dom as, "the greatest ecclesiastical event since the Ref- 
ormation;" and the Rev. F. B. Meyer, ex-secretary of 
the Free Church Council, says it is a "triumph of Chris- 
tian statesmanship. ' ' 

May I remind the reader that the Appeal re- 
ceived an almost unanimous approval from the 252 bish- 
ops present, and that only four among the entire number 
dissented. When it is considered how many differences 
of opinion have been entertained among the bishops on 
this anxious problem of Christian reunion, and that 
schools of thought which have been strongly opposed to 
each other were all brought to enthusiastic agreement, as 
here set forth, it will not be surprising that we felt that 
a power beyond our own had influenced and guided us. 

It ought also to be stated that the wide-spread and al- 
most pathetic need of reunion among Christians has long 
been felt by the bishops, and that they came to the Con- 
ference with a strong and solemn conviction that the time 
had fully come when some positive step, far in advance 
of anything hitherto attempted by us, would have to be 
made, if, in any measure, we should rise to the respon- 
sibility which a sadly divided Church presented to our 
minds and consciences. In other words, the condition 
of the Christian world, so important to bear witness 
for righteousness while its forces were kept asunder, had 
created an atmosphere among us entirely congenial to a 
prayerful consideration of reunion. 


What the bishops now propose as a basis of reunion 
does not differ so much from previous positions in sub- 
stance as in the method and spirit in which they approach 
the question. It is unnecessary to say that these propos- 
als neither involve any change in our fundamental prin- 
ciples nor do they make any demand on the conscientious 
convictions of our brethren of other Churches now sep- 
arated from us. 

The committee appointed to consider the subject of 
reunion was the largest of all the committees of the Con- 
ference, and consisted of over seventy members. The 
chairman was the Archbishop of York, the most Reverend 
Cosmo Gr. Lang, D.D., who made this statement about him- 
self, "I was born, brought up, and baptized in the Pres- 
byterian Church of Scotland. I was received into the 
Episcopal Church, and am now an archbishop. I should 
esteem it a privilege and an added consecration, and of 
course no repudiation of my Orders, if our relations with 
the Presbyterian Church were such that I could now re- 
ceive such ordination or commission from the Church of 
my fathers as would enable me to minister in the Pres- 
byterian Church, and to administer the Lord's Supper to 
its people ; and I should feel that no Presbyterian minis- 
ter would repudiate his ministry, if he should receive or- 
dination at my hands, and while still remaining a minster 
of the Presbyteran Church, be able to administer the 
Lord's Supper in the Church of England." I quote 
these words of our chairman chiefly because they throw 
light on both the spirit and method of the Appeal which I 
have been asked to interpret and make it, if possible, 
more fully understood by readers of The Christian 
Union Quarterly. 

Of the seventy or more bishops on our committee 
twelve of us were American bishops. When our Appeal 
was formally reported back to the whole body of bishops, 
together with the resolutions, for their consideration, we 


hardly dared to hope that it would meet with any such 
welcome as it actually received. When, therefore, after 
much discussion and careful consideration, it was 
adopted with practical unanimity, the result was followed 
by the singing of the doxology and an ever memorable 
manifestation of devout thanksgiving for what clearly 
seemed to us as the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who 
maketh men to be of one mind within a house. 

During our consideration of the subject, we called to 
our aid and associated with us a number of distinctive 
representatives of the Free Churches who gladly gave us 
the benefit of their experience and wisdom and whose in- 
terest in the subject was well known. Among these may 
be mentioned Dr. J. H. Shakespeare of the Baptist 
Church and many others. 

While the above appeal has in mind our relations to 
other historical Churches possessing the episcopal form 
of government, it will be readily seen that it largely con- 
cerns itself with our brethren of the non-episcopal 
Churches in this country and in England, ' ' standing for 
rich elements for truth, liberty and life. With them we 
are closely linked by many affinities racial, historical, 
and spiritual. 

In the first paragraph the bishops express the sense of 
responsibility which rests upon them at this crisis of the 
world's history and of the sympathy and prayers of many 
Christian people within and without our own communion, 
who, like ourselves, are deeply interested in the question 
of the reunion of the visible Body of Christ. 

In the second paragraph we make the declaration that 

we acknowledge that all who believe in our Lord Jesus 
Christ, and have been baptized in the Name of Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit, are full members with us in the 
Holy Catholic or Universal Church, of Christ which is His 

This declaration while not new, has been received by 


many with evident surprise and expressions of great grat- 
ification. It means of course that Baptism is the divinely 
appointed means of admission to the Church, and that 
there is but one Church upon earth consisting of all bap- 
tized believers. There is therefore, we thankfully de- 
clare, already existing a spiritual unity of all Christian 
people, and the one great goal for which we are now striv- 
ing and praying is that this spiritual unity should become 
manifested in a visible body so that its witness and influ- 
ence may be felt. 

We then express our belief that God wills fellowship ; 
that it is His purpose to manifest this fellowship in an 
outward, visible and united society, holding one faith, 
having its own recognized officers, using God-given 
means of grace, and inspiring all its members to the 
world-wide service of the Kingdom of God. This is the 
meaning of the Catholic or Universal Church. Men are 
not to rest content with simply a spiritual unity or fel- 
lowship. It must manifest itself in the world by means 
of an outward, visible and united society. We deplore 
the fact that this fellowship at present is not visible, but 
as a matter of fact, we are now all organized in different 
groups, each one keeping to itself gifts that rightly be- 
long to the whole fellowship and tending to live its own 
life apart from the rest. The sad fact of our numerous 
and our unhappy divisions is too obvious to require com- 
ment. We can only deplore it and pray for the removal 
of its causes. While these causes of division lie deep in 
the past, yet none will deny that self-will, ambition, and 
lack of charity among Christians have been principal fac- 
tors in the process, and that these together with blind- 
ness to the sin of division are still mainly responsible 
for the breaches of Christendom. We declare, as all 
good Christians unite with us in declaring, that this con- 
dition of broken fellowship is contrary to God 's will, and 
we desire frankly to confess our own share in the guilt of 


thus crippling the Body of Christ and hindering the ac- 
tivity of His Spirit. 

We believe that the times call us to a new outlook and 
new measures. We feel that it is wrong to rest content 
with this condition of division in the Body of Christ ; for 
the faith cannot be adequately apprehended, and the bat- 
tle of the Kingdom cannot be worthily fought while the 
Body is thus divided and unable to grow up into the ful- 
ness of the life of Christ. We believe that the time has 
come for all the separated groups of Christians to agree 
in forgetting the things which are behind, and reaching 
out towards the goal of a reunited Catholic Church. 

The vision which rises before us is that of a Church 
genuinely catholic, loyal to all truth, and gathering into 
its fellowship ' ' all who profess and call themselves Chris- 
tians, " within whose visible unity all the treasures of 
faith and order bequeathed as a heritage by -the past to 
the present, shall be possessed in common and made 
serviceable to the whole Body of Christ. Within this 
unity Christian Churches now separated from one an- 
other would retain much that has long been distinctive in 
their methods of worship and service. I understand this 
to mean that the questions of liturgical or non-liturgical 
prayers, of vestments for ministers, and of forms and 
ceremonies in general will be left entirely to the free 
choice of the respective communions. These things are 
not fundamental, but are purely matters of taste and 
custom. To those of us accustomed to them they are 
very dear, but in a reunited Church there will be no 
thought of imposing them upon others. In other words 
a dead uniformity in such practices is not only impossi- 
ble, but undesirable. Here the widest liberty will be ex- 
pected. It is believed that only through a rich diversity 
of life and devotion can the unity of the whole f ellowship 
be fulfilled. 

This means of course an adventure of good-will, and 


still more of faith, for nothing less is required than a 
new discovery of the creative resources of God. To this 
adventure we are convinced that God is now calling all 
the members of His Church. 

We believe that the visible unity of the Church will be 
found to involve the whole-hearted acceptance of the fol- 
lowing; (a) the Holy Scriptures as the record of God's 
revelation of Himself to man and as being the rule and 
ultimate standard of faith; (b) the creed, commonly 
called the Nicene, as the sufficient statement of the Chris- 
tian faith and either it or the Apostles' as the baptismal 
confession of belief; (c) the divinely instituted sacra- 
ments of Baptism and the Holy Communion as express- 
ing for all the corporate life of the whole fellowship in 
and with Christ; (d) and a ministry acknowledged by 
every part of the reunited Church as possessing not only 
the inward call of the Spirit, but also the outward com- 
mission of Christ and the authority of the whole body. 

With regard to these four essential things, we may re- 
mark that (a), (b) and (c) are now received by the over- 
whelming majority of Christians. It is true that it may 
be objected that there are certain religious bodies which 
may feel disposed to repudiate any form of creed. They 
are not prepared to accept any formal statement of their 
belief embodied in any of the historical symbols however 
venerable. They would not care to fetter themselves 
with any man-made symbol of the faith, and feel that the 
Holy Scriptures alone are quite sufficient. But is it con- 
ceivable that Christian reunion can ever take place with- 
out some such brief consensus of belief, especially when 
the proposed form contains only such facts as are 
founded on the word of Holy Scripture? We can only 
hope that in view of the great cause of reunion all the 
Churches will be willing to make some sacrifice of form 
so long as they are not asked to sacrifice any article of 
the faith. No one can reasonably doubt that the content 


of the Apostles' Creed, for instance, is in complete har- 
mony with the Holy Scriptures and is expressed almost 
in the very words of revelation. 

As to the ministry, we ask if we may not reasonably 
claim that the episcopate is the one means of providing 
such a common ministry as can be recognized by all the 
Churches. And here we say that it is not that we call In 
question for a moment the spiritual reality of the minis- 
ters of those communions which do not possess the epis- 
copate. On the contrary we thankfully acknowledge that 
these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned 
by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace. But at 
the same time we beg humbly to submit that considera- 
tions alike of history and of present experience justify 
the claim which we make on behalf of the episcopate. 
Moreover, we would urge that it is now and will prove 
to be in the future the best instrument for maintaining 
the unity and continuity of the Church. At the same 
time, we greatly desire that the office of a bishop should 
be everywhere exercised in a representative and consti- 
tutional manner and should more truly express all that 
ought to be involved for the life of the Christian family 
in the title of father in God. Nay, more, we eagerly look 
forward to the day when through its acceptance, in a 
united Church, we may all share in that grace which is 
pledged to the members of the whole body in the Apos- 
tolic right of the laying on of hands and in the joy and 
fellowship of a Eucharist in which as one family we may 
all kneel at one altar and, without any doubtfulness of 
mind, offer to the one Lord our worship and service. 

In order to secure this common ministry, which is now 
the one great need before reunion can be realized, we be- 
lieve that for all the truly equitable approach to union is 
by the way of mutual deference to one another's con- 
sciences. We therefore suggest that if the authorities of 
other communions should so desire, we are persuaded 


that terms of union having been otherwise satisfactorily 
adjusted, bishops and clergy of our communion would 
willingly accept from these authorities a form of com- 
mission of recognition which would commend our min- 
istry to their congregations as having its place in the one 
family life. Of course it is not in our power to know how 7 
far this suggestion may be acceptable to those to whom 
we offer it. We can only say that we offer it in all sin- 
cerity as a token of our longing that all ministers of 
grace, theirs and ours, shall be available for the service 
of our Lord in a united Church. 

It is our hope that the same strong motive and desire 
for reunion which animate us would lead ministers who 
have not accepted it to accept a commission through an 
episcopal ordination as obtaining for them a ministry 
throughout the whole fellowship. 

In so acting no one of us could possibly be taken to re- 
pudiate his past ministry. God forbid that any man 
should repudiate a past experience, rich in spiritual 
blessings, for himself and others. Nor would any of us- 
be dishonoring the Holy Spirit of God Whose call led us; 
to our several ministries, and Whose power enabled us 
to perform them. On the other hand we shall be pub- 
licly and formally seeking and obtaining additional rec- 
ognition of a new call to a wider service in a reunited 
Church, and imploring for ourselves God's strength and 
grace to fulfill the same. 

It is interesting, as someone has said, to notice whom 
in particular this will concern. It will concern on the 
one hand the bishops who will presumably be placed in 
a position of jurisdiction over what are now separated 
communities. It will concern on the other hand those 
ministers of Presbyterian, Congregational, and other 
Churches who desire, and who are selected to become 
bishops in the united Church. It is essential that noth- 
ing should be done which, would cause searchings of 


heart and misgivings, and there mnst be on neither side 
any feeling of inadequacy or insufficiency. Under such 
circumstances we would hope that all would do every- 
thing they could to ensure good-will in the reunited 
Church. These are the main regulations which are pro- 
posed and provided there is, as we hope, a real and ear- 
nest desire for reunion, we think that they ought to be ca- 
pable of being carried out. Unless there is that desire, 
no regulations will be possible. 

Finally, we believe that the spiritual leadership of the 
catholic Church in days to come, for which the world is 
manifestly waiting, depends upon the readiness with 
which each communion is prepared to make sacrifices for 
the sake of a common fellowship, a common ministry, 
and a common service to the world. We place this ideal 
first and foremost before ourselves and our own people. 
We call upon them to make the effort to meet the de- 
mands of a new age with a new outlook. To all other 
Christian people whom our words may reach we make 
this same appeal. We do not ask that any one commun- 
ion should consent to be absorbed in another. We do 
ask that all should unite in a new and great endeavor to 
recover and to manifest to the world the unity of the 
Body of Christ for which He prayed. 

Ethelbert Talbot. 

Bishop's House, South Bethlehem, Pa. 


We are just beginning to see clearly that the questions of 
cooperative human relationship are really the outstand- 
ing concern of our time. Not that we shall ever attain 
their complete solution, but we must do better than we are 
doing now if we are not to spend ourselves in contending 
with one another instead of creating and releasing some 
united force adequate for the conduct of a society at once 
so massive and complicated as is the society of our own 
time. No need to search for illustrations here; they 
come out to meet us. Our industrial life has problems 
enough in all reason — the supply of raw material, the 
conservation of natural resource, motive power, produc- 
tion, distribution, credit and finance, all these are chal- 
lenging enough, but more challenging still is the question 
of relationship between the estranged elements in the 
producing order, and until we, shall obtain something bet- 
ter here than is just now in sight, economic conditions 
will continue to perplex and disappoint us and spread 
contagion of their disorder into every field of life. 

We are being taught in manifold perplexing ways that 
the Churches cannot do a united or a successful work in 
the face of an industrial order divided against itself. The 
whole international situation is another illustration so 
outstanding as to need only to be named. We have just 
been taught that when international relationships break 
down as they have broken down during the last decade, 
nothing is secure, no interest nor aspect of life unaffected. 

We have long seen that the Churches must themselves 
subdue their own relationships to the essential spirit of 
Christianity. Our divisions reproach and weaken us and, 
more profoundly still, they make it hard for us to make 
our proper and saving and absolutely essential contribu- 
tion to the recasting of relationships in other fields. We 
cannot consistently preach unity to a divided world until 


we have attained a working measure of unity ourselves, 
nor proclaim brotherhood until we exemplify it. All 
these are commonplaces, but, none the less, they are 
flaming commonplaces, and all this is fundamentally in- 
terrelated. We must advance along the whole front or 
we cannot really advance at all. Failure in one region 
involves every other. We cannot be sure of our inter- 
national relationships as long as the world is shot through 
and through with economic antagonism, nor can we find a 
way out of our economic antagonism until we have se- 
cured a more cooperative world order, nor can we attain 
a working measure of Church unity in the face of embit- 
tered national or industrial relationships, nor, once more, 
can we transform national relationships until we are sure 
of a united Christian sentiment as the driving force be- 
hind it all. 

The discussion of this whole interrelated situation is 
taking precedence of everything else and there is a place 
somewhere in such discussion for the consideration of 
some rare, simple and even homely things which are at 
once essential to the realization of our hopes, and yet so 
simple and homely that we may forget them altogether. 
The whole tendency just now is to push policies too far 
ahead of supporting sentiments and creative attitudes 
and tempers. Professor Jack has just been saying some- 
thing like this in one or two extremely suggestive essays 
in The Atlantic, apropos indeed of the international situ- 
ation, but as truly applicable to the cooperation of the 
Churches or the industrial order. We must, he has been 
telling us, have the international mind before we can re- 
ally correct and put across international policies, and in- 
deed we must have the inter-church mind and if one may 
coin an awkward word, the inter-industrial mind before 
we can put across unified Church or industrial . pro- 

The bases of unity, therefore, really lie deeper than the 


pact of the League of Nations, or the Appeal to all Chris- 
tian People from the bishops assembled in the Lambeth 
Conference of 1920, or the Encyclical on the Re-establish- 
ment of Christian Peace by the pope, or any of the pro- 
grammes or proposals for unity which to-day constitute 
a literature of their own. While we should not all agree 
as to what these deeper bases of unity really are, never- 
theless, there are a few of them so simple and so funda- 
mental that one may venture to suggest them as really 
in one way or another conditioning everything we seek. 

First of all we must really be persuaded of the need 
and worth of some kind of unity. Progress in the larger 
way is always a matter of action and reaction. A posi- 
tion is strongly taken through the force of contributing 
circumstances long in action until it shapes policies, voices 
itself in philosophies and writes itself in creeds. Then, 
for one reason or another, but really because it is not big 
enough it is sharply challenged. Little by little the op- 
posing position mobilizes its forces, dictates its policies, 
voices its philosophies, writes its creeds. Then both posi- 
tions are seen to be inadequate and the next step is to try 
to reconcile them in something larger than either of them 
and including the best of both of them upon which, as 
upon one step of those " altar stairs which slope through 
darkness up to God" we may climb a little higher. The 
larger emphasis of our own immediate past has been up- 
on the free play of individual forces, the value of compe- 
tition and the creative significance of competitive groups. 
We have been taught to greatly exalt the particular group 
to which we belong. This is really a projection into 
larger fields of the gospel of individualism for which, his- 
torically, the eighteenth century supplied the book of 
Genesis, the nineteenth century the book of Acts and the 
first two decades of the twentieth century the book of 
Revelation. For it was soon enough discovered that in- 
dividualism breaks down unless it reinforces itself by 


group action. What we have so far done, therefore, is to 
create the competitive group, large or small, secular or 
ecclesiastic, and transfer to that the passions and self 
assertions of individualism. That in turn has meant an 
excessive exaltation of the group. We have made its ban- 
ners the symbol of our loyalties, made the group-interest 
identical with self-interest and we have fought for it as 
we have believed it to be fighting for us. But always we 
see beyond the battle lines thus created some massed and 
hostile force with which, at our best, we have really made 
a little truce and against which, when the truce is ended, 
we have gone out to some battle or other because we really 
believed that only in such ways as that could we save our- 
selves and our causes. We have not actually wanted 
unity, we have been afraid we should thereby lose some- 
thing which we have been greatly taught to treasure. 
And even now, as under the stress of circumstance a new 
passion for unity is coming back amongst us, it is still too 
largely confined either to the lonely and far-visioned, or 
to those who have of themselves little force and, in spite 
of Democracy, no very great voice in the conduct of 
affairs. The more capable and driving are still more in- 
terested in individual self-assertion, or class self-asser- 
tion, or denominational self-assertion, or national self- 
assertion than they are in such ways of living and work- 
ing together as shall really secure unity. We have still a 
great work of education to do before we should really 
have secured that longing for unity in whose transmuting 
fires the will for unity can be cast and tempered. 

In the second place there must still be room in our en- 
deavors after unity for the recognition of the importance 
of difference. What we are likely afraid of is a numbing 
and colorless uniformity. We are in love, and rightly so, 
with the rich variety of life. We naturally think our own 
variety of life is really better than our neighbor's, but, 
even so, a world all alike does not greatly appeal to us, 


save, paradoxically enough, as we rather welcome and 
seek our kind of alikeness. Even among those who pro- 
fess to believe in equality, there is a practical distrust and 
a pretty natural avoidance of it. We shall have to find 
room in our unities for our differences and the first step 
toward this is the recognition of the value of not our dif- 
ferences from our neighbor but our neighbor's differ- 
ences from us. Of course, there are differences which 
ought not to exist. No just man would continue a moment 
longer than is absolutely necessary in grinding poverty 
or humiliating deficiency and dependence, or any kind of 
weakness which may be used for another man's advan- 
tage. The room in which this is being written is, through 
its fire and warmth, a most agreeable contrast to the raw 
somberness of an overcast November day and the cold 
of streets and sidewalks covered with the melting snow 
of our first November storm. But, after all, it is better 
to have your own firelight eclipsed by a flood of sunshine, 
than to ask that a city shiver to exalt your own comfort. 
No, the backgrounds of differences which we want to 
keep are the higher and more radiant differences in 
whose wealth and emphasis of other aspects of truth 
and life there are contributions, without which we should 
be poor indeed. We shall never have a real unity until 
we are as solicitous for the safeguarding of what is 
really great and true in our neighbor's conscience and 
achievement and outlook upon life as we are solicitous 
for what is precious to ourselves. All this probably 
means integration rather than absolute unification, 
or at least a unity which conserves what is best in 
best in those with whom we unite. The more strongly cen- 
tralized Church will need to be greatly jealous for the lib- 
erty of those Churches whose liberty is their distinct con- 
tribution, as these in turn will need to recognize and seek 
somehow to continue the discipline of the more compact 


communions. It is easier to say that this must be done 
than to say how it can be done, but we can at least, in our 
approach to the whole matter, recognize that values dear 
to others are all our common concern. 

The third basis for unity is the willingness to use every 
instrument to the uttermost, which is capable at all of be- 
ing touched and transformed by the spirit of unity and to 
go as far as we can down roads already open to us before 
we ask for roads and bridges into an entirely unoccupied 
territory. There is an immense need of what one may 
call marginal approaches, the getting a little nearer to- 
gether and then nearer still, in ways which are open to us 
all. We may need a new machinery, doubtless we do, but 
we may begin at least by bringing a new spirit to the 
machinery which we already have and we shall doubtless 
find then that there are unexpected opportunities for the 
exercise of that spirit everywhere about us. We do not 
need to reorganize industry to make it more truly frater- 
nal, or to reorganize the whole existing ecclesiastical or- 
der to get a more fruitful cooperation of the Churches, 
nor to wipe out the boundary lines of nations to secure a 
larger internationalism. 

The fourth basis of unity is a clear recognition of the 
way in which institutions have really shaped themselves 
in answer to encompassing facts and forces, though this 
is perhaps to beg a bitterly disputed question. But as 
long as we think of any institution as possessing some 
sanction apart from the sanctity of the forces which have 
created it and the sanctity of the service which it renders, 
we shall be giving to institutions an unyielding rigidity 
and making them the barriers to progress rather than the 
facile instruments of the human soul. 

Perhaps the most hopeful thing in the pronouncement 
of the late Lambeth Conference was the changed ground 
upon which the bishops commended the episcopal order 
to Christendom. Directly they begin to argue for it on 


the basis of its utility and offer it not as the indispensable 
condition of a true Church but as the hallowed symbol of 
the Church's fellowship, they improve their whole posi- 
tion. Hereafter, as far as the episcopate is concerned, it 
is an ideal which we may or may not accept, but it is no 
longer an order which we must accept upon pain of being- 
excommunicated from the true Christian fellowship. So 
if we recognize our present economic machinery as itself 
a growth, subject to further change and not the unchang- 
ing form into which all economic life must be cast, we are 
opening a reasonable door for such changes as may in the 
future be necessary to finally overcome the antagonism 
of the different industrial orders. In a word a fourth 
basis of unity is the recognition that institutions are elas- 
tic and not inelastic things. They have been created by 
the human spirit and they are still its instrument and not 
its masters. 

A fifth basis of unity is friendship pressed to the limit. 
Human contacts are after all the mightiest solvents of hu- 
man alienations. Our neighbors, once we come really to 
know them, are strangely like ourselves, wanting what we 
want, bearing what we bear, struggling against what we 
struggle against, one with us in their deeper experiences. 
Differences in tradition, habit, language and the like 
blind us to these simple, homely truths, but once we di- 
rectly begin to know other people in friendly ways we 
discover them anew. 

We are in very great need of the extension of neigh- 
borliness. It is the lack of this, due to the mass organiza- 
tion of modern industry, which has more than anything 
else created the alienation of industrial classes. Those 
perhaps are nearest together in sympathy and outlook 
amongst whom there is the largest opportunity for neigh- 
borliness ; those perhaps are the farthest apart in sympa- 
thy and outlook amongst whom, for one reason or an- 
other, neighborliness is reduced to a minimum. Lloyd 
George recently said, in discussing with a group of men 


the misunderstandings between England and America, 
that what England and America really needed was a 
"smoking room" acquaintance. Some of us understand 
that phrase better than others, but it means the friendly 
interchange of view which comes from a relaxed infor- 
mality of kindly human contact. There is everywhere 
amongst us a wistful reaching out for neighborliness. 
There is no group, nor class, nor institution which is not 
extending, as it were, filaments of desire going out to 
meet and intertwine with other filaments of like desire. 
The world has need as never before of neighborly visita- 
tion. Travel, interchange of points of view in representa- 
tive groups, the creation of groups whose object shall be 
better mutual understanding, a literature of friendship to 
which this magazine belongs, and although such things 
are so easily within our power and so absolutely neces- 
sary that we ought for the time to be more greatly con- 
cerned about creating them than about securing the re- 
sults which they should be created to secure. Once we get 
the contacts and the results will follow. 

Another basis of unity akin to this is the recognition of 
our identities. Indeed this has already been so touched 
upon as not to need enlargement were it not for the fact 
that the want of this, perhaps more than anything else, 
is holding us apart. We need to think of people not in 
terms of their classification but in terms of their human- 
ity. English folk are folk first and English afterwards, 
and so are Americans, and Italians and Eussians and 
Germans. Eoman Catholics and Anglicans, Presbyte- 
rians and Methodists are Christians first and members of 
their communions afterwards. We are not in any position, 
through our strength, to despise our neighbor for his 
weakness, nor are we in any position, through our weak- 
ness, to do without our neighbor's help. For all this 
brings us face to face with still another basis of unity and 
that is the recognition of our interdependence. Labor 
cannot do without leadership, nor leadership without 


help. Every Church is strongest when other Churches 
are strongest. No member can die without its corruption 
affecting the entire body, nor can any member suffer 
without the pain of it shooting through every nerve. We 
have been strangely slow in recognizing this even in our 
Church relationships, and stupidly slow in recognizing it 
in our industrial relationships, and tragically slow in 
recognizing it in our international relationships. If Amer- 
ica thinks herself able to go on unimpoverished in the 
poverty of the world and unwounded in the wounds of the 
world, America will be taught presently how mistaken 
she really is. Our problems after all are common prob- 
lems. No one of us unaided is equal to the weight of so 
massive and complicated a world as ours. Once we come 
to see this and, more really still, come to feel it deeply 
then we shall be more than willing to sit at common coun- 
cil tables. We shall be more anxious for the organiza- 
tions and forces through which, in the surrender of our 
independence for the sake of our interdependence, we 
shall win back a nobler independence still. For what we 
really need is not to be independent of one another but to 
be more truly independent of what stifles the soul and be- 
littles life and we cannot win such a dependence as this 

The bases of unity then are in juster tempers and 
keener insights, better understandings, more fraternal at- 
titudes and more sincere longings for all such things as 
these. And all this calls for education and thought, and 
above all, a more generous hospitality to what is essen- 
tial and transforming in the spirit of Jesus Christ. Tem- 
pers and attitudes must underlie politics and policies and 
a transformed soul must underlie tempers and attitudes 
and there is no force great enough to achieve all this save 
essential Christianity given an open right of way and be- 
ginning with ourselves. Gaius Glenn Atkins . 

First Congregational Church, 
Detroit, Mich. 


Adopted by the Second Convention of the United Lutheran Church 
in America at Washington, October 26, 1920. 

Whereas, during the past two years the Executive Board 
has been asked repeatedly to define the attitude of the 
United Lutheran Church in America toward cooperative 
movements, both within and without the Lutheran 
Church, toward movements of various kinds looking in 
the direction of Church union, and toward organizations, 
tendencies and movements, some of them within and 
some of them without the organized Church : and 

Whereas, the constitution of the United Lutheran 
Church in America (Art. VIII, Sec. 1) and its by-laws 
(Sec. 5, Div. C, Items 1 and 2) require that the forming 
and dissolving of "relations with other bodies, organiza- 
tions and movements" lies within the power of the 
United Lutheran Church alone and that "all questions 
affecting the principles, practice and policy of the 
Church as a whole" shall be referred to the Church for 
decision : therefore, 

The Executive Board submits to the United Lutheran 
Church the following Declaration of Principles Con- 
cerning the Church and Its External Belationships, 
and recommends it for adoption. 

In order that all misunderstandings and misconstruc- 
tions of this Declaration, or of any of its parts, may be 
avoided, the United Lutheran Church in America de- 
clares in advance that it does not regard the statements 
therein contained as altering or amending the Confes- 
sions of the Church in any particular, or as changing 
the doctrinal basis of the United Lutheran Church, set 
forth in Article II of the constitution. On the contrary, 
it considers this Declaration nothing more than the ap- 


plication to present conditions of doctrines already con- 
tained in the Confessions. 

A. Concerning the Catholic Spirit in the Church 

I. In its Confessions the Evangelical Lutheran Church 
declares its belief that there is "one holy Church,' ' 
which "will continue forever." It defines this Church as 
the "congregation of saints and true believers." (Augs. 
Conf., VII and VIII.) 

II. This one holy Church performs its earthly func- 
tions and makes its presence known among men through 
groups of men, who profess to be believers in Jesus 
Christ. In these groups the Word of God is preached 
and the Sacraments are administered. To such groups 
also the name " Church' ' is given in the New Testament 
and in the Confessions of our Church. 

III. The existence of the one, holy Church is not cap- 
able of demonstration. It is a "mystery' ' that can be 
apprehended only by faith. To the eyes of men it ap- 
pears that there is not one Church, but only many 
Churches ; nevertheless, we believe that there is but one 
Church of Jesus Christ. This conviction rests upon our 
belief in the continued life of Christ in all His Chris- 
tians, binding them together into one spiritual body, of 
which He is the Head, and building them up into one 
spiritual Temple, of which He is the Corner-stone; and 
upon our belief in the efficacy of the Word of God and 
the Sacraments as means of grace (A. C, V). We be- 
lieve that wherever the Word of God is preached and 
the Sacraments are administered, the Holy Spirit works 
faith in Christ. In every such place, therefore, there are 
believers in Jesus Christ, and wherever there are be- 
lievers, there the one holy Church is present. For this 
reason we call the Word and the Sacraments "marks" 
or "signs" of the one holy Church. Therefore the Augs- 
burg Confession adds to its definition of the Church the 


words, "in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the 
Sacraments are rightly administered. ' ' 

IV. In the Nicene Creed we confess our belief that 
this Church is "one, holy, catholic and apostolic." 

1. We believe that this Church is one, because we be- 
lieve that there cannot be more than one "congregation 
of saints and true believers," or more than one spiritual 
Body of which Christ is the Head, or more than one spir- 
itual Temple of which He is the Corner-stone. 

2. We believe that this Church is holy, because we be- 
lieve that to all believers the righteousness of Christ is 
given, with the forgiveness of their sins, for which rea- 
son true believers are called "saints" in the New Testa- 
ment and in the Confessions of our Church. Moreover, 
the Holy Spirit, through the Word and the Sacraments 
preached and administered in the Churches, does pro- 
gressively create holiness of life and will and purpose 
in all those who believe, and progressively unites their 
lives with the continued life of Christ. 

3. We believe that this one holy Church is catholic, 
because we believe that, since there is but one "congre- 
gation of saints and true believers," it must include all 
the saints and true believers, of every time and place 
(Apol., Chap. IV). By the term "catholic," therefore, 
we describe that quality of universality which belongs to 
the Church as a spiritual reality, or object of faith (Cf. 
Ill, above), and raises it above all local and temporal 
forms of expression in organization, rite and ceremony. 

4. We believe that this one, holy, catholic Church is 
also apostolic, not because of the union of its members 
in any one organization which claims to possess external, 
historical connection with the apostles, but because we 
believe that the faith in Jesus Christ, which all the mem- 
bers of the one, holy catholic Church have in common, 
is the same faith that was in the hearts and lives of the 
apostles of Jesus Christ; and because we believe that 


this faith has been and still is perpetuated by the un- 
broken testimony of believers, through all the centuries 
of Christian history, from the days of the apostles to the 
present day; and because we believe that in the Holy 
Scriptures we have a permanent and authoritative record 
of that apostolic truth which is the ground of Christian 

V. Every group of professing Christians calling itself 
a Church will seek to express in its own life the attributes 
of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. This it 

1. By professing faith in Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ, 
as the Saviour of the world and the Kevealer of the will 
and love of God the Father, is necessary to the existence 
of the Church. Therefore, no group of men, however, 
organized, which does not exist as a congregation of 
professed believers in Jesus Christ, may claim the name 
of Church; for it is Christ Himself, living, by the Holy 
Spirit, in believing Christians, Who makes the Church 
one and holy. 

2. By preaching the Word and administering the Sac- 
raments. Every group calling itself a Church must 
preach the Word and administer the Sacraments, for 
these are the means through which the Holy Spirit works 
faith, and thus creates and perpetuates the one holy 
Church. Therefore, the Word and the Sacraments are 
properly called "marks" of the Church (Cf. Ill, above), 
for where they are present the Church is; where they 
are absent the Church is not and cannot be. 

In the preaching of the Word and the administration 
of the Sacraments every group of Christians seeks to 
express the apostolic character of the one holy Church. 
Every such group bases its preaching and teaching upon 
the Scriptures, and endeavors to proclaim what it has 
learned from them. Believing that it has correctly ascer- 
tained this truth, it becomes its duty to teach, preach and 


confess it fully, freely and courageously. Christians 
must not only profess their faith in Christ, but must also 
confess and publicly declare what they believe about 
Christ and His Gospel; this duty of every Christian is 
the imperative duty of every group of Christians calling 
itself a Church. 

3. By works of serving love. The ideals of love and 
service which Christ has taught as the true ideals of the 
individual Christian life, must also be the ideals of any 
group calling itself a Church. The love of Christians 
for God and His Christ, for one another and their fel- 
low-men, is a motive strong enough to drive them to 
works of service, and this love, itself a creation of God 
the Holy Spirit within the hearts of men, sets tasks for 
every group that calls itself a Church. They are tasks 
of service, not of government; of love, not of law (Cf. 
D, IV, 3, below). These works of love and service are 
a witness to the faith that lives in the whole group and 
an evidence of the presence of the living Christ, and are 
in themselves a proclamation of the Gospel. In out- 
ward form they may appear to be merely humanitarian 
and altruistic; in motive they are Christian, born of the 
love of Christ, and performed in His name and in obedi- 
ence to His command. 

