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. XI NO. 1 

rr God gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. " 




r # THIS 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 — 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. 

JULY, 1921 





Fleming H. Revell Company, New York 

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

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



Tiie 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 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 speak with Freedom for itself in these Pages as to 
what Offering it has to oring to the Altar of Reconciliation. 

Vol. XL JULY, 1921 No. 1 



By Rev. H. O. Pritchard, LL. D., Secretary of Disciples Board 
of Education, Indianapolis, Ind. 


By Rev. Rockland T. Homans, D. D., Rector Grace Episcopal 
Church, Jamaica, N. Y. 


By Rev. Alfred E. Garvie, D. D., Principal New College, Uni- 
versity of London. 




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 fJhurch 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. 

Meeting of the Continuation Committee of the World Conference on Faith 
and Order at Gardiner, Me., August 1-5, 1921. Robert H. Gardiner, Gar- 
diner, Me., secretary. 

Meeting of the World Conference on Faith and Order. Date and place 
unannounced. Robert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Me., secretary. 

Meeting of the Universal Conference of the Church of Christ on Life and 
Work, perhaps in 1922 or 1923. Archbishop of Uppsala, president; Rev. 
Henry A. Atkinson, 70 Fifth Ave., New York City, secretary. 


(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.) 


But all things are of God, Who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, 
and gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that Cod was in 
Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not reckoning unto them their 
trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation. We 
are ambassadors therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were en- 
treating by us: we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to 
God.— (II Cor. 5:18-20.)' 


O Lord, Our Maker and Redeemer, 

We turn us to Thee, who didst draw us to Thyself and make us Thine, 

Blending and mingling, as water with wine, our poor lives with Thine own. 

Take all we are and have, the very substance of our souls — 

O set us to Thy service only! 

May we no longer live and work for our own gain, apart from Thee. 

We own Thy absolute authority over us, in life and in death, 

And, surrendering all things else, we dedicate ourselves to Thee. 

Keep what we cannot keep, 
Mend what we cannot mend, 

Make us what we cannot even aspire to, since our destiny is hidden from 
us in Thee. Amen. 

^Adapted from Fr. Roche. 


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 APRIL, 1921 

UNION 249 

By Rev. Arthur C. Headlam, D.D., Canon of 
Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Divin- 
ity 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, 



By Professor Alva W. Taylor, M.A., Professor 
of Social Service and Christian Missions in the 
Bible College of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 



By Rev. Peter Ainslie, D.D., Minister Christian 
Temple, Baltimore, Md. 


The St. Louis Conference 305 


UNITY 309 




AT RANT, LORD, that we may dwell 
v® much upon thy heavenly plans and 
purposes of reconciliation and unity 
rather than upon the schismatic con- 
ditions of Thy Church, lest we become 
discouraged and lose faith as the world 
about us has done because they hear 
only the cry of discord and see only its 
manifestations. Show us Thyself and 
the beauty of Thyself in others until we 
shall think of all who pray as our 
brothers of the common faith, through 
Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen. 


CAN the Churches in America, speaking with one 
voice, as strong as many waters, inspire with this con- 
viction the leaders of Christian nations? To be able 
to do this all the Church leaders must awaken to the 
apocalyptic earnestness of the present time, and must 
feel like soldiers in different uniforms, but of the same 
army, marching toward the same goal. All other 
aims, like increase in welfare of one's own denom- 
ination, getting money for new church buildings, 
proselytizing in the Church of one's neighbor, sending 
missions to handfuls of people in the dark corners 
of the globe — all these ends are trifling games of the 
blind who do not see their main duty in a night of 
earthquake. If necessary, therefore, let my denom- 
ination perish, but let Christ be the ruler of the rulers 
of the world. 

Brethren, organize a cooperative brotherhood of 
Churches and then as one unit make a spiritual 
pressure upon the leaders of this immense country 
and through them upon the world. The voices of 
many Churches are no voice at all. One united voice 
of all the Churches will shake the earth. For it will 
not be a human voice but the voice of Pentecost. 
— Bishop Nicholai of Serbia to American Church 


»— •««$» 


There is something wrong with the 
Church — fundamentally wrong. He 
who wraps himself up in the security of 
his own party is both deaf to the call of 
God and blind to the needs of the 
world. It is not likely that in the ad- 
justing of the parts of the Church to 
each other some parts will stand in- 
violate while others will have to be 
very much broken up to make adjust- 
ment. The wrong system is so great 
that all the parts must undergo read- 
I justment, some perhaps more than 

I others. The one that yields most loves J 

j most and love is the gateway toward 

j reconciliation— -"By this shall all men 

know that ye are my disciples, if ye 
have love one to another." 

I i 





The paper recently published in these columns entitled 
"Has the Denominational School a Place in Present Day 
Education? " has called forth general comment from all 
classes of educators. These comments may be classified 
into four groups: First, those who favor the general 
idea of interdenominationalizing the denominational 
school; second, those who oppose interdenominationaliz- 
ing the denominational school ; third, those who both fa- 
vor interdenominationalizing the denominational school 
and are working at it; and fourth, those who rec- 
ognize the seriousness involved in our present day 
educational system but do not see its solution in the 
interdenominationalizing processes in all instances as 
suggested in the paper. These comments speak for 

First, those who favor the general idea: 

Rev. James L. Barton, secretary of American Board of Commissioners 
for Foreign Missions (Congregational), Boston, Mass., writes: "I read 
your article with approving interest. One of the saddest conditions now 
handicapping the progress of the Kingdom is the way denominationalism 
overshadows Christianity and often crowds it to the wall. In an increas- 
ing number of instances in the foreign field different communions are 
uniting in college educational work, as well as in theological training. 
The greatest obstacle these union movements in education abroad have to 
encounter is the intense denominational zeal here at home. It is encourag- 
ing to see that many schools in the United States established as denom- 
inational, measured by the student body, are no longer so. I expect that 
the greatest obstacles to be overcome are not doctrinal differences but 
denominational pride. We are more eager to build up a denomination and 
sectarian institutions, than we are to make Christ known to the world. 
We pray 'Thy Kingdom come, provided it bear the label of our denom- 
ination, not otherwise.' Calmly and dispassionately considered, our de- 
nominationalism seems the most destructive and condemnatory heresy. If 
we will only educate our youth in the broad sense of education, we can 
safely trust to them the perpetuation of all the sectarianism the next 
generation will demand or require. The Church surely needs a new concep- 
tion of Christian education. May you be instant in season and out of 
season in promoting this broad conception of Christianity as over against 
sectarianism. ' ' 

Professor R. H. Jordan, Dartmouth College (Congregational), Hanover, 
N. H., writes: <l There is no question in my mind but that the future of 
the Church in this country demands a more rational treatment of doe- 


trinal differences. Those of us who are interested in higher education feel 
very keenly the unfortunate schisms that are introduced in the name of 
denominationalism, and especially do we deplore the unnecessary duplica- 
tion of educational agencies with the resultant weakening of each. I do 
not at all agree with the feeling that a strict denominationalism is essen- 
tial to the virility of such institutions. On the contrary, I feel that if 
these institutions were administered under a central board of the type you 
suggest, the religious life of both students and faculty would be tremen- 
dously quickened and stimulated. ■ ' 

Rev. A. E. Elmore, pastor Second Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga, 
Tenn., writes: "I believe you have blazed the way to the point to which 
we will all eventually have to come in education. The sooner the better for 
Protestantism. ' ' 

President James Arnold Blaisdell, Pomona. College (Congregational), 
Claremont, Calif., writes: "I am glad to say that I find myself quite in 
agreement with your point of view. The distinct limitation of any edu- 
cational institution to the administration or interests of a single denom- 
ination seems to me unfortunate. On the other hand, I am quite clear 
that no educational system is complete which does not make room for a 
frank and full consideration of the values of religion. ' J 

President A. D. Harmon, Cotner College (Disciple), Bethany, Nebr., 
writes : "I would dissent from some of the specific statements, but, in my 
judgment, the sum of your contention is correct. A united Christian col- 
lege is the necessary sequence of a united Christian Church. A united 
Church is coming, and will continue to come, by means of propaganda and 
experimentation. In my judgment, a united Christian educational system 
must come in the same way. In the present status of our evolving social 
order the Christian college is indispensable. But for its protest, and its 
contribution, we would be left to a state system of education which is pre- 
eminently rationalistic and materialistic. The state system of education 
to-day has its outlook upon things, veiled under the word l efficiency ' which, 
in the long run, is crass materialism. The Church college, like the Church 
itself, carries the handicap of sectarianism, but it is potentially spiritual. 
In the present status of the social order there is a distinct place, in my 
judgment, for the Church college. In the ultimate system all education 
must be unified in its outlook upon life. Since we must work to this end 
through propaganda and experimentation I would hail with delight all 
working efforts in education that look to this end. I heartily endorse the 
bigger contentions urged in your article. ' ' 

President W. W. Guth, Goucher College, Baltimore, Md., writes: 
"Strict denominational control is apt to hamper an educational institution. 
A college or university must be free from sectarianism in the strict sense 
in order to be truly an educational institution. There should be no sec- 
tarian test necessary for the board of trustees or for the members of the 
faculty or for the students." 

President Henry C. King, Oberlin College (Congregational), Oberlin, 
Ohio, writes : ' ' My feeling is that we must seek the largest measure of 
cooperation among the denominations in all our plans for higher education. 
I do not believe that the Christian colleges can make the growth or have 
the influence which they ought to have in any other way. ' ' 

Professor Edward A. Wicher, San Francisco Theological Seminary 
(Presbyterian), San Anselmo, Calif., writes: "I have read your article 
with deep interest, and heartily agree with your conclusions. If there 
are to be denominational schools in the present condition of religious life 
in America they should be located on the campus of the state universities 
and federated around it. Your paper will be a wholesome influence." 

President Frank J. Goodnow, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., 
writes: "The tendency of all higher educational institutions is away from 


denominationalism. An interesting experiment is being made in the Aus- 
tralian universities. Different denominations are allowed to establish their 
own colleges as part of a university, the only requirement being that those 
taking university degrees must stand the university examinations. This 
system gives the denominations control over their colleges, but keeps them 
up to university standard. ' ' 

President E. O. Sisson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., writes: 
"I am heartily in agreement with the main thesis of your article." 

Chancellor S. B. McCormick, University of Pittsburgh (Presbyterian), 
Pittsburgh, Pa., writes: "Your article is an excellent statement, with 
much of which I am in cordial agreement." 

President Eobert J. Aley, University of Maine, Orono, Me., writes: "I 
have read your paper with great interest. You make a number of very 
telling and convincing points. I am in favor of interdenominationalizing 
the denominational schools of the country. I believe that this would have 
a strong influence to bring about Christian union." 