4. By the attempt to secure universal acceptance of 
the truth which it holds and confesses. Such an attempt 
need not be accompanied by the effort to enlarge its own 
external organization by drawing into its membership 
Christians of other organizations, for the aim of a 
Church should be not to make proselytes, but to spread 
the truth of the Gospel. To this end it will constantly 
bear witness to the truth which it believes, and by this 
testimony, and by the cultivation of sympathy with all 
those who hold the same truth, every group will seek to 
attain universality, and thus express completely the holy 
Church's attribute of catholicity. 


5. To accomplish these purposes (Nos. 1-4 above) 
every such group will maintain the office of the minis- 
try, commanded and instituted by Christ. For the sake 
of good order and efficiency, further organization is also 
necessary, but the forms which the organization takes 
will vary with circumstances of time and place, and are, 
in themselves, matters of expediency. 

VI. Every group of professing Christians in which 
the Word of God is so preached and the Sacraments are 
so administered that men are saved therein is truly, par- 
tial and imperfect, as it may be, an expression of the one 
holy Church (Cf. II, above), inasmuch as it displays the 
marks of the Church (Cf. Ill and V, 2, above). There- 
fore, no one group can rightfully claim that it is the one, 
holy, catholic and apostolic Church in the sense in which 
these terms have been denned above (No. IV). 

We believe, however, that distinctions must be recog- 
nized between one group and another. In making these 
distinctions, we believe that those groups in which the 
Word of God is most purely preached and confessed, 
according to the Holy Scriptures, and in which the Sac- 
raments are administered in the closest conformity to 
the institution of Christ, will be the most complete ex- 
pression of the one, holy Church. For this reason it is 
necessary that, when occasion arises, any such group of 
Christians shall define its relationship to other groups 
which also claim the name of Church, as well as to other 
groups and organizations which do not bear that name. 

VII. This definition of relationships should be framed 
in the spirit of catholicity. Moved by that spirit, a 
Church will always be ready: 

1. To declare unequivocally what it believes concern- 
ing Christ and His Gospel, and to endeavor to show that 
it has placed the true interpretation upon that Gospel 
(Cf. V, 2 and 4, above), and to testify definitely and 
frankly against error. 


2. To approach, others without hostility, jealousy, sus- 
picion or pride, in the sincere and humble desire to give 
and receive Christian service. 

3. To grant cordial recognition to all agreements which 
are discovered between its own interpretation of the Gos- 
pel and that which others hold. 

4. To cooperate with other Christians in works of 
serving love (Cf. V, 3, above) in so far as this can be 
done without surrender of its interpretation of the Gos- 
pel, without denial of conviction, and without suppres- 
sion of its testimony as to what it holds to be the truth. 

B. Concerning the Eelation of the Evangelical 
Lutheran Church Bodies to One Another 

In the case of those Church bodies calling themselves 
Evangelical Lutheran, and subscribing the Confessions 
which have always been regarded as the standards of 
Evangelical Lutheran doctrine, the United Lutheran 
Church in America recognizes no doctrinal reasons 
against complete cooperation and organic union with 
such bodies. 

C. Concerning the Organic Union of Protestant 


In view of the widespread discussion concerning the 
organic union of the Protestant Churches in America, 
we declare: 

I. That we hold the union of Christians in a single 
organization to be of less importance than the agreement 
of Christians in the proclamation of the Gospel. We 
believe that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church 
exists through and under divergent forms of external 
organization. Union of organization we hold, therefore, 
to be a matter of expediency ; agreement in testimony to 
be a matter of principle. 

II. That holding the preaching of the Gospel and the 


administration of the Sacraments to be the primary func- 
tion of every Church, we believe that a clear definition 
of what is meant by "Gospel" and "Sacrament" must 
precede any organic union of the Churches. We believe 
that a permanent and valid union of Churches must be 
based upon positive agreements concerning the truth for 
which the united Church body is to stand. The Churches 
cannot unite as mere protestants, but only as confessors. 
(Cf. A, V, 2; VII, 4.) 

III. That as a necessary step toward a genuine or- 
ganic union, we believe that the Protestant Church 
bodies in America should endeavor to set forth, defi- 
nitely and positively, the views of Christian truth for 
which each of them does now actually stand, in order 
that by their clear and unequivocal testimony to what 
they hold to be the truth, the nature and extent of their 
agreements and disagreements may become apparent. 

IV. That we recognize the obligation which rests upon 
us to make a clear and full declaration concerning the 
truth which we hold, and are therefore ready, as oppor- 
tunity offers, to give answer concerning our reasons for 
accepting and maintaining the doctrines and principles 
set forth in the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran 

V. That until a more complete unity of confession is 
attained than now exists, the United Lutheran Church 
in America is bound in duty and in conscience to main- 
tain its separate identity as a witness to the truth which 
it knows ; and its members, its ministers, its pulpits, its 
fonts and it altars must testify only to that truth. 

D. Concerning Cooperative Movements Among the 
Protestant Churches 

In view of the many proposals for cooperation of the 
Protestant Churches in various departments of practical 
activity, and in view of the many organizations already 


formed, and in process of formation, for the carrying 
on of such cooperative work, we declare: 

I. That it is our earnest desire to cooperate with other 
Church bodies in all such works as can be regarded as 
works of serving love, through which the faith of Chris- 
tians finds expression; provided, that such cooperation 
does not involve the surrender of our interpretation of 
the Gospel, the denial of conviction, or the suppression 
of our testimony to what we hold to be the truth. (Cf. 
A, V, 4; VII, 3, above.) In this connection, however, 
we call attention to the constitution of the United Luth- 
eran Church in America, Article VIII, Section 1, "No. 
synod, conference or board, or any official representa- 
tive thereof, shall have the power of independent affilia- 
tion with general organizations and movements," and 
also to the by-laws, Article V, Division C, Item 2, "No 
official relationship with any other ecclesiastical bodies 
or their agencies shall be entered into by any board or 
committee of the United Lutheran Church in America, 
without the approval of the Church. ' ' 

II. That we cannot give general approval to all co- 
operative movements and organizations of the Churches, 
since we hold that cooperation is not an end in itself, 
but merely a means to an end. Our attitude toward any 
such organization or movement must be determined by a 
consideration of 

(a) The purposes which it seeks to accomplish. 

(b) The principles on which it rests. 

(c) The effect which our participation will produce 
upon the independent position of our Church as a wit- 
ness to the truth of the Gospel which we confess. (Cf. 
C, VII, above.) 

III. That, holding the following doctrines and prin- 
ciples, derived from the Holy Scriptures, to be funda- 
mental to the Christian message, we propose them as a 
positive basis of practical cooperation among the Prot- 


estant Churches. To avoid all possible misunderstand- 
ings or misconstructions of these statements, we declare 
that we do not regard them as a summary of Lutheran 
doctrine, or as an addition to, a substitute for, or a modi- 
fication of the Confessions of our Church ; nor do we 
propose them as an adequate basis for an organic union 
of the Churches, but merely as a criterion by which it 
may be possible for us to determine our attitude toward 
proposed movements of cooperation. 

1. The Fatherhood of God, revealed in His Son Jesus 
Christ, and the sonship bestowed by God, through Christ, 
upon all who believe in Him. 

2. The true Godhead of Jesus Christ, and His redemp- 
tion of the world by His life and death and resurrection ; 
and His living presence in His Church. 

3. The continued activity of God the Holy Spirit 
among men, calling them into the fellowship of Jesus 
Christ, and enlightening and sanctifying them through 
the gifts of His grace. 

4. The supreme importance of the Word of God and 
the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as 
the means through which the Holy Spirit testifies of 
Christ and thus creates and strengthens faith. (In com- 
mon with the whole Evangelical Lutheran Church, we 
confess the mystery of the real presence in the Sacra- 
ment of the Lord's Supper, and we invite all Christians 
to a renewed study of the teachings of the Holy Scrip- 
tures concerning this Sacrament, and the Sacrament of 
holy Baptism.) 

5. The authority of the prophetic and apostolic Scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testaments, as the only rule 
and standard by which all doctrines and teachers are to 
be judged. 

6. The reality and universality of sin, and the inability 
of men, because of sin, to attain righteousness or earn 
salvation through their own character or works. 


7. The love, and the righteousness, of God, Who for 
Christ's sake bestows forgiveness and righteousness 
upon all who believe in Christ. 

8. The present existence upon earth of the kingdom 
of God, founded by His Son Jesus Christ, not as an ex- 
ternal organization, but as a spiritual reality and an ob- 
ject of faith. 

9. The hope of Christ's second coming, to be the Judge 
of the living and the dead, and to complete the kingdom 
of God. 

IV. That, in view of the above statements, our atti- 
tude toward proposed cooperative movements and or- 
ganizations, already denned in principle in Section A, 
VII and D, I, above, must be subject to the following 
limitations : 

1. We cannot enter into any cooperative movement or 
organization which denies any of the doctrines or prin- 
ciples set forth in III, above. 

2. We cannot enter into any organization or move- 
ment which limits the cooperating Churches in their con- 
fession of the truth or their testimony against error. In 
all cooperative movements we claim the right, and re- 
gard it as a duty, to testify freely to the truth as it is set 
forth in the Confessions of our Church, and we believe 
that the same right must be guaranteed to every partici- 
pating Church. All such testimony should receive a 
courteous and respectful hearing. 

3. We cannot enter into cooperative movements or 
organizations whose purposes lie outside the proper 
sphere of Church activity. In determining what that 
sphere is, we must be guided by the fundamental prin- 
ciple that the functions of the Church are the preaching 
of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments, and 
the performances of works of love (Cf. A, V, above). 
We hold that the use of the Church organization as an 
agency for securing the enactment and enforcement of 


law, or for the application of other methods of external 
force, is foreign to the true purpose for which the 
Church exists. 

V. That there are organizations and movements into 
which we cannot enter as a Church, in regard to which, 
however, the Church may definitely declare itself and 
which it may heartily commend to the pastors and mem- 
bers of its congregations as important spheres of activity 
for Christians, such as movements and organizations for 
social and political reform, the enforcement of law and 
order, the settlement of industrial conflicts, the improve- 
ment of the material environments of life, and the like. 

E. Concerning Movements and Organizations 
Injurious to the Christian Faith 

In view of the prevalence throughout our land of doc- 
trines which are subversive of the Christian faith; and 
in view of the indifference manifested by many Christian 
people to the doctrines and principles of the teachers, 
sects and organizations which seek their adherence and 
support; and in view of the fact that through the ac- 
ceptance of religious and other teachings which contra- 
dict the Gospel of Christ, the faith of Christians is en- 
dangered ; we declare 

I. That we solemnly warn all our pastors and the 
members of our congregations against all teachers, sects 
and organizations of any kind, whose doctrines and prin- 
ciples contradict the truths set forth in Section D, III, 
of this Declaration, or which limit their adherents or 
members in a free confession of their Christian faith. 
(Cf. A, V, 3, above.) 

II. That we warn them especially against all teachers, 
sects and societies whose doctrines and principles deny 
the reality of sin, the personality of God, the full and 
complete Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His re- 
demption of the world by His sufferings and death, and 


the truth and authority of the Holy Scriptures; as well 
as against all teachers, sects and societies which teach 
that men can be saved from sin, or can become righteous 
before God, by their own works or by any other means 
than the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ. We 
believe that such doctrines are not only not Christian, 
but are anti- Christian and destructive of true Christian 
faith and life. 

III. That inasmuch as these and other false and dan- 
gerous doctrines are widely spread, not only by the ac- 
tivity of individual teachers, but also by the dissemina- 
tion of literature and through the agency of societies and 
other organizations, calling themselves by various names 
which oftentimes conceal the real nature of the doctrines 
and principles for which they stand ; we therefore lay it 
upon the consciences of the pastors and of the members 
of all our congregations to scrutinize with the utmost 
care the doctrines and principles of all teachers, sects, 
organizations and societies of every sort which seek their 
adherence and support, and to refuse such adherence and 
support in all cases of conflict or possible contradiction 
between these principles and doctrines and those set forth 
in Holy Scripture and in the Confessions of the Church. 
In the application of this principle the Church should 
always appeal to a conscience which it is her sacred duty 
to enlighten, patiently and persistently, from the Word 
of God. (Cf., also constitution of the United Lutheran 
Church in America, Art. VIII, Sec. 6.) 



Benedict XV, By Divine Providence Pope. 

To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and 

Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with 

the Holy See 

Venerable Brethren, 

Health and Apostolic Benediction 

Peace, the beautiful gift of Grod, the name of which, as 
St. Augustine says, is the sweetest word to our hearing 
and the best and most desirable possession 1 ; peace, 
which was for more than four years implored by the ar- 
dent wishes of all good peoples, by the prayers of pious 
souls and the tears of mothers, begins at last to shine 
upon the nations. At this we are indeed the happiest of 
all, and heartily do we rejoice. But this joy of our pater- 
nal heart is disturbed by many bitter anxieties, for if in 
most places peace is in some sort established and treaties 
signed, the germs of former enmities remain; and you 
well know, venerable brethren, that there can be no 
stable peace or lasting treaties, though made after long 
and difficult negotiations and duly signed, unless there be 
return of mutual charity to appease hate and banish 
enmity. This, then, venerable brethren, is the anxious 
and dangerous question upon which we wish to dwell and 
to put forward recommendations to be brought home to 
your people. 

For ourselves, never since, by the hidden designs of 
God, we were raised to this chair have we ceased to do 
everything in our power from the very beginning of the 
war that all the nations of the world might resume cor- 
dial relations as soon as possible. To that end we never 
ceased to pray, to repeat exhortations, to propose ways 

(1) Civitate Dei. I XIX, C. II. 


of arrangement, to try every means, in fact, to open by 
divine aid, a path to a just, honourable and lasting peace ; 
and at the same time we exercised all our paternal care 
to alleviate everywhere the terrible load of sorrow and 
disaster of every sort by which the immense tragedy 
was accompanied. 

And now, just as from the beginning of our troubled 
pontificate the charity of Jesus Christ led us to work 
both for the return of peace and to alleviate the horrors 
of the war, so now that comparative peace has been con- 
cluded, this same charity urges us to exhort all the chil- 
dren of the Church, and all mankind, to clear their hearts 
of bitterness, and to give place to mutual love and con- 

Forgiveness and Reconciliation 

There is no need from us of long proof to show that 
society would incur the risk of great loss if, while peace 
is signed, latent hostility and enmity were to continue 
among the nations. There is no need to mention the loss 
of all that maintains and fosters civil life, such as com- 
merce and industry, art and literature, which flourish 
only when the nations are at peace. But what is even 
more important, grave harm would accrue to the form 
and essence of the Christian life, which consists essen- 
tially in charity and the preaching of which is called the 
Gospel of peace 2 . 

You know well, and we have frequently reminded you 
of it, nothing was so often and so carefully inculcated 
on His disciples by Jesus Christ as this precept of mu- 
tual charity as the one which contains all others. Christ 
called it the new commandment, His very own, and de- 
sired that it should be the sign of Christians by which 
they might be distinguished from all others ; and on the 
eve of His death it was His last testament to His dis- 
ciples to love one another and thus try to imitate the in- 

(2) Eph. VI. IS. 


effable "unity of the three divine Persons in the Trinity. 
"That they may be one as we also are one . . . that they 
may be made perfect in one" 3 . 

The apostles, following in the steps of the divine Mas- 
ter, and conforming to His word and commands, were 
unceasing in their exhortation to the faithful: " Before 
all things have a constant mutual charity among your- 
selves ' ,4 . " But above all these things have charity which 
is the bond of perfection" 5 . "Dearly beloved, let us love 
one another for charity is God" 6 . Our brethren of the 
first Christian ages faithfully observed these commands 
of Jesus Christ and the apostles. They belonged to dif- 
ferent and rival nations; yet they willingly forgot their 
causes of quarrel and lived in perfect concord, and such a 
union of hearts was in striking contrast with the deadly 
enmities by which human society was then consumed. 

What has already been said in favour of charity holds 
good for the inculcation of the pardoning of injuries 
which is no less solemnly commanded by the Lord: "But 
I say to you, love your enemies; do good to them that 
hate you ; pray for those that persecute you and calumni- 
ate you that you may be the children of your Father who 
is in Heaven, Who maketh His sun to rise upon the good 
and the bad." 7 . Hence that terribly severe warning 
of the Apostle St. John. "Whoever hateth his brother is 
a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eter- 
nal life abiding in himself" 8 . 

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in teaching us how to pray to 
God, makes us say that we wish for pardon as we forgive 
others: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them 
that trespass against us" 9 . And if the observance of 
this law is sometimes hard and difficult, we have not only 

(3) Tohn VII. 21-23. 

(4) Peter IV. 8. 

(5) Col. III. 14. 

(6) I John IV. 7. 

(7) Matt, V. 44, 45. 

(8) I John III. 15. 

(9) Matt. VI. 12. 


the timely assistance of the grace of our divine Redeemer 
but also His example to help us to overcome the difficulty. 
For as He hung on the Cross He thus excused before His 
Father those who so unjustly and wickedly tortured him : 
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they 
do" 10 . We then, who should be the first to imitate the 
pity and lovingkindness of Jesus Christ, whose Vicar, 
without any merit of our own, we are ; with all our heart, 
and following His example, we forgive all our enemies 
who knowingly or unknowingly have heaped and are still 
heaping on our person and our work every sort of vitu- 
peration, and we embrace all in our charity and benevo- 
lence and neglect no opportunity to do them all the good 
in our power. That is indeed what Christians worthy of 
the name ought to do toward those who during the war 
have done them wrong. 

Christian charity ought not to be content with not hat- 
ing our enemies and loving them as brothers; it also 
demands that we treat them with kindness, following the 
rule of the divine Master Who "went about doing good 
and healing all that were oppressed by the devil" 11 , 
and finished His mortal life, the course of which was 
marked by good deeds, by shedding His blood for them. 
So said St. John: "In this we have known the charity of 
God, because He hath laid down His life for us, and we 
ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. He that 
hath substance of this world and shall see his brother in 
need and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth 
the charity of Grod abide in him? My little children, let us 
love not in word nor by tongue, but in deed and in 
truth" 12 . 

Never indeed was there a time when we should ' l stretch 
the bounds of charity" more than in these days of uni- 
versal suffering and sorrow; never perhaps as to-day has 

(10) Luke XXIII. 34. 

(11) Acts X. 38. 

(12) I John iii. 16-18. 


humanity so needed that universal beneficence which 
springs from the love of others, and is full of sacrifice 
and zeal. For if we look around where the fury of the 
war has been let loose we see immense regions utterly 
desolate, uncultivated and abandoned; multitudes re- 
duced to want of food, clothing and shelter ; innumerable 
widows and orphans reft of everything, and an incred- 
ible number of enfeebled beings, particularly children 
and young people, who carry on their bodies the ravages 
of this atrocious war. 

When one regards all these miseries by which the hu- 
man race is stricken one inevitably thinks of the traveller 
in the Gospel 13 who, going down from Jerusalem to 
Jericho, fell among thieves, who robbed him, and covered 
him with wounds and left him half dead. The two cases 
are very similar; and as to the traveller there came the 
good Samaritan, full of compassion, who bound up his 
wounds, pouring in oil and wine, took him to an inn, and 
undertook all care for him, so too is it necessary that 
Jesus, of Whom the Samaritan was the figure, should 
lay His hands upon the wounds of society. 

This work, this duty the Church claims as her own as 
heir and guardian of the spirit of Jesus Christ — the 
Church whose entire existence is a marvellously varied 
tissue of all kinds of good deeds, the Church, "that real 
mother of Christians in the full sense of the word, who 
has such tenderness of love and charity for one's neigh- 
bours that she can offer the best remedies for the differ- 
ent evils which afflict souls on account of their sins." 
That is why she "treats and teaches children with ten- 
derness, young people with firmness, old people with 
great calm, taking account not only of the age but also 
the condition of soul of each" 14 . It would be difficult 
to exaggerate the effect of this many-sided Christian 

(13) Luke X. 30 et seq. 

(14) Augustin de Moribus Ecc. Cat. lib I. C. 30. 


beneficence in softening the heart and thns facilitating 
the return of tranquillity to the nations. 

Therefore, venerable brethren, we pray you and ex- 
hort you in the mercy and charity of Jesus Christ, strive 
with all zeal and dilgence not only to urge the faithful 
entrusted to your care to abandon hatred and to pardon 
offences ; but, and what is more immediately practical, to 
promote all those works of Christian benevolence which 
bring aid to the needy, comfort to the afflicted and pro- 
tection to the weak, and to give opportune and appro- 
priate assistance of every kind to all who have suffered 
from the war. It is our special wish that you should ex- 
hort your priests, as the ministers of peace, to be assidu- 
ous in urging this love of one's neighbour and even of 
enemies which is the essence of the Christian life, and by 
" being all things to all men" 15 and giving an example to 
others, wage war everywhere on enmity and hatred, thus 
doing a thing most agreeable to the loving heart of Jesus 
and to him who, however unworthily, holds His place on 
earth. In this connection Catholic writers and journalists 
should be invited to clothe themselves "as elect of God, 
holy and beloved, with pity and kindness" 16 . Let them 
show this charity in their writings by abstaining not only 
from false and groundless accusations, but also from all 
intemperance and bitterness of language, all of which is 
contrary to the law of Christ and does but reopen sores 
as yet unhealed, seeing that the slightest touch is a seri- 
ous irritant to a heart whose wounds are recent. 

All that we have said here to individuals about the 
duty of charity we wish to say also to the peoples who 
have been delivered from the burden of a long war, in 
order that, when every cause of disagreement has been, 
as far as possible, removed, and without prejudice to the 
rights of justice, they may resume friendly relations 

(15) I Cor. ix.. 22. 

(16) Col. iii. 12. 


among themselves. The Gospel has not one law of 
charity for individuals and another for states and na- 
tions, which are indeed but collections of individuals. 
The war being now over, people seem called to a general 
reconciliation not only from motives of charity, but from 
necessity; the nations are naturally drawn together by 
the need they have of one another, and by the bond of 
mutual goodwill, bonds which are to-day strengthened by 
the development of civilization and the marvelous in- 
crease of communication. 

Truly, as we have already said, this apostolic see has 
never wearied of teaching during the war such pardon 
of offences and the fraternal reconciliation of the peo- 
ples, in conformity with the most holy law of Jesus 
Christ, and in agreement with the needs of civil life and 
human intercourse ; nor did it allow that amid dissension 
and hate these moral principles should be forgotten. 
With all the more reason then, now that the treaties of 
peace are signed, does it proclaim these principles as, for 
example, it did a short time ago in the letter to the bish- 
ops of Germany 17 , and in that addressed to the arch- 
bishop of Paris 18 . 

And this concord between civilized nations is main- 
tained and fostered by the modern custom of visits and 
meetings at which the heads of states and princes are ac- 
customed to treat of matters of special importance. So 
then, considering the changed circumstances of the times 
and the dangerous trend of events, and in order to en- 
courage this concord, we would not be unwilling to relax 
in some measure the severity of the conditions justly 
laid down by our predecessors, when the civil power of 
the apostolic see was overthrown, against the official vis- 
its of the heads of Catholic states to Rome. But at the 
same time we formally declare that this concession, 
which seems counselled or rather demanded by the 
grave circumstances in which to-day society is placed, 

(17) Litterae Apost. Diuturni, xv Jul., MCMXIX. 

(18) Dpist. Amor Me Singularis, vii Oct., MCMXIX. 


must not be interpreted as a tacit renunciation of its 
sacrosanet rights by the apostolic see, as if it acquiesced 
in the unlawful situation in which it is placed. Bather 
do we seize this opportunity to renew for the same rea- 
sons the protests which our predecessors have several 
times made, not in the least moved thereto by human in- 
terests, but in fulfilment of the sacred duty of their 
charge to defend the rights and dignity of this apostolic 
see; once again demanding, and with even greater in- 
sistence now that peace is made among the nations, that 
"for the head of the Church, too, an end may be put to 
that abnormal condition which in so many ways does such 
serious harm to tranquillity among the peoples " 19 . 

Things being thus restored, the order required by jus- 
tice and charity re-established and the nations reconciled, 
it is much to be desired, venerable brethren, that all 
states, putting aside mutual suspicion, should unite in 
one league, or rather a sort of family of peoples, calcu- 
lated both to maintain their own independence and safe- 
guard the order of human society. What specially, 
amongst other reasons, calls for such an association of 
nations, is the need generally recognized of making every 
effort to abolish or reduce the enormous burden of the 
military expenditure which states can no longer bear, in 
order to prevent these disastrous wars or at least to re- 
move the danger of them as far as possible. So would 
each nation be assured not only of its independence but 
also of the integrity of its territory within its just fron- 

The Church will certainly not refuse her zealous aid to 
states united under the Christian law in any of their un- 
dertakings inspired by justice and charity, inasmuch 
as she is herself the most perfect type of universal soci- 
ety. She possesses in her organization and institutions a 
wonderful instrument for bringing this brotherhood 
among men, not only for their eternal salvation but also 

(19) Utt. Enc. Ad Beatissimi, i Nov. MCMXIV. 


for their material well-being in this world ; she leads them 
through temporal well-being to the sure acquisition of 
eternal blessings. It is the teaching of history that when 
the Church pervaded with her spirit the ancient and bar- 
barous nations of Europe, little by little the many and 
varied differences that divided them were diminished and 
their quarrels extinguished ; in time they formed a homo- 
geneous society from which sprang Christian Europe 
which, under the guidance and auspices of the Church, 
whilst preserving a diversity of nations, tended to a unity 
that favoured its prosperity and glory. On this point St. 
Augustine well says: "This celestial city, in its life here 
on earth, calls to itself citizens of every nation, and forms 
out of all the peoples one varied society ; it is not harassed 
by differences in customs, laws and institutions, which 
serve to the attainment or the maintenance of peace on 
earth ; it neither rends nor destroys anything but rather 
guards all and adapts itself to all ; however these things 
may vary among the nations, they are all directed to the 
same end of peace on earth as long as they do not hinder 
the exercise of religion, which teaches the worship of the 
true, supreme God" 20 . And the same holy doctor thus 
addresses the Church: "Citizens, peoples and all men, 
thou, recalling their common origin, shalt not only unite 
among themselves, but shalt make them brothers" 21 . 

To come back to what we said at the beginning, we 
turn affectionately to all our children and conjure them in 
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to forget mutual dif- 
ferences and offences and draw together in the bonds of 
Christian charity, from which none are excluded and 
within which none are strangers. We fervently exhort 
all the nations, under the inspiration of Christian benev- 
olence, to establish a true peace among themselves and 
join together in an alliance which shall be just and there- 
fore lasting. And lastly we appeal to all men and all 

(20) De Civitate Dei, lib xix, cap. 17. 

(21) De Moribus Bcc. Cat. i, cap 30. 


peoples to join in mind and heart with the Catholic 
Church and through the Church with Christ the Ee- 
deemer of the human race, so that we may address to 
them in very truth the words of St. Paul to the Ephe- 
sians: "But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes 
were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 
For He is our peace, Who hath made both one, and 
breaking down the middle wall of partition . . . kill- 
ing the enmities in himself. And coming He preached 
peace to you that were far off and peace to them that were 
nigh" 22 . 

Nor less appropriate are the words which the same 
apostle addressed to the Colossians : ' ' Lie not to one 
another: stripping yourselves of the old man with his 
deeds. And putting on the new, him who is renewed unto 
knowledge according to the image of Him that created it. 
Where there is neither Gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor 
uncircumcision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free. 
But Christ is all and in all" 23 . 

Meanwhile, trusting in the protection of Mary the vir- 
gin immaculate, who not long ago we directed should be 
universally invoked as "Queen of Peace," as also in the 
intercession of the three blessed to whom we have decreed 
the honour of saints, we humbly implore the Holy Ghost 
the Paraclete that He may "graciously grant to the 
Church the gifts of unity and peace" 24 , and may renew 
the face of the earth by a fresh outpouring of His 
charity for the salvation of all. As an earnest of these 
heavenly gifts and as a pledge of our paternal benevo- 
lence, we impart with all our heart to you, venerable 
brethren, to all your clergy and people, the apostolic 

Given at St. Peter's, Eome, the Feast of Pentecost, 
1920, and in the sixth year of our pontificate. 
Benedict XV, Pope, 

(22) Eph. ii, 13 et seq. 

(23) Col. iii. 9-11. 

(24) Secreta in Solemn, Corpus Christi. 


To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly. 

Dear Sir: — Without attempting to answer directly 
some of the critics of my letter in the October number of 
The Quarterly, I move to say that this is no time to be 
apologizing for divisions in the Church. There is no 
reason why Churches of the same family group should 
not get together in the next few years, unless denom- 
inational pride and sectarian selfishness continue to dom- 
inate the various denominations. Neither is there any 
reason why some of the larger communions of different 
groups could not enter into cooperative agreements now. 
Competing Churches are unchristian irrespective of what 
their orthodoxy may be. I am not interested in their 
prayers nor their sermons nor their creedal statements, 
but to their prayers, sermons and creeds is given con- 
tradiction by their competing in a given territory for the 
leading place. The whole programme is opposed to the 
religion of Jesus and recalls what Jesus said in the days 
of His flesh: "Ye compass sea and land to make one 
proselyte ; and when he is become so, ye make him two- 
fold more a son of hell than yourselves.' ' It is this kind 
of policy that has been the weakening factor of the 
Church and for pious people to hide behind it simply be- 
cause it exists and say it is the will of the Lord because 
we are witnessing for some half truth may be classed un- 
der those hypocritical pretensions of the Jewish sects 
which Jesus so severely indicted. 

Recently there was held in St. Louis, Missouri, a con- 
vention of dealers in paints, varnishes, etc. Those six 
hundred men spent a week in giving themselves to finding 
the basis of cooperation and in their years of work they 
have so far exceeded the Church in cooperation that one 
is simply amazed when he reads the minutes of a group 


of men selling paints and varnishes to find how much 
wiser they have been in putting out their products than 
the Church has been in putting out its products. This 
mercantile organization has successfully abandoned com- 
petition and established cooperation, while the Churches 
which are putting out the only article for the world's re- 
demption, are maintaining a policy of competition that 
ultimately means death. One of the conundrums which 
some of us are trying to solve is why the Church should 
be at the tail end of things in cooperation instead of set- 
ting the example of the evils of competition to dealers in 
paints and varnishes. 

I read with interest in your last issue the Appeal of 
the Anglican bishops and I think its spirit is beautiful 
and its approach reverential. They are beginning at the 
right place when they insist upon a generally recognized 
ministry. Every preacher of the gospel or prophet or 
priest of God ought to have the freedom to minister at 
all altars and preach from all pulpits. That must come 
and I hail with joy any move that contributes to that 

Facing the condition as we have it now it is most dis- 
couraging with several kinds of baptisms and several - 
kinds of confirmations and several kinds of creeds and 
several kinds of denominational names, all making a med- 
ley of the sublimest task that has ever been committed to 
men. If the Episcopal bishop is willing to be ordained 
to the privileges of your communion, why is it that you 
are not willing to be ordained to the privileges of his 
communion ! Would he receive you for ordination if you 
look upon his orders as he now looks upon yours ? If you 
accept ordination at his hands would you be bound to the 
doctrines of his Church as he would be if he accepted or- 
dination at your hands? Does ordination carry with it 
the sectarian implication of loyalty to the denomination 
that ordains you! Is it not necessary to find a universal 


principle in ordination so that one may be ordained by 
those of another communion, without separating him 
from his own communion, but instead deepen his relation- 
ship with Christ and his brethren? 

There are religious bodies who feel they must guard 
one's confession of Christ and one's Baptism into Christ 
and one's confirmation, tying them up with their denom- 
ination. I am raising the question with you whether this 
position can be maintained. Really is it not true that 
confession and Baptism and confirmation are universal 
practices and as such one entering into these cannot be 
rightly tied up to any denomination ? 

The world is interested in religion, not in the things 
about which we differ. A man proves his religion not be- 
cause he says the Nicene Creed or is confirmed by the 
bishop or partakes of the Sacrament every Sunday, but 
he proves his religion by his conduct, which is the ex- 
pression of a living faith. I should like to know why you 
do not call to task some of these deceptions to the truth. 
I am not talking about heresies as related to theology, 
but heresies as related to the common conduct of Chris- 
tianity. Jesus taught us that the only way that we could 
know that a man is a follower of His, is by his conduct. 
Is it not possible for us to get back to New Testament 
principles? I have often wondered why there is no re- 
ligious body on the face of the earth that is courageous 
enough to take the New Testament and live by it as Jesus 
taught us to do, covering the whole field of our relation 
to God and our fellows, making the interpretation of 
love the prime characteristic of individual experience. 
It would be a difficult standard to set up in the world 
these days and it would doubtless be costly to those who 
undertook to do it, but the Church some day has to come 
to that standard or else deteriorate. 

Your account of the Switzerland conferences is inter- 
esting and getting together has great power, but I am 


wondering why a thousand conferences cannot be held all 
over the world just such as those held in Switzerland. Is 
it that the ministry to whom we must look for guidance 
has not developed the conscience upon this grave sub- 
ject? If the conscience has not been developed out of the 
catas trophy of the World War, what greater voice could 
one desire to call all Churches into cooperation and sac- 
rifice? Each denomination appears now to be putting 
forth its best efforts to entrench itself against the ap- 
proaches of unity. They have raised great sums of 
money for their respective denominational interests. It 
is so belittling and unworthy that one wonders why it 
should have place in the thinking of the great and rever- 
ent minds of this day. Far more important is the getting 
together in actual cooperation and union. Many of these 
bodies are working in the same community competing 
with each other and still living and are thereby proving 
that there is power in the religion of Jesus. 

If I am pushing you too hard for answers to these ques- 
tions I should be glad for some of the readers of The 
Quarterly to venture to answer. We have got to be 
frank. We have got to see where we are. We have got to 
know that grave responsibilities are upon us, and we have 
got to go to our task in the fear of God. The past can 
take care of itself, for it is already fixed, but the future 
is to be made and our pattern for it ought not to be 
gotten out of the past, but instead out of the rising spir- 
itual inspirations of these days. Is it not possible to 
bring groups together in all the communities of Christen- 
dom and have a programme of prayer in order to bring 
to God and to our brothers hearts of penitence 1 

Very sincerely, 

Anthony Opeheye. 



The most powerful movement for Christian unity in 
the world to-day is the Federal Council of the Churches 
of Christ in America. It arose at the right time. It 
arose in the right way. It arose to make permanent the 
ideals of Christianity in practical cooperation of Amer- 
ican Protestants in service rather than in an attempt to 
unite upon definitions of theology and polity. It has 
grown since its organization in 1908 — not particularly in 
numerical strength beyond the normal growth of the 
American communions that came in it at its beginning 
and that are still in its membership — but it has grown in 
the thought of the nation, grown in its statesmanlike 
grasp in the great problems that concern the Church, 
grown in its practical efficiency in meeting the needs of 
the times, and grown in favor with God and man. 

Its fourth quadrennial meeting in Boston last month 
revealed its place in the American Church life as no 
other of its quadrennial meetings has ever done. That 
does not mean the programme and addresses were better 
than in any previous meeting. They were of a high 
standard as they always have been, but the Council itself 
revealed its service to American and world-wide Chris- 
tianity, its undisputed place of priority in American 
Christian cooperation, and its permanency in the Chris- 
tian life of the nation. It has taken time to do all this, 
but that these things have been accomplished is not only 
a satisfaction but a prophecy of closer affiliation of 
Protestant forces and the assurance of a deeper right- 
eousness for the nation and the world. 

Its programme dealt with the present day opportunity 


and obligation of the Church as related to the national 
government, social justice, the American ideals, our heri- 
tage from the Pilgrim fathers, facing the future, our 
present interdenominational situation, our service in the 
community, conditions in the rural community, Christian 
internationalism, a world-wide brotherhood, including our 
obligations to the Orient, to Latin America and to the 
Churches in Europe and European and Asiatic relief 
work, our missionary responsibility in both home fields 
and foreign lands, statements from cooperative move- 
ments, social problems, temperance crusade, Christian 
education, prayer and preparation for the future. The 
speakers gave utterance to messages of worth. Aside 
from our American speakers were the Rev. R. C. Gillie, 
president elect of the National Council of the Evangelical 
Free Churches of England, the Rev. Alexander Ramsey, 
former moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Eng- 
land, and General Robert Georges Nivelle, delegate from 
the French Protestant Federation. Besides these there 
were representatives from other lands, such as China, 
Holland, Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Mexico and 

The published reports of the commissions and commit- 
tees include valuable data. It is to be hoped that these 
will be published in a single volume for a careful study. 
They present the work of the commissions dealing with 
international justice and good-will, relations with relig- 
ious bodies in Europe, relations with France and Bel- 
gium, relations with the Orient, Christian education, 
evangelism, Church and social service, Church and com- 
mon life, Negro Churches, temperance, foreign missions, 
interchurch federations, army and navy chaplains, relig- 
ious press, religious outlook, American Bible Society, etc. 

The report of the Committee on Methods of Coopera- 
tion included the following recommendations: 

1. The Council believes that the time has come for fuller action on its 
part in the fulfillment of the purpose of its establishment "for the prose- 


cution of work that can be better done in union than in separation/' The 
Council instructs the Executive and Administrative Committees to plan 
the work of the Council in accordance with this view, ever having in mind 
its duly defined field of constitutional action and taking such steps as will 
maintain the closest possible relationships between it and the constituent 

2. The Council instructs the Executive Committee to strengthen the 
secretarial staff of the Council by the appointment of such additional 
secretaries as it may deem necessary to enable the Council to carry forward 
a larger work with the confidence and support of the Churches. 

3. The Council requests the constituent bodies to provide for the sup- 
port of the Council and its work on the scale of $300,000 per annum for 
the next two years, and it asks these bodies to accept their per capita ap- 
portionment of this amount. 

4. The Council agrees to call such a conference of the inter-board 
agencies as has been suggested, for the purposes specified, with the under- 
standing that any general plan of cooperation involving the denominations 
in any way not already approved by them in connection with the Federal 
Council or the inter-board bodies must be referred to the denominational 
courts or other authorities. 

5. The Council approves the statement of the Committee on Methods 
of Cooperation with regard to the readiness of the Council to adjust its 
organization, within its constitutional character and responsibility to the 
Churches, in any way that may be necessary to enable it to be of service 
to the Churches or to any of their agencies. 

6. The Council refers to the Administrative Committee with power the 
article numbered eight, of the By-laws, with regard to the Commissions of 
the Council, and authorizes it to make any changes which it may deem wise 
in the commission and committee organization (including the Administra- 
tive Committee itself) of the Council. 

7. The Council expresses the hope that out of the experiences and dis- 
cussions of the present time there may come the achievement of a richer 
form of expression of that "spirit of fellowship, service, and cooperation" 
in which the Federal Council began and which it is its duty and its joy 
to promote. 

In the last session the report of the Committee on Mes- 
sage to the Churches was presented. This message is 
timely, urgent and prophetic. It says : 

First of all, then, we would set our own hearts right with God. Unless 
our motives be single, and our surrender unreserved, God Himself cannot 
do through us what He desires. In all humility, therefore, we would con- 
fess before Him our sins, praying Him to purge us of our pride and self- 
complacency and by His Spirit to create in us that mind of Christ which 
shall fit us to minister in His name to a world in need. 

Next we would thank God for the new demonstration which the war has 
brought of the unshakable foundation upon which our faith is laid: for the 
clear revelation of the central place which religion holds in the life of men; 
for the confirmation of Christ's teaching concerning the unity of mankind 
and our membership in one another; for the sharpening of the contrast be- 
tween the way of self and the way of the cross; for the extent to which 
already in our standards, both personal and social, we judge success or 
failure by the ideals of Christ. With special gratitude would we recognize 
the increasing experience of cooperation among the Churches which the war 
has brought, our growing confidence in one another, our resolute purpose, 


God helping us, to carry to completion the work which in His name we 
have begun. 

What is this work to which our Master summons Us? It is to help men 
everywhere to realize the kind of life that befits free personalities who ac- 
cept the standards of Jesus Christ. We must show men not by word only, 
but by deed, what Christian discipleship means for men living in such a 
world and facing such conditions as confront us to-day — what it means for 
the family, what it means for industry, what it means for the relation of 
race to race and of nation to nation. 

We must show them what it means for the family. In the home God 
has given us in miniature a picture of what He means His world to be — 
a society in which the welfare of each is the! concern of all and he is 
'greatest who serves most. The home in the nursery of religion and where 
family life is neglected, the family altar forgotten, the sancity of marriage 
questioned, the opportunity lost which the Lord's day affords for rest, 
fellowship and spiritual nurture, and pleasure substituted for duty as the 
law of life, there can be small hope of producing men and women who will 
be Christian in their business and their civic life. 

We must show men what Christian discipleship means for industry. 
Whether it be manufacturing or commerce, farming or finance, all forms 
of business are primarily concerned with human personalities, in whom 
Christ's Church has a rightful interest, and need for their true success the 
mutual confidence and helpfulness His Spirit inspires. We have recog- 
nized this in principle in the "Social Creed of the Churches." The time 
has come to prove our faith by our works. We must make human welfare 
our test of business success and judge the machinery of industry by what 
it does for those who use it. We must grant to those who labor the same 
freedom of association and representation which those who own capital 
claim for themselves and require of both alike that they use this right of 
association, freely granted, for the interest of all those whose welfare is 
dependent upon the product of their work. 

We must show what discipleship means for the relation between men of 
different races. Deeper than all differences of color is our kinship of 
spirit in the family of God. This kinship requires mutual respect and the 
free expression of the aspirations of personality, and should lead to the 
persistent endeavor on the part of all to secure justice and fair dealing 
in all human relationships and to safeguard the rights of all peoples to 
their share in our common heritage of Christian democracy. 

We must show what discipleship means for our international relations. 
With all the power we can command we must protest against the claim 
that the nation is exempt from the obligation of the moral law which 
controls the life of the individual. We bear our witness that God requires 
of the nation as of the individual to do justly and to love mercy, and that 
the nation which violates that law in its dealings with other nations He 
will hold to account. Of the nation as of the individual it is true that 
the way of love and trust is the way of salvation, and that he that would 
be greatest must be servant of all. We welcome, therefore, the development 
of a League of Nations which shall be in truth an association of free 
peoples for the achieving of world peace, for mutual disarmament, and for 
constructive service, and we call upon our own nation to join with other 
nations in moving along this new pathway of hope. 

Above all, we must show what Christian discipleship means for the in- 
dividual human life. Home and business and nation and race will be what 
the men and women who compose them make them. Most important, there- 
fore, of all the responsibilities that rest upon the Church to-day is it to 
educate men and women and children in the meaning of the Gospel and its 
consequences for the life of the individual and of society. Through our 


Churches and Sunday schools, in our schools and colleges, by the printed 
and the spoken word, by all the avenues through which mind touches mind, 
we must bring our Christian message home with convincing power. 

But that our witness may be effective, our conduct must match our 
profession. A self -centered Church cannot rebuke the selfishness of business. 
A self-complacent Church is helpless before the arrogance of race. A 
Church which is itself the scene of competition and strife is impotent in 
face of the rivalries of the nations. When men see Christians forgetting 
their differences in common service, then and not till then will they believe 
in Christ's power to break down the barriers between classes and between 

We welcome, therefore, the voice that comes to us across the sea from 
our fellow Christians in Lambeth, joining with us in calling the Churches 
to more complete unity. We reciprocate the spirit of their most Christian 
utterance. We believe with them that we are already one in Christ and are 
persuaded that the way to manifest the spiritual unity which we now possess, 
and to make possible its increase in ever enlarging measure, is for all those 
who love our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to join in discharging the com- 
mon duties whose obligation all alike recognize. 

In this hour fraught with the possibilities of healing or of disaster, 
one thing only can save the nations and that is a will to united service, 
born of faith in the triumph of the good. To this faith we summon all 
men in the name of Him who died that we might live and who is able by 
His spirit to bring out of the failure and disappointment of the present 
a far more abundant and satisfying life. In this faith we would rededi- 
cate ourselves to the service of the living God, whose Kingdom is righteous- 
ness and peace and joy. 

The Council continues at its task with renewed vision 
and courage. It was a real satisfaction that Dr. Robert 
E. Speer consented to be president for the next four 
years. Dr. Speer is the prophet of missionary zeal and 
the interpreter of Christian idealism. His leadership 
commands confidence in all parts of the Church. To 
carry forward the work of the Council, while the fine 
statesmanship of Dr. Charles S. MacFarland has man- 
ifested through the years, there must be larger coopera- 
tion on the part of the constituent bodies, and there will 
be. The permanent values of the Council are becoming 
evident to all and definite cooperation augments its 
strength for the fulfillment of its purposes in the enrich- 
ment of spiritual experience and common betterment. 


While much is being said to-day about the union of 
Christian communions it is important to see that each 
communion maintains union within itself, for if those of 
the same communion cannot live together in peace it is 
not much likelihood that they will be able to live together 
with others. Speaking for the Church of England, and it 
applies to all other Churches, The Challenge, London, 
says : 

The offering of a perfect service cannot be presented to God without 
a movement of reconciliation: It must come to a dead stop: "If thou 
bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath 
ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar and go thy way, 
first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. " It 
is to this great preliminary we are called upon to address ourselves. All 
eager as we are to set out hot foot on reuniting the Church, and recon- 
structing the world, we have to learn that we are no better than lame men 
starting on a Marathon race till this matter of internal unity has been put 

So long as one party looks upon, another as an unnecessary or even a 
necessary evil, so long will this internecine warfare continue. So long as 
insecurity prevails, there will always be the threat of war — so long as 
parties practise reprisals by seeking to ' i capture ' 7 parishes from one an- 
other, good feeling is impossible. A better way must be found to guaran- 
tee, within the widest limits possible, freedom and continuity to all schools 
of thought, and to deliver at the same time our helpless parishes from 
violent and autocratic changes of ritual and doctrine. After such a com- 
mission has done its work in the name of the whole Church the moral basis 
of discipline will have been laid. At present no such moral basis exists, and 
the isolated and uncertain position of bishops, dealing with ritual excesses 
or Protestant defects, is most deplorable. 


The opportunity before the Church of England is so great that it would 
be a thousand pities if we should throw it away by our failure to agree. 
"We are living in the fierce light of publicity at present in virtue of the 
encyclical of the bishops of our communion which challenge the attention 
of the world. Our sincerity and our credentials to pose as peacemakers are 
being subjected to the most penetrating gaze. Can we verify the hopes 
that we have raised by achieving reunion amongst ourselves? 

The Anglican Archbishop of Brisbrane in a recent ad- 
dress on reunion said : 

It is useless even to discuss reunion until we are assirred of one fun- 
damental postulate. We are to "try the spirits," and the spirit of re- 


union will be recognized as of God, just in so far as it is marked by peni- 
tence. Reunion, no doubt, is in the air. We are all weary of the practical 
inconvenience of our divisions. We all lament — and we in Australia per- 
haps more than most — the hindrance and scandal of half-a-dozen denom- 
inations struggling in one small township, with all manner of petty com- 
petition and jealousy, while the ministers of religion live in semi-starvation. 
Moreover we are all ashamed of the spectacle of the world crying out for a 
Christianity which we Christians are unable to give because we speak with 
a divided voice. But reunion is not a mere policy which we can adopt on 
practical grounds. Reunion is necessary because it is God's' will; because, 
in spite of all our sins, the Church remains one in the mind of Christ. And 
the process of getting back to that mind and will is not a process of ad- 
justment or programmes: it presupposes an awakening in men's souls, and 
a new surrender of all men's wills to the guidance of God's spirit. God's 
purpose, we believe, is to bring home the fruits of redemption to the world 
by means of a united Church: but by yielding to the spirit of schism, by 
admitting pride and worldliness into her counsels, the Church has fallen 
away from the divine purpose which called her into being. Only through 
penitence and humiliation can she set free the healing and renewing Spirit 
of God. 

And our penitence must be personal penitence. We are not merely to 
confess the sins of our fathers in whose days the historical steps of division 
were taken. The sins which divide are with us still; and if we acknowl- 
edge that our fathers erred, we must confess and repent of the same sins 
in ourselves. But the penitence must also be general. All sections of the 
divided Church have their share of the guilt; and we must school ourselves 
to recognize that schism is not only the act of those who wilfully tear the 
Body of Christ; but that all who acquiesce in the divisions which have 
wounded our Lord, all who fail to do their utmost to right the great wrong 
(however little they may be responsible for it) are harboring the schismatic 
temper in their hearts. While, therefore, we of the Church of England 
seek to banish the spirit of schism from ourselves, we appeal to all our 
fellow-Christians to vie with us in the same endeavour. 

The first essential then is to create an universal atmosphere of penitence. 
Without this, all our discussions will only lead to a hardening of our 
divisions. With it, all things are possible. 

In a recent sermon on ' ' Reunion : The Lambeth Appeal 
and the Concordat," the Rev. William T. Manning, D.D., 
rector of Trinity Episcopal Church, New York, said : 

As to the question of the ministry, this appeal speaks with a clearness 
and in a spirit which should commend it to the careful consideration of 
all Christians. It makes great gain by taking this question in the order 
which belongs to it. We have fallen into much difficulty through taking 
this important matter out of its right place and relation. The first and 
supreme fact is our fellowship in the Church. This fact clearly recognized 
as it is here, we can then go on more intelligently, and far more hopefully, 
to consider the question of the ministry. 

The declaration acknowledges whole-heartedly the spiritual reality and 
efficacy of the non-episcopal ministries. It declares the necessity for the 
united Church of a " ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as 
possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission 
of Christ and the authority of the whole body," a statement with which all 
should agree. 


It then offers the episcopate as "the one means of providing such a 
ministry. " This statement that the episcopate is "the one means of pro- 
viding such a ministry' ' for the whole united Church is one to which many 
leading Nonconformists to-day fully assent. 

And then follows what so pronounced a Catholic and so able a theolo- 
gian as Father Herbert Kelly describes as "the unique grandeur" of 
this declaration, the statement that although we cannot repudiate our min- 
istry any more than we ask others to repudiate theirs, terms of union hav- 
ing been otherwise satisfactorily adjusted, bishops and clergy of our com- 
munion would willingly accept from the authorities of other communions 
"a form of commission or recognition which would commend our ministry 
to their congregations as having its place in the one family life. " This 
offer by the bishops has been interpreted by some as made only to the 
Roman Catholic and Eastern Churches. Such an interpretation, however, 
is quite incorrect. The offer is made especially to the non-episcopal com- 
munions and the language of the declaration makes this clear. It is in fact 
based upon an offer made in almost identical words by the Bishop of Zan- 
zibar to the representatives of the Protestant communions in East Africa. 
The chairman of the committee which drew up this declaration, the Arch- 
bishop of York, has himself made the following comment on this offer: 

"I was born, brought up and baptized in the Presbyterian Church of 
Scotland. I was received into the Episcopal Church and am now an 
archbishop. I should esteem it a privilege and an added consecration, and 
of course no repudiation of my orders, if our relations with the Presby- 
terian Church were such that I could now receive such ordination or com- 
mission from the Church of my fathers as would enable me to minister in 
the Presbyterian Church and to administer the Lord 's Supper to its people ; 
and I should feel that no Presbyterian minister would repudiate his minis- 
try if he should receive ordination at my hands, and while still remaining a 
minister of the Presbyterian Church be able to administer the Lord's Sup- 
per in the Church of England. " 

One more matter. How does this great declaration by the bishops of 
the Anglican Communion bear upon that practical proposal for approach 
towards unity now under consideration by our communion and known as 
the concordat? I have seen some published statements which seemed to 
imply that the concordat failed to receive support because the Lambeth 
declaration does not mention it by name. Nothing, however, could be more 
unwarranted than such an inference. 

Quite naturally and necessarily the declaration does not mention the 
concordat by name any more than it mentions the various other proposals 
of like character which are under consideration in different parts of the 
world. But the Lambeth Conference had before it in a small, carefully 
prepared volume all the recently proposed approaches towards reunion, 
among them a proposal by the Bishop of London for union with the Wes- 
leyan Methodists, a proposal by the Bishop of Zanzibar for union with the 
Protestant communions in East Africa, and our own proposed concordat 
with the Congregationalists. These three proposals are the same in prin- 
ciple and are strikingly similar in their main provisions. Each of them 
provides that ministers, after receiving episcopal ordination, shall continue 
to minister in their own communions. Each is based on the very principles 
embodied in the Lambeth declaration. And I think those of you who are 
familiar with both documents will feel that I do not overstate the case 
when I say that the Lambeth declaration countenances and supports every 
principle of the concordat, and in some important points goes further in 
the direction of concession than the concordat does. Compared with the 
declaration on unity made by the bishops at Lambeth, the concordat is a 
rather conservative proposal. On the very lines laid down by this declara- 


tion it is an experiment in the direction of reunion, but a very carefully 
guarded one. And how shall we ever make any progress unless we are 
willing to make some experiments? If the Bishop of London and the 
Bishop of Zanzibar are willing to recommend such an experiment, why 
should it throw any of us into panic? 

The Living Churchy Milwaukee, dissents from Dr, Man- 
ning's interpretation and says: 

We feel impelled rather to question Dr. Manning's belief that the con- 
cordat has been practically endorsed by the Lambeth Conference. That 
that instrument was a considerable factor in moulding the thought of the 
bishops we do not question; but the chief issues in connection with the 
concordat are generally not such as are treated in the Appeal. 

Moreover the concordat is so immeasurably superior to most of the 
proposals printed in the pamphlet mentioned and especially to the results of 
the Mansfield Conferences in England, that it would not be strange if many 
Anglican Churchmen should take it as a basis for further study. On the 
other hand we can think of nothing more deplorable than the assumption 
by the proponents of the concordat of a " Take-it-or-leave-it ' ' attitude. 
If they cling to the concordat as drawn, with its defects uncorrected, there 
is nothing left for the Church but absolute rejection; which would be a 
disappointing outcome, indeed, to the very serious attempt made by men a 
generation ahead of their time, on both sides, to find an approach toward 
unity. They may safely ignore such criticisms as are simply unintelligent, 
but they cannot ignore such, for instance, as those that were contained 
in the series of papers by Professor Francis J. Hall which were published 
in The Living Church a year ago. Those papers raised issues that the 
proponents of the concordat have not met. It was, in our judgment, a 
mistake for them to carry into General Convention a document containing 
defects for which no attempt at correction had been made. And particu- 
larly the resolutions in which General Convention declared most sympa- 
thetically what general form of alterations in the proposals must be made 
before favorable consideration could be hoped for cannot be ignored. If 
the Joint Commission should fail to secure the cooperation of the Congre- 
gational conferees in those suggestions it would be better that no propos- 
als whatever should be reported into the next General Convention. Few, 
indeed, are those who would desire, by their vote, to commit the Church 
to an unqualifiedly non possumus attitude in response to the serious over- 
tures of Dr. Smyth and his associates, but the alternative is to draw up a 
new agreement on the general lines of those resolutions, after the most 
careful study of the constructive criticism that has been given to the sub- 
ject. It is by no means certain that relations such as were proposed could 
become a really workable system, even if the defects in the concordat were 
cured. That is a subject for careful consideration by the conferees. If it 
be possible for the Congregationalist commission, in conference with our 
own, to work out details on those lines, a very long step toward unity 
will be taken. But everything depends upon the details. 

In the Lambeth Conference four bishops voted against 
the Appeal. Among them was the Et. Eev. A. C. A. Hall, 
Bishop of Vermont. In an address to his diocese he gives 
the following explanation why he voted as he did : 


While, with the use of a good deal of skill, the Appeal and its conse- 
quent resolutions may be defended and interpreted by us in an orthodox or 
catholic sense, it will not be so understood by many of those to whom it 
is addressed. In particuler: 

(1) I feel sure that many — American Congregationalists, for exam- 
ple — will make no distinction, as to the conferring of divine authority 
(which is the real matter of importance), between the episcopal ordination 
which we offer their ministers, and the "commission or recognition" which 
we profess to be ready in turn to receive from their ecclesiastical author- 
ities, other terms of reunion being satisfactorily adjusted. Our own words 
seem to express the object of this mutual reordination (if it may be so 
called) to be only the giving or gaining of a wider sphere of ministry, not 
any added guarantee of a divine commission. 

In their desire (admirable in itself) to make terms of reunion as easy 
as possible for others, and to avoid on their own part an attitude of supe- 
riority, the bishops seem really to have abandoned all of strength and 
authority that goes with the inheritance of a ministerial commission 
handed down from the Apostles to whom it was originally given by our 
Lord Jesus Christ. There is no mention throughout the Appeal of this 
transmission. The episcopate they — I cannot but think inconsistently — 
insist on for the future, but chiefly, if not wholly, for utilitarian advan- 
tages as an instrument of unity — which it has not always shown itself! By 
these terms we should sanction a low view of ordination, both among those 
admitted on these easy conditions, and among the next generation of min- 
isters whom they might encourage to be ordained on a similar under- 
standing. I ! 

(2) According to the Appeal the Catholic Church is an object of hope 
rather than of faith. It is the Church for which we look, rather than the 
body with its divinely appointed organization to which, however outwardly 
maimed, we recall men. Accordingly there is no word of condemnation for 
a schismatical position, however largely to be excused in the present mem- 
bers of separated bodies. 

(3) During the time of transition, which must extend over a number 
of years, there would be the accepted anomaly of a number of ministers 
who, not having received episcopal ordination, would be allowed to preach 
and conduct services in our Churches, but not to celebrate the Holy Com- 
munion, and who would be full members of diocesan and other synods. 

(4) Apparently — though this is not explicitly stated in the Appeal, but 
is defended by some of its warm supporters — "groups" would still be rec- 
ognized in the reunited Church. There might be Presbyterian and Meth- 
odist and Congregational and Anglican and Roman Catholic groups exist- 
ing side by side, but retaining differences of administration and worship, 
within a given area (say the state of Vermont), if only each had its 
bishop ; and held in communion one with another by their several bishops 
being all members of one synod. Now I am bold to say that this sort of 
reunion seems hardly worth striving for. To my mind there must be unity 
of chief pastorship in each area, whatever arrangement of suffragan or 
assistant bishops might be devised for different sets of people, as for dif- 
ferent races. The appeal to the Uniate Churches among Roman Catholics 
does little to strengthen the case. They are comparatively insignificant 
in numbers, and their history is by no means satisfactory. I long ago ex- 
pressed my willingness to retire from office myself if a new bishop might 
be chosen who would be acceptable to a united Church, as free from former 
antagonisms. But overlapping jurisdictions promise no real union, but 
seem fruitful in rivalries and trouble. 

(5) The testing of an agreement arrived at by a good deal of mutual 
concession, if not of compromise, comes when it is put into practical execu- 


tion. Then the different understandings with which various persons have 
agreed to the common statement are likely to appear. Here, I fear, exists 
a risk of further controversy and division. The bishops who by an over- 
whelming majority adopted the Appeal and its consequent resolutions will, 
I feel sure, feel bound to do their utmost to preserve the balance of the 
agreement and to guard against the possible dangers and risks which many 
of them recognize and of which all have been fairly warned. 

(6) I must not omit what I placed first among my objections stated 
to the Conference, my inability to accept the dogmatic assumption — clean 
contrary to the teaching of many Fathers, e. g., St. Augustine, and of 
other authorities — at the beginning of the Appeal, that Baptism alone — 
by whomsoever ministered, in whatsoever body {e.g., Mormons), and with 
whatsoever intention — constitutes membership in the Body of Christ, with- 
out any sanction or reconciliation by the laying on of hands. Confirmation 
is regarded not as the appointed completion of the initiatory rites of the 
Christian Church, but as a desirable but not really necessary addition. Ap- 
parently a minister of another religious body might be ordained without 
first receiving the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

The Southern Churchman, Richmond, dissents from 
Bishop Hall's position and says: 

One can but marvel that such objections as these should outweigh in any 
mind the broad Christian spirit and truly catholic principles set forth in 
the noble and generous Appeal for the Reunion of the Church of Christ 
made by the almost unanimous voice of the assembled bishops at Lambeth. 
They indicate the honest convictions of a certain number of the members 
of this Church which they are at perfect liberty to hold in high 
value and to teach, a liberty which no advocate of unity desires to deprive 
them of. But they are not required of any man to be believed by this 
Church, and as a matter of fact are not held, or are held with modifications 
and interpretations of wide variance, by a vast multitude of perfectly good 
and orthodox Churchmen who are in full ecclesiastical fellowship with 
the excellent Bishop of Vermont. Yet for the sake of insistence upon 
these views he would condemn all Christians outside of this Church who 
cannot accede to them to remain perpetually in what he considers a 
' ' schismatical position, ' ' and deny to them the fellowship within the Church 
which he is obliged to accord to his brother Churchmen who hold the same 
Protestant opinions. From the Bishop's own point of view, could incon- 
sistency further go? 

Dr.F.D. Kershner writing in The Christian-Evangelist, 
St. Louis, regarding the certain and inevitable break- 
down in denominationalism, says : 

1. The first reason is the contradiction of the ideal of Christian love 
and brotherhood, fostered by the denominational order. The ethics of Jesus 
center around the ideal of love and the practical expression of that ideal 
in deeds of good-will and of human brotherhood. Anything which makes 
it hard for Christians to love each other is foreign to the genius of Chris- 
tianity. Love is fundamental, and basic in the teaching of Jesus. What- 
ever contravenes the gospel of love is necessarily the deadliest of all here- 
sies. Now, no one can deny that denominationalism has made it difficult 
for the spirit of love to exist in the hearts of Christians. The rivalry of 


parties and sects has inevitably tended toward the development of bitter- 
ness and hatred. Thomas Campbell in the Declaration and Address pub- 
lished in 1809 calls especial attention to the crying sin of denomination- 
alism in this particular. 

2. On the practical side, even the most earnest advocates of the denom- 
inational order must concede its inefficiency. Overlapping and waste have 
everywhere characterized the religious activities of modern Protestantism. 
The burden of expense entailed by the Great War has made this unneces- 
sary cost in the religious field intolerable. "While this viewpoint is by no 
means the most essential, or the most significant, it nevertheless carries 
great weight with the average present-day Christian. Denominationalism 
is inefficient, therefore denominationalism must go. 

3. From the standpoint of philosophical unity it is inconceivable that 
the pluralistic conception of the Church should be ultimate. Doubtless the 
ideal of unity carries with it a full recognition of the necessity for indi- 
vidual freedom, but the fact remains that an ultimate pluralism is as 
unthinkable in the field of practical religion as it is in the field of meta- 
physics or theology. 

4. In the fourth place, the denominational order cannot be reconciled 
with many of the most significant passages of the New Testament. Es- 
pecially is this true of our Lord's intercessory prayer in the seventeenth 
chapter of the gospel of John. Certainly the ideal of unity expressed in 
this chapter precludes the denominational order as an ultimate expression 
of the life of the Church. The same thing is true of the language of the 
Apostle Paul as contained in the first chapter of the first Epistle to the 
Corinthians. Denominational apologists seek in vain to destroy the force 
of these and other similar passages of Scripture. 

5. Finally, denominationalism, whatever may have been its original 
merits, has fully served its day. It is as out-worn and out-grown in the 
new world of the twentieth century as the Holy Roman Church was at the 
dawn of the Reformation. It was doubtless well that freedom should be 
secured even at the cost of unity, but now that freedom has been secured 
it is impossible that the separatist ideal should rule forever. Daniel Web- 
ster 's noble words with regard to the political situation apply just as fully 
and conclusively to the field of religion — "Liberty and union, now and 
forever, one and inseparable. ' ' We have had union without liberty, and 
liberty without union; it is time that we should make liberty and union one 
and inseparable. 

Writing in The Australian Christian Commonwealth, 
Eev. George Hall says : 

It has been said that to vote for the surrender of our distinctive name 
and polity would be an act of disloyalty to the Church to which we owe 
so much. Is the bride guilty of an act of disloyalty to the old home when 
on the wedding day she accepts a new name and begins a larger life? 

We shall surely gain by the inclusion of some of the things which the 
other negotiating Churches have proved to be of value. The teachings and 
polity and spirit which are peculiarly ours so far as they are essential to 
a New Testament Church we shall carry with us, and by so doing enrich all. 

The question that is worthy of Christian leaders and all Christian peo- 
ple is not, shall I part with any denominational appellation? shall I sur- 
render the modes of thought and form of service which by long use have 
become as a part of my very nature? but, will the union of the Churches 
make for the growth of the Kingdom of God? 


The Methodism to which many of us owe more than to any other in- 
stitution is very precious to us, but far above that to us is the accelerated 
movement of Christ's Church. 

If one strong Church in a small community can more effectively do the 
work of God than can two or three weak ones, who shall stand for the per- 
petuating of the less effective method? Why expend large stores of energy 
and vast sums of money on an over-churched community when there are 
upwards of 1,000,000,000 for whom our Lord died who do not know His 

The question of economy must and ought to come into the considera- 
tion of Church union. 

Our Mission Boards are pleading for men and money. In some districts 
not far from our shores the heathen are crying out, ' ' Come over . . . and 
help us. ' ' Shall we not consolidate our home forces and liberate the men 
who can be spared that they may serve our common cause in those places 
where the enemy is unopposed? 

Another writer in the same journal says : 

We take it for granted that advocates and opponents of union alike 
are moved by the desire to do the right thing and to serve the Church uni- 
versal. But more is needed than right motives. Error may be honest. 
Sincerity is not the same thing as truth. Rightness of vision, correctness 
of thought, soundness of judgment, all are necessary. If the view is nar- 
rowed to one's own denomination, one's own town, or state, or country, 
a correct judgment is not likely to be arrived at. If the level from which 
the matter is looked at is that of finance, polity, denominational impor- 
tance, the true objective will be missed. The outlook must be world-wide 
in its comprehensiveness and heavenly in its attitude. The divisions of the 
Christian Church have been caused largely by the blunders of men who 
have been narrow and earth bound. They can only be healed by those yet 
on the mount of God. The world to-day is vastly different from the world 
of the centuries when the great sections of the Church were created. It is 
just as impossible to perpetuate denominational exclusiveness as it is to 
keep up national barriers. Walled cities are an anachronism. Education, 
commerce, invention, have made it impossible for a nation to live to itself. 
The new method of Bible study is just as surely making it impossible for 
differences to continue which were due very largely to a wrong use of the 
Scriptures. Christianity must be spread by dealing with the essentials, or 
become stagnant and retrogressive. 

Clear thinking must be accompanied by right emotions. This duty can- 
not be discharged coldly. It is not a surface thing. It has not been 
created by assemblies of ecclesiastics. It has been produced by years of 
cooperation on the part of young people in Christian Endeavor Societies, 
young men and women in Christian associations, ministers and laymen meet- 
ing in fraternals and conventions, interchange of pulpits. We were wont to 
live in our own little circles and think ourselves the people of the Lord and 
all others heathen or misguided half-enlightened people who were to be 
pitied. To make proselytes was regarded as equal to making converts from 
the world. Possibly that spirit still lingers, but it is as much out of date 
as tallow candles and horse trams. It cannot live where men know and love 
each other. 

From the recent meeting of the business committee of 
the World Conference on Faith and Order, Rt. Rev. 


Charles H. Brent, chairman, and Eobert H. Gardiner, 
secretary, the following action is reported : 

That the minutes of all meetings of the business committee be sent to 
all members of the continuation committee and to all members of all the 
commissions ; 

That the secretary be authorized to print and distribute the Geneva 
report, and that the treasurer be authorized to pay the cost; 

That a compilation of proposals for reunion, including the Lambeth 
Appeal and Proposals, the English ad interim reports and other documents, 
be printed and sent to the entire mailing-list, and that the treasurer be 
instructed to meet the expense; 

That latitude be extended to the secretary to take advantage of oppor- 
tunities for distributing material from foreign periodicals about the move- 
ment, and that the treasurer be instructed to meet the expense. 

The secretary reported that ten thousand dollars appropriated by the 
Episcopal Commission was available in the hands of the treasurer; that 
he had received at Geneva twenty-eight pounds sterling from a delegate 
from the Church of Ireland; that he had paid five hundred dollars to the 
Bishop of Bombay for the subjects committee; that Bishop Brent had re- 
ceived and paid over to the secretary for the treasurer a gift of five hun- 
dred dollars for the work, and that the secretary had received the five hun- 
dred dollars promised at Geneva by the Disciples of Christ in North Am- 
erica and several small sums from other sources. 