Rev. Alfred H. Barr, pastor First Presbyterian Church, Baltimore, Md., 
writes : "I can see no reason why in some instances the feeble institu- 
tions should not come together on some cooperative basis, as has been 
done in the foreign fields. But in some other cases it would be best for 
both to die. I am not so much concerned with sectarian over-emphasis as 
in educational under-emphasis. Many ought to die because they are such 
poor schools. But I question whether the few remaining denominational 
colleges in the east would gain by being made undenominational. ' ' 

Dean Granville D. Edwards, Bible College of Missouri (Disciple), 
Columbia, Mo., writes: "I went through your discussion of the denomina- 
tional school in an attitude of Amen! Amen! AMEN I You made an ex- 
ceptionally telling point in saying that just as we will not tolerate schools 
planned to emphasize cleavages politically, so will we not stand indefinitely 
for schools which emphasize eleavages in creed. We must bridge creedal 
gulfs just as we seek to bridge racial, national, and class gulfs if we would 
be assuredly safe and realize the finest results in our human relationships." 

Mr. J. Henry Baker, Baltimore, Md. (Congregationalist), attorney, 
trustee of Dickinson College (Methodist), writes: "I am of the opinion 
that the denominational school emphasizes and tends to keep alive the 
differences of our various denominations, and this being true, it is detri- 
mental to our religious life. ' ' 

Dr. D. W. Ohern, Oklahoma City, Okla., oil producer, trustee of Phillips 
University (Disciple), East Enid, Okla., writes: "I have read your arti- 
cle very carefully. I desire to say that I think your position is quite cor- 
rect. Being one of the board of trustees of one of the colleges of the Dis- 
ciples, and therefore in a position to know something of the position in 
which our Church schools find themselves, I am constrained to say that your 
message is a timely one and that it is high time that all religious bodies 
take this matter under serious consideration. ' ' 

Professor Frederick C. Eiselen, Garrett Biblical Institute (Methodist), 
Evanston, 111., writes: "1. I fully agree with your fundamental proposi- 
tion, that the great need of the present is to give to education the Christian 
vision, the Christian adjustment, the Christian fellowship and the Christian 
wholeness of life, rather than to stress the denominational ideals and the 
denominational viewpoint. 

2. My experience with denominational institutions of learning leads me 
to think that the situation in the denominational schools is not quite as 
hopeless as your statements on pages ten and eleven would lead one to 

3. My own opinion is that the next step is to universalize the spirit of 
Christian fellowship and Christian regard which now dominate certainly the 
better class of denominational institutions throughout the land. As to the 


ultimate outcome I am not absolutely certin. If it were a matter of creed 
or form I think we might look forward to complete union, but since in 
some respects it is more a matter of temperament, it may well be that the 
temperamental differences may cause certain denominational divisions to 
continue. If these denominational divisions continue, it may well be that 
to some extent denominational educational institutions may also continue. 
This, however, need not prevent the carrying out of the spirit of the ideal 
on which all Christians will agree.' y 

Rev. Alfred W. Anthony, secretary Home Missions Council, New York, 
writes: "The questions which seem to be raised by your paper are as 
follows : 

1. The Christian Church must have schools, the atmosphere of which is 
Christian — at least in which Christian principles and Christian teachings 
are not lacking. Since as yet there are no central, united Christian agen- 
cies for maintaining such schools, the denominational school has a real 
place to fill and function to perform. But it should become, as it is be- 
coming, interdenominationally-minded. 

2. So long as Christians hold positive convictions respecting the teach- 
ings of Scriptures, and the body of Christian truth, they must maintain in- 
stitutions for imparting to those who are to serve and represent them, these 
interpretations, and this body of truth. Naturally the broadest minded, 
and the most inclusive in their attitude toward, and their reception of, all 
truth, will give the best education and training; and will, in the long run, 
succeed and supplant others of the more sectarian type. An interdenomina- 
tional seminary has a place of real usefulness. There are many such already 
in existence, only a few of which are such in name." 

Dr. C. M. Farmer, State Normal School, Troy, Ala., writes: "I agree 
with your position as set forth in the paper. It could have been made much 
stronger and have involved many more things than are touched upon in it. 
In the first place let me say that the denominational spirit in Church 
schools is not apparently very strong. However, there is a strong under- 
current that makes it probably more effective because more insidious. Pro- 
spective students who have different religious convictions from that of the 
college are told that there are no denominational distinctions in the college 
while those of the same denomination as the college are urged to attend 
because of its denominational distinctions, that the denomination cannot 
exist and compete with others unless those who belong to the denomination 
patronize their own schools and a strong appeal to denominational pride 
is made. The strongest and most effective appeal for financial aid is to 
denominational prejudice and bigotry. But for this influence the denom- 
inational schools as such could not live a decade. I have known personally 
appeals to denominationalism to be effective in securing money and pat- 
ronage when every other argument failed. In addition to the statements 
made in your paper, in which as stated above, I fully concur, I would 
mention these sins of the denominational schools: 

" ' First, display and false pretense, failure to exercise an open Chris- 
tian attitude. A school man asked me a few days ago what I thought of 
denominational colleges after the experience I have had with them. I 
replied that in some ways the Christian, colleges have the least true Chris- 
tianity of any educational institutions I know. 