It was voted that the following amounts be appropriated for the ex- 
penses of six months beginning September 1, 1920: clerical assistance, 
$3,250; office rent, $400; translations, $750; office expense, including 
postage, $5,000; printing, $5,000; subjects committee, including $500 al- 
ready paid over to its convener, $750; travelling expenses, $500; contin- 
gencies, $350— $16,000. 

Suggestions sent out by Eobert H. Gardiner, secretary 
of the World Conference on Faith and Order, for open- 
ing devotions at group conferences on Christian unity : 

Let the words of our mouths and the meditations of our hearts be 
always acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord our strength and our redeemer. 
Our Father who art in heaven. 

O God, forasmuch as without Thee we are not able to please Thee ; Mer- 
cifully grant that Thy Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our 
hearts; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

Grant to us, Lord, we beseech Thee, the spirit to think and do always 
such things as are right; that we, who cannot do any thing that is good 
without Thee, may by Thee be enabled to live according to Thy will; 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

O God, who on the mount didst reveal to chosen witnesses Thine only- 
begotten Son wonderfully transfigured, in raiment white and glistering; 
mercifully grant that we, being delivered from the disquietude of this 
world, may be permitted to behold the King in His beauty, Who with Thee, 
O Father, and Thee, O Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth, one God, world 
without end. Amen. 

O God, the Holy Ghost, Spirit of wisdom and love and power, illuminate 
and strengthen those who have been appointed to bring about a World 
Conference on the Faith and Order of Thy Church. Give them patience 
and courage, humility, love and steadfastness, and utter obedience to Thy 


guidance. Fill the hearts of all Christian people with the desire to mani- 
fest to the world by their unity its Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, so that 
His Kingdom of peace and righteousness and love may be established and 
all men may be drawn to Him, Who with Thee and the Father liveth and 
reigneth one God forever. Amen. 

Here should be read St. John 17 or Ephesians IV, 1-16. 

Let us pray, silently: — 

that our eyes may be opened to see how our divisions blur the vision 
of the one Lord and hide Him from His world. 

that each may see how he is individually responsible for the continu- 
ance of those divisions. 

that each may give up any pride of opinion, all self-assertion, any sec- 
tarian partisanship, any denominational pride. 

that each may see the fundamental value of the things for which other 
Churches stand; 

the fundamental value of the things for which his own Church stands 
and may be enabled in the deepest humility to make them a little clearer 
to his brethren; 

that unity is of God and in God through Christ and not something we 

are free to accept or reject; 

that we are powerless of ourselves to create unity; 

that we can learn about unity, — not by thinking about it and planning 

for it, — but by beginning to practice it; that he that doeth the will 

of the Father shall learn of the doctrine. 

that we may have grace to keep the unity of the Spirit. 

that God will take our wills and make them wholly His. 

that so dwelling at one in Christ and He in us, we may manifest Him 
Who is Love Incarnate and bring His world to Him. 

O God, Lover, Beloved and Love proceeding, Eternal Three in One, give 
us grace to fulfill the new commandment that we should love one another 
as Thou hast loved us, so that, in the unity which is true love and life 
eternal, we may be visibly one that the world may come to know its Re- 
deemer and King. Amen. 

And may the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep our 
hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of His Son Jesus 
Christ our Lord. 




To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly. 

Dear Sir: — The rapidity with which we are moving in the matter of 
Christian unity suggests the desirability of pointing out the opportunity 
which the situation will seemingly present to some at least of the non-litur- 
gical Churches to recover practices long lost to Christian worship and cus- 
toms long disused in Christian administration. 

Let us take the opportunities which will apparently in the near future 
be open to the two communions which have made the most pronounced ad- 
vance in the direction of reunion with historic Christianity — the Presbyter- 
ian and the Congregationalist. 

In the case of the former great stress has always been laid on the powers 
and the responsibilities of the presbyterate the divinely appointed agency 
for the transmission of the teaching of the Church and the administration 
of its Sacraments to the members of the congregations. In this regard 
they join hands with the great theologians of the Middle Ages, who re- 
pudiated the theory that the bishops comprised a separate order in the 
Christian ministry, and maintained that, while there could be a special office 
of administration for the furthering of certain features of the Church's 
work, there could be no order superior to that to which was entrusted the 
conservation of the Eucharist and the charge of the cure of souls: a situa- 
tion which has left its mark on the Anglican Book of Common Prayer,* 
as well as on the practice of the parish priest in the Roman Church of to- 
day, who prepares his candidates for and administers to them their first 
communion before and not after their confirmation by the bishop. 

Now it is in connection with this situation that the opportunity arises 
for the recovery of a significant lost practice in the matter of ecclesiastical 
administration. The Presbyterian Church has in its power to enrich the 
patrimony of the Church at large by the reestablishment of what is known 
as the collegiate or consistorial episcopate. Met with almost everywhere 
among Greek speaking Christians of the post-apostolic time ; prevailing in 
Alexandria till at least the middle of the third century, and in some parts 
of Egypt for a century longer; persevering in the Church of Armenia ap- 
parently until the middle of the thirteenth century, when contact with the 
customs of the west through intercourse with the crusaders led gradually 
to its abandonment — the collegiate episcopate emphasized what I may per- 
haps be allowed to call the democracy of the learned, or the specially 
trained, of which we find so many expressions in the life of the medieval 
universities and guilds, and of which a striking example exists to-day in 
the action of the papal consistory and in the rules and practices of the 
French Academy. 

The Presbyterian Church, then, would perhaps do well — if an outsider 
may hazard an opinion — to consider the desirability of reviving this form 
of the episcopate, which is free from some of the disadvantages of the 
monarchical form as this has been exemplified in the Church of England, 
and is peculiarly in keeping with the impulses which are moving man to- 
day, and with the spirit and the practice of those communities in which 
the Church secured her earliest and most compelling triumphs. 

*See Preface to the Ordinal, Book of Common Prayer, p. 509. 


In the case of the Congregational Church, whose work in the matter 
of reunion is one of the most encouraging signs of the times in the field 
of our American Christianity, the opportunity to enrich the common patri- 
mony along the line which it has long since made its own, in stressing the 
corporate note in the local congregation, is equally apparent. Strange as 
it may appear, for something like fifteen centuries no group of Christians 
anywhere has confessed its faith in the words of the Nicene Creed. By 
what would seem to be the purest accident the private confession of a 
single diocese (that of Salamis in Cyprus) found its way into the baptismal 
offices and presently into the liturgies of the whole of Christendom ; copious 
additions to the original instrument were recited in the belief that they 
were of ecumenical authority; and the world of to-day is confronted by the 
fact that the Church is everywhere using in its Eucharistic service a creed 
which has lost its corporate character and has been added to by private 
hands partly in the attempt to adapt it to the requirements of Baptism and 
partly in the desire to define explicitly certain things upon which the as- 
sembly at Nicaea did not see fit to make a pronouncement. It is the fact 
that no Christian on the face of the globe recited the Church's corporate 
creed in the Church's central act of corporate worship either in the plural 
form or in the shape in which it left the hands of the assembly which set it 

If therefore those Congregationalists who will presently be confronted 
with the opportunity to compile what will doubtless be a simpler Eucharistic 
office than has lately been used in Christendom should see their way to re- 
store to the world the recital of the Nicene Creed in the plural form and in 
the shape in which it left the hands of its promulgators, they will confer a 
benefit on the Church at large of inestimable significance and add impres- 
sively to the content of modern liturgies. 

If, further, the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches will, when 
the time comes for them to make provision for an office for the admission 
of the adolescent to the full fellowship of the mature in Christ, open the 
way for at least the permissive use of the mandatory form of the laying on 
of hands, and perhaps inject some touch of the heroic into the promise of 
the candidates such as distinguished the imitation of the pagan Greek into 
the fellowship of the politically adult in ancient Athens, they will deserve 
well at the hands of history and enrich the liturgical usages of mankind. 

In the case of either body the power to do what is here suggested lies 
wholly in their own hands. The boldest and the most sanguine of us may 
only point out what seems to us to be congruous with their established 
positions, and so likely to approve itself to their favorable regard, in the 
hope that the Church as a whole may be strengthened and its practices 
catholicized rather than restricted in the developments that seem to be at 

As the reports which have come to us from Geneva have emphasized 
the fact that representatives of one of the Churches of Christendom were 
lacking to the deliberations of the conference, it will perhaps be permissible 
and gracious to remind the reader that it is to the Cardinal Secretary of 
the Vatican and to the Director of the Ecole Franchise in Rome* — the one 
the ablest of living canonists, the other the most illustrious authority on the 
history and the liturgies of the Western Church — that we owe the explicit 
enunciation, in the recent period, of the principle which should guide us as 
we move towards the reconstruction of our broken front: that nothing can 
be made essential to catholicity by any existing Christian body which was 
unknown to the Church in the days of its greatest triumphs while its fellow- 
ship was still at one. 

*Formerly Professor Gasparri and Professor Duchesue of the College of the Sor- 


Will you let me add the personal confession that — in arriving at the 
conviction that nothing which the Church in her great constructive period 
found congenial to her spirit and agreeable to her purpose can be relegated 
to the sphere of the forbidden if we desire to retain the right to call our- 
selves Christians and to stand unchallenged at the bar of history — I have 
been helped by a great teacherf in a university, the destruction of whose 
tangible possessions at the hands of the Germans was one of the tragedies 
of the European War. 

(Rev.) William Higgs. 
Oakland, California. 




To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly. 

Dear Sir: — An article appeared in the October number of The Quar- 
terly entitled "Priest or Prophet," its object being to show that the 
Christian ministry is solely prophetic, in no sense a priesthood. 

The object of this article is to claim that it possesses the characteristics 
both of priest and prophet. 

The author of the article in question defines "the essence of the priest- 
hood was the representation of man to God; the essence of the prophetic 
office was the representation of God to man. ' ' Would not a more exact 
definition be, that a prophet is one who speaks to man on behalf of God, 
and a priest is one who acts as the agent both of men in their approach to 
God, and of God in His dealings with men? 

The priest under the old dispensation not only offered sacrifice, and 
made intercession, etc., for the people, but he acted as God's representative 
when he accepted the sacrifices of the people, when he sprinkled the blood 
of the atonement, when he laid his hands on the scapegoat, when he blessed 
the people, or performed any act of consecration. The article denies that 
there is anything corresponding to these acts in the Christian ministry. 
It says that "the twenty-seven books of the New Testament a single ref- 
erence cannot be found to a special human priesthood. ' ' But he overlooks 
Christ's solemn statement to His Apostles, "as my Father hath sent me, 
even so send I you." If Christ then was a Priest, His Apostles must have 
shared in His Priesthood. This is made evident by the act which followed, 
"He breathed on them and said receive you the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever 
sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain 
they are retained." This was more than merely commission to preach the 
gospel, it was to speak and act as the accredited agent of God. So was His 
command to baptize, and to celebrate the Lord's Supper which was man- 
ifestly meant to take the place of the ancient sacrifices, to be the memorial 
of the salvation He wrought by His offering of Himself upon the Cross for 
all mankind, instead of a memorial for the deliverance of the children of 
Israel from their Egyptian bondage, or the making of an atonement for 
individual sins. And in doing this he uses the same words which were used 
in offering the Jewish sacrifices. So certainly in the Acts of the Apostles 
and in their Epistles, references are made to the administration, and the 
effects, of Baptism, to the laying on of hands as a means of the bestowal of 

fProfessor A. Van Hove, D.C.L,., of the University of L,ouvain. 


the Holy Spirit, of confirming and sealing of disciples, of conferring the 
commission of the Christian ministry, of the breaking of bread in accord- 
ance with Christ's appointment, of the anointing of the sick. 

In the Epistle to the Hebrews it is distinctly claimed that "we have 
an altar" of which they who belonged to the old dispensation had no right 
to partake. And St. Peter teaches that all believers constitute "an holy 
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices." 

This spiritual priesthood of all believers the article admits, but denies 
that there is ' ' any special order or class of men called priests. ' ' But the 
whole body of believers cannot act as one in performing priestly functions. 
It must have representatives to act for the whole body in its corporate 
approaches to God and there must be some one to celebrate and administer 
the acts which Christ commanded, and His Apostles preached, by means of 
which spiritual blessings are received from God. 

This was recognized from the very first, and universally throughout the 
Christian Church this conception of the Christian ministry prevailed. Where 
can any body of Christians be pointed to, down to the time of the Reforma- 
tion, that did not have this ministry and use these terms of altar, priest 
and sacrifice? And ever since the Reformation, those bodies which have 
discarded those terms, still have orders of ministers which do practically 
the same things. With the exception of the Friends, all Christian bodies 
have a ministry set apart as a special order to discharge these functions, 
as well as to be preachers of the Gospel. Every time a Protestant minister 
baptizes, or presides at the Lord's Supper, or lays on hands in confirma- 
tion or ordination, or leads in prayer, or pronounces a benediction, he is 
performing a priestly act, whether he calls it by that name or not. 

Are not therefore these widely diverging views in regard to the character 
of the Christian ministry which is supposed to exist, really a matter of 
nomenclature, not of fact? It is not merely a matter of "decency and 
order," but a necessity that there should be, as there always and every- 
where there has been, in the Christian Church, orders of specially trained 
and authoritatively commissioned men, first, to act as the agents and rep- 
resentatives of Christ, not only to preach, but to perform those acts which 
Christ ordained to be used in His Church, and secondly, to represent men 
in these corporate acts of worship, of prayer and praise and offering. 

There is nothing derogatory to Christ's High Priesthood in such orders, 
as there was not anything derogatory to the office of the high priest, under 
the Jewish systems in the orders of priests and Levites, Christ offered 
Himself as the perfect and sufficient sacrifice for all human sins; the hu- 
man priest only offers a representation of that sacrifice, recalls it to the 
mind of God, pleads its merits with Him, and sets it forth to men, with 
the benefits obtained by it. A priest is a mediator in the same sense that 
one who offers prayers for another, or tries to reconcile those at variance, 
is a mediator. Truly it is unwise to magnify the differences among Chris- 
tians, and insist that varying views involve unreconcilable divergencies. 
Should we not rather seek to discover how far we do, or can, agree, though 
we may use different terms to express our meaning? If those who are 
accustomed to attach a certain meaning to certain words, would question 
with those who use them in another sense, they might find that there is not 
as much divergence between them as they had supposed. Thus those who 
maintain that the Christian minister is only a prophet or preacher, might 
come to acknowledge that in that ministry there are the elements both of 
the priesthood and the prophet. 

Very sincerely yours, 

G. Woolsey Hodge. 
Rector Emeritus of the Diocesan Church of St. Mary, Philadelphia, Pa. 



To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly: 

Dear Sir: — In The Christian Union Quarterly for October, appears 
an article with the title, * ' The Disciples ' Programme for Union, ' ' by 
Prof. George W. Brown, Ph.D., Transylvania College, Lexington, Ken- 
tucky. Attention is called to the errors in that article. 

First of all, it is inexact to say that the Disciples have gotten up a 
programme for union. They do not plead for a programme for union of 
their own making. They plead for union in accordance with the programme 
for union set forth in the divinely inspired Scriptures. They stand op- 
posed to man-made programmes for union and plead for union upon the 
basis which Christ has Himself established, and which is, therefore, vastly 
better than any and all human plans for the union of Christians. 

Again, the writer is inexact in his statement of the plea for union 
which is made by Disciples of Christ, or Christians only. He quotes two 
sentences from Thomas Campbell 's ' ' Declaration and Address, ' ' and 
makes some comments. Then he says, — 

"It is unnecessary to go further into the early history of the Disciple 
movement. Enough has been said to make it clear that union was the 
primary thing in the movement. The programme for union was the whole 
programme. The platform might be stated as loyalty to Christ. " He 
then in the next paragraph, represents that the idea of restoration was an 
after consideration, for he says, 

' ' Perhaps half a century after its successful launching as a union move- 
ment, some began to feel that the primary purpose of the movement was 
the restoration of the conditions of the early Church, and they began to 
speak of the movement as the ' restoration movement. ' In time this view 
began to be held by a large number of Disciples. They placed an ever 
increasing emphasis on restoration, with a constantly decreasing emphasis 
on Christian union. ' ' Five pages further on in Thomas Campbell 's ' ' Dec- 
laration and Address" there are thirteen propositions, to which this writer 
refers, and Mr. Campbell prefaces these propositions with this statement: 

' ' They are merely designed for opening up the way that we may 
come fairly and firmly to original ground upon clear and certain premises; 
and take up things just as the Apostles left them. — That thus disentangled 
from the accruing embarrassments of intervening ages, we may stand with 
evidence upon the same ground on which the Church stood at the begin- 
ning. ' ' 

Dr. Robert Richardson, in his Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, after 
quoting this statement, remarks: "Here, indeed, was the startling propo- 
sition to begin anew — to begin at the beginning; to ascend at once to the 
pure fountain of truth, and to neglect and disregard, as though they had 
never been, the decrees of popes, councils, synods and assemblies, and all 
the traditions and corruptions of an apostate Church. Here was an effort 
not so much for the reformation of the Church, as was that of Luther and 
of Calvin, and to a certain extent even that of the Haldanes, but for its 
complete restoration at once to its pristine purity and perfection. (Mem- 
oirs of Alex. Campbell, Vol. 1, p. 257). 

It is evident, therefore, from the foregoing statement, of Thomas Camp- 
bell and Dr. Richardson's comment upon it, that the restoration idea was 
a part of this movement from the first, being embodied in Mr. Campbell's 
"Declaration and Address," and that the plea for Christian union which 
was made included also the divine basis of union to the exclusion of human 
creeds, traditions and authority. In other words, the plea for union as 
made over a century ago included both the programme for union and the 
method of attaining it. This is the ' ' original union programme, ' ' and 


only those who hold to the original method as well as its programme are 
true to the Restoration Movement. Those who ''have not joined in the 
restoration programme" in order to Christian union have forsaken an es- 
sential part of the plea which the Disciples have made for more than a 
century for the union of Christians. 

This writer further states, "But not all disciples have joined in the 
restoration programme, The majority of them still keep before them the 
original union programme. Necessarily, that programme has to be modified 
from time to time in some of its details along with the changing thought 
and life of the world." 

This statement calls for two remarks. 

1st. It is a frank avowal that some among the Disciples do not accept 
the restoration feature of this movement which was an essential part of it 
from the beginning. These are the ones who constitute an element of dis- 
cord among the Disciples, and who have departed from the original pro- 
gramme. The writer, however, is very inexact as to the number, for instead 
of being the majority, they are only a small minority. 

'. 2nd. It is not true that this "programme has to be modified" in order 
to accommodate it to the ' ' changing thought and life of the world. ' ' There 
is nothing in the original union programme that requires accommodation, 
for it is set forth in the inspired Scriptures and is established by no other 
authority than Jesus Christ Himself, who has all authority in heaven and 
on earth. It is a dangerous presumption for any man, or body of men, 
however pious or educated they may be, to modify or change the original 
programme established by Jesus Christ and proclaimed by His commissioned 
and inspired apostles. Half a century ago Isaac Errett wrote "We have 
no faith in the practicability of uniting sects on any merely sectarian 
basis, however liberal. It can not be Christian union unless it is union 
in Christ — in that which Christ enjoins, neither less nor more." In this 
statement Errett expressed the position of the Disciples and recent events 
confirm its correctness. 

In the days of my youth, I heard preachers declare, "You should cor- 
rect your views by the Bible, not the Bible by your views." That is a 
sound principle, and is just as correct to-day as it was sixty years ago. 
There should be no more talk about modifying the original Bible pro- 
gramme for union to the changing thought and life of the world. What is 
needed is for the religious world to return to the original and unchangeable 
programme of Jesus Christ for the union of Christians. 

Respectfully and fraternally yours, 

M. P. Hayden. 

International Bible College, Minneapolis, Minn. 


One of the most practical and valuable volumes dealing with Chris- 
tian unity is "Next Steps Toward Church Union 7 ' (Associated Press, 
New York), being the work of a special committee created by the Com- 
mittee on the War and Eeligious Outlook of the American Federal Coun- 
cil of Churches under the chairmanship of Dr. Eobert E. Speer. It is 
one of a series of studies being brought out by the Committee on the 
War and the Eeligious Outlook, the first volume being "Eeligion Among 
American Men: As Eevealed by a Study of Conditions in the Army/' 
the second being ' ' The Missionary Outlook in the Light of the War, ' ' 
and the third being ' ' The Church and Industrial Eeconstruction. ' ' 

This volume dealing with Christian unity is the fourth. The intro- 
duction is written by Professor William Adams Brown, the bearing of 
war experience on the movement toward Church union is written by 
Dr. Speer, the development of the denominations in American Christian- 
ity by Professor George W. Eichards, movements for cooperation regard- 
less of denominational lines by Professor Herbert L. Willett, cooperative 
movements in the early part of the nineteenth century by Professor 
Williston Walker, foreign missions and Christian unity by Eev. Arthur 
J. Brown and Eev. Samuel McCrea Cavert, the Sunday-school and Chris- 
tian unity by Eev. Henry M. Meyer, relations with the Eoman Catholic 
Church by Professor Williston Walker, the present situation regarding 
unity in the various denominations such as Congregationalists, Disciples, 
Lutherans, Northern Baptists, Presbyterians and Protestant Episco- 
palians, present situation in local interdenominational cooperation by 
Eev. Alfred W. Anthony and Eev. Eoy B. Guild, present interdenomina- 
tional situation by Dr. Speer, present problems in the movement by Dr. 
William Adams Brown, closing with the statement of principles that 
underlie further progress, and an appendix. 

It is a satisfactory attempt to analyze the rise of movements for 
unity, the forms which they have taken, the obstacles which impeded 
and the influences which helped, and to give reasonable guidance in 
laying plans for the future. It is a volume of estimable value. The 
eighteen points named under principles that underlie further progress 
may be briefly summed up as follows: (1) The desire for union is as 
old as Christianity, (2) nothing can stand or satisfy that is not built 
on the truth, (3) the movement toward a complete union must be a 
movement toward freedom, (4) union must rest upon inclusive, not ex- 
clusive, principles, (5) new forms of union must arise from the spirit 
of Christian unity already existing, (6) nothing is gained by ignoring 
the fact of the unwillingness of some bodies of Christians unwilling to 
unite with other Christians, (7) unity is not uniformity, (8) whatever 


losses may have been involved in past divisions, compensations and en- 
richments have been gained, (9) the Body of Christ is one, (10) action 
is educative, (11) present consideration of union by cognate or affiliated 
Churches, (12) strengthening of present interdenominational cooperation, 
(13) agencies of cooperative action must be frankly and fairly repre- 
sentative and responsible, (14) all should sedulously cultivate the heal- 
ing and uniting habits of mind and temper, (15) increase of interde- 
nominational acquaintance and friendship, (16) strongest principle of 
unity within our permanent social experience is the principle that pre- 
vails in the family, (17) every good is costly, and (18) all Christians 
should form the habit of systematic study of all the problems involved 
in this whole complicated matter of the union of the life and power, 
the experience and obedience of the Christian Church. It closes with 
this strong paragraph: i( Throughout the study we are ourselves con- 
scious of having been in touch with a great and living movement which 
nothing can stop. If anything could end it, the weakness and errors 
and failings of men would have ended it long ago. They would end it 
to-day. But it is a movement whose origin guarantees its ultimate suc- 
cess. Our Lord prayed that all Christians might be one, in the deepest 
and most organic unity of which we can conceive. That for which our 
Lord prayed cannot fail." 

"A Plea for Greater Unity," by Seth W. Gilkey, D.D. (Kichard G. 
Badger, Publisher, Boston), is the outcome of an experience through 
which the author passed in the uniting of two rival congregations in an 
over-churched community. It is divided into four parts: (1) The move- 
ments toward unity, (2) barriers, (3) impelling forces, and (4) duties. 
It is a book of marked worth, well argued, clear and convincing. He 
sees the unity of Christians in the being and character of God, in Jesus 
Christ as the Son of God, in the Holy Spirit, in the common acceptance 
of the Bible as the Word of God, in the conception of sin and realization 
of its ruin, in Christian duties, Christian virtues, in the nature and value 
of worship and in the value and importance of the Church. Then Dr. 
Gilkey discusses the increasing manifestations of unity and the outward 
goal as expressed in the intercessory prayer of Jesus, the greater unity 
and the Church's mission, the search for essentials, and a possible real- 
ization which many considered impossible. 

Under barriers he discusses tenacity of opinion, unreasonable attach- 
ments, ultra conservatism, selfishness, sectarianism, ambition and mili- 
tancy. Under impelling forces he discusses the power of truth, love and 
a great ideal, the sigh of the city, the call of the country, the appeal of 
missions, the cause of religious education, demands of economy, demands 
of democracy, and the spur of a great task. Under duties he discusses 
the confession of sin, prayer, perfecting love, community welfare, the 
larger loyalty and patience. He rightly regards schism as a flagrant 
sin, widespread, affecting the whole body of Christian believers, every 
denomination, every congregation and every individual member. "It is 


a malaria which poisons the whole atmosphere of Church life. It is a 
deleterious earthly element that has found its way into all sectarian 
wells of salvation and has contaminated for us the very water of life. 
It finds its way into the supply of mental and spiritual food by which 
we are nourished and taints this supply with a subtile and injurious 

President William Allen Harper of Elon College, N. C, -has given 
to the public his third volume — " Reconstructing the Church, " an ex- 
amination of the problems of the times from the standpoint of a layman 
of the Church (Revell, New York), with introduction by F. Marion 
Lawrence. President Harper's former books are "The New Church for 
the New Time ' ' and ' ' The New Layman for the New Time. ' ' This third 
volume is up to the standard of his former volumes. It discusses in fine 
spirit and able grasp many of the problems having to do with these days 
of recontruction in the Church. He approaches all these subjects from 
the point of view of one who sees the necessity in all Christian work 
of a united force for the accomplishment of permanent results. In the 
tenth chapter he deals directly with "Christian Union — the Manner of 
Approaching It." First of all he says that "the denominations must 
avoid all discussion of their pedigree ; ' ' that is to say, the avoidance of 
historical discussions will help in getting together; likewise avoidance of 
insistence on the distinctive things for which each body stands and avoid- 
ance of reference to Christian union failures, and still another — avoid- 
ance of thoughts regarding property rights and official positions. "The 
hour for Christian union has come, ' ' Dr. Harper says, and * ' the profess- 
ing Christian who wilfully and knowingly opposes its realization is a 
traitor to the cause of Christ." 

The change of Dr. James Kent Stone from the Anglican priesthood 
to the Roman Catholic priesthood is an interesting story told in a vol- 
ume entitled "An Awakening and What Followed" (The Ava Maria, 
Publisher, Notre Dame, Ind.). It is not an unkindly written book and 
reminds one of Dr. Kinsman's "Salve Mater." The one time president 
of Kenyon and Hobart Colleges, and afterwards Father Fidelis of the 
Cross, Passionist, has shown us how Protestant divisions looked in his 
eyes when he was somewhat on the Protestant side in theological con- 
troversy, but his book belongs in that classification of books which de- 
scribes individual experience of persons passing from one communion to 
another as though it were really a conversion to Christianity. We have 
recently read the story of a Roman Catholic's becoming a Protestant. 
The author drops into the same error as Father Fidelis in putting his 
emphasis on religious peculiarities instead of on religion itself. One 
can change his views in matters of theology as radical as a Roman Cath- 
olic 's becoming a Protestant or a Protestant's becoming a Roman 


Catholic without its affecting his religion in any respect. In our ap- 
proaches to Christian union we must come to understand that the pecu- 
liarities of any Christian communion are secondary to those universal 
principles common to all Christian communions. 

Another interesting book of this type is "Lead Thou, the Eecord of 
a Spiritual Journey/' by John Mahler (Blackwell, Publisher, Oxford, 
England), giving the experiences in his journey from a Quaker to an 
Anglican. It is told in the atmosphere of devotion. One chapter deals 
with the "Church and Unity" and another chapter with "Unity." 
The same author has published a pamphlet entitled "United Christian 
Fellowships" in which he affirms that there are no opportunities greater 
than in the field of Christian unity. 

While Dr. William Sanday 's last publication was in press he passed away 
in his seventy-seventh year. He called it his ' ' Nunc Dimitis. " It is en- 
titled "The Position of Liberal Theology," being a friendly examina- 
tion of the Bishop of Zanzibar's open letter entitled "The Christ and 
His Critics" (Faith Press, London). It is the argument of liberal theol- 
ogy against the Bishop 's strictures. He interprets liberal theology as 
the unification of thought, which means the unification of life. He wrote 
in fine courtesy and knew so well how to approach those from whom 
he differed. 

Principal A. E. Garvie, D.D., delivered two strong addresses from 
the chair of the Congregational Union of England and Wales during 
1920. One is entitled "The Venture of Faith in the Making of Na- 
tions" (Congregational Union, Memorial Hall, Farringdon St., London) 
and the other "The Christian Church and the Social Problem" (same 
publisher). In the latter, regarding the Lambeth Appeal, he says, "As 
a Congregationalist I venture to say we welcome that appeal heartily, 
as we too desire that the Church of Christ should make its unity of 
spirit manifest to the world. We recognize with gratitude to God, Whose 
Spirit is leading His Church towards this goal, the advance in thought 
and feeling and aim of the Anglican Church towards the other great 
Christian Churches, and shall meet that advance with all brotherly 
affection. We pledge ourselves to give serious, prayerful, unprejudiced 
consideration to the definite proposals made, on which it would be pre- 
mature to pronounce final judgment. We shall use every opportunity 
for fellowship and cooperation with our Anglican brethren. We pray 
that God by His Spirit may so guide all our counsels, as we believe 
He has been guiding them, that at least we and they shall be guided 
in the unity of the same Spirit to realize without any hindrance or 
limitation our common membership in the one Body of Christ, the ful- 
filment of Him that fulfilleth all in all to the glory of God, that God 
may be all in all." 

In these days of so many conflicting voices on religion it is healthy 


to find a book bearing the title "What is Religion? " (Macmillan). It 
is by Dr. Bernard Bosanquet. It is to help the believers "to get the 
full good, the point and spirit, of the religion which they profess." Its 
emphasis is on religious experience. "To be one with the supreme good 
in the faith that is also will — that is religion. " It is the voice of the 
mystic and abounds in interest. 

By the side of this is "Prayers for My Son: Intercessions for the 
use of Parents on Behalf of their Sons at School," by a Public School- 
master (Wells Gardner, Darton & Co., London). This book is a help in 
the home both for the parents and the absent boys. Too much cannot be 
said for its regular use. There is virtue in the practice of its princi- 
ples. "Purpose of Prayer," by Edward M. Bounds (Revell, New York) 
is another book on prayer that is refreshing. It is in the practice of 
prayer that the author sees the great preventative. It is the channel 
through which God is put in full force in the world. 

Going into the depths of things as Jonathan Brierley used to do, 
William Ralph Inge, dean of St. Paul's, London, has said some brave 
things in his "Outspoken Essays" (Longmans, New York). The eleven 
essays of this volume will be read and reread for some time to come. 
He analyzes democracy with severe indictments; likewise his chapter 
entitled "The Indictment Against Christianity" is especially strong 
and thought-compelling. The Dean has a fine chapter among other con- 
tributors in "Ruskin the Prophet" (Allen and Unwin, London). The 
centenary of Ruskin 's birth in 1919 has given us a number of books, 
but this one and "The Harvest of Ruskin," by J. W. Graham (Allen 
and Unwin, London) are among the best, especially the latter in present- 
ing the ethical and religious teachings of Ruskin. 

In the October number of The Church Quarterly, London, is an in- 
teresting article by the Bishop of Gloucester on "Conditional Ordina- 
tion, ' ' especially dealing with Bramhall 's ordinations. ' ' The Road to 
Rome," by Rev. J. G. H. Barry, D.D., is the title of an article in 
The American Clmrch Monthly, New Brunswick, N. J., taking issue with 
Dr. Kinsman's argument in finding Rome his only conclusion. The Con- 
structive Quarterly, New York, abounds in many fine articles in its Decem- 
ber issue, especially "A Congregational View of the Lambeth Appeal on 
Christian Reunion," by Dr. A. E. Garvie, and "Reunion," by Dr. William 
E. Orchard. 

Organizations for the Promotion of Christian Unity 

Having its inception in the work of Thomas Campbell, 1809, present or- 
ganization 1910, President, Rev. Peter Ainslie; Secretary, Rev. H. C. Arm- 
strong, Seminary House, Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. For intercessory prayer, 
friendly conferences and distribution of irenic literature, ' ' till we all attain 
unto the unity of the faith. " Pentecost Sunday is the day named for 
special prayers for and sermons on Christian unity in all Churches. 

TENDOM, 1857, President, Athelstan Riley, Esq., 2 Kensington Court, 
London; Secretary in the United States, Rev. Calbraith Bourn Perry, Cam- 
bridge, N. Y. For intercessory prayer for the reunion of the Roman Cath- 
olic, Greek and Anglican Communions. 

Rev. Robert W. Weir, Edinburgh. For maintaining, fostering and ex- 
pressing the consciousness of the underlying unity that is shared by many 
members of the different Churches in Scotland. 

CHRISTIAN UNITY FOUNDATION, 1910, Secretary, Rev. W. C. Em- 
hardt, Newtown, Bucks Co., Pa. For the promotion of Christian unity 
throughout the world by research and conference. 

CHURCHMEN'S UNION, 1896, President, Prof. Percy Gardner; Hon. 
Secretary, Rev. C. Moxon, 3 St. George's Square, London S. W., England. 
For cultivation of friendly relations between the Church of England and 
all other Christian bodies. 

DER, 1910, President, Rt. Rev. Charles P. Anderson; Secretary, Robert H. 
Gardiner, Esq., Gardiner, Me., U. S. A. For a world conference of all 
Christians relative to the unity of Christendom. 

COUNCIL ON ORGANIC UNION, 1918, Ad Interim Committee, Chairman, 
Rev. W. H. Roberts, Philadelphia, Pa.; Secretary, Rev. Rufus W. Miller, 
Wither3poon Building, Philadelphia. For the organic union of the Evan- 
gelical Churches in the United States of America. 

1908, President, Rev. Frank Mason North; Secretary, Rev. Charles S. Mac- 
farland, 105 E. 22d St., New York. For the cooperation of the various 
Protestant Communions in service rather than an attempt to unite upon 
definitions of theology and polity. 

FREE CHURCH FELLOWSHIP, 1911, Rev. Malcolm Spencer, Colue 
Bridge House, Rickmansworth, London, N. For the cultivation of cor- 
porate prayer and thought for a new spiritual fellowship and communion 
with all branches of the Christian Church. 

OF ENGLAND, 1895, President, Rev. Principal W. B. Selbie, Mansfield 
College, Oxford; Secretary, Rev. F. B. Meyer, Memorial Hall, E. C, Lon- 
don. For facilitating fraternal intercourse and cooperation among the 
Evangelical Free Churches in England. 

SHIP THROUGH THE CHURCHES, 1914, Chairman, Most Rev. Randall 
Thomas Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, Hon. Secretary, Rt. Hon. Sir 
Willoughby H. Dickinson, 41 Parliament St., London, S. W. 1. For joint 
endeavour to achieve the promotion of international friendship through the 
churehes and the avoidance of war. 

VOL. X NO. 4 

"God gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. " 



rvr t \ PTTTPT V 

y U Alt 1 EjIxL I 


rHIS journal is the organ of no party other 
than of those, growing up in all parties, who 
are interested in the unity of the Church of Christ. 
Its pages are friendly to all indications of Christian 
unity and ventures of faith. It maintains that, 
whether so accepted or not, all Christians — Eastern 
Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, 
and all who accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour — 
are parts of the Church of Christ and that the 
unity of His disciples is the paramount issue 
of modern times. 

APRIL, 1921 





Fleming H. Revell Company, New York 

Maruzen Company, Ltd., Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka and Sendai 

Oliphants, Ltd., 21 Paternoster Square, London, E. C. 4; 100, Princes Street, Edinburgh 



The favorite figure in which the church of the first century set forth its 
conception of the Spirit of Christianity is that of "the Good Shepherd." 
The emblem which appears on this page is a reproduction of one of 
the early Christian gems. 



"No one has written more appreciatively respecting this symbol 
than Dean Stanley in his Christian Institutions. It appealed to all his 
warmest sympathies. 'What,' he asks, 'is the test or sign of Christian 
popular belief, which in these earliest representations of Christianity 
is handed down to us as the most cherished, the all-sufficing, token of 
their creed? It is very simple, but it contains a great deal. It is 
a shepherd in the bloom of youth, with the crook, or a shepherd's pipe, 
in one hand, and on his shoulder a lamb, which he carefully carries, and 
holds with the othei* hand. We see at once who it is; we all know with- 
out being told. This, in that earliest chamber, or church of a Chris- 
tian family, is the only sign of Christian life and Christian belief. But, 
as it is almost the only sign of Christian belief in this earliest catacomb, 
so it continues always the chief, always the prevailing sign, as long as 
those burial-places were used.' 

"After alluding to the almost total neglect of this lovely symbol 
by the Fathers and Theologians, he says that it answers the question, 
what was the popular religion of the first Christians? 'It was, in one 
word, the religion of the Good Shepherd. The kindness, the courage, 
the love, the beauty, the grace, of the Good Shepherd, was to them, if 
we may so say, Prayer Book and Articles, Creed and Canons, all in one. 
They looked on that figure, and it conveyed to them all they wanted. 
As ages passed on, the Good Shepherd faded from the mind of the 
Christian world, and other emblems of the Christian faith have taken 
His place. Instead of the gracious and gentle Pastor, there came the 
Omnipotent Judge, or the crucified Sufferer or the Infant in His mother's 
arms, or the Master in His parting Supper, or the figures of innumerable 
saints and angels, or the elaborate expositions of the various forms of 
theological controversy.' But 'the Good Shepherd represents to us the 
joyful, cheerful side of Christianity of which we spoke before. . . . 
But that is the primitive conception of the Founder of Christianity in 
those earlier centuries when the first object of the Christian community 
was not to repel, but to include; not to condemn, but to save. The popular 
conception of Christ in the early church was of the strong, the joyous 
youth, of eternal growth, of immortal grace.' " — Frederic W. Farrar in 
The Life of Christ as Represented in Art. 


A Journal in the Interest of Reconciliation in the Divided Church 
of Christ. Interdenominational and International. Each Com- 
munion may svealc with Freedom for itself in these Pages as to 
what Offering it has to oring to the Altar of Reconciliation. 

Vol. X. APRIL, 1921 No. 4 


By Rev. Arthur C. Headlam, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, and 
Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. 


By Rev. Joseph A. Vance, D.D., Minister First Presbyterian 
Church, Detroit, Mich. 


By Rev. Alexander Ramsay, D.D., Minister Presbyterian Church 
of England, Highgate, London. 



By Professor Alva W. Taylor, M.A., Professor of Social Service 
and Christian Missions in the Bible College of Missouri, Colum- 
bia, Mo. 


By Rev. Peter Ainslie, D.D., Minister Christian Temple, Balti- 
more, Md. 


The St. Louis Conference ......... 305 




THE CHRISTIAN UNION QUARTERLY is issued in January, April, 
July and October. It is the servant of the whole Church, irrespective of 
name or creed. It offers its pages as a forum to the entire Church of 
Christ for a frank and courteous discussion of those problems that have 
to do with the healing of our unchristian divisions. Its contributors and 
readers are in all communions. 

SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, $2.00 a year— fifty cents a copy. Remittance 
should be made by New York draft, express order or money order. 

Entered as second-class matter in the Post Office at St. Louis, Mo. 


Pentecost Sunday has been named both by the World Conference on 
Faith and Order and the Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity 
as the day for special sermons on Christian unity, along with prayers to 
that end. 

Annual meeting of the World Alliance for International Friendship 
through the Churches, Chicago, May 17-19, 1921. Eev. Henry A. Atkinson, 
secretary, 70 Fifth Ave., New York. 

Meeting of the Continuation Committee of the World Conference on 
Faith and Order at St. Stephen's College, Annadale-on-Hudson, New York, 
95 miles up the Hudson, August 17-24, 1921. Robert H. Gardiner, secre- 
tary, Gardiner, Me. 


(Membership in this League is open to all Christians — Eastern, Roman, 
Anglican and Protestant, the only requirement being a notice by post card 
or letter of one's desire to be so enrolled, stating the Church of which he 
is a member. Address, Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity, 
Seminary House, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A.) 


Penitence for failure to pray for those in other communions. 
Penitence for thinking unkindly of another who occupies a different theo- 
logical position from ourselves. 

Penitence for aloofness in our relation with other Christians. 
Penitence for our pride of theological interpretations. 
Penitence for our selfishness. 

I have acknowledged my sin to Thee, and my injustice I have not concealed. 
I said I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord: and Thou 
hast forgiven the wickedness of my sin. — Psa. 32:5 (Douay Version Psa. 

Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy and according to 
the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my iniquities. Wash me yet 
more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my in- 
iquity, and my sin is always before me. To Thee only have I sinned, and 
have done evil before Thee: that Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, 
and mayest overcome when Thou art judged. — Psa. 51:1-4 (Douay .Version 
Psa. 50:3-6). 


Almighty and merciful God, the Fountain of all goodness, who knowest 
the thoughts of our hearts, we confess unto Thee that we have sinned 
against Thee, and done evil in Thy sight. Wash us, we beseech Thee, 
from the stains of our past sins, and give us grace and power to put 
away all hurtful things; so that, being delivered from the bondage of sin, 
we may bring forth worthy fruits of repentance. 

O eternal Light, shine into our hearts. O eternal Goodness, deliver us from 
evil. O eternal Power, be Thou our support. Eternal Wisdom, scatter the 
darkness of our ignorance. Eternal Pity, have mercy upon us. Grant unto 
us that with all our hearts, and minds, and strength, we may evermore seek 
Thy face; and finally bring us, in Thine infinite mercy, to Thy holy pres- 
ence. So strengthen our weakness that, following in the footsteps of Thy 
blessed Son, we may obtain Thy mercy, and enter into Thy promised joy. 
Amen. — Alcuvn, A.D. 780. 


Minister Christian Temple, Baltimore, Md. 

Editorial Council 


Pastor First Congregational Church, Cambridge, Mass. 

Minister Dutch Reformed Church, The Hague, Holland 

Professor in the University of Berlin, Germany 

Principal of New College, University of London, London, England 

Dean General Episcopal Theological Seminary, New York City 

Minister Brick Presbyterian Church, New York City 

Professor of Church History, Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, 

Lancaster, Pa. 


Canon of Westminster, L,ondon, England 


Archbishop of Uppsala, Sweden 

ALL editorial communications should be addressed to Peter Ainslie, Editor THE 
CHRISTIAN UNION QUARTERLY, 504 N. Fulton Ave., Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. 

SUBSCRIPTIONS may be sent direct or placed through Fleming H. Revell Com- 
pany, New York City; Maruzen Company, Ltd., Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Fukuoka and 
Sendai; Oliphants, Ltd., 21 Paternoster Square, London, E. C. 4, or 100 Princes 
Street, Edinburgh. 

SUBSCRIPTION price $2.00 a year— 50 cents a copy. 




By Rt. Rev. Ethelbert Talbot, D.D., Bishop of 


By Rev. Gaius Glenn Atkins, D.D., Minister 
First Congregational Church, Detroit, Mich. 


Being the Action of the Recent Convention of 
the United Lutheran Church in America. 

Being the Encycle of Pope Benedict XV. 


Being Addressed to the Editor by Anthony 

EDITORIAL: Fourth Quadrennial Meeting of the 

Federal Council 215 






/j& LORD, forgive us for our unlovely 
^^ attitudes toward each other, for we 
have all sinned whether we be called 
Protestant or Anglican, Eastern Orthodox 
or Roman Catholic. We have stood aloof 
from each other as though the other were 
our enemy, and have pursued our courses 
as though these were not in Thy House, 
when our ownership is in Jesus Christ, 
the common Lord and Saviour of us all. 
Teach us how to be Christian to all other 
Christians through Jesus Christ to Whom 
be gjory for ever. Amen. 


AS being baptized we are all on either side brothers 
and sisters in Christ, we are all at bottom members 
of the universal Church. In this great garden of 
God let us shake hands with one another over the 
confessional hedges, and let us break them down so 
as to be able to embrace one another altogether. 
. . . Let us examine, compare and investigate 
the matter together, and we shall discover the 
precious pearl of religious peace and Church unity, 
and then join our hands and forces in cleansing and 
cultivating the garden of the Lord, which is over- 
grown with weeds. — John J. I. Von Bollinger. 

ijlli— ail- — HH— un— hb— -uu— iiii^— n it— — uu— -uu— nu— °na«— -uu— uu— us— uu— uu— — »h— uu— n«= — en— im— uu— n «|» 

I i 

I I 

II . I 

F a general in an army would I 

divide up his forces in attack- j 

ing an enemy like the Church is | 

j divided to-day in its attack on j 

J worldliness, he would be sent to I 

j the insane asylum ; yet the divided | 

Church pursues with satisfaction I 

j and pride this insane policy against | 

a greater enemy than any general 

j ever led an army. Is it any wonder | 

I that the world war revealed the I 

j Church without a voice to check f 

the tragedy of war! I 



What is the motive which at the present time is making 
people desire, or at any rate say that they desire, unity? 
Is it merely a feeling that if Christianity is to be effective 
it must be united and strong? Is it merely the same sort 
of worldly motive which makes men desire to amalga- 
mate railways and create large business combines? Be- 
cause if it is so the movement has little reality or power. 
The only effective desire of Christian unity which will 
be able to break down the old established barriers that 
separate creeds and Churches must be religious, as in- 
tensely religious as the motives which led to separation. 
Why should we desire Christian union? It is because 
it is only in a united Church that Christianity can be 
fully and completely displayed. For what does Chris- 
tianity mean? It means essentially brotherhood. It 
means, and it has always meant, when it has been put 
forth in its true ideal, the breaking down of all the bar- 
riers which separate people from one another. "In 
Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither 
male nor female, neither bond nor free, we are all one in 
Christ Jesus." It is only by uniting people of different 
races, colours, classes, status, in one Church that this 
ideal can be carried out. The Christian Church from 
the beginning made no difference within the Chris- 
tian society between the freeman and the slave and so 
eventually destroyed the slavery of the ancient world. 
The Christian Church from the beginning put the Jew 
and Gentile, Greek and Eoman, Hellene and Barbarian 
on one footing and so helped in the unification of the 
empire. If this is the Christian ideal it is obvious how 
a disunited Christianity completely fails to attain it. Go 
to any city in England or America and you find that in- 
stead of Christianity's being the uniting principle be- 


tween parties and classes it is largely the dividing princi- 
ple. Go to any city in the East and you find that each 
race has its own particular Church and that there are no 
animosities greater than those between different sections 
of Christianity. Or pass from country to country and 
you find that instead of your common Christianity's be- 
ing a bond of union, it is the rivalry of different Churches 
which helps to create international complications. A 
divided Christianity is inconsistent with the most fun- 
damental principles and ideals of the Christian religion, 
and therefore we must seek the union of the Churches. 

And then secondly, we must recognize that if we build 
up our Christianity on a Biblical basis the unity of Chris- 
tianity is profoundly sacramental. It is based upon 
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. "By one Spirit are we 
all baptized into one Body." "The cup of blessing 
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of 
Christ 1 The bread which we break, is it not the commun- 
ion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one 
bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that 
one bread.' ' The meaning of Baptism is the simple in- 
itiatory rite into one society which should be as wide as 
humanity; the meaning of the Communion is that all 
good Christians, whatever their race and whatever their 
wealth and whatever their position, should meet together 
on terms of complete equality in that Feast. And no 
scheme of Christian reunion which does not recognize 
the necessity that our union must be sacramental can be 

What practical step can we suggest to be followed by 
those who desire Christian union? I think that the first 
thing is in every place to create that amount of fellow- 
ship which we know is possible. There is little or noth- 
ing to prevent all the Christian bodies in any one place 
from uniting in Christian conference. This has been 
done in many places; it should surely be done every- 


where. The conference should be one of ministers and 
all representative laymen, for it is as important that the 
laity should be brought together as the clergy. It must 
be remembered that to a large extent it is in the laity 
that the narrowness of partizan tradition is often en- 
shrined. In every village, therefore, in every town, in 
every country district, let a conference be formed repre- 
sentative of all the Christian religious societies. Then 
let that conference devote itself as far as possible in the 
first place to practical aims. There are many things 
upon which all good Christians can cooperate together. 
They can cooperate together on the support of hospitals 
and the help of the sick; they can cooperate together on 
arranging that full opportunities shall be given in what- 
ever way suits the district best for religious education, 
even if that religious education is still to be given on 
different lines. They can cooperate together on many 
of those questions which touch the moral tone of the 
people. They can probably, to a large extent, cooperate 
together at times of great national, or even international, 
suffering, or in solemn services roused by a common 
need. The only way to do anything is to begin by doing 
what you can, and such a conference with common work 
would be possible in most parts of the world. 

But that conference need not stop at this. It must 
be a conference also for studying on the one side the 
principles of the different religious bodies which keep 
them apart, on the other hand the ideal of the Christian 
Church on which they should unite. It is probable that 
it will be discovered that when people know one another 
and are able to work with one another effectively they 
really do not differ in the way that they think. On 
theological questions the old distinctions which sepa- 
rated one Church from another have almost vanished. 
On the atonement, on the incarnation, on grace and pre- 
destination, the differences are rather between different 


members of the same body than between different bodies. 
I will not say that this is a universal truth; it is very 
largely so. There are few of the Calvinist Churches 
which are any longer really Calvinist. I do not think 
that left to themselves the great body of Christians 
would feel much difficulty in uniting so far as doctrinal 
questions are concerned. 

But then there are the questions of Church order. 
How are they to be dealt with? There is a common 
body of opinion at the present time which suggests that 
all such questions can be ignored ; that anyone who takes 
an interest in them or thinks them important or lays 
stress on any particular point in order may be treated 
with contempt and that all that we have to do is to ignore 
such differences. Such an attitude is exactly the sort 
which will do more than anything else to keep people 
apart. It may well be that after careful enquiry dif- 
ferences are found not to be so great as was thought, that 
some things have been looked upon as essential which 
were not essential, and that we might combine together 
without solving all these questions, but such an attitude 
will be attained not by contempt but by sympathy. If all 
the Christian Churches from the beginning have laid so 
much stress upon the principles of order, it is a simple 
fact that the two earliest documents outside the Old Tes- 
tament — the Epistle of Clement and the Epistles of St. 
Ignatius — should both dwell largely on questions of or- 
der — if all the Christian Churches from the beginning 
have felt questions of order so important, that must wit- 
ness to something which is real in human nature. If 
again they have felt that the right and due administra- 
tion of the Sacraments is a matter which demands 
thought and reverence and has always done so, we can- 
not meet it by any attitude of contempt. If again a so- 
ber historian is able to point out that errors in form, 
order, administration, organization have often had a dis- 


astrous result, surely again it bears evidence to the im- 
portance of such things. 

The first thing necessary then for coming to terms on 
these questions of order is to approach their study with 
interest and sympathy. After all Congregationalism, 
Presbyterianism, Episcopacy, the Papacy have all been 
associated at different times in history with real crises. 
The Medieval Papacy did great things. The English 
Church and its Episcopacy have been one of the great 
factors which have moulded the English nation. An 
ideal of civil liberty was associated with Congregational- 
ism; the Presbyterianism of Calvin has reared a strong 
type of human nature. Do not let us treat any of these 
things with contempt, but let us approach together the 
study of them and find out elements of permanence and 
truth in each. I think if that was the attitude with 
which we approached the study of Church order it would 
make the solution of many problems much easier. 

We have said that Christian unity in the New Testa- 
ment is put before us as something sacramental, that it 
lies in union in Baptism and union in the Holy Com- 
munion. May I suggest a way in which I think we may 
advance towards union, recognizing its sacramental 
basis 1 If the Sacraments are to be a basis of union they 
must be celebrated with the authority of the whole Chris- 
tian body. That, it will be found, underlies the prin- 
ciples of ordination which have always prevailed. Take, 
for example, Congregationalism : its unit is the congrega- 
tion, and therefore in all it does authority of the congre- 
gation is paramount. Its ministers are appointed and 
ordained by the congregation, its Sacrament is adminis- 
tered in and with the authority of the congregation. 
Now that principle in an extended form should apply to 
a united Church and that is the meaning which ordina- 
tion has had in an Episcopal Church. The unit of an 
Episcopal Church is the diocese, but that diocese is 


looked upon simply as the representative in a particular 
place of the whole society. Wherever, therefore, a 
bishop is appointed over a diocese he has to be conse- 
crated by representatives of at least three other dioceses. 
That is the rule which has been evolved from the custom 
of the bishops of all neighbouring sees coming together 
at consecration. So in the same way in order to keep up 
the unity of the diocese, whenever a presbyter is or- 
dained representatives of the other presbyters join with 
the bishop in the laying on of hands. Out of these two 
customs has been developed the theory of the Apostolic 
Succession. That expresses the truth in a somewhat 
symbolical fashion. The real meaning of consecration 
and ordination is that the bishop and the priest should go 
forth with the authority of the whole Christian society 
and that its Sacraments which they administer and 
which are a sign of Christian unity should be adminis- 
tered with the authority of the whole Christian body. 
Now if that is the principle which really embodies the 
idea of consecration and ordination in historical 
Churches of Christendom, surely it is just the principle 
we are to apply if we attempt in any way Christian re- 
union. To say simply our Sacraments are the Sacra- 
ments of the Christian Church is not enough; it may be 
the first step, but it is not enough. What we have to do 
is to show that we are united in them. That means that 
every minister should have the authority of the whole 
body. Now surely the way to bring that about is wher- 
ever possible to summon those who are representatives 
of other Christian bodies to take part in each ordination. 
Let that be done in a simple and straightforward way 
without attempting to lay down terms of reunion or any- 
thing of that sort. Why when a minister is to be ap- 
pointed to any congregation in a Christian town should 
not representatives of all the other religious bodies be 
asked to attend and assist in the laying on of hands f If 


that were done union in the Communion in the future 
would not be any violation of principles ; it would mean 
that the newly appointed minister of whatever body he 
was had received a commission from all the other bodies ; 
it would mean that people were united together and the 
adjustments of organization in the future would be com- 
paratively easy. It is, I believe, by a union in ordina- 
tion that Christian reunion can be best brought about. 

A feeling that very naturally arises about Christian 
unity is the hopelessness of it. People look at the Chris- 
tian world as it is at present and see it divided into an 
innumerable number of religious sects, and they also 
look at human nature and see the constant tendency that 
there is to controversy, to disagreement and to more 
serious forms of quarrelling, and they wonder whether 
any change in this can take place. How can we get a 
state of mind which will not only prevent new divisions 
but which will do away with the old 1 I venture to think 
that the fundamental necessity is to get a real determina- 
tion for unity, and that that should continuously work 
on people 's minds. 

Let us consider what has been happening for the last 
three hundred years ever since the Eeformation. The 
desire for unity was for long much in abeyance. There 
have been even theories of the Church which have re- 
jected any form of visible Christian unity. A large part 
of the Christian world has found its unity in a doctrine of 
the invisible Church. People have not desired to be one. 
Their attention has been turned to particular aspects of 
the Christian message. All their force and interest have 
been concentrated on those. The consequence has been 
naturally that there has been no desire for unity and so 
unity has not been attained. But supposing the contrary 
spirit was to prevail; supposing that the new feeling of 
brotherhood, of fellowship — the new conceptions which 


are very widespread, which would like to break down the 
barrier of race and nation and language — supposing that 
these really got a hold of people's minds simply as theo- 
retical doctrines, that they are taught in Church, that 
they are taught in schools, that they are taught in the 
public press and become part of what I may call the com- 
monplace, not only of Christian teaching but of secular 
teaching. For a time it may seem difficult to carry them 
into effect, but the continuous influence of teaching like 
this on people's minds will ultimately be very powerful. 
There are many things which, say, two hundred years 
ago were never thought of which are now almost com- 
monplace. Take the idea of the full representation of 
each man as a citizen that is now almost looked upon as a 
commonplace. There is hardly a country in the world 
which has not representation in some form or other. The 
political system created has now many defects, but it does 
mean fundamentally that every man is recognized as 
having his rights. Now the whole of the doctrine on 
which this is based is something very novel. Think of 
the constitution of France in 1780 and think of the con- 
stitution of France in 1880 — what a tremendous trans- 
formation of ideas has taken place. Now if that sort of 
change can work so rapidly why should not it work 
equally rapidly in regard to Christianity and the union 
of the Christian Church? The first steps will necessar- 
ily be slow and tentative. For a considerable time little 
definite progress will probably be made, but ultimately 
it will be found that people's aspect has changed and 
unity will come with great rapidity. 

' Our primary duties then are twofold: the first is to 
teach Christian unity not as a mere matter of arrange- 
ment or convenience or for administrative purposes, but 
as a fundamental Christian idea, the idea of brotherhood, 
of fellowship, and the union of all men in Christ ; and the 


second duty of the Christian Church is to pray for this 
union. What becomes part of the sincere and genuine 
prayers of the Christian world will very soon become 
part of the practical policy and will obtain its consumma- 
tion in life. 

Arthur C. Headlam. 

Christ Church, 
Oxford, England. 


What care I for cast or creed? 
It is the deed, it is the deed. 
What for class, or what for elan? 
It is the man, it is the man! 
It is of love and joy and woe, 
For who is high and who is low, 
Mountain, valley, sky and sea 
Are for all humanity. 

What care I for robe or stole? 

It is the soul, it is the soul. 

What for the crown or what for chest? 

It is the soul within the breast, 

It is the faith, it is the hope, 

It is the struggle up the slope, 

It is the brain and the eye to see 

One God and one humanity. 

— Robert Loveman. 


It takes great strength to live where you belong 
When other people think that you are wrong; 
People you love, and who love you, and whose 
Approval is a pleasure you would choose. 
To bear this pressure and succeed at length 
In living your belief — well, it takes strength. 

— Charlotte Perkins Gilman. 


Are the Churches of America making any real progress 
toward Christian unity? This question meets one to-day 
on every hand. Even men of the world, and not merely 
God's children who have been praying and working and 
sacrificing for it for a generation, are asking it, some- 
times anxiously, sometimes skeptically. 

Let us take a good searching look at the present situa- 

Widest, and greatest of all in many ways, is the pro- 
posed World Conference on Faith and Order, the pre- 
liminary conference for which recently met at Geneva. 
Invitations to the conference itself have been accepted by 
practically every Christian body of national proportions 
in the world, with the exception of the Koman Catholic. 

Nobody expects this conference to agree on a statement 
of Christian faith, and it would be an unexpected marvel 
if the different bodies should agree to recognize each 
others' orders, but here is an indication of the world- 
wide moving of God's Spirit that has limitless possibil- 
ities, the like of which has not been seen since the jeal- 
ousies of the Eastern and Western episcopates first split 
the Christian Church. 

Next in importance to us in the United States is 
the "Plan of Union" for the Protestant Evangelical 
Churches of our country, sent down to the different de- 
nominations by the conference at Philadelphia, December, 
1919. This was called by the invitation of the Presbyte- 
rian General Assembly at Columbus, Ohio. The "Plan 
of Union" proposed was unanimously accepted by the re- 
cent Assembly at Philadelphia and sent down to the Pres- 
byteries. It must have the approval of two-thirds of 
these, which it seems likely to get. The Plan has already 
been approved by the Methodist General Conference, and 
can be put into effect as soon as it is approved by six of 


the nearly twenty denominations whose representatives 
approved it in Philadelphia. 

There are also encouraging movements on foot to unite 
the Presbyterian and Eeformed bodies into one General 
Assembly, and to bring into one Conference the northern 
and southern Methodists. 

Other movements, like the union of the Welsh Calvin- 
istic Methodists and Northern Presbyterians have been 
effected, while yet others are merely being urged. 

But underlying all these, and giving impetus to them 
are the unions, ever increasing in number, of congrega- 
tions that overlap each other in the same community. 
These are effected in different ways, but they are taking 
place every day, and denominational opposition to them 
is either decreasing or, in a few cases, being ignored. 

But what about the break-down of the Interchurch 
Movement? Isn't that clear proof that, while Christian 
people may boost Church unity and boast of denomina- 
tional readiness to make sacrifices for it, when the 
Church leaders attempt some practical expression of it, 
we meet with failure? 

It would lead too far afield to discuss the up and down 
of the Interchurch Movement, but let this be said, that 
even the Church leaders who most ardently advocated 
it, recognize to-day that the success of the Interchurch 
Movement, as it was organized and carried forward, 
would have been a greater calamity than its break-down. 

As it is, the aims and ideals of denominational coopera- 
tion which led us into the Interchurch Movement are not 
to be allowed to perish. The recent quadrennial meeting 
of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in Amer- 
ica, held in Boston, the greatest gathering of its kind, 
without doubt, that our nation has ever seen, sent down to 
the denominations a plan for enlarging its powers, mak- 
ing the Council an arm of these denominations to do 
things, as well as a mind to investigate and advise. 


The hearty unanimity with which this plan of Dr. Rob- 
ert E. Speer's committee was adopted cheers us to hope 
that the thirty denominations of the Council will soon 
find a way to do our great and common tasks unitedly. 

These things, and more on which we might dwell, in- 
dicate that as never before the hearts of Christ's people 
are being stirred to answer His prayer for our unity. 
But we must be patient and prayerful, and where essen- 
tials are not involved, sacrificial. And we must be very 
careful not to blunder into seeking unity in a wrong way 
or along the wrong lines. 

It is a vast step forward that we have come to distin- 
guish between unity and uniformity, that denomination- 
alism is not a blunder, but a providence, not the fruit of 
schismatics, but the protest of conscience, and that we 
may make of our denominationalism not the paralysis, 
but the enrichment of the spiritual life of Christ's 

We must not blunder into an attempt to condition 
Christian unity on identity of creedal statement, even 
about the essentials of evangelical Christianity. There 
must be common acceptance of these great truths — our 
conception of God, of Jesus Christ our Divine Lord and 
Redeemer and "His atoning sacrifice," the personality 
of the Holy Spirit, and the necessity not only of the new 
birth but of a life of love and good works, the bodily 
resurrection of our Lord and His believers, the final 
awards of eternity — but this is a very different thing 
from saying that agreement on a creedal statement con- 
cerning these great truths must be the first step in Chris- 
tian unity. If we do demand that, rest assured Christian 
unity will not come till we no longer see ' ' through a glass 
darkly," but "see as we are seen and know as we are 
known" by our omniscient Lord. 

Neither should we condition our unity on mutual recog- 
nition of our ecclesiastical orders. For a certain cour- 


tesy's sake, this may appear to some essential. But we 
ministers of one denomination may find a real unity with 
brethren the canon laws of whose denomination lag 
behind their own Christian brotherliness. Christ did 
that when He told the disciples, "Forbid them not; for 
he that is not against us is on our part." The fact is, 
there is beautiful and effective cooperative activity in 
many of our union movements without any emphasis on 
this tender point. 

Let us not blunder here through either pride or con- 
tention. We do not have to wait for the success of world 
conferences on faith and order to give expression to our 
Christian unity. Experience must show us that it cannot 
come through compulsion, for men who have learned to 
think God's thoughts after Him for themselves will not 
take man-made dictations from any source. It was this 
attempt which produced the division of Protestantism. 
We may rest assured it will not heal them. 

Nor will it come by argument. A man's philosophy 
usually determines his type of theology ; and his theology 
determines his exegesis. Argument over these things 
has led us to stress non-essentials, to justify our divi- 

Much less ought we to seek it through compromise. 
This would impoverish the Church beyond expression, 
and make both creed and ritual a thing of "minimums," 
as one writer has well put it, instead of " maximums.' ' 

We must go after unity along the pathway of compre- 
hension. ' ' What have you, ' ' we must say to each denom- 
ination, "that will enrich the spiritual life of the 
Church?" Bring it in, and let it be our common posses- 
sion. All of us have been interpreting Christ and Chris- 
tian experience from some particular point of view. No 
one of us has got a complete vision from every angle. 
Let us post our products, and maybe we shall find, with- 


out our having realized it that God has given not to any 
one, hut to all of us united the full vision of the circle. 

In short Christian unity is going forward because we 
are learning more and more to magnify Christ instead of 
the creeds we frame concerning Him and the rituals 
through which we worship Him. There is only one path 
along which we can advance and that is cooperative activ- 
ity, and a common Christian experience. Thirty of our 
great denominations have been learning to cooperate in 
investigating conditions and advising what should be 
done to meet them. It looks as if we were now ready to 
cooperate in the activities which we have counseled. We 
can work together, if we will be patient, and substitute 
Christian confidence and brotherly esteem for denomina- 
tional rivalry and suspicion. And after all, this was 
Christ's great test: not creed, nor ritual, nor even 
mutual recognition of ecclesiastical dignities, but con- 
duct. "Ye are my disciples if ye do whatsoever I com- 
mand you." We proved to ourselves and the world that 
we could work together by our united welfare work dur- 
ing the late war. It had its frictions, but so must it be 
with all constructive work of wide activity ; but we got it 
done, because we all took a hand in it, and we were all 
drawn to it by a common devotion. 

Let us consider then, some of the constraints that im- 
pel us to unite in carrying forward our Lord's great en- 
terprises for world conquest. 

First of all, there is our common agreement on the 
great essentials of Christian faith and conduct. We 
cherish a common belief on the great essentials of evan- 
gelical religion, though we have not yet reached the point 
where we can agree on the verbal statements which define 
them. Of far more importance, we cherish the same 
ideals as to what constitutes a Christian life and charac- 
ter, and its supreme value in our social organism here as 
well as to heavenly citizenship hereafter. 

Then we have the fact that during recent years our 
forms of polity have been approaching each other. In- 


dividual congregations of the congregational type have 
been seeking larger group relations while prelatical types 
have been giving larger place to the laity. Not only has 
the episcopal polity, both Protestant and Methodist, 
been giving a legislative voice to the laity, and congrega- 
tionalists laying larger emphasis on the value of their 
councils, but even the Presbyterians, mirabile dictu, are 
beginning to wonder if the bishop may not have divine 
values if not divine authority. With all of us there is 
much less of the bigoted insistence on the divine character 
of our particular form of government and a growing con- 
viction that human needs of different historical periods 
have had a great deal to do with determining polities in 
the Church's past; and that each of these polities may 
have something of real value to contribute to what is to 
be the Church's form of government in the future. 

On every hand, also, we meet a cheering readiness on 
the part of the laity to try out any promising forms of 
cooperative activity, and a growing eagerness for Church 
unity. In fact, it looks as if in many places the laity are 
so eager for it, that if ecclesiastical hostility persists in 
blocking it or even in long deferring it, they will rise up 
and break down the barriers themselves. 

The present day conditions resulting from denom- 
inational rivalry are rapidly becoming unbearable. The 
old cry of, "If we don't hurry up and plant a Church 
there, the Methodists or Baptists will get ahead of us," 
no longer gets dollars from consecrated Christian lay- 
men, but disgusts. Eagerness to get ahead of another 
denomination is, let us thank God, giving way to eager- 
ness to cooperate with another denomination, that by 
united effort we may get ahead of the world, the flesh and 
the devil. 

The cause of Christ does not have to stagnate in small 
towns and rural sections because the people of Christ are 
called on to maintain a half dozen anaemic, little Churches 


there, and keep out of the country almshouse a pastor 
for each, when all of them might unite and make one 
great, strong Church, headed by a man of such force, as 
well as piety, that he stands out as one of the great men 
of the community, and gathering about it, with a mighty 
vitality, the intellectual and social and literary, as well 
as the spiritual life, of the entire community. 

It is not right to lay upon a little community of fifteen 
hundred to two thousand people the financial burden of 
supporting five or six pastors and keeping as many 
Church organizations going, where one or two could more 
effectively serve their spiritual needs. Ice cream sup- 
pers and strawberry festivals and working the uncon- 
verted merchants of the community for contributions to 
donation parties, with the added indignity put on them 
of missionary boxes of old clothes to their pastors, serve 
to characterize such denominational zeal, more than the 
conversion of the unsaved. 

Another great hindrance to the cause of Christ has been 
the inability of Protestantism to deliver a united blow on 
the great battles of our day. We had to create a special 
organization to fight the saloon; and we never dealt its 
death-blow till we dealt it unitedly. We had to resort to 
the Y. M. C. A. and the Y. W. C. A. to do our welfare 
work during the war. To-day we face what is in many 
ways the most crucial year of our generation. Shall we 
let the world slip back into its old ways of stanching im- 
morality and self indulgence? Shall we let victory by 
physical force spell moral defeat and spiritual decline? 
Especially shall we let a generation that has fattened 
beyond dreams on the famine and poverty and strife of 
war-smitten Europe and Asia yield to the base motives 
of greed and self-indulgence and love of ease, and after 
glutting themselves like a great herd of fattened swine 
lie down in the sun? Or shall we still prod conscience 
with the parable of the rich fool, and call men and women 


to the more difficult career of peacetime heroism, and the 
Christ-like ministries of sacrificial service, our only es- 
cape from the "Ichabod" which Providence writes over 
a once-time hero as he sinks, like a fatted fool, into the 
easy chair of luxury 1 

Such a task as this can be done only by a Church 
united, as well as a Church impassioned. 