' * i Second, the financial suppression of faculty members. The money is 
expended on show and display to appeal for patronage to 'the best peo- 
ple' while the poor faculty can hardly buy bread. 

i* i Third, the suppression of ideas and opinions on scientific questions, 
and in lieu a prescribed orthodoxy. The denominational schools are not 
encouraging the discovery of the dissemination of truth in several ways. 

' ' ' Fourth, too much formal and theoretical religion and too little prac- 
tical Christianity V * 


Dean Thomas M. Balliet, formerly of the School of Education, New 
York University, writes: "I agree with you in a general way. The day 
is past for founding new denominational schools and colleges. There are 
quite effective forces at work which I cannot take time to trace which will 
ultimately abolish such as now exist as denominational schools. I myself 
should prefer an undenominational theological school, and our best schools 
of this sort are rapidly discarding denominational limitations. Personally, 
I should not send a child of my own to any school of my own Church for 
the sake of the religious instruction; but the right must be conceded on 
moral and on legal grounds that people who want Church schools and are 
willing to pay for them, and not ask for public financial support of them 
out of the taxes, should have a right to have them." 

Mr. W. P. Lipscomb, Washington, D. C, contractor and builder, 
trustee Lynchburg College (Disciple), Lynchburg, Va., writes: "I think 
you are on the right trail. Denominational schools, in my opinion, foster 
and breed narrow-mindedness, bigotry and strife among the Churches, all 
of which tend to the pulling away rather than cultivating the spirit of 
union among the Churches. I think if this course, dealing with such vital 
things, will be followed up, it will accomplish more for Christian unity than 
any other course that can be pursued. ' ' 

Professor D. A. Hayes, Garrett Biblical Institute (Methodist), Evan- 
ston, 111., writes: "I have read your article with interest and while I do 
not consider the existence of the denominational school as necessarily being 
as harmful as you might suggest, I find myself in fullest sympathy with 
your suggestion of cooperative tolerance and freedom in seeking and teach- 
ing the truth.' ' 

Professor E. M. Kurtz, Bible Teachers Training School, New York, 
writes: "Dr. Wilbert W. White has just called my attention to your arti- 
cle upon the denominational school. He was much pleased with it. I note 
that he has written to me, across the slip accompanying it, that 'we are 
with him.' " 

Eev. Galen Lee Rose, minister First Christian Church (Disciple), Chico, 
Calif., writes: " Unquestionably you are right in your contention that 
the denominational school perpetuates divisions, narrows sympathies and 
fosters the denominational conscience. ' ' 

Mr. W. W. Mills, Marietta, Ohio, banker, trustee Marietta College 
(Congregational), writes: "I thoroughly agree with your position, I do 
not believe in the strict denominational or sectarian school, but I do most 
earnestly believe in the idea of strict religious support and control. " 

Dean W. P. Lawrence, Elon College (Christian), Elon College, N. C, 
writes: "You are of opinion in your article that the denominational 
school as most of them are to-day in spirit and teaching, narrowed by sec- 
tarianism, has no just excuse for existence. I am of the same opinion." 

Rev. R. B. Dodge (Congregationalist), San Francisco, Calif., writes: 
"You certainly have stated a truth remarkably clearly, and I wish to ex- 
press my very hearty accord with the tenor of your statement." 

Hon. W. B. Mathews, Charleston, W. Va., Clerk Supreme Court of Ap- 
peals of West Virginia, trustee West Virginia Wesleyan College (Method- 
ist), Buckhannon, W. Va., writes: "As a member of the board of trustees 
of a Christian college I shall advocate the appointment of trustees to fill 
the vacancies as they may arise from time to time from other denomina- 
tions than my own. I am firmly convinced, however, that the Christian 
college is still a necessity and will be until secular colleges teach more 
Christianity. ' ' 

Dean Edward I. Bosworth, Oberlin College (Congregational), Oberlin, 
Ohio, writes: "It certainly seems to me true that any type of education 
that accentuates denominational differences is on the whole undesirable. It 
becomes more and more apparent that almost all of the points which serve 


to divide Christians into 'denominations' are mainly in the sphere of ideas 
that are of second, third, or fourth rate importance and some of them of 
no importance whatever. " 

Mr. A. C. Parker, Dallas, Texas, broker, trustee Midland College (Dis- 
ciple), Midland, Tex., writes: "I am impressed with your frankness and 
clearness in dealing with these great questions, — in fact, I might term it 
one of the great problems of the Church. Small Church schools and col- 
leges are rapidly dying, in spite of the strenuous efforts being put forth 
by leaders in the various denominations to preserve them. Even the larger 
colleges and universities of the various denominations seem to be losing 
their prestige in spite of the heroic efforts of the Churches and religious 
leaders to prevent it. I have often made the statement that all of the 
denominational schools and colleges should be abolished and that only a 
few of the leading universities should be retained, and that these should be 
made so broad and liberal as to afford a congenial atmosphere for all 
classes of students, and that they should also have in their faculty repre- 
sentatives of various evangelical communions. You have handled this great 
question in an admirable manner. Your position can not be assailed by 
any except those of a sectarian inclination. If the unity of the Church is 
ever realized the schools of the Church must assume leadership, and these 
institutions must exemplify the fundamental principles that are so often 
contended for from the pulpits. Sectarianism will never go until we have 
done away with the hothouses which nourish it. I agree with you that the 
road to the solution of this great problem is perhaps long, and the realiza- 
tion of this desirable end would come only after the meeting and over- 
coming of almost every conceivable form of sectarian objection and oppo- 
sition; but in my judgment it is bound to come, however long deferred by 
denominational spirit and the unwillingness to surrender any of the ele- 
ments which have contributed to denominational prestige. " 