Let us think also of the great number of really heroic 
men and women whose services have been alienated from 
the Church by our denominational divisions and conse- 
quent waste of energy and sectarian strife over minor 
matters. They are to be found in every community. 
They must be appealed to with something big and heroic. 
Many of them were leaders, sacrificial toilers, in war wel- 
fare work. Can we not put up a programme in peace 
time which will make as heroic an appeal to their passion 
for righteousness and the moral welfare of humanity, as 
war-time work made to their patriotism! 

That depends, too, in a most vital way, on a united 
Church. It is a pitifully pathetic appeal which the parish 
work of our overchurched villages and towns is able to 
make to-day, either to young men of big heroic mould to 
become pastors, or to laymen and women of like type to 
sacrifice themselves in its activities. But unite these 
Churches, merge them into one great spiritual force, 
whose mighty momentum gathers up every phase of wel- 
fare and uplift for that community, and where is there a 
man who loves God and has the good of men at heart to 
whom its call will not appeal? 

In view of these things, and much more that could be 
said, one great question is crowding in on the conscious- 
ness of Christ's people to-day. How can I help unite the 
forces of Christ and lend a hand in unifying their mobili- 
zation into one mighty army? How can we help on this 
greatest movement for world conquest since apostolic 


First of all by a fine loyalty to Jesus Christ in thought 
and deed and to that particular branch of His Church 
through which we have enlisted as His followers, and in 
whose worship and work we can express our best en- 
deavor for God. Lack of loyalty to any particular de- 
nomination or even congregation means disloyalty to 
Christ and uselessness in His service. If we are not 
meeting a Christian's task by loyal devotion to the work 
of our own particular congregation and denomination, 
we are an incubus on the army. 

These people who talk of being such broad-minded, lib- 
eral Christians that they feel kindly toward all Churches, 
and belong to none, are giving an excuse for not doing 
their duty, and the excuse is their reproach. It is of no 
value in a cause to feel kindly toward it. That lets a man 
drown while you sing a lullaby to him from the land. 
You must lend a hand; and, in this task, till the hand 
grows horny in the service. 

Then it will help the cause on wonderfully if we learn 
increasingly to emphasize, not minor matters, but the es- 
sentials of faith and conduct. We like worship conducted 
in a certain way, and it gives us confidence in the preach- 
er's orthodoxy when certain theological shibboleths are 
often on his lips ; but forms and ceremonies are forgotten 
in the great crises of life. Simplicity of worship and 
creed expressions, and a great brotherliness in our at- 
titude toward all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity, 
will compose many differences and help us into the loving 
unity of one family in Christ in a wonderful way. 

Then every one of us can take an active part to help 
along every movement toward Christian unity. These 
are going forward to-day in every community. Sectarian 
prejudice will make you hold aloof, and brand them as 
foolish emotionalism or disloyal liberalism. Let secta- 
rian prejudice die. It has done enough damage. Encour- 


age your pastor or rector to exchange pulpits with the 
pastors of other denominations. Go to another Church 
now and then yourself and get acquainted with its pastor 
and people. Encourage Church federations and support 
attempts of denominational leaders to do things together. 
Scores of things that long defied isolated effort will come 
easily if you attempt them unitedly. For after all, real 
Christian unity waits, not on the deliberations of eccle- 
siastics. Their arguments are interminable and their 
often inconsequential objections have no end. It waits 
on a great ground-swell from a long-suffering laity who 
know from fellowship in Christian activities, and by 
sharing a common Christian experience, that they should 
not be divided by outgrown denominational barriers, but 
united as brothers by "the tie that binds our hearts in 
Christian love," and have learned to pray, "Grace be 
with all them that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sin- 
cerity. ' ' 

Last spring in the beautiful little Presbyterian Church 
at Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, I heard Eobert Freeman, 
of Pasadena, California, preach a wonderful sermon, and 
at the close of it he told this little story. It was about a 
meeting when the strapping, big-bodied Ira Shaw and 
stocky young Roosevelt were introduced to each other. 

"You look as if you were an athlete," Eoosevelt said 
as his eye travelled up Shaw's big body. 

"Yes, I've played foot-ball a little," he answered. 
"Where were you!" 
"At Yale." 

"Why you must be the Shaw on whose back Harold 
Wickes made his wonderful games." 

"Yes," answered the big fellow, "The scars of Harold 
Wickes ' cleats are still all over my back. ' ' 

The divisions of Christendom have made many scars on 
the body of Christ. 


Let us get forward by them to our great goal, that our 
Lord's prayer, that we all may be one, may soon be an- 
swered, and with it a world convinced that He came forth 
from God and can lead a lost world back to God. 

Joseph A. Vance. 

First Presbyterian Church, 
Detroit, Mich. 


Creeds and confessions? High Church or the Low? 

I cannot say; but you would vastly please us 
If with some pointed Scripture you could show 

To which of these belonged the Saviour, Jesus. 
I think to all, or none. Not curious creeds 

Or ordered forms of churchly rule be taught 
But soul of love that blossomed into deeds, 

With human good and human blessing fraught. 
On me nor priest nor presbyter nor pope; 

Bishop nor dean, may stamp a party name; 
But Jesus, with his largely human scope, 

The service of my human life may claim. 
Let prideful priests do battle about creeds, 

The church is mine that does most Christ-like deeds. 

— John Stuart Blackie. 


The finest thing beneath the sun 

Is brave, right living; 

Duty done at stroke of hour, 

Kind thoughts bestowed, 

A life to ease a brother's load, 

Temptation overcome; 

Some cause pushed forward — 

And then a restful pause 

To let the uprising good 

In our own hearts find its little rood 

In which to grow. 

— Amy Davis Winship. 


There is no movement within Christendom so marked 
and all-dominating in our day as the movement towards 
unity. It has captured the hearts of Christian men ; even 
w^here it is deemed unattainable, it is yet longed for. 
The evidence of its force and vitality is seen on every 
side. On the mission field it has produced a recognition 
of spheres of effort not unlike the assignment of the 
" circumcision' ' and the "uncircumcision" to the origi- 
nal apostles and to St. Paul. There is a determination 
not to transplant the divisions and sects of the older 
world among the infant Churches springing up in hea- 
then lands. Hence the arrangements in Africa for inter- 
communion and open fellowship, and the merging in 
China and Japan and India of the converts of mission- 
aries from different communions into one united Church, 
that is called by the name of Christ, and knows nothing 
of the Congregationalism or Presbyterianism or Wesley- 
anism whence came the Gospel to them. In South India 
the time is ripe for the uprising of a Church, in the unity 
of which are to be embraced the missions of all sections 
of the Reformed Church. In view of the future and of 
the growth of a native Christianity, and in face of the 
call and need of the heathen world, any other alternative 
than that of union stands self-condemned, and it is full 
of hope that impulse towards it often springs from the 
native Christians themselves. 

But the same phenomenon is seen in lands of ancient 
Christian traditions, with differences and distinctions 
and separations among Christians that have their roots 
deep in the past of historic controversies and old con- 
tendings for the faith. In Scotland the two Presbyterian 
Churches which include in their membership probably 
ninety per cent of the Church-going population, are 
about to come together. In England the divided sons 
of the Wesleyan revival are considering the terms of an 


incorporating union. In Canada negotiations for the 
union of the Presbyterian and Wesleyan Churches are 
far advanced. In the new Kepublic of Czecho-Slovakia 
the scattered sections of the evangelical Churches have 
been drawn together in one united Church. In America 
denominational distinctions have worn thin, and lines of 
demarcation are all but invisible, while the federation of 
the Churches of Christ for common service is an accom- 
plished fact and "community" services, in which all 
unite for common worship, abound. There is no land in 
which the faith of Christ is alive, where this tendency to 
union may not be seen. Churches that call Jesus Lord 
are discovering their kinship, and their relation and atti- 
tude to each other is sweetened and Christianized. 
Churches of a common polity or of common ecclesiastical 
and doctrinal affinities are coming together into one fold. 
The meeting at Geneva last August brought together by 
the initiative of the Protestant Episcopal Church of 
America, to consider questions of faith and order for the 
healing of the broken fellowship of the catholic Church, 
was in its comprehensiveness the most remarkable assem- 
bly the world has seen since the Eeformation. The pres- 
ence of representatives of the Orthodox Church of the 
East lent it unique distinction. Save for the regretted 
and lamentable refusal of the Eoman Church to take 
part, it had a title to be called ecumenical. The official 
attitude of that Church bars and padlocks the door 
against any approach to fellowship save on the terms of 
absorption and submission to the papal claims, and until 
a better mind is born within her the movement towards 
reunion can only operate in the Christian Church outside 
of her communion, and it has its most unrestricted field 
among those who rejoice in the heritage of the Eeformed 
faith. The appeal of the bishops of the Anglican Com- 
munion on this urgent question of "the reunion of the 
separated congregations of Christ's flock,' ' issued also in 


August of last year, has awakened a sympathetic re- 
sponse in myriads of Christian hearts. It is indeed no 
less than a momentous deliverance. All recognize that it 
is animated and inspired by the spirit of Christ. It is His 
voice that speaks therein ; and an obligation, from which 
without wilful disobedience there is no escape, is laid on 
all who "profess and call themselves Christians" to con- 
sider afresh and seriously those things which make for 
the restoration and healing of the broken fellowship of 
the Church of Christ, which is His body. 

It is these signs, appearing in every quarter of the 
globe, and in widely separated sections of the Church 
that are the outward and visible tokens of the presence 
and guidance of the Spirit of God. It is a divinely in- 
spired tendency with which we are face to face. The 
devout conviction may well be ours that this thing is not 
of man but of God. As in the earliest days it was the 
risen Lord who guided His people in the teeth of their 
prejudices and prepossessions to go forth to the evangel- 
ising of the heathen world, so now it is under the same di- 
vine leadership, over the obstacle of our predilections 
and preferences, we seek the gathering into one of the 
scattered tribes of the one Israel of God. In this sacred 
task He leads and we but follow. For His will is that all 
who believe in Him be ' ' one ' ' and the urgency of this lay 
in the world's salvation. The unity was in order that 
the "world may believe,' ' and this is proof that it was 
a unity, outward and manifest, visible to the dull eyes 
of the natural man that discerns not spiritual things. 
It is not enough to possess an underlying unity and in- 
ward f ellowhip such as may be known only to God and of 
which true Christians may be conscious. That is in- 
deed the vital thing, the source of what appears in time : 
but it is the body, of which this is the soul that the 
"world" alone can see and the sight of which is to give 
to men the conviction that they are in presence of a su- 
pernatural fact. What a caricature and travesty of this 


heavenly vision is that broken and divided Church, in- 
dulging in rivalry, forgetful of brotherhood, unwilling 
to unite even at the Table of our common Lord in the 
communion of His body and blood, which is the only as- 
pect of the one redeemed society, that is presented to 
men's eyes! Our minds have been opened to the shame 
of it. The sin of schism offends to-day the Christian 
conscience. The prayer that we may lay to heart "the 
evil of our unhappy divisions ' ' is being widely answered 
in our day. With our disunion and secessions and sepa- 
rations, loyalty to conscience and suffering for the truth's 
sake have been bound up : but in spite of much that was 
noble and heroic and seemingly inevitable in the re- 
nouncing of the common fellowship and the organizing 
of separated groups, there was at the core of it, on one 
side or the other and probably on both, something 
gravely wrong. We fought for truth and forgot charity. 
We allowed self-will to have its way and heeded not the 
bond of brotherhood. Our "testimony" became a chal- 
lenge and defiance and not a speaking of the truth in 
love. It is vain to attempt to apportion blame. It is 
only well to unite in mutual penitence before God for 
the sins which have brought to pass the sad state of af- 
fairs that has all too long persisted. For beyond contro- 
versy this is clean contrary to the mind of Christ. These 
divisions mar and maim the Church's efficiency. They 
provoke rivalry instead of cooperation. All Christians 
need all other Christians. It is only with "all saints" we 
can comprehend the height and depth, the length and 
breadth of the love of Christ. Great discoveries and 
great attainments lie along the way of a corporate ex- 
perience. It w^as concern for the world's salvation that 
throbbed in the heart of the world's Saviour when He 
prayed for His Church's unity, and it is a like concern 
that moves His disciples to-day to labour and pray for 
the same consummation. The supreme missionary task 


of the Church demands not only for its accomplishment 
but even for its adequate undertaking, the service of an 
undivided Church. This mood and mind, here sketched, 
is in its widespread possession a new thing among Chris- 
tians. It implies a revolution in traditional modes of 
thought and outlook. It is the product of the inspiration 
of the Spirit of God. It is under the spell thereof that 
plans and actions must be determined and all proposals 
considered. If any do not passionately desire the unity 
of Christ's Church and its visible manifestation and are 
not distressed by the lack thereof, let such stand aside 
from all intermeddling with this sacred business. 

What is the end we have in view 1 It is here we need to 
make clear to ourselves the goal we aim at. Is it to be a 
federation of Churches in which things remain much as 
they are, save that the mutual relations have become 
more intimate and cordial and there is the fullest and 
freest recognition of each other's Sacraments and minis- 
tries, with interfellowship and intercommunion and co- 
operation for common ends? Or is it to be a reunited 
Church — "an outward, visible and united society, hold- 
ing one faith, having its own recognized officers using 
God-given means of grace and inspiring all its members 
to the world-wide service of the Kingdom of God? This 
is the consummation the Anglican bishops wish to pro- 
mote by the Lambeth Appeal, and these are the terms in 
which they describe the catholic Church. Now it is to 
be admitted that among Protestants, men of good-will 
who care seriously for unity, this latter aim is by no 
means universally thought to be desirable, even if practi- 
cable. They detest monopolies ; they fear the stagnation 
of one vast organization, which has not the stimulus of 
dissent from it or the friendly rivalry in good works of 
various groups of Christians. They dread still more the 
development of wide and persecuting tendencies in one 
great Church, none the less evil and cruel because work- 
ing by social ostracism and ecclesiastical disfavour and 


censure, and not by the old weapons of the rack and the 
thumb-screw and the faggot and the prison. The memory 
of the age-long experiment of the Church of Rome is not 
a happy one and has left an inveterate bias against its 
repetition. It was not well with religion in Europe when 
there was only one Church in all Western Europe. They 
do not want to go behind the Reformation and reproduce 
the state of things which the Reformation brought to an 
end to the world's unspeakable gain, even if loss and risk 
accompanied the change. It is common ground that unity 
does not involve uniformity, and the catholic Church of 
our vision and hopes is not in any sense a restoration 
of the Roman Church of the Middle Ages or even of to- 
day. The unity we seek ought to be comprehensive 
enough to embrace within it the treasures of spiritual ex- 
perience and faith and order, possessed now only by the 
separated communions, and to leave room for diversified 
and distinctive methods of worship and service such as 
have proved channels of grace in the many communions 
to which Christians at present belong. For the mani- 
fested unity of the Church what are needed are a common 
faith, common Sacraments and a common ministry, uni- 
versally recognized and accepted in all the branches, na- 
tional, racial, temperamental, of the one fellowship. Were 
these possessed, membership in any one section would be 
seen beyond challenge to be membership in the Church 
Universal, and the dividing barriers would inevitably 
disappear. Differences would remain but walls of par- 
tition would everywhere be levelled to the ground. It is 
on these essentials and not on any detail of organization 
that thought ought to be concentrated. It is not too much 
to say that those who think that federation beween di- 
verse communions is sufficient have not thought out the 
case. That indeed is a stage on the way to the ultimate 
goal but it cannot be more than a stage. It is in the na- 
ture of things transitional. Sectarianism belongs to a 
past generation. Denominational loyalty can be less and 


less counted on as a vital and binding force. The con- 
victions that called denominations into being and main- 
tained them in efficiency and were their reasons for being 
have lost hold. The common faith of all Christians counts 
for more, while the sectional faith of any Christian 
counts for little in the modern believing world. Inevita- 
bly federation of denominations will change these power- 
ful tendencies, operative on all sides, into a mighty rush- 
ing torrent that will sweep away these distinctions. Fed- 
eration in the nature of the case cannot do other than act 
as a solvent to denominationalism. It will be insistently 
asked, Why not merge? Why maintain costly separate 
organizations at the waste of money and effort and ef- 
ficiency! In Canada the negotiations for union between 
Presbyterianism and Wesleyanism have dragged on for 
years, owing mainly to the interruption of the war, and 
the result is that nearly one hundred congregations have 
already sprung up that have for themselves practically 
solved the question of union and owe no allegiance to 
conference or synod. This is the straw that shows the 
drift. Those who reckon federation as the goal of their 
striving reckon without their host. As soon as it is 
reached, it is seen to be a stage on the way to a goal far 
beyond it. Let us then keep before us the vision of a 
united Church whose union is obvious to all. It is to this 
the great King and Head of the Church calls us. Let us 
labour for this. Let us pray unceasingly for its attain- 
ment. Let us welcome every approach towards it. Let 
us freely and fully recognize the place and part in the 
one household of faith, of all who call Jesus Lord. This 
great and historic day, in which our lot is cast, has made 
the way towards Christian unity as a broad and open 
thoroughfare in which all who love the Lord and discern 
His will for our day will be found. 

Alexander Eamsay. 

Presbyterian Church of England, 
Highgate, London. 


Ever since the Church was divided there have been ad- 
vocates of Christian nnion. The tides of movement, how- 
ever, have hitherto been towards disunion. The disinte- 
gration of monarchical and centralized authority and the 
attainment of democracy made for independence and a 
strong individualism. The changes in both polity and 
creed have been toward a disintegration of centraliza- 
tion. The unity of the ONE CHURCH of medievalism 
was based upon authority. In polity it was the creed of 
an infallible papal curia and in creed it was the logic of 
scholasticism. Neither permitted freedom of intellect or 
of organization, and both based fellowship upon the im- 
plicit acceptance of a stated set of beliefs. The move- 
ment for democracy in religion thus became a protest for 
personal freedom in both. 

The break, or the series of breaks, was not however so 
much with the conception that a creedal agreement must 
be the basis of fellowship as with the established creeds 
as that basis. Thus Luther broke with Rome, but ful- 
minated against Zwingli for not agreeing with him. The 
Puritans fled England to obtain freedom to worship ac- 
cording to their conscience, but denied the same funda- 
mental right to Baptists and Quakers. The Baptists for 
centuries braved persecutions to obtain liberty of as- 
sembly but would not tolerate the Campbells when they 
introduced innovations in creed. 

The days of violent intolerance are past in all demo- 
cratic lands but the day of creedal tolerance has arrived 
in few of those segments of the Church into which the 
movement toward toleration split it. We are not yet 
willing to tolerate any large differences in creed or pol- 
ity, or at least we are not willing to surrender much of 
the historic or traditional of the various denominations 
or those peculiar demarcations of fellowship wrought 


out in the original segmentation. The basis of fellow- 
ship has not changed from the fundamentals of medieval 
demand for conformity in creed and polity ; the form of 
the polity has been democratized and the content of the 
creed has been modified in the various protesting schisms 
but the basis of fellowship still remains fundamentally 
where it was. 

It has always been maintained that there is only one 
Gospel but there have always been varying interpreta- 
tions. So long as we confuse interpretations of the Gos- 
pel with the ONE GOSPEL and continue to make the 
basis of fellowship a creedal agreement as to what the 
Gospel teaches we shall have divisions in the Church. No 
large body of men would fellowship on the basis of the 
ten commandments even if the continuance of the fellow- 
ship depended upon exact agreement in interpretation 
and application. We shall never agree on all matters of 
interpretation unless all but one of us agrees to quit 
thinking and to humbly accept the reason of one infallible 
interpreter. The evolution of the medieval idea of union 
led logically to the dogma of papal infallibility. The 
Eoman Catholics have one horn of the dilemma in papal 
infallibility and the Plymouth Brethren the other in 
the endless segmentation of believers in order that 
none may come into a fellowship unless there is utter 
peace and no differences of opinion. The one destroys 
democracy in a monarchical centralization and the other 
in a vapid decentralization. 

So long as fellowship is based upon any authoritative 
creed embodying more than a simple acceptance of Jesus 
as the Christ and Saviour we shall have division. The 
confession of Peter (Matthew 16:16) x and that Apostle's 
declaration in the sermon on Pentecost Day (Acts 2:36) 2 
are the minimum upon which a CHKISTIAN union could 

^'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 

2 "God hath made Him both I^ord and Christ, this Jesus Whom ye crucified." 


be based. Less than that might be religious -unity but as 
we are considering Christian union the minimum would 
imply an acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. On that all 
interested in Christian union agree. In demanding more 
than that come all divisions. On that basis all now can 
meet in common prayer and by that line of demarcation 
do both the world and all other religious cults know 
who makes up the universal Christian Church. That 
which the Gospel makes the only basis of fellowship we 
have made merely the minimum on which we will agree, 
as against all the non-Christian world, to call one an- 
other Christians. On that basis we would do battle if 
necessary, against a concerted attack of Islam or athe- 
ism, but on that basis we will not agree to prosecute the 
Lord's conquest of either Islam or atheism, or cooperate 
and be one that the world might believe He was sent 
(Jno. 17:21). 3 

If all loyalties were rational and if every disciple of 
Jesus could think things through for himself the proposal 
to unite all His followers on the simple confession of Him 
as the Christ, the Son of God, would be feasible. But we 
have to deal with the simple fact that we are creatures of 
tradition and habitual ideas and tend to segregate our- 
selves into group fellowships as iron particles separate 
themselves about magnates. In apostolic days the fel- 
lowship was simple. No diverting and differentiating 
creedal opinions had arisen to divide. The men who had 
been with Jesus accepted Him as Christ and Lord and 
went about persuading others to do so. The fellowship 
was limited, at first, to local congregations and largely 
of Jewish nationality. No sooner did it cross the racial 
lines or develop great commanding advocates, like Paul, 
than differences arose that threatened divisions in the 
fellowship. Paul and Peter saved themselves from a 
break by Peter's yielding to the interpretation of the 

3 "That they may all be one * * * * that the world may believe that thou didst 
send me." 


greater Apostle, but not all consented to follow him and 
Ave find the ' i Jndaizers ' ' crossing his path constantly. 
The Council of Jerusalem adopted sensible compromise 
to save friction or a possible eruption and everywhere 
the human nature that will disagree in opinions and in- 
terpretations obtruded itself. What those near Jesus 
and under the powerful apostleship of a Paul could cir- 
cumvent could not be done after he was gone and the 
Church crossed Grecian boundaries where thinking was a 
fine art and philosophy tithed the mint and anise of dia- 
lectic and syllogism. A millennium and a half of Chris- 
tian history then becomes the story of heresy followed by 
scholastic thinking, monarchical authority and the sub- 
mergence of the free mind in institutionalism. 

The problem before us now is that of whether or not we 
are enough emancipated from the need of an external 
authoritarianism to hold us to any kind of a loyalty. Will 
our faith and loyalty be alive and vigorous unless it is 
fixed on a more or less hard and fast dogma! Combat 
troops have to be narrowed to a single idea; it is not 
theirs to reason why; it is theirs to do and die. The 
average man seems to require a fairly well fixed and un- 
questioned creed for lively action. Whether in patriot- 
ism or class conscious evolution or in religion he seems 
to require a notion that others are wrong in order to be 
assured that he and his are unquestionably right, and 
without that unquestionable ground beneath his feet he 
does not run and do battle. He builds his creedal walls 
quite as much to keep out his fellow man as he does to 
shelter his fellow believers. 

A survey of denominational growth points to the con- 
clusion that there is a median line of authoritarianism 
in creed and polity along which numerical success crowns 
denominational banners. Presbyterianism has age and 
tradition, an historic creed, a polity that harmonizes the 
democratic concept with successful administration, and 


that sense of respectability which is so powerful in ef- 
fecting social groupings. It combines in a very effective 
way all those concepts and controls to which the average 
democratic mind of the better grade reacts. The Bap- 
tists bring a simple dogma, founded upon a quotable 
Scripture, and give it dramatic dress in ordinances that 
demark the line of correct and incorrect in an unmistak- 
able manner. Their polity tends to dogmatize independ- 
ence and the dogma of it is perhaps more stimulating 
than the independence. Methodism submits a different 
test, but one that answers quite as well the mental quest 
of assurance, in a personal, inner experience that is un- 
mistakable and in an authoritarian polity that bends to 
democratic prepossessions without losing its administra- 
tive capacity. These three greatest of our American 
Protestant bodies, all having a history older than the Re- 
public, have each been divided into many segments as a 
result of the play of democratic independence against 
authoritarian creeds and polities. The last Year Book 
of the Churches lists twenty-nine Baptists and Brethren 
(all Baptistic) bodies, seventeen Methodist and fourteen 
Presbyterian and Reformed (all Presbyteria). But out- 
side the sectional lines arising out of the Civil War 
numerical preponderance lies with the historic main 
bodies. The creedal subdivisions have not been effective 
in winning numbers. All the psychological requirements 
of assurance and the sense of authority were supplied by 
the main historic bodies ; the efforts to rationalize away 
from them has not gone far in creating large new denom- 

It would seem that the divisive trends, founded upon 
the protest of the democratic right to independence of 
mind and conscience, were fairly well rounded out in the 
driving of the main cleavages. Now that the right of in- 
dependent thinking and association is established we tend 
to rest back upon the more conservative assurances of 


tradition. The overwhelming mass of Christians in the 
nearly two hundred Protestant sects are in the historic 
old denominational families, and within those families 
the overwhelming majorities are within the original de- 
nominational body. The trend toward division is dis- 
sipating but there is no real ground as yet to hope that 
the rock foundations of the main divisions are crumbling. 
The sense of social solidarity and the larger tolerance in 
creedal refinements is tending to draw the denomina- 
tional families together and the removal of the pressure 
of persecution and denunciation makes it ever more dif- 
ficult to grow large dissenting bodies. We are perhaps 
about at the end of the process of segmentation simply 
because we are making the bands of fellowship more 
elastic, but we are not yet out of the grip of tradition and 
of denominational loyalties as a social inheritance into 
which we are born and bred or into which we are adopted 
by some adventitious circumstances. 

A further proof of the virility of dogma as over against 
a nondogmatic type of basis for fellowship is given in a 
comparison of the growth of various communions in the 
past century in America. The Unitarians offer almost 
perfect creedal freedom, but few seem to have desired it. 
The Congregationalists, aside from their democratic pol- 
ity, admit to membership practically upon the basis of 
the simple confession of Jesus as The Christ, but they 
have grown only by thousands where the more dogmatic 
denominations have grown by the hundreds of thousands. 
The Southern Baptists, who are perhaps firmest in their 
dogmas and most fervent over them, are growing more 
rapidly than are the Northern Baptists. The Disciples 
have multiplied beyond all others in the century of their 
history. Their present static condition is only apparent 
— a book loss rather than a real loss — as a result of sub- 
stituting a real statistical accounting in the place of 
guess work. 


The Disciples furnish striking illustration of the thesis 
of this paper. They had their beginnings in the naive ef- 
fort of a Presbyterian seceder to gather all the Chris- 
tians of a scattered pioneer community into a fellowship 
of worship and of service without regard to differing 
creedal beliefs. Eefusing to meet except each in its own 
sect's fellowship none were numerous enough to be ef- 
fective; all who accepted Christ, meeting together on 
the single-minded basis of that common faith, could suc- 
cessfully hold communion and forward Christianity in 
their frontier community. Out of this there sprang up a 
strong conviction that Christian union was demanded by 
the Gospel, and that all sectarianism was a sin. In work- 
ing out the basis for union the Campbells soon found 
themselves proceeding along the historic grounds of 
authoritarianism and made their appeal from the written 
creeds of Protestantism to the original Gospel itself. 
But sincere and faithful minds have always wrought out 
different interpretations of the Gospels when the simple 
confession of Jesus as the Christ was passed. It was 
this inevitable fact that had wrought out the varying 
creeds. The Campbells came to be convinced that it was 
the restoration of the apostolic Church in its confession 
of Jesus as Christ, its ordinances of immersion and the 
Lord's Supper and in its precedent of a democratic pol- 
ity, that the hope of union lay. This appeal seemed 
catholic in that it offered to all the disagreeing sects a 
common ground on the one name all bore, the Baptism 
that all alike were able to practice and the sense of Scrip- 
ture authority for Church government. Not only has the 
sectarian world of Protestantism refused to be reunited 
on this basis, but they have turned to accuse the Disci- 
ples of being more sectarian than they themselves, charg- 
ing that they preach union while persistently refusing to 
unite. The plea for union has apparently been lost in 
the dogma for restoring the apostolic Church, and the 


other communions either think they are quite as apostolic 
as are the Disciples or else do not accept the necessity of 
restoring the apostolic forms and ordinances. The sim- 
plicity and dogmatic quality of the Disciple plea have won 
great success, but more as an evangelistic body with a 
simple, fervent, unquestioned appeal than as an organic 
means of actual union. Meanwhile the dogmatic temper 
within has brought one distinct schism and there have 
been many promises of still another. It should also be 
noted, as another illustration of this thesis, that the older 
Christian Church (Newlight) with a like union motif, 
but with a less dogmatic basis of fellowship in that it 
does not demand immersion as a basis, has grown in the 
same period of time to less than one-sixth as great a 

Our conclusion is that it will never be possible to ob- 
tain organic Church union on the basis of any definite 
creed, but that the simple Scriptural confession of Jesus 
as the Christ is sufficient for the inclusion of all His dis- 
ciples and for the exclusion of all who are not essentially 
Christian. But this simple confession does not embody 
sufficient definition to answer all the psychological re- 
quirements of men's minds in an age where theological 
refinements are still thought to be all important. If what 
one believes is the final test and the only positive assur- 
ance of his Christianity then he will demand a more defin- 
itive creed, and so long as a more diverse and definitive 
creed is made the basis of Church fellowship there will 
be widely differing interpretations and thus deep secta- 
rian cleavages. The minor schisms may be healed in time 
and the original great denominational families restored 
to unity, but even that is doubtful except as creedal dis- 
tinctiveness gives way to practical Christian activity for 
others. The dogmatic basis for union will never succeed. 
It prejudges the case and denies the laws of evolution, 


and it substitutes belief, which is a means to Christian 
character, for character itself. 

The supreme task of Jesus Christ was not merely to 
convince men of His incarnation and the theological 
truths that are tributary to it, but to offer Himself as the 
incarnate manifestation of God for leading us to become 
Christian and to make the world Christian. He was 
never interested in theological correctness within itself 
and for its own ends. Our belief in Him is a means to an 
end, and behold we find ourselves so busied in debating 
over theological correctness that we have not been able 
to so manifest Him to the world as to bring it to believe. 
We have thrust our differences upon the Chinese and In- 
dians and confuse the simple appeal of the Christ with 
the obscurities of our traditional divergences of opinion. 
It is like refusing to sow the good seed well or to harvest 
the rich crop advantageously because we cannot agree on 
which type of farm machinery is theoretically the best. 
Jesus prayed we might be one in order that the world 
might be convinced that He was sent, and our failure to 
answer that prayer among ourselves is the greatest 
single hindrance to its answer in the world. We deny 
Him the wide world because we cannot deny ourselves 
our divisive dogmas. 

Modern educational psychology teaches us that the 
surest way to perfect morals is to do by act of will what 
we know should be done even though all our habitual and 
emotional nature is against it. In other words we learn 
by doing and perfect our spiritual nature by exercising 
our convictions. The dislikes and antipathies that spring 
from instinct or ingrained ideas or the training of a cer- 
tain social inheritance are modified by forcing ourselves 
to a contact with those who have been made repulsive to 
us. Personal dislikes are turned into warm friendships 
by enforced association if the force applied is a will to 
overcome our own irrational, though natural, attitudes. 


Social antipathies are hard and mutually exclusive in the 
lower phases of civilization and the very index of ad- 
vancement lies in their softening and breaking to the 
point of being overcome. Democracy depends upon the 
lowering of class antipathies and the amalgamating of 

So too does religious unity depend upon the erasing 
of those lines of demarcation that have their source in 
ancient differences of interpretation. They were rooted 
in a need that no longer exists, nourished by loyalty to a 
truth that no longer is distinctive, and grown strong by 
an opposition that has disappeared. If by some miracle 
every mark and memory of the denominational divisions 
in Protestantism could be wiped out in a night and all of 
us left Christians still, we would never rebuild them as 
they are. We would inevitably draw lines of social, 
aesthetic and intellectual groupings, as we do even now 
within the old denominations, but they would all be gen- 
erated by the norms and cultures of our own time and 
not by those of that past which so largely fixes the his- 
toric cleavages to which we cling ; they would not require 
organic schisms to express themselves; schools of 
thought and types of ritual would suffice. 

We shall not gain organic union by continuing the his- 
toric discussions of faith and order alone, nor ever by 
making it contingent upon that manner of procedure. 
So long as men are intellectually immured within them 
we shall do well to continue that discussion providing the 
temper is one of conciliation rather than that of the dog- 
matist. The recent Geneva conference illustrated how ut- 
terly impossible it will be for us to agree upon a form of 
faith and polity as a basis of organic union, even though 
all accept the apostolic teaching as binding, simply be- 
cause intelligent and consecrated men, whether Presby- 
terian, Baptist, Anglican or Greek Orthodox, all believe, 
and believing assert that theirs is the original apostolic 


creed and polity. Either we must choose some line of 
persuasiveness other than those involving appeal to 
traditional conviction and historic loyalties or we must 
find union on another basis than the fundamental agree- 
ment to restore apostolic faith (i.e., creed), and order 
(i.e., form of Church government). Indeed the very in- 
sistence at Geneva that the Nicene creed was the mini- 
mum would make organic union forever impossible, sim- 
ply because great bodies of Christians will not only re- 
fuse to accept it but will refuse to accept any historic 

Our divisions were made necessary by the intolerance 
of the dogmatic temper inherited from medievalism. The 
resistance that thrust one after another of the innovat- 
ing groups out of the older communions has disappeared ; 
the very bodies that thrust them out have often now 
adopted the creed they excised, and few of them would 
have compelled withdrawal if the innovation had come 
to-day instead of in generations gone. We are all made 
the heirs of the contributions brought by the courageous 
men who dared excommunication for the sake of teach- 
ing them. The great truths are the possession of us all. 
We are left divided in shell while we are at one in the 
kernels within. What we need is to find a way to divest 
ourselves of these vestigial survivals. It is the forms of 
loyalty and the prejudgments formed for us by social in- 
heritance and the adventitious associations made ours by 
fortuity that require modification and rebasing. Few 
Church members deliberately and thoughtfully choose 
between creeds and denominations to-day. They unite 
with the Church of their fathers or their neighborhoods 
or their friends, and the vast majority of us are indoc- 
trinated as members or as novitiates by the chance of 
family or association. We are taught why this or that 
or the other creed is correct after we have subscribed to 
it, so to speak. Our attachments and loyalties are se- 


cured by association and fixed by instruction, if indeed 
they are ever fixed in any manner beyond that of grow- 
ing fast through habitual association. The great Chris- 
tian fundamentals are the same. There is nothing in our 
differences that would save the souls of anyone of us or 
make us better folk, let alone convince the world Jesus 
was sent to save it ; but in our common agreements there 
are all the great fundamentals of salvation. Upon them 
do we build Christian character and in them we all alike 
induce others to accept the Christ. If we would unite on 
them alone we could answer the Lord 's dying prayer that 
the world might believe He was "sent as God's Messen- 
ger" (Twentieth Century Translation). 

This we can do through working together. By act of 
will we can bring ourselves to do that which the Lord re- 
quires. By association in Christian enterprises we al- 
ways find our group lines breaking down, our sectarian 
antipathies mellowing, our sense of fraternity and of 
mutual respect growing, and the bands of brotherhood 
knitting into unbreakable bonds. We need a refocusing 
of objectives. Instead of growing denominations because 
we think them possessed of ways and means in creed and 
polity that will most effectively promote the world's re- 
demption we must stand ready to sacrifice them in genu- 
ine Christian spirit that the Kingdom of God may grow ; 
we must denominationally decrease that the Kingdom 
may increase. Union will come through putting the pro- 
motion of all things good as our objective in place of pro- 
moting our denominations as such. If in every commu- 
nity the Churches would join hands in promoting commu- 
nity welfare and if in denominational councils we should 
begin to outvie one another in offering cooperation in 
great Christian enterprises, the spirit of unity and the 
practice of cooperation would lead us irresistibly, in 
good time, into actual union. 

No union can be considered that would compromise 


convictions. But the convictions that divide us are so 
generally prejudgments and in regard to non-essentials 
that cooperation for the sake of the great common ob- 
jectives would banish them where they have no right to 
being and retire them into the category of the non-es- 
sential where they have no necessary function. There is 
abundant diversity among thinking men within the folds 
of every communion and the liberty of opinion is not in 
the least imperilled by union on the basis of function. 
We are not to be judged by creedal conformity, but by 
the fruits we bear in terms of righteousness. Of all our 
dogmas we need to ask "what do ye more than others V 9 
Jesus gave the divine prescription in regard to the doc- 
trine of unity as of all else when he said "if any man 
willeth to do His will he shall know of the teaching. " 
(Jno. 7:17.) The test of effectiveness can be applied by 
experimentation in methods of promoting Christianity 
and its righteousness. Efforts in united ways for the 
great objectives of the Gospel will little by little wear 
away the dogmas that do not function, and the spirit 
of holy conquest will overcome the divisive spirit of sec- 
tionalism. No programme will bring union in a day * 
*, * * but as the mills of God grind slowly they will 
grind exceeding fine, and in His good time, if we submit 
humbly to His will, the spirit that divides will be refined 
into the spirit that makes all men brethren in His Name. 

Alva W. Taylor. 

Bible Chair, Missouri University, 
Columbia, Mo. 


I am told that there lived in a village in Texas four boys, 
who played together, attended school together and lived 
in each other's homes as though the home of each were 
the common property of all four. Apparently they had 
in themselves the seeds of lifetime friendships until they 
were sent to their respective denominational schools — 
Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist and Disciple. 
That somewhat isolated each from the other, so that on 
returning home during vacation their friendships were 
not quite as cordial as formerly. 

Later each entered the ministry of his respective de- 
nomination and this removed them still further from 
each other. 

The new made Roman Catholic priest claimed his de- 
nomination to be the Church and his three separated 
brethren of other denominations to be living in schism 
and therefore out of the Church. 

The new made Episcopal priest claimed his denomi- 
nation to be the Church, looking somewhat anxiously to- 
ward the new made priest of the Roman Catholic Church, 
who, however, did not recognize his priesthood, and look- 
ing rather indifferently toward the two ministers of the 
two Protestant bodies, which he termed the sects. 

The new made Baptist minister claimed his denomina- 
tion to be the apostolic Church, refusing his three friends 
of the other three denominations and all other Christians 
the Lord's Supper, which, however, neither the Roman 
Catholic nor Episcopal priest recognized as the Lord's 
Supper. He further rebaptized all who sought member- 
ship in the Baptist Church, whether they had been bap- 
tized by sprinkling, pouring or immersion. 

The new made Disciple minister claimed his denomina- 

*This paper was read before the annual meeting of the American Society of 
Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York, Dec. 27, 1920. 


tion to be the restoration of the primitive Church, allow- 
ing all Christians at the Lord's Supper, however, but no 
one of his three friends would come. At the same time 
he refused membership in his Church to all who had not 
been baptized by immersion and maintained a critical 
attitude toward his three friends of the other Christian 
bodies which he designated as the denominations. 

This is the grim picture of the educational system of 
rigid denominationalism with its thorns unconcealed and 
its barren waste uncovered. 

In relating this instance, which can be duplicated many 
times in principle throughout the world, I would not have 
you to think that I have in mind the slightest idea of re- 
flecting on the denominations named as though they were 
sinners above all others. Similar instances have singled 
out other denominations. The whole Church is involved 
in this practice, some perhaps not quite as denomina- 
tional as others, but all are parties to the practice. The 
men standing apart from each other, ministering at their 
separate altars, have no doubt honestly stood for the 
traditions of their respective denominations. They have 
generally been men of learning and piety. In spite of 
their separate altars many of them have been voices for 
God and truth in the world. But is it not pertinent to 
raise the question whether a system that maintains such 
a condition is not a fundamental error in present day 

The beginning of the denominational school may be 
traced back to the Council of Trent, especially the begin- 
ning of theological seminaries. The intention of the 
originators was to safeguard truth and this was an ad- 
mirable idea, but the method of separation has been 
hurtful both to the Church as the message bearer of the 
truth and to the world as the recipient of the truth. 
Prior to the Council of Trent the clergy were educated 
in the universities and consequently they were in touch 


with the advance thinking of the world, but with the rise 
of the denominational school they were not only removed 
from the centers of thought at the time when the whole 
world was seeking new paths for thinking, but they un- 
consciously partook of all that goes with an isolated sys- 
tem of education, including the setting up of a division 
between religion and reality. Protestantism yielded it- 
self to what it regarded as a necessity in order that its 
varied, correct interpretations of the Scriptures might 
become permanent in the thought of the world. Every 
new movement must have a school of its own and the 
school in turn perpetuated the movement. No denomina- 
tion could get fairly under way unless it could point to 
its own school or schools, where genuine orthodoxy was 
maintained in the midst of other denominational schools, 
representing all grades of heresy from extreme to mod- 
erate, depending upon the angle of approach. Erasmus 
says, "The doctrine of Christ, a stranger formally to 
battle over words, came to be made dependent on de- 
fences of philosophy. This was the first downward step 
towards the ruin of the Church."* The schools of each 
denomination became the centers of denominational phi- 
losophies. All denominations honestly felt that they 
were divinely called to plant schools wherever they could 
get a piece of land donated, or its equivalent in money 
for the purchase of land, and there erect school buildings 
until in America in particular nearly every denomination 
is overburdened with its multiplicity of schools. 

It is not, however, in the province of this paper to dis- 
cuss the motives that led to the establishment of these 
schools nor the multiplicity of denominational schools, 
nor to inquire as to whether their equipments are poor 
or ample, or whether their teachers are living on meagre 
or sufficient salaries, although these elements enter vi- 
tally into the education of a nation, and the last report of 

*Curtis' "History of Creeds and Confessions," p. 418. 


the Commission on Education of the Federal Council of 
the Churches of Christ in America says, "The report 
(survey) called attention to the fact that notwithstand- 
ing a widespread and growing interest in religious edu- 
cation throughout the country, and several promising ex- 
periments in various centers, yet, taken as a whole, the 
teaching work of the Churches was alarmingly meagre in 
amount and ineffective in quality."* Neither is the ques- 
tion raised as to whether the men coming out of the de- 
nominational schools are as well equipped in their knowl- 
edge of the languages and sciences as the men from other 
schools. They may be equally as well equipped in those 
things, but education is not expressed in terms of intelli- 
gence. It is rather in terms of conduct and character. 
William James says, "Education cannot be better de- 
scribed than by calling it the organization of acquired 
habits of conduct and tendencies of behavior. ' 't But the 
denominational school breaks the organization, separat- 
ing themselves according to denominations as though each 
possessed something which the other did not have and 
therefore could not impart. Laying aside the fact that 
the claim is purely fictitious, the policy shatters the spir- 
itual universe into as many parts as there are parties, 
disturbing the fundamental principles "of conduct and 
tendencies of behavior.' ' 

Education must deal with the wholeness of life. We 
are in a world of the incomplete. Schools are necessary 
in order to the development of the incomplete. Educa- 
tion involves both training away from something and 
training toward something. A system of education may 
strengthen those inherent elements of social adjustment 
or it may weaken and divide them, but a system that 
weakens and divides them is certainly not functioning 
properly, and such a policy must be a matter of concern 

•Report of the Commission on Education of the Federal Council of the Churches 
of Christ in America, p. 3. 

flames' "Talks to Teachers," p. 29. 


to all, because it trains the individual away from the 
real destiny of human life, debarring him from his right- 
ful place in the social whole. Education must be a uni- 
tary process or it is defective. The denominational 
school is not a unitary factor. It may be for its own 
denomination, but the little less than two hundred units 
separated as in American Christianity may be ever so 
well united in themselves, but if these units are not unit- 
ing and adjusting themselves to each other for the bene- 
fit of the whole, the educational process has not been con- 
ducive either to right conduct or proper behavior. 

"Education is," as Nicholas Murray Butler says, "a 
gradual adjustment to the spiritual possessions of the 
race."* The trend of the denominational school is not 
in the direction of adjustment. It is the guardian of de- 
nominational traditions, which are separative in char- 
acter. Its very presence, whether it teaches its denomi- 
national tenets or not, is an attempt to keep alive a 
breach in spiritual thought, perhaps centuries old or only 
reaching back a few decades, which then was regarded 
among the infallible interpretations by its honest advo- 
cates, but perhaps now held only as matters of opinion 
by the honest Bons of those same advocates. Conse- 
quently the very fact that the denominational school is 
here, bearing the stamp of a divisive element, although 
it may not give denominational instruction in the class 
room, contradicts the unitary processes of present day 
education and raises at once the question as to the pro- 
priety of its continuance as a denominational school. 

Times have changed. Severity has been taken out of 
most denominational teaching, but there is always a rigid 
side to denominationalism. Canon B. H. Streeter says, 
"A century ago we were all eyes for the errors of every 
religious body but our own; to-day we are recognizing 
the truth in one another's positions; but there is one 

*Butler*s "Meaning of Education," p. 17. 


more stage, and that is for each to awaken to the errors 
in his own views — this is the hardest stage of all."* 
We can approach this stage more satisfactorily if we 
attempt to approach the error that is common to us all 
rather than touching some distinctive position that may 
have lost its interest to other denominations, but is still 
sacredly guarded by the denomination that originated 
it or restated it. The common error is the denomina- 
tional school. That it has grown in efficiency and in gen- 
eral fellowship with the schools of other denominations 
is apparent to all students of social problems. Neverthe- 
less its system of education, being conducted upon a di- 
visive principle, will train some temperaments to the 
severity of the original advocates, such as those extremes 
that may now be found in all denominations, while other 
temperaments yield to the broadening influences of gen- 
eral education and are fellows with those of other de- 
nominations as far as their denominational traditions 
will let them go. If we find an educational system that 
pushes an individual away from his fellows, let us not 
deceive ourselves by thinking that that system of train- 
ing has in it high merits of education. Such a system 
always stands for a fundamental error and always will 
so stand. 

The function which education has to discharge is, ac- 
cording to Herbert Spencer, "to prepare us for complete 
living."! No institution that represents a party in 
Christendom, such as a denominational school, can aid 
to his fullest development a student whose duties are in- 
herently to all Christendom in particular and to society 
in general. That individual has in him latent powers 
with the possibilities of adjustment to the highest de- 
mands of God and his fellows. Consequently develop- 
ment is a necessity for the completion of manhood and 
education is the normal aid to that development. It is 

*Streeter's "Restatement and Reunion," p. 58. 
tSpencer's "Education," p. 44. 


not enough that one should be prepared for the other 
world; he must be prepared for complete living here. 
That is the purpose of human life as clearly as apple 
blossoms are the antecedents of apples. Jesus says, "Ye 
therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is 
perfect."* We are developed into perfect living in our 
sphere of human life as God is perfect in His sphere of 
divine life; and, out of our perfect human life we will 
come into the perfection of divine life, as the perfect 
apple blossoms develop into perfect apples, or as the 
perfect child develops into the perfect man. 

Life at best is difficult. There must be an unfettered 
educational system — unfettered by party attitudes and 
divisive approaches — if we are to find the art of adjust- 
ment to the spiritual necessities of mankind for growth 
into the ideals of complete living. Education is to train 
the individual away from the incomplete into the com- 
plete, so that breaking with the past is as necessary as 
union with the future. In the process individuals grow 
into helping others to find how to grow away from the 
incomplete into the complete. Education is to remove 
those barriers, which hinder cooperation, and is not to 
maintain them. Most of our theological barriers are 
fictitious, certainly among Protestants. There is not a 
Protestant theological seminary now, either in this coun- 
try or abroad, but would produce better ministers if the 
outstanding Protestant interpretations of the Scriptures 
were taught under the same roof by those who are the 
advocates of those interpretations instead of separating 
students to one interpretation and giving the other in- 
terpretations at second hand, which is as uncomfortable 
to the student's thought as second-hand clothes are to 
his body. To say the least such a method would tone 
down many of our Protestant interpretations that need 
toning down to find a normal adjustment. The same 

*Matt. 5:48. 


principle applies to Roman Catholicism. Protestants 
will never understand Eoman Catholicism nor will the 
Eoman Catholics ever understand Protestantism until 
the schools of each are open to both. However independ- 
ent and arrogant toward each other now, both of these 
interpretations need each other. 

" Truth has nothing to fear in mingling with unbeliev- 
ers, much less with believers. It is the divine method of 
its transmission and it mingles better in human flesh 
than in books. Jesus went Himself among the people and 
left no commentaries, but left His life, and the spirit of 
a message is seen in the conduct and behavior of its ad- 
herents far more than in its theological statements. Uni- 
versal fellowship with the saints is the model of God, 
while exclusiveness is the den of provincialism and sec- 
tarianism. It cannot be true that associating with other 
denominations destroys the truth of another. It may de- 
stroy its narrowness and shame its sectarianism, but to 
its truth is given vision and vitality. He who has con- 
victions can mingle with all Christians and retain those 
convictions as certainly as, mingling with the thousands 
on the street, he keeps his individual name. The scourge 
of a message that has in it the call of Grod is giving to it 
a contracted horizon and making it provincial [as every 
denominational school must do]. It is the violation of a 
divine principle, for the atmosphere of provincialism is 
as repulsive as the musty smell of an ill-ventilated 
room."* It is abandoning the sunshine of the great uni- 
versal world for indoor light. 

The world abounds in cleavages — cleavages of race, 
nation, religion, creed and class. It is the function of 
education to span these cleavages, making a highway to 
the brotherhood of humanity. The denominational school 
stands for the cleavage of creeds, whether those creeds 
are written or unwritten, and consequently it cannot 

'Ainslie's "Message of the Disciples for the Union of the Church," p. 40. 


function in this task beyond the cry of the prisoner for 
freedom. No man can teach complete living unless he is 
approaching it himself, unfettered by denominational 
barriers. Whatever this generation may be it owes its 
debt of unitary processes in education to the next gener- 
ation, if the path of mankind is to go upward toward 

Present day education needs religion. I do not refer 
so much to a deepening sense of the recognition of God 
by both faculties and students, although this is evident, 
but education is going wild over efficiency to the frequent 
loss of personality. The tendency is to put production 
over humanity. A crass materialism is crowding spirit- 
uality to the wall, but the voices of the prophets of social 
adjustment and common betterment are being heard in 
the great universities as well as in the smaller colleges. 
The chief question remains — not, What have men 
learned 1 but, What have men become ? It is the individ- 
ual 's being something himself that is the great and only 
permanent achievement. This cannot be carried to its 
fullest development without the freest training of the in- 
tellect and the emotions and the will. Keligion has its op- 
portunity here, but the denominational school is too 
archaic an institution to function. Eeligion in it is fre- 
quently below that of the great universities and the rea- 
son for this is not difficult to find. Hugh Black says, "I 
found a greater appreciation of religious matters and 
interest in them in the state universities than in the de- 
nominational colleges."* Others have borne similar 

Politically we would not tolerate here in America the 
building up by Italians, Eussians, Germans, French, Jap- 
anese and other nations of schools in their communities 
in which to teach their national traditions and national 
peculiarities over all other interests. It would disrupt 

*Athearn's "Religious Education and American Democracy," p. 261. 


the American republic in a generation. Yet this is what 
we are doing educationally in the Church of Christ. The 
denominational school is the denial of unity, which is es- 
sential to life : on the other hand, it is the advertisement 
of discord and competition, which are the elements of 
death. Happily the tide is turning away from the denom- 
inational school as it is from the denominational paper, 
so that what the denominational school refused to lead 
the denomination to do, a mysterious hand appears to be 
guiding in doing ; and that tide will never flow back in the 
opinion of many. So the hopeful condition as regards 
both education and religion is that the denominational 
school has seen its best days irrespective of its increasing 
endowments. Thought is a more powerful factor than 
money, and present day thought is certainly turning 
away from the denominational school, and rightly too. 
Many of these schools in overcrowded centers could be 
sold to the advantage of mankind and the glory of God ; 
others could be interdenominationalized so as not to re- 
flect merely one interpretation of Christianity, but the 
whole, as is being done in many instances in foreign mis- 
sionary work. Standing apart, however, as they are, 
their messages to the world are neither healthy nor hope- 

The presence of the denominational school in present 
day education therefore is a fundamental error because : 

1. It follows the prejudices of the denomination and 
reflects its general thought, whereas the function of a 
school is to lead the people and to direct the general 
thought of the community. 

2. It is too much absorbed in its own denominational 
programme at the exclusion of the programmes of other 
denominations and therefore is concerned with only a 
part of the Church — and necessarily a small part at that 
— whereas the function of a school is to cultivate an ideal- 
ism that is above all divisions, whether those divisions 


be Christian denominations or political parties, and to 
give itself to making practical its ideals. 

3. It teaches loyalty to the denomination and attempts 
to establish a denominational conscience, whereas the 
function of a school is to teach loyalty to society and to 
establish a conscience so thoroughly Christian as to in- 
clude the whole Church. 

4. It seeks to conserve the power acquired by its stu- 
dents for the use of its denomination and to make more 
evident the importance of its denomination in the eyes 
of the world, whereas the function of a school is to con- 
serve the power of its students for the good of society and 
to make more evident the blessings of education. 

5. It is concerned with the rights of its denomination 
and the place of its denomination in religious affairs, 
whereas the function of a school is to emphasize duties 
to others and service to the community in general. 

6. It perpetuates division in the Church and attempts 
to make sacred the divisions of Christendom as though 
they were from God, whereas the function of a school is 
to unify the interests of mankind and to establish the 
principles of cooperation. 

Many of the denominational schools are growing to- 
ward the schools in other denominations. They are try- 
ing to escape the tragedy of uneducational functioning 
in which they are involved. Like long ago abandoned 
pedagogical methods in education, the denominational 
school is passing and must absolutely pass away in order 
that the coming generations may have fairer chances for 
their social adjustments and spiritual possibilities. 
George A. Coe says, "The standpoint of Christianity, 
moreover, is that of wholeness of life, from which no 
human good can be excluded."* The denominational 
school cannot function in the wholeness of things because 
it essentially stands for only a part — whether it be the 

^Coe's "Education in Religion and Morals," p. 7. 


four denominations referred to in the opening of this 
paper or to the one hundred and eighty-six according to 
the United States census table. It is an error in educa- 
tion and is therefore unfair to religion and morals and 
unfair to the present generation which faces great evils 
over against which stands the denominational school, 
through which the highest expressions of religion and 
morals cannot function because of its divisive capacity 
and schismatic nature. 

An institution may serve one generation acceptably, 
but that is no reason that it is to serve all generations. 
Things that have been proper at one time have become 
improper at other times, and things that have been tol- 
erated in one period, perhaps warmly defended by some, 
have been entirely abolished in other periods. Because 
an institution has become established in the thought and 
affections of a respectable group or groups is no reason 
for its perpetuity. I am not detracting from any good 
that the denominational school has done in the past. Cir- 
cumstances in many instances were such that there would 
have been no school at all in some communities if it had 
not been denominational, but that day has gone. An- 
other day is here. Prejudice, always unreasonable, has 
been in many instances in the past so unreasonable that 
only a denominational school could get financial support, 
for the money in the Church has usually been in the 
hands of its most conservative or sectarian elements. 
This financial support in turn gave a certain rigidity to 
the standards of the school perhaps unconsciously. 

But the rigidity of orthodoxy is the inevitable cause 
of heresy and schism, so that the ordinary method pur- 
sued to establish excessive verbal orthodoxy not only de- 
feats its end of making the whole community orthodox, 
but produces heresy and schism. Orthodoxy and catho- 
licity rivalled each other for centuries until they sepa- 
rated — one into the Eastern Orthodox Church and the 


other into the Eoman Catholic Church. This made a 
definite epoch in the rise of sectarian theology, which 
developed rapidly following the Council of Trent. Ar- 
thur C. Headlam says, referring to this Council, "A wise 
observer is reported to have said that by the institution 
of ecclesiastical seminaries the Council exercised greater 
influence than by any other of its decrees."* That may 
be true, but as the Greek and Latin forms of Christianity 
became finally stereotyped in consequence of their divi- 
sion, the many divisions in Protestantism likewise became 
stereotyped, not so rigidly perhaps as those of the Greek 
and Latin forms, but nevertheless stereotyped, and the 
greatest factor to maintain this stereotyped condition is 
the denominational school. Since then the denomina- 
tional school is the product of medieval thinking and at 
the same time is divisive in character, necessarily main- 
taining in most instances stereotyped attitudes, it is not 
difficult to see that as an educational institution it can 
and ought to be abolished. This does not call for the 
closing at once of all the denominational schools. Only 
those need to be closed that are in close proximity to 
other schools and the other denominational schools need 
to be interdenominationalized. This could be handled 
by a commission on Christian education. 

An interdenominationalized policy would mean that 
the whole Christian sentiment of the community would 
be represented on the board of trustees and in the faculty, 
not with any denomination's predominating and there- 
fore controlling, but with all sharing equally in the re- 
sponsibility of its conduct and in the interpretation of its 
message. The only barrier to this policy is sectarianism 
with its distrust of those in other denominations, with its 
fictitious attitudes toward others and with its belated 
sense of its own infallibility. Consequently it will doubt- 
less be hard in many instances for the denominations to 

♦Headlam's "Doctrine of the Church and Christian Reunion," p. 203. 


let go, but the conscience of the Church must be so trained 
that it will be uncomfortable for any one denomination 
to hold with pride the exclusive control of any one school ; 
likewise to be uncomfortable for trustees to hold their 
places on boards of denominational schools and teachers 
to hold their places in faculties of denominational schools, 
where all are members of one denomination. I wish my 
own denomination would feel this sense of shame of this 
whole condition and therefore venture toward this ideal. 
There must be such an interdenominationalizing policy 
as to lose sight of the denomination in educational train- 
ing in order that Christ may be lifted up above all parties 
and all creeds. Theological seminaries would perhaps 
have more difficulty in making adjustments, but this is 
by no means an impossibility. If the various systems of 
interpretation cannot be adjusted and some one denom- 
ination contends that it is impossible for it to be wrong, 
then we face the alternative of one or the other being 
false or the still severer verdict, which the world is slowly 
accumulating, that both are false, but adjustment is pos- 
sible where there is freedom and truth. This adjustment 
could begin by having representatives of other denom- 
inations to be members of the faculty for short periods 
with the same freedom of instruction as the denomination 
in control. Finding this to be the more scientific method 
of procedure than the present method permanent places 
would be given in the faculty and on the board of trus- 
tees until the theological seminary came to be distinc- 
tively Christian, representing the whole Church instead 
of a denomination and therefore representing only a part. 
The Church is waiting for such a constructive policy in 
order to witness to the world the oneness of the disciples 
of our common Lord. The denominations are able to 
make this offering in the home land as they are making 
it to some degree on the foreign field and the altar is the 
common service to our fellows for the glory of God. 


Customs, traditions, property holdings, charter re- 
strictions, endowments and a score of other apparent 
hindrances stalk across our approaches, but where there 
is a will there is a way; besides these difficulties have 
been adjusted in former union movements, such as the 
union of the Cumberland Presbyterians with the Presby- 
terian Church in the U. S. A., the union in Scotland and 
in other instances. No greater need ever knocked at the 
door of the Church than the necessity of these times to 
interdenominationalize the educational system of the 
Church and give to education the Christian vision, the 
Christian adjustment, the Christian fellowship and the 
Christian wholeness of life. 

This day is calling us to repair the breaches of the 
past, to revise our convictions as to the realities of life, 
to set up standards that have in them the ethical instincts 
of the Gospel, to abandon fictitious attitudes regarding 
race, nation, creed and class, to use the spiritual weapons 
of divine grace in our daily warfare and to interpret love 
to sinners and saints in the humility and gentleness of 
Christ in order that we who believe may be able to pre- 
sent the mind of Christ to a weary world. There is not 
a denominational school on the globe that alone can do 
this. The wholeness of the Church is the heavenly view- 
point for the ministering of the whole Gospel to the whole 

Education must lead us to the fulfilment of those 
noble ideals for which we hunger and which are beauti- 
fully expressed by Wordsworth when he says, 

"We live by admiration, hope and love, 
And as these are well and wisely placed, 
In dignity of being we ascend.' ' 

It is admiration for the true and the universal; it is 
hope for the ethical use of the five senses and the spirit- 
ual development of every possibility within; it is love for 


the widening of the horizon, refusing to be provincialized 
by the petty things of religious denominations, political 
parties or national affairs and abolishing all hindrances 
to the wider fellowship with all mankind. The promise 
of Jesus still lies upon the conscience of a waiting world : 
i 'Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you 

Peter Ainslie. 

Christian Temple, 
Baltimore, Md. 


The golden age will dawn 
When man shall dare to be 
From false ambition free, 
His goal the truth; 
When every youth 
Shall seek, not wealth and fame, 
But this — a spotless name. 
Eighteousness shall be bold 
In that fair age of gold. 

The golden age will come 
When men shall work for joy; 
When each shall find employ 
Suited to each; 
When toil shall teach, 
Not bring the soul disgust; 
Men will not hear, ' ' Thou must ! ' ' 
Labor will not be sold, 
In that bright age of gold. 

The golden age on earth 

Will be a time of peace; 

The wars of greed shall eease; 

Envy shall fail, 

Mercy prevail; 

Creeds shall not separate; 

Caste shall be out of date; 

Love shall all hearts enfold 

In that fair age of gold. 

— Thomas Curtis Clark. 

•John 8:32. 



The first time in the history of the world that all the 
Christian unity movements were "brought together on 
one platform was at the St. Louis Conference on Chris- 
tian Unity, held under the auspices of the Association for 
the Promotion of Christian Unity, February 2-4, 1921. 
The mere fact of the Conference was of itself significant 
and the addresses abounded in courtesy, good-will and 
prophetic vision. Hasty preparation, for the middle 
west only, covering six weeks, brought together repre- 
sentatives from twenty-two communions from eighteen 
states, some traveling more than a thousand miles. 

Heretofore Christian unity conferences have been 
made up of carefully selected groups. These would 
spend days together seeking adjustment. Much fine 
work has been done by these selected groups. Misunder- 
standings have been removed and appreciation of the 
other man's position has been so satisfactorily revised 
as to make less difficult approaches toward closer fellow- 
ship. But the Association for the Promotion of Chris- 
tian Unity felt that the time had come to make a venture 
in taking this problem to the people for free and frank 
discussion, so that in the instance of the St. Louis Con- 
ference on Christian Unity all Christians — Eastern Or- 
thodox, Roman Catholic, Episcopal and Protestant — 
were not only invited to attend, but to share in the dis- 
cussions on the floor of the Conference — not to debate 
with one side attempting to prove that the other side is 
wrong, but to confer relative to our divisions and to be 
free to seek for the path that leads to reconciliation in the 
Church of Christ. Courtesy and tolerance and freedom 
marked every session throughout the three days. The 


daily press gave satisfactory reports and the Associated 
Press asked for more copy to be sent throughout the 
country after being served with what the secretary 
thought was sufficient. 

The programme was very simple. The president of 
the Association, Dr. Ainslie, outlined the scope and sig- 
nificance of the Conference. Then followed eight brief 
addresses in answer to the question "What Does My De- 
nomination Mean by 'the Church' and 'Church Unity' f" 
The order of these answers was as follows : Rev. Edmund 
Duckworth for the Protestant Episcopalians, Eev. C. B. 
Spencer for the Methodists, Rev. John Baltzer for the 
Evangelicals, Rev. W. E. Wheeler for the United Luther- 
ans, Rev. S. H. Woodrow for the Congregationalists, 
Rev. B. P. Fullerton for the Presbyterians, Rev. P. W. 
Burnham for the Disciples and Rev. W. H. Geistweit for 
the Baptists. These statements were referred to the 
committee on findings and that report will be found in 
the printed proceedings of the Conference. 

Then came the outstanding movements for unity. The 
Lambeth Appeal was presented by Rt. Rev. Ethelbert 
Talbot, bishop of Bethlehem, and responded to by Rev. 
George A. Campbell of St. Louis. The World Conference 
on Faith and Order was presented by Mr. Robert H. 
Gardiner, Gardiner, Me., the secretary of the World Con- 
ference. The American Council on Organic Union of 
Evangelical Protestants was presented by Mr. Henry W. 
Jessup, New York, who was largely responsible for the 
framing of this plan. The World Alliance for Promoting 
International Friendship through the Churches was pre- 
sented by Rev. Nehemiah Boynton, New York, chairman 
of the executive committee of the Alliance. The Fed- 
eral Council of the Churches of Christ in America was 
presented by Rev. Charles S. Macfarland, New York, 
secretary of the Federal Council. The Universal Con- 


ference of the Church of Christ on Life and "Work was 
presented by Rev. Frederick Lynch, New York, one of 
the secretaries of the Universal Conference. The men 
who spoke for these organizations were not only officially 
identified with these organizations, but in most instances 
were the chief officials. These movements represented 
the theological, ethical and social approaches to Chris- 
tian unity. They supplement each other for Christian 
unity needs all these approaches. Following each pres- 
entation two hours were given for questions and dis- 

In addition there were five addresses dealing with 
Christian unity from the general viewpoint. Canon 
Samuel McComb, Baltimore, spoke on "Causes of Dis- 
union and the Path to Reconciliation/' Rev. Arthur J. 
Brown, New York, on "Christian Unity on the Foreign 
Mission Fields," Rt. Rev. Nicholai Velimirovic, bishop of 
Serbia, on "The Call of a United Church in Europe," 
Rev. Frederick Lynch, and Rev. Nehemiah Boynton on 
' ' Christian Unity and the Present World Situation. ' ' It 
is needless to say that all of the addresses of the Confer- 
ence were of the highest order and deserve wide reading 
by those who could not attend. Bishop Nicholai 's contri- 
bution, rich in mystical interpretation and bold in 
heroic challenge, came with unusual force to an audience 
of the Western Hemisphere. 

The spirit of the Conference included the whole Church 
and bore a concern for the redemption of the whole 
world. W 7 hether men prayed or spoke the dominating 
thought was for a genuine brotherhood among all Chris- 
tian believers. Denominational barriers never seemed 
so superficial as in the atmosphere of this Conference. 
There was a conscious hunger in the souls of many for 
something beyond this divisive condition with its multi- 
plicity of unbrotherly attitudes. Men spoke with a cer- 


tainty of their faith in the fulfilment of our Lord's 
prayers for the oneness of His disciples. There are dif- 
ficulties to brotherhood but God's creative power in us 
will be sufficient to lead us to overcome every difficulty. 
It is not our choice, but instead is our necessity. There 
can be no spiritual growth except it be both toward God 
and toward all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and 
Saviour. Leaving out a part is hurtful to all. There 
must be one flock as there is one Shepherd. 

No resolutions were passed by the Conference except 
a resolution of sympathy for our suffering brethren of 
the Eastern Orthodox Church in Russia. The purpose of 
the Conference was to awaken a Christian unity con- 
science over the denominational conscience, thereby in- 
cluding the whole Church in our thought, rather than a 
minority part, which is the realm of the denominational 
conscience. The Association for the Promotion of Chris- 
tian Unity, Baltimore, Md., is dealing not so much with 
a plan for union as a method toward union and that 
method is intercessory prayer, friendly conferences and 
the distribution of irenic literature. The St. Louis Con- 
ference was the first attempt in its programme for an 
open conference and it was abundantly satisfactory. 
The week following a similar conference was held in 
Dallas, Texas, although not so large, and others will 
follow as opportunity and means are provided. The 
day has come when Christian unity must be the problem 
of every Christian and then the problem will be solved. 