Professor F. E. Lumley, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, writes: 
"I read your article with absorbing interest and find myself in full accord 
with your position. Interestingly enough, I handed it to one of the other 
teachers and just this minute he had come in to say that he 'could not see 
but what you were right.' You have undoubtedly touched a very tender 
spot and some squirming will naturally follow. Many of the denomina- 
tional colleges and seminaries are really no longer sectarian in any sense. 
Others, I am sure, have no other object than to bring support to denom- 
inationalism. These are the ones you have singled out most sharply. ' ' 

Second, those who oppose interdenominationalizing 
the denominational school: 

The Baltimore Conference of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and 
other states characterized the paper as "unchristian, unchurchly and im- 
practical, an unworthy and useless scheme, preached by those who wander 
in the darkness as to what the Church really is, what true unity of faith 
and Christian principles mean and who have no true understanding or 
appreciation of the blessing of American liberty." 

Mr. T. W. Phillips, Jr., Butler, Pa., oil producer, trustee Bethany Col- 
lege (Disciple), Bethany, W. Va.., writes: "Many of your severe criticisms 
of the denominational schools are gratuitous. Denominational schools are 
frequently the result of a perfectly legitimate and highly commendable ef- 
fort on the part of those who wish to perpetuate and promulgate principles 
which they deem are of vital importance. Many of your sweeping state- 
ments are rather ridiculous and some of the conditions you imply are 
grotesque. " 

Rev. Z. T. Sweeney, trustee Butler College (Disciple), Indianapolis, Ind., 
writes : "I oppose your thesis on the ground that it is entirely impractical. 


It cannot be accomplished and it would not last twenty years if it were ac- 
complished without a man's nature is eternally changed. All the reasons 
that you give on page 10 against denominational schools, I endorse. I 
endorse your statement on page 15 that 'the educational system of the 
Church should give Christian vision, Christian adjustment, Christian fellow- 
ship and Christian wholeness of life.' That is exactly the aim of Christian 
education, but it never can be brought about by interdenominationalizing 
the present denominations. ' ' 

Professor John M. Price, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 
Seminary Hill, Tex., writes: "My opinion is rather unfavorable of your 
article. It impressed me as being rather biased or prejudiced against the 
denominational school. There did not seem to be a completely open mind 
on the subject. That may not be true to fact but the reading of the paper 
impressed me that way at any rate. ' ' 

Dean David H. Bauslin, Hamma Divinity School, Wittenberg College 
(Lutheran), Springfield, Ohio, writes: "I can only regard your plan to 
interdenominationalize higher education as both impracticable and unde- 
sirable. ' ' 

President B. H. Kroeze, Jamestown College (Presbyterian), Jamestown, 
N. D., writes: 4( There is nothing to your paper. You said it all in the 
story you relate which is more like fiction than truth. If the denomina- 
tional college has ever had a place in education it has it now more than 
ever. Our land is full of the liberalism and radicalism which we have 
sown by the disregard for the very ideals which these institutions hold. 
What you say is largely imaginary. These institutions are not sectarian 
and do not seek to intensify the creed of any Church. I have been presi- 
dent of a denominational college in two different states for the past six- 
teen years and I have yet to find what you grow so eloquently on. We 
have Disciples, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and others on our fac- 
ulty. We have all kinds of students, and they are not taught to hate each 
other because of their difference in belief, nor are they taught to disre- 
gard their religion. Each person is as free as the air to believe what he 
wishes. All that is done is the exaltation of the Bible on equal terms with 
science. Because your four young men elected to enter the ministry was 
no crime and they elected to enter the ministry of their own Church. 
Would not the Catholic have entered his priesthood had he taken his 
education in a Presbyterian college? I can show you where that has oc- 
curred. But as I say your paper is not worthy of discussion." 

President L. O. Lehman, Eureka College (Disciple), Eureka, 111., writes: 
"I cannot help but feel that you are quite largely setting up a straw man 
for your attack. I do not have a wide acquaintance with colleges, I will ad- 
mit, but I know of no institutions that maintain the narrow denomina- 
tional attitude which you assume is a part of the Church college. I feel 
sure that you have entirely misunderstood the present work of our Church 
colleges and since your assumption of their character is wrong, your con- 
clusion of course has no foundation." 

President C. H. Little, Lutheran Theological Seminary and Waterloo 
College, Waterloo, Ontario, writes: "Your article is interesting but not 
convincing. Your proposed substitute would only introduce confusion into 
the educational and religious world. Young men in such an institution 
would not know what to believe, or would follow the professor whose per- 
sonality most appealed to them. Such an institution would be destruc- 
tive of all distinctive doctrinal beliefs, and the result would be a spine- 
less, wishy-washy form of Christianity that knows not what it believes, 
and wholly incapable of bearing witness to the truth. The denominational 
school is essential as long as denominations exist. If the latter are justi- 
fiable so also are their schools. Conscience cannot be forced; and as long 


as there are differences in doctrine so long will there be and ought to be 
different Church organizations. ' ' 

Librarian D. F. Estes, Colgate University (Baptist), Hamilton, N. Y., 
writes: "I should think that a denominational school of such a sort as you 
discuss in your paper would be a damage rather than an asset to education, 
religion and life as you imply, but certainly it is not necessary that a de- 
nominational school should be of that type and have such an influence as 
you object to. As a matter of fact, I never knew of such an institution. 
So far as my acquaintance goes, you are arguing against the non-existent. 
Another paper on the denominational school at its best instead of its worst 
is plainly needed as a foil lest the unthinking should be misled into sup- 
posing that all denominational schools are of the bad type which you hold 
up to reprobation. ' ' 

President R. L. Thorp, Missouri Christian College (Disciple), Camden 
Point, Mo., writes: "The problem is not the denominational college, but 
denominationalism. It is true that it would be fine to have no sectarian- 
ism, but strong Christian colleges. But this cannot be with a divided 
Church any more than we can do away with the denominational Sunday- 
school and denominational worship. The college is doing much less to 
foster the denominational spirit than the Sunday-schools. Then why do 
you not advocate the abolishing of the Sunday-schools? It is because you 
have to do the best you can in spite of our division and pray for the unity 
of the Church. The same is true of the denominational college. The effect 
of your position will be to further hinder* Christian education. The prob- 
lem today in education is not that of battles between denominations, but 
it is whether or not Christianity is to have any place in education. I 
believe there is less denominational spirit in colleges than you think. I 
have reason to believe that in the majority of colleges, the controlling de- 
nominations do not have half the teaching force of their own membership. 
The problem of getting teachers has been such that all colleges have taken 
teachers of various beliefs. This naturally makes for a broad spirit of 
fellowship. ' f 

Dean Frank B. Taylor, Jamestown College (Presbyterian), Jamestown, 
N. D., writes: "You are seeing ghosts. There is in the Protestant col- 
leges scarcely a trace of the exaggerated denominationalism that you have 
imagined. I have studied and taught in colleges of different denomina- 
tional designation and but for the statements in the catalogs I could not 
for the life of me have told which was which. There is doubtless de- 
nominationalism of a mild type in the theological seminaries, but that 
is not a question of general education. It is rather a matter of denomi- 
nationalism on its ecclesiastical side. " 

President Anthony C. Hageman, Hillsdale College (Classed as Baptist), 
Hillsdale, Mich., writes: "I have read your paper and believe that you 
have not a proper viewpoint or understanding of the value of Christian 
education. Our college is not a so-called denominational institution, yet 
I believe its work would be greatly advanced if it were. I am heartily 
in sympathy with the denominational college. " 

President Bernard I. Bell, Saint Stephen's College (Episcopalian), An- 
nandale-on-Hudson, N. Y., writes: "I do not agree with you in the least. 
This may be because I am convinced ftiat interdenominationalism is not 
the path toward Church unity. Renewed religion as a by-product of ec- 
clesiastical compromise seems to be to be hopeless. It is putting the cart 
before the horse. We shall never have Church unity until it comes as a 
by-product of renewed devotion to our Lord in every communion. " 

Rev. T. W. Grafton, pastor Third Christian Church Indianapolis, Ind., 
trustee Butler College (Disciple), writes: "I have read with interest 
your paper on the denominational school, and frankly I hardly think 
you have done justice to the work done by our denominational colleges. 


I feel that in our present condition the small college under the direc- 
tion of some religious body has an important function. It seems to me 
what we need more than anything else is the Christian atmosphere of 
the college fostered under religious influence, and the small denomina- 
tional school comes the nearest furnishing that. ' ' 

President W. H. Black, Missouri Valley College (Presbyterian), Mar- 
shall, Mo., writes: "Your article is a good one, thought stimulating, well 
prepared, but when I came to the six points you name on pages 10 and 11 
I was disappointed. Your statement, 'The presence of the denominational 
school in present day education therefore is a fundamental error, ' I believe, 
itself, 'is a fundamental error/ first, because I think you have put an 
interpretation on the words 'denominational school' which they should 
not bear and which as a matter of fact they will not bear. If I were 
going to talk about these institutions I would use the language of the 
Presbyterian Church. It generally calls them 'Christian colleges/ and 
talks about Christian education, and I am sure there is no other thought in 
the mind of the Presbyterian Church than the most catholic sympathies and 
the most Christian purposes. " 

Professor James M. Dixon, University of Southern California (Metho- 
dist), Los Angeles, Calif., writes, enclosing his comments in the University 
quarterly, The Personalis, as follows: "The writer of the article does 
recognize the crying need of religion in our present day education; but 
he thinks that the denominational college, by 'teaching loyalty to the de- 
nomination and attempting to establish a denominational conscience' has 
become a hindrance rather than a help, and is 'therefore a fundamental 
error in present day education.' But surely it is more than evident that 
the Roman Catholic, whose type he sets out, will never cooperate with other 
'sects.* Nor can the Episcopalian, with his devotion to 'orders/ very well 
combine with the Presbyterian or the Baptist. And the Baptist, so long 
as he insists on immersion and close communion, will also keep apart in 
a separate organization. All of them can work side by side in the mission 
field, for instance, harmoniously, and the tendency now — as shown in the 
Philippines — is to refrain from duplication in any territory. But the 
furnishing of funds, the supplying of suitable teachers, the necessary disci- 
pline, both for missions — which are largely educational — as well as for 
schools and colleges, come naturally from the Church organization. It is 
the principle of brotherhood in the denomination that has to be cultivated, 
and this is greatly improving, as Mr. Ainslie confesses. But there remains 
room for differences of creed, and the ignoring of these differences in the 
interests of a theoretical * undivided Christianity' is a mistake of the same 
kind as the discounting of nations and nationality in the interests of a 
dreamy internationalism. In the political field the handling of issues by 
' commissions ' is notoriously unsatisfactory. So would be Mr. Ainslie 's plan 
for the abolition of denominational schools, and their replacement by schools 
'handled by a commission on Christian education.' " 

Third, those who favor interdenominationalizing the 
denominational school and are working at it : 

Professor John W. Buckham, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, Calif., 
writes: "I think you have done a real service in pointing out so clearly 
the restrictions of the denominational theological seminary. The rigid 
denominational school is certainly an anachronism at this period of Chris- 
tian progress. We at this undenominational institution receive constant 
evidence of the great advantage of presenting Christianity from the unde- 
nominational viewpoint and of having students from many denominations 
working together in our classrooms and learning to understand each other 
and to share in the one common aim of helping to bring in the Kingdom of 


God. Your suggestion as to the method of making the denominational 
school reflect the broader viewpoint of the Church as a whole seems to me 
especially wise and timely." 

Professor George Dahl, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Conn., writes : 
"Your article is most interesting. My experience here at Yale in our 
interdenominational divinity school has made me a firm adherent of the 
idea. A certain breadth of interest and sympathy are the natural prod- 
ucts of such cooperation. Eventually interdenominational schools allied 
with the resources of great universities must win the field against all the 
bickerings of narrow denominationalism. The principle will prevail, for it 
is right. " 

Professor Edgar S. Brightman, Boston University, Boston, Mass., writes : 
"It seems to me that what you are contending for is undoubtedly the 
ideal in religious and theological education for which we ought to strive. 
But on the other hand, I feel that heaven cannot be gained at a single 
bound, and that the right thing to do is always that thing which will 
actually improve the existing situation. It appears to me that your presen- 
tation has left actual conditions too much in the background. I suppose 
that the most prosperous theological schools in the country are denomina- 
tional; I am not clear after reading your paper what you would advocate 
as a practical policy. Should an immediate attempt be made to inter- 
denominationalize all such schools (and colleges) ; or is it wiser, and in the 
end more ideal, to avoid destruction of valuable existing institutions (such 
as would doubtless ensue from such a program, if forced) to continue de- 
nominational institutions as centers of liberalizing influence working chiefly 
within the denominations they represent? It seems to me that this is the 
natural evolution. An attempt at immediate interdenominationalizing of 
present institutions would, if successful, leave the denominations still ex- 
isting, but deprived of the liberal and progressive leadership that comes 
from these institutions. My own feeling is that we may best work toward 
the ideal at present by whole-hearted emphasis on the spirit of interde- 
nominationalism, but that the time is not yet ripe to abandon denomina- 
tional institutions wholesale. Boston University, for example, illustrates 
what I have in mind. Originally Methodist, all departments of the in- 
stitution except the school of theology are now undenominational. In the 
college we have as many Jews and Catholics as Protestants, and the 
whole problem has been solved by natural evolution. Even the school of 
theology has a cooperative arrangement with the Harvard Divinity School. 
If an attempt had been made to break loose from Methodism at any point 
in the history, the result would doubtless have been far less satisfactory 
than it now is. I believe in evolution, not revolution in most matters. " 

Rev. Rockwell Harmon Potter, pastor First Church of Christ (Congre- 
gational), Hartford, Conn., writes: "Your paper points in the right di- 
rection — in which Union Seminary and Yale and Hartford have made good 
progress. ' ' 

Professor Calvin M. Clark, Bangor Theological Seminary, Bangor, Me., 
writes: "Our Seminary had already in the past come to occupy the posi- 
tion of a broadly Christian school such as you ideally portray in your 
paper, at least in largest measure. In proof of our practically interde- 
nominational position let me state that, within my own time of service 
here, we have educated Baptists, Free-Baptists, Methodists — both Episcopal 
and Wesleyan — Presbyterians, Unitarians, Friends, Protestant Episcopa- 
lians, Christians, Disciples, and possibly others. Our trustees are tied to 
no creed, and never have been. There is no seminary creed and practically 
never has been. Every member of the faculty presents on entry into office 
his own individual statement of faith, as a Congregational minister does 
on going to his Church, and, as the latter, so the former is accepted and 
approved in his chair on the basis of that personal statement. As I read 


your summaries on pages 10 and 11 of your article, I find my mind chiming 
with the latter part of each item beginning with a i whereas' (rather than 
with the first part), a mind simply that of the state of things among us, 
not simply as my own private view. " 

Dean William F. Bade, Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, Calif., 
writes: i( I have read your article with great interest, and with entire 
approbation. You have hit the nail upon the head when you point out that 
the building and upkeep of our denominational fences are provided for in 
denominational seminaries. There is no good reason why they should be 
perpetuated any longer as distinctly denominational institutions. They 
should be merged in larger institutions in order that the financial endow- 
ments may render a service proportionate to their size. To my mind it is 
almost as foolish to set up denominational philosophies and theologies as 
to teach denominational chemistry and mathematics. Already the larger 
seminaries which are training men for a variety of denominations are 
spreading the leaven of Christian unity and the more we can turn the light 
of criticism upon the divisive character of denominational seminaries the 
better. I wish you all success in your onslaught on this old bulwark of ec- 
clesiastical mediaevalism. ' ' 

Professor B. W. Bacon, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Conn., writes : 
"The last vestige of denominationalism disappeared from Yale Divinity 
School some ten years ago, certainly for the advantage of all. The de- 
nominational school may well have a place, but not the place of rivalry to 
undenominational institutions. ' ' 

Professor George F. Moore, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 
writes: "Inasmuch as I am a member of a university faculty of theology 
which has been for half a century undenominational in principle, in which 
at present there are representatives of both branches of the Congregational 
Church, Episcopal, Baptist, and Roman Catholic, and we are in close 
affiliation with the faculties of Andover Seminary, the Episcopal School 
in Cambridge, the Newton Theological Institution, and the Theological 
School of Boston University (Methodist), it would not be becoming for me 
to express myself in a sense adverse to the denominational school. I can 
only say that we are entirely satisfied both that our principle is the only 
sound one for a university faculty, and that our relation to denominational 
faculties with which we are associated is most cordial and most profitable 
on all sides. '* 

Dr. W. 8. Lindsay, Topeka, Kans., physician, trustee of Washburn 
College, writes: "I heartily agree with your theme in general. I think 
as you suggest that the interdenominational school is the best expression 
of Christian education. On our board of trustees of Washburn College 
we have the Congregational, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Epis- 
copal Churches represented. ' ' 

Principal L. E. Camfield, Ward Academy, Academy, S. D., writes: "I 
know enough of denominational school life to wish that a part at least 
of your program might be adopted. I refer to your advocacy of an inter- 
denominationalizing policy. In fact I think that is what we have here at 
Academy though in a very, very limited field. " 

Fourth, those who recognize the seriousness involved 
in our present day educational system but do not see its 
solution in the interdenominationalizing processes in all 
instances as suggested in the paper : 

Rt. Rev. Thomas F. Gailor, president of Council Protestant Episcopal 

Church, New York, writes: "I have read your paper with deep interest. 

I. In the first place, I think that in all this discussion of Christian 


unity, we must agree upon a limit to our surrenders. Christianity must 
stand for something to differentiate it from other forms of religion. It 
is now understood that both Mohammedans and Buddhists are to have their 
temples in this eountry with colleges and schools to propagate their faith. 
Therefore all the institutions that call themselves Christian will be com- 
pelled to define their position. My point is, that there is a real residuum 
of Christian dogma, that is of defined and acknowledged belief, by which 
we must test the claim to be called Christian. Does Unitarianism or Chris- 
tian Science stand this test? 

II. Admitting that the word Christian connotes a definite conception 
of God and man, it would seem to be suicidal for Christians to permit 
their children to grow up without definite Christian instruction, and that 
means Christian schools. 

III. In the present condition of the Christian world, the Christian faith 
is held and taught in varying fashions by different groups of Christians. 
All the groups, with very few exceptions, hold the fundamental principles 
of the faith; but human weakness, selfishness, and temperament have crys- 
tallized these groups and put them in competition with one another, to 
the grievous hindrance of the extension of the Kingdom of Christ. At the 
same time, the fact must be recognized that the preservation of the Chris- 
tian faith depends, under God, upon the loyalty of the members of each 
group of the faifh as that group represents it. Undenominational Chris- 
tianity is no Christianity at all. It is a vain attempt to get the least 
common divisor of all the tenets of all the bodies that call themselves Chris- 
tians. Whereas the only hope I can see of a really United and Catholic 
Church is an organization, which will include in its large freedom all the 
essential characteristics of all the groups, giving scope for the expression 
of all the temperamental preferences of individual souls. I am sorry that 
you referred with approval to the * union' of the Cumberland Presbyterian 
and the Northern Presbyterian Churches. It did a grave injustice to many 
thousands of good people, deprived them of their property, and set back 
the cause of real unity a hundred years. 

IV. Just as loyalty to the denomination at the present time preserves 
the faith, so the denominational scliool or college is our surest dependence 
for really Christian training of our children. I take issue with Dr. Hugh 
Black's statement, that ' students in state universities take more interest 
in religious matters that do the students in denominational colleges.' I 
have spent thirty years in educational work, have visited many state uni- 
versities and many denominational colleges, and Dr. Black's statement con- 
tradicts my whole experience. I take exception to your suggestion, that 
the denominational school or college is so much absorbed by its denomina- 
tional programme as to be incapable of viewing life as a whole, and of 
giving a liberal education. The denominational institutions I have been 
connected with are not open to this criticism. On the contrary the funda- 
mental principles of the Christian religion have been so emphasized as to 
make one forget the particular denominational coloring. I am sure that 
this is true of my own college, the University of the South. In conclu- 
sion I beg to say that the preservation of a definite Christianity in this 
country, with definite Christian moral standards, so largely depends upon 
the maintenance of avowedly Christian educational institutions that I am 
willing to risk all the danger of narrowness in order to protect the truth." 

Professor J. K. Shellenberger, Cotner College (Disciple), Bethany, 
Nebr., writes: "Ideally, the denominational schools should all close. They 
should not open for another semester. The history of the influence shows 
that they have been divisive. And while much of the sectarian bitterness 
in them has died, yet their very existence emphasizes the thing that Chris- 
tendom cannot afford to have emphasized much longer. But what will we 
do? For, after all, our philosophy can become valuable only in action. 


And whether we will or no, we must act in this present. Shall we dis- 
continue a method that, despite its weaknesses, has Christ as its dynamic, 
before we have headed the way of real freedom in the larger fraternity? 
My own thought is that Christian schools ought to unite. You are right 
in saying it would be a good thing, for instance, for Disciples to study 
Methodism