The St. Louis Conference on Christian Unity was one of 
the most significant Christian gatherings of the year. 
The St. Louis Globe-Democrat, the leading morning pa- 
per of that city, contained more than half a column edito- 
rial on the Conference a few days before it convened and 
nearly a column editorial at the close of the Conference, 
besides a satisfactory write-up each day during the Con- 
ference. The following excerpt is taken from the first 
editorial : 

Whatever may be the objections offered to the movement for Chris- 
tian unity, the mere fact of movement is proof of life, its energy is 
proof of vigor, and its broad sweep is proof of power. Nor can it 
hardly be denied that a movement that seeks to bring separate, con- 
flicting and often opposing elements into common accord for a common 
purpose fundamental to all, is progressive. There is no Christian de- 
nomination that does not exist for the promotion of the cause of Christ. 
In all the diversities of Christian belief that purpose is primary. It is 
a fairly well-established rule in human affairs that more can be accom- 
plished for the general welfare by collective than by individual action. 
The Church in itself, every Church, is a recognition of that rule and an 
organization in conformity with it. That assumes no lessening of indi- 
vidual power or of individual responsibility, but it does assume that peo- 
ple who have the same fundamental desires and purposes can do more 
for their attainment by working together than by working each to him- 
self. In every group of people brought together for the accomplishment 
of certain aims there are personal differences of disposition, tempera- 
ment, heredity and tradition, from which varying views arise. But if 
they are agreed as to the particular purpose for which they unite, and 
can work together for the attainment of that purpose, they can achieve 
without the sacrifice of any essential of individuality. And so the in- 
dividual differences among the Churches ought not to present an insu- 
perable obstacle to their getting together for the general advancement 
of the cause of Jesus Christ. Yet therein is the great difficulty. It is 
just these individual differences that have so far prevented the con- 
summation of any sort of unity. But when many preachers and eminent 
laymen of all denominations can get together again and again to talk 
about unity, and when they continue to do so undiscouraged after re- 
peated failures to accomplish it, the prospect of ultimate success upon 
some basis of effective cooperation is hardly to be doubted. 

In the second editorial it is said, 

In closing its fruitful session the Conference on Christian Unity, held 
the past week in St. Louis, concentrated its thought on international 
good will. Good will toward men is both the foundation and the essence 


of Christianity, and there is no boundary to its application. It begins 
in the home, it extends to the neighbors, and it goes on, if it is truly 
Christian, in ever-widening circles to embrace all humanity. But human 
nature finds it hard to project good will beyond the individual horizon, 
because the other side of the horizon is unknown or little known, and 
the unknown is always an object of doubt, of suspicion, and therefore of 
opposition and enmity. * * * We are mistrusted by many because 
they do not know us, and we mistrust them because, primarily, we do 
not know them. Out of this mistrust and misunderstanding grow more 
occasions for war than from any other cause. What is needed by the 
world is a better understanding among its peoples, through a closer 
international cooperation for the common advancement. The League of 
Nations should contribute potently to such an understanding and the 
consequent feeling of good will, but there should be behind it, or, rather, 
beneath it, as its foundation, a public spirit in every country support- 
ing and aiding in the enlargement of international understanding. To 
that end all Christianity should work together, for Christianity is essen- 
tially international, and it is unquestionably the greatest power in the 
world for the advancement of human welfare. The angels that sang over 
Bethlehem did not sing peace on earth, good will toward the Jew or the 
Gentile, toward Eoman or Greek, toward American, or German, or 
Frenchman or Englishman, but toward men, all men, and it is only 
through the breaking down of barriers of prejudice that separate men 
that Christianity has progressed as far as it has. Good will toward men 
is a Christian principle and a Christian duty, and Christianity can and 
should lead toward the social and political good will which are essential 
to the establishment of peace on earth. 

The Christian Century, Chicago, says, 

It was planned for the sessions to be held in the chapel of Second Bap- 
tist Church, but at the first session the room overflowed and the assem- 
bly was moved to the capacious auditorium, which it came near filling. 
At the night sessions the house was well filled. Between eight hundred 
and a thousand persons were in attendance. For three days the various 
movements for Christian unity were interpreted by authoritative spokes- 
men and discussed with great freedom from the floor. 

This was the first time in American Church history that a common 
platform has been provided for those who from different angles of ap- 
proach are working at the task of Christian unity, to come together for 
comparative testimony and discussion. In providing such a platform the 
Disciples' Association for the Promotion of Christian Unity, headed by 
Dr. Peter Ainslie and Rev. H. C. Armstrong, has rendered a distinct 
service to the cause of unity and reflected credit upon the communion 
which the Association represents. The temper of all the discussions 
lifted the great theme far above the sectarian levels of controversy and 
denominational dogma. Each man came as if saying: "This is my con- 
viction; I bear testimony to what seems to me true. What have you to 
say to it? And what testimony have you to bear to the conviction which 
you cherish?" A wider and more sympathetic mind was bound to be 
created in such an atmosphere. Fellowship was discovered where with- 
out such candor in conference none would have seemed possible. 

The Christian Work, New York, Dr. Lynch editor, says, 

Much of the success of the St. Louis Conference was due to two 
facts: first, Dr. Ainslie got the local Churches thoroughly interested in 


the meeting. A very strong local committee was created with Bishop 
Johnson as chairman and Dr. Bitting as vice-chairman, Dr. MacLeod sec- 
retary and Dr. Campbell treasurer. Practically every communion in 
the city had a delegate on the committee. This committee became the 
host of the guests. The delegates came from all directions and were 
cordially entertained by this committee. The other item in the success 
was the care with which the speakers were chosen. Every speaker, with- 
out exception, was a man of international reputation for his interest and 
work along the lines of organic union of the Churches, world cooperation 
of the Churches and international good-will. Thus the Lambeth Appeal 
for Christian Unity was discussed by Dr. Ethelbert Talbot, the Bishop 
of Bethlehem. Bishop Talbot is one of the five or six bishops of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church who devoted their lives to the promotion 
of Christian unity and he had much to do with creating the conditions 
in the Anglican communion that made the action at Lambeth possible. 
The response of the other communions to this Lambeth Appeal was 
most happily voiced by Dr. George A. Campbell, another outstanding 
member of the school of the prophets. These two remarkable statements 
were followed by an address by Canon McComb of the Cathedral of 
Maryland, which dealt with the way to reconciliation. 

Thursday was given up to a discussion of the various plans and move- 
ments for Christian unity now before the world. Mr. Robert H. Gar- 
diner, of Boston, the lay member of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 
whose name is known throughout the world for his interest in unity, a 
lawyer and business man who is giving practically all his time, thought 
and money to the movement, the man who organized the great World 
Conference on Faith and Order at Geneva last summer, was brought on 
from Boston to tell the story of the Faith and Order movement. The 
whole morning was given up to conference between Mr. Gardiner and 
the audience with the result that a clarity of understanding became very 
noticeable — one that had not previously existed. Thursday afternoon 
was given over in the same way to a conference on the American Coun- 
cil on Organic Union of Evangelical Churches, led by Mr. Henry W. 
Jessup, of New York, who was the framer of what has now come to be 
called the ' ' Philadelphia Plan of Union." On Thursday evening the 
plans of union already in operation in foreign missionary fields were 
discussed. Here again Dr. Ainslie brought one of the three men in the 
United States who knew most about these plans and who has written a 
great book on this particular subject, Dr. Arthur J. Brown, Secretary 
of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions. The day's sessions were 
brought to a close by a remarkable address from the Rt. Eev. Nicholai 
Velimirovic, the bishop of Serbia, who has just arrived in America to 
interest the American Churches in his land. His address on "The Call 
of a United Church for Europe" was a passionate and pathetic plea for 
fellowship between the Eastern and the Western Churches. One of the 
most significant signs of the time is the rapidly growing acquaintance- 
ship of these two great branches of the Church of Christ. 

The whole of Friday was turned over to Dr. Nehemiah Boynton, 
chairman of the International Committee of "The World Alliance for 
International Friendship through the Churches," Dr. Macfarland and 
the writer, for the discussion of Christian unity and the present world 
situation. The story of the various movements and conferences pro- 
moted and conducted by the Federal Council and the World Alliance in 
Europe, all of which made for the unity of the Churches of the world, 
was told with some detail to the audience and awakened much interest 


and elicited many questions. The addresses of the evening dealt with 
the world problems facing the united Church. 

One very interesting session was given up to representatives of nine 
communions, each one of whom took ten minutes to tell what his denom- 
ination meant when it used the words " Church' ' and " Unity/ ' Doc- 
tors Duckworth, Spencer, Baltzer, Wheeler, Fritz, Woodrow, Fullerton, 
Burnham and Geistweit — all leaders of their denominations in the Mid- 
dle West — contributed to a symposium that would really be worth circu- 
lating as a separate pamphlet. 

The Christian-Evangelist, St. Louis, says, 

The conference was not legislative nor yet deliberative. It was 
essentially informational and inspirational, intended to instruct and to 
produce conviction. It was informational in two distinct respects. By 
papers, carefully prepared by representatives of nine different religious 
bodies, it was advised of the attitude of these respective bodies on the 
topic, "What Does My Denomination Mean by the Church and Chris- 
tian Unity?" It was informational also in that there was presented, 
somewhat in detail, the genius and the purpose as well as present prog- 
ress, of the movements included in the conference. It was inspirational 
in that it squarely and optimistically faced the unrest and other ab- 
normal conditions prevailing in the world, across the waters as well as 
at home, in the full belief that the gospel is the power of Cod unto 
social, industrial, economic and political salvation of nations as well as 
the individual salvation of men. 

It was creative, as it was hoped it would be; but, instead of evolving 
plans it quickened conscience. It is believed that its call will go 
throughout the world — a call to all who accept the Saviorhood of Jesus 
Christ and his Lordship, to awake to the imminent peril of a disunited 
Church. Its every note was one of hope that with the consciences of 
Christian peoples awakened, there would come the unfolding of plans 
for the consummation of unity among all believers. 

The Living Church, Milwaukee, says, 

The general impression made, one of great hopefulness, indicates a 
general awakening to the need and possibility of closer unity if not com- 
plete union. A spirit of tolerance and courtesy characterized the ses- 
sions, which does not mean, however, that there were not at times de- 
cidedly sharp lines drawn, or that it was always possible to avoid a sort 
of religious "stepping on toes." 

The Evangelical Herald, St. Louis, says, 

The plan of having representatives of the different denominations 
state their beliefs concerning the Church and Christian unity was car- 
ried out in a most interesting manner. We believe the cause of Chris- 
tian unity would be greatly helped if duly authorized spokesmen of the 
different Churches would, as a matter of general interdenominational 
information, state briefly in writing the position held by their Churches 
concerning such fundamentals as the person and the work of Christ, the 
nature and work of the Church, the meaning of the sacraments, etc., as 
well as the most important points of denominational polity. A com- 
parison of such statements would show, we believe, that the Churches 
are much nearer to one another than most of their members imagine. 

Again and again the discussions and discourses at the conference 


centered around the ideas of Christ's plan for the Church, and the 
Church 's conception of Christ and His work, as the points where the 
greatest difference of opinion seems to prevail. To the writer, however, 
it seemed that there was really not so much difference of opinion as a 
difference in the expression of opinion concerning these Christian fun- 
damentals. Ecclesiastical tradition and training have had so strong an 
influence upon the terms in which we are accustomed to express our 
opinions of what we believe to be true concerning the nature and attri- 
butes of God, the person and work of Christ, the character of the Church 
and its work in the world, and the work of the Holy Spirit, that it is 
difficult for one denomination to fully and clearly understand another's 
way of looking at and doing things. While it certainly is important to 
get the historical viewpoint and try to understand the attitude of those 
Churches which are largely governed by it, the larger hope for unity 
and final union seems to us to lie in the measure in which the Churches 
to-day succeed in meeting the urgent and insistent demand for a Bibli- 
cal, popular message of social righteousness. 

The Roman Catholic Sunday Visitor, Huntington, Ind., 
says editorially, 

A few weeks ago there was held in St. Louis a Christian Unity Confer- 
ence, the object being to discuss ways and means for the different Chris- 
tian sects to unite as one Church. 

Every speaker at this Conference, and there were many, deplored the 
existence of, but had no acceptable remedy for, this "scandal to the un- 
converted. ' ' 

We quote briefly from the utterance of several speakers: 

"The unity of the Church is as fundamental as the death of Christ on 
the cross and His resurrection from the tomb. ' ' — Rev. Dr. Peter Ainslie, of 
Baltimore, Md. 

This minister is right, because Christ Himself declared that unity of be- 
lief and practice among His professed followers would be proof that He 
was divine. Division is not of God. 

"Never since the division in the Church of Christ took place has the 

need of reunion been felt as it is now The world war burned into our 

souls the weakness of a divided Christianity. . .... It is plain that our divi- 
sions are a disaster to the cause of Christ. A divided Church is gradually 
but surely giving us a non-believing world." — Bishop Ethelbert Talbot, o* 
Bethlehem, Pa. 

The bishop is also right. Before the division of Christendom a war, such 
as Europe is just emerging from, was unthinkable. The Head of the Church 
was the one moral force which both kings and people respected. The dis- 
cordant voices of several hundred denominations, each claiming that it has 
the best form of Christianity, explain why the Protestant Churches are 
making little progress and why two-thirds of the American people are not 
drawn to any of the Churches. 

"Men feel, as they have never felt before, the shame, the scandal and 
the danger of disunion. They are craving the opening up of some path of 
reconciliation, whereby ancient grudges shall be wiped out, whereby, with- 
out sacrificing any truth which the divine spirit has revealed, men may 
realize before a hostile world their unity as the one indivisible body of 
Christ." — Rev. Samuel McComb, of Maryland. 

Strange that thoughtful men do not see the unity of the great body 
from which the parent sects separated. Strange that they do not see the 


need of branches being engrafted on the vine in order to live and flourish. 
Strange that Americans especially do not realize that seceded religions, just 
as seceded states, must return to the old fold, if we would have real union — 
one and indivisible. Strange that they do not recognize the need of a 
standard of orthodoxy, " some living voice that can speak with authority. 

i i 

The Baptist Word and Way, Kansas City, Mo., says : 

These brethren, with all their enthusiasm and good intentions, are vi- 
sionaries, rainbow chasers. They are spending their time, their breath and 
their good money for nothing. No desirable Christian unity or Christian 
union will ever be brought about by such process. Anything that plays 
down principles, conviction and conscience; anything that minimizes dif- 
ferences and magnifies agreements; anything that finds "non-essentials" in 
the Word of God and depends upon compromise in order to reach unity, 
in short, any proposition or effort for Christian unity and union on any 
other basis than the Scriptures, rightly interpreted, is doomed to failure, 
and ought to fail. We think of this Unity Conference as a menagerie of 
doctrine, polity and practices, a "happy family" of non-affinities. 

Following the St. Louis Conference a conference was 
held in the First Presbyterian Church, Dallas, Texas. 
Of this Conference The Christian Courier, Dallas, gives 
five pages and this excerpt is taken from that paper : 

The Dallas Conference was well attended, in consideration of the 
fact that while the Christian unity question has become an intensely 
interesting one among the leaders of most communions, there is much 
timidity yet in this section about the matter. 

The Christian Work, New York, says editorially (Dr. 
Frederick Lynch) : 

When the great war came it was noticeable how the interest in Chris- 
tian unity received a new and great impulse. Not only did the Free 
Churches of Great Britain — Wesleyans, Baptists, Congregationalists, Pres- 
byterians and the rest — begin to talk of union of their forces, but Angli- 
cans and Free Churchmen began meeting on such a footing of intimacy and 
equality as had never been known before in England. Our readers are 
familiar with these various meetings and the rather remarkable results. 
Christian unity has been one of the most discussed questions in England 
during the last five years. Statements have been given out by the Churches 
in conference that could not have been arrived at by any group a few years 
ago. Dozens of books have been published and the whole question is a real, 
live issue. To some extent this is all true in America. 

What are the immediate causes of this new interest in and movement 
toward unity? First of all, it is the consciousness that has gradually been 
coming over the Churches that our divided Churches cannot adequately re- 
veal the oneness that exists between Christ and God. Jesus prayed in the 
Upper Room that His disciples might be one as He and the Father were 
one — that they might manifest to the world the oneness that was in Him 
and the Father. Only a united Church will thus manifest the unity that 
is in Christ. Now Anglicanism manifests one aspect, Presbyterianism an- 


other, Methodism another, and so on. When we get a great united Church 
that is one, then it will gloriously manifest the oneness of the Godhead. 

The second reason is the consciousness that has come over the Church 
that only a united Church can meet the vast, and sometimes organized, evil 
of the world, solve the problems that are before us, arrest the attention of 
the indifferent and quench the voice of the scoffer. No one communion is 
big enough to meet the need of the world or make much impression upon 
the vast fortresses to be taken, and could the world see a great, strong, 
united Church of Christ it would not only respect it, but would tremble. 
No doubt the wonderful success of the Allies when they became one, 
whereas singly they could not conquer, had much to do with deepening this 

In the third place, a feeling has been coming over the Church that no 
one communion is big enough to contain the whole revelation of God. 
Bishop Brent emphasized this fact very strikingly in his opening address 
as chairman of the World Conference on Faith and Order at Geneva, The 
Lambeth Conference at London in July put it in most striking language. 
The Appeal of the bishops says: "The faith cannot be adequately appre- 
hended . . . while the body is divided, and is thus unable to grow up 
into the fulness of the life of Christ. ' ' 

Eegarding sacramental grace, which is so involved in 
Christian unity discussion, Canon Adderley, writing in 
Hihbert Journal says : 

We must remember that Christianity is a very young religion, and that 
we are only at the beginning of Church history, even now. Catholic mys- 
tics and the Society of Friends have found silence and contemplation more 
sacramentally efficacious than the ordinary sacraments. The author of the 
fourth Gospel does undoubtedly describe the feet-washing as a kind of 
sacrament ordained by Christ, just at the point where we should have ex- 
pected him to tell us about the Lord's Supper, especially in view of what 
he had already written in his sixth chapter. Many Christians who seldom 
or never communicate do seem to get grace from action which is more like 
feet-washing than like eating bread and drinking wine. 

These facts, and many others of the same nature, should make us 
very chary of claiming too much in the way of special sacramental grace to 
be got in no way except by the appointed channels. Let us concentrate on 
the end for which we look rather than on the means we use, however vener- 
able. Anyhow, that is the way to preliminary agreements. The hem of 
Christ's garment became a sacrament of Christ's virtue to the woman who 
wanted Him, while it was nothing to those who pressed it without the desire 
for that end. 

We need also to reconsider what we mean by grace, of which the sac- 
raments are said to be the means. There is a tendency to< talk of grace in 
terms of quantity, as if it were so much measurable stuff like the grease 
of a wheel or the fuel of an engine. But we cannot really measure spir- 
itual force in that sort of way. We do not get twice as much inspiration 
by reading two plays of Shakespeare as we should if we only read one. 
Neither are two communions necessarily better than one. The very phrase 
"my communion" suggests a mechanical view of grace. Had not Car- 
dinal Manning some thought of this kind in his mind when he deplored the 
fact that many of his priests had become mere ' ' sacrament-mongers ' ' ? 
Grace is spiritual power, a force of suggestion, encouragement, inspira- 
tion, but needing the cooperation of the will of the receiver to make it 
really efficacious. The Church may be right in rigidly adhering to a 


fixed number of sacraments and a regular way of obtaining valid gifts of 
grace, but the door should not be closed so that a faithful and enthusiastic 
Christian should not be encouraged to expect grace in all sorts of ways. 
As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholic Church, in spite of her severely 
exclusive and mapped-out doctrines, does encourage her children to look 
for what is practically extra-sacramental grace. Chiefly this is done in her 
insistence on hearing Mass. 

I was taught as a boy (by Anglican clergy) that I must be careful 
not to think that there was any special grace in attending the Eucharist 
without communion; that it could only come from actual partaking of the 
elements. I believe now that this was a mistake. Hearing Mass, or, as 
our continental fellow-Christians call it in a most suggestive phrase, 
' ' assisting ' ' the priest, does also confer grace in the sense in which I have 
tried to define it above. It appeals to the imagination. Christ crucified 
is ' ' placarded ' ' before our eyes. We behold in a magnificent yet simple 
drama the only perfect approach to God, through a sacrificed body and a 
poured-out life-blood. Now, this seems to me a most important concession 
that has been made by Catholics in the matter of grace, because we can- 
not say that hearing Mass is strictly part of the original institution of the 
Eucharist, or, at least, not a grace-conveying part of it. If the Holy 
Spirit has taught the Church this extra-sacramental source of grace, how 
do we know that He may not be teaching other ways to those who do not 
Use the ordinary sacraments? 

I hope I shall not be misunderstood. I absolutely believe in the sacra- 
ments myself. The Holy Communion is to me the great assurance that 
Christ is a living Master and King. I feel about it what Maurice felt 
when he said: "If I had not been to Communion this morning I should be 
inclined to say that the devil reigned. ' ' Just at this time, when the Bible 
is ceasing to be a complete historical bedrock on which to rest, it is the 
sacraments which embody and keep alive and moving the spiritual realities 
for which the first disciples and martyrs lived and died. What the spoken 
words and visible deeds of Jesus were to the disciples, I believe the sacra- 
ments are meant to be to us. The Church itself is the arch-sacrament, the 
visible embodiment of Him in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead 
bodily. The communicant without faith, without the desire for unity, does 
not discern the Lord's body. The sacraments might be, if lived out to the 
full in everyday life, just that visible proof for which in these days the 
world is asking, that Christianity is not played out. It is by trying to 
make the sacramental life a reality that the socialist clergy have found an 
inspiration for their work, and it was no mere form of words which made 
Stewart Headlam, when founding the first socialist society in England 
nearly forty years ago, adopt as its first rule "to make the Eucharist the 
chief act of Christian worship." Somewhere underlying this feast of the 
common bread there must be the principle which in God's good time will 
bring into one active, cooperative body all who name the Name of Christ. 



To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly: 

Dear Sir: — I have given Dr. Hodge's letter very careful attention, but 
as it does not seem to be conclusive, perhaps you will allow me to state my 
reasons for thinking, even yet, that my article was nearer the truth than 
Dr. Hodge's view. 

He challenges my definition of the distinction between a prophet and 
a priest, and says that a more exact definition be, that a prophet is one 
who speaks to man on behalf of God, and a priest is one who acts as the 
agent both of men in their approach to God, and of God in His dealings 
with men. In support of this he argues that the priest acted as God's 
representative when he accepted the sacrifices of the people and performed 
the necessary rites. But I maintain that all through the processes connected 
with sacrifices the priest was the people's representative and not God's. 
This is clear from Heb. 5:1, where the entire work of offering from be- 
ginning to end is spoken of as expressing man's relation to God through 
the priest, and, so far as I can discover, Scripture never divides the offer- 
ing in the way Dr. Hodge suggests. In everything the priest did he was 
" appointed for man" and was man's representative, not God's. 

Dr. Hodge includes the act of blessing in these priestly functions, but 
he has forgotten that blessing was not limited to the priest, for a king 
could bless, and therefore blessing was not a priestly work, as such. This 
is all the dearer from the story of Uzziah who was punished for intrud- 
ing into the proper and sole sphere of the priest. " 

My object was to get and state a clear definition of the essential differ- 
ence between the prophet and the priest, and I fell sure the only way of 
doing this is to say that the prophet represented God to man and the priest 
represented man to God. "Whatever else either of them did was not of the 
essence of their specific functions. 

Dr. Hodge considers Christ's statement, "as my Father hath sent me," 
etc., supports his view and he bases it on what he regards as Christ's own 
priesthood at the time. But he has evidently forgotten the plain denial 
of Christ's priesthood on earth in Heb. 8:4, than which nothing could be 
clearer in refutation of Dr. Hodge 's position. Christ did not begin to be 
a priest until His Ascension, and' we are told of His priesthood that it is 
' ' intransmissible " or tl undelegated, ' ' that is, it does not pass from Him 
to anyone else (Heb. 7:24, Greek). Besides, when Christ spoke the words 
recorded in John 20, one of the Apostles was absent, and, as the best com- 
mentaries point out, there were others present as well as the ten Apostles. 
Further, remission of sins was no priestly function, for Dr. Hodge may 
be challenged to produce a single case of this on the part of the Aaronic 
priest. The popular phrase "priestly absolution" is a contradiction in 
terms, for the work of absolution or remission, in the only possible sense 
of declaring God's absolution as in the Prayer-Book service, is the work of 
a prophet not of a priest. 

There is evidently some confusion in Dr. Hodge's mind when he speaks 
of Baptism as a priestly function, for the Church in all ages has recognized 
the validity of lay baptism. So, too, as to the Lord's Supper, there is no 
proof that it was to take the place of the Jewish sacrifices. On the con- 
trary, Christ Himself, not the Supper, is the anti-type of the Passover (1 
Cor. 5:7), and the clear teaching of Hebrews is that all the old sacrifices 
found their fulfilment in Him. 


Dr. Hodge speaks of the Lord's Supper as a "memorial," but the word 
used by our Lord was "remembrance" (avd/jLvrjais) it is well known that 
this is subjective, as distinct from the objective "memorial" (fivrifidsvvov) . 

The laying-on-of -hands in the Acts was not limited to the Apostles even 
though they were priests (which they were not), for a layman, Ananias, 
was the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit being given to St. Paul. Nor 
is there the slightest proof that the "sealing" of Ephesians was our con- 

Dr. Hodge uses ( ' we have an altar ' ' as though it referred to the Lord 's 
Table (which, by the way, is never called "altar" in the English Prayer 
Book), but the context is clearly against this view, and Westcott points 
out in his fine commentary that the term ' ' altar ' ' was not used of any 
material structure for over a century after the date of Hebrews. 

Dr. Hodge uses Moberly's well known argument when he says that the 
whole body of believers cannot act as one in performing priestly functions. 
It must have representatives to act for the whole body in its corporate 
approaches to God and there must be some one to celebrate and administer 
the acts which Christ commanded, and His Apostles preached, by means of 
which spiritual blessings are received from God. 

But I maintain that there is nothing of a strictly priestly (that is rep- 
resentative) character that every believer cannot do for himself. Here, 
again, there is some confusion, for in public worship the clergyman is a 
medium not a mediator, and his work of leading our devotions and pre- 
siding at our communions does not set aside or even suspend the priest- 
hood of all believers. 

The rest of the letter does not seem to call for detailed comment, except 
to say that the functions of the ministry in the Reformed churches are 
not priestly but ministerial in every sense, and on this account the di- 
vergences between these Churches and Dr. Hodge's position are not merely 
a matter of "nomenclature" but of "fact." 

The truth is that Dr. Hodge has been reading back into the New Testa- 
ment his own ecclesiastical views which are of a very much later date as 
to origin. In this he is like Bishop Gore, and I would strongly suggest a 
careful study of that fine book recently published by Dr. Headlam on ' ' The 
Church and Reunion ' ' where the true method of approaching all these con- 
troverted subjects is forcibly and convincingly stated. 

Yours most faithfully, 

W. H. Griffith Thomas. 

129 Maplewood Avenue, Germantown, Pa. 


The four Bedell Lectures of 1919, under the title The Call To Unity 
by William T. Manning, S.T.D., D.C.L. (Maemillan), make one of the very- 
best contributions to the cause of a united Christendom. The titles of the 
lectures are ' ' The Call to Unity, " " The Present Outlook for Unity, ' ' ' ' The 
Approach to Unity, " and "The Call to the Anglican Communion, " fol- 
lowed by a valuable appendix of forty pages. Dr. Manning is bold to say 
that our divisions are a disaster to the cause of Christ, divorcing religion 
from our system of public education, weakening and impairing the whole 
body of Christians, and making an insuperable obstacle to the command 
of our Lord to make disciples of all nations. Unity involves spiritual real- 
ity and divine purpose. * ' The Church is the means which God has appointed 
for bringing to Himself all mankind, in the fellowship of His dear Son. 
It is the Church which gives the Gospel actuality and meaning." But our 
separations and divisions have led many of us to a poor and inadequate 
view of the Church which Dr. Manning deplores and affirms that we are all 
guilty of the sin of schism, and the question is not as to the origin of 
schism, but as to the longer continuance of it. 

His outlook is hopeful, realizing that the things which unite Christians 
are greater than the things which separate them. He recognizes the spiritu- 
al excellencies of the Eoman Catholic Church and sees the possibility of a 
' ' constitutional Papacy. ' ' He regards the American Council on Organic 
Union as putting forth the most important and promising action yet taken 
toward Protestant union. The vision of a united Church is from Christ and 
because it is from Him it will be fulfilled. Many approaches are cited, in- 
dicating a growing conscience, and he emphasizes the necessity for a clear 
exposition of the meaning of unity. He emphasizes the principles of Chris- 
tian loyalty and Christian liberty and speaks wisely of the possibility of 
Catholic and Protestant interpretations supplementing each other for the 
necessary wholeness of the Church. The last lecture deals with the Anglican 
Church, recognizing and finding place for both the Catholic principle and 
the Protestant principle within her own life. Its appeal is bold, inclusive 
and spiritual, making a distinct contribution to the common brotherhood 
of Christians, and we find ourselves in satisfactory agreement with the 
whole presentation. 

The story of the first quarter of a century of The World's Student 
Christian Federation is fascinatingly told by Dr. John R. Mott in a volume 
of less than a hundred pages under that title (World's Student Christian 
Federation), dealing with its origin, achievements and forecast, illustrated. 
Its birthplace was at Vadstena Castle, Sweden, in 1895, and to six men 
was committed the great task of laying the foundation for a movement 
which in time has become a vast superstructure, uniting the student Chris- 


tian movements throughout the world, collecting information regarding re- 
ligious conditions of students in all lands, leading students into Christian 
discipleship, deepening their spiritual life and enlisting them in extending 
the Kingdom of Christ throughout the world. Naturally out of such a 
movement one of its outstanding results has been the advancing of Chris- 
tian unity, revealing to Christian students with compelling force their one- 
ness in Jesus Christ. It has illustrated the reality and advantages of the 
unity of Christian believers, uniting in effective organization and endeavor 
nearly 200,000 students and professors, and in this particular has made 
one of the greatest contributions to the unity of Christendom. The study 
of the needs of the world from the point of view of Jesus Christ has shown 
the necessity and practicability of sincere cooperation and common action 
among Christians, promoting corporate thinking and united intercession. 
No body of men so thoroughly realize the new era in which we now live as 
students, and the forecast presented by Dr. Mott opens into a field of 
boundless possibilities. It is a record of charm, vision and challenge. 

One of the most beautifully written books of personal recollections is 
Personal 'Recollections of Andrew Carnegie, by Frederick Lynch, D.D., 
Educational Secretary Church Peace Union (Revell). Dr. George Haven 
Putnam, in the second volume of his reminiscences, related some things 
that Mr. Carnegie said on shipboard, which, while doubtless true, misrepre- 
sented rather than represented Mr. Carnegie's religious views, but it went 
around the world as a suggestive theme for editorials in religious journals. 
At the same time those same journals in the main were upholding wholesale 
man killing in war as being in conformity to the mind of Christ, while Mr. 
Carnegie was giving both his thought and his fortune to abolish war and to 
establish an international court of justice where international disputes 
might find their solution. He rightly believed that he was interpreting the 
mind of Christ and he just as positively believed that sectarianism did not 
represent the mind of Christ and therefore he stood aloof from the Churches 
as Abraham Lincoln and multitudes of others have done. Nevertheless Mr. 
Carnegie expressed high confidence that in spite of the divisions of the 
Church he looked to the members of these religious bodies to be the chief 
instruments in banishing war from the earth. Dr. Lynch knew Mr. Carnegie 
intimately, and aside from his remarkably gifted pen, perhaps there is no 
one who could better interpret Mr. Carnegie 's life than Dr. Lynch, who has 
given an interpretation that will not only be as a supplement to Mr. Car- 
negie's (i Autobiography, ' ' but will ever remain a fascinating volume to 
those who are interested in the most human side of the life of a great man. 

Organizations for the Promotion of Christian Unity 

Having its inception in the work of Thomas Campbell, 180S>, present or- 
ganization 1910, President, Rev. Peter Ainslie; Secretary, Rev. H. C. Arm- 
strong, Seminary House, Baltimore, Md., U. S. A. For intercessory prayer, 
friendly conferences and distribution of irenic literature, ' ' till we all attain 
unto the unity of the faith. " Pentecost Sunday is the day named for 
special prayers for and sermons on Christian unity in all Churches. 

TENDOM, 1857, President, Athelstan Riley, Esq., 2 Kensington Court, 
London; Secretary in the United States, Rev. Calbraith Bourn Perry, Cam- 
bridge, N. Y. For intercessory prayer for the reunion of the Roman Cath- 
olic, Greek and Anglican Communions. 

Rev. Robert W. Weir, Edinburgh. For maintaining, fostering and ex- 
pressing the consciousness of the underlying unity that is shared by many 
members of the different Churches in Scotland. 

CHRISTIAN UNITY FOUNDATION, 1910, Secretary, Rev. W. C. Em- 
hardt, Newtown, Bucks Co., Pa. For the promotion of Christian unity 
throughout the world by research and conference. 

CHURCHMEN'S UNION, 1896, President, Prof. Percy Gardner; Hon. 
Secretary, Rev. C. Moxon, 3 St. George's Square, London S. W., England. 
For cultivation of friendly relations between the Church of England and 
all other Christian bodies. 

DER, 1910, President, Rt. Rev. Charles P. Anderson; Secretary, Robert H. 
Gardiner, Esq., Gardiner, Me., U. S. A. For a world conference of all 
Christians relative to the unity of Christendom. 

COUNCIL ON ORGANIC UNION, 1918, Ad Interim Committee, Chairman, 
Rev. W. H. Roberts, Philadelphia, Pa.; Secretary, Rev. Rufus W. Miller, 
Witherspoon Building, Philadelphia. For the organic union of the Evan- 
gelical Churches in the United States of America. 

1908, President, Rev. Frank Mason North; Secretary, Rev. Charles S. Mac- 
farland, 105 E. 22d St., New York. For the cooperation of the various 
Protestant Communions in service rather than an attempt to unite upon 
definitions of theology and polity. 

FREE CHURCH FELLOWSHIP, 1911, Rev. Malcolm Spencer, Colue 
Bridge House, Rickmansworth, London, N. For the cultivation of cor- 
porate prayer and thought for a new spiritual fellowship and communion 
with all branches of the Christian Church. 

OF ENGLAND, 1895, President, Rev. Principal W. B. Selbie, Mansfield 
College, Oxford; Secretary, Rev. F. B. Meyer, Memorial Hall, E. C, Lon- 
don. For facilitating fraternal intercourse and cooperation among the 
Evangelical Free Churches in England. 

SHIP THROUGH THE CHURCHES, 1914, Chairman, Most Rev. Randall 
Thomas Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, Hon. Secretary, Rt. Hon. Sir 
Willoughby H. Dickinson, 41 Parliament St., London, S. W. 1. For joint 
endeavour to achieve the promotion of international friendship through the 
churehes and the avoidance of war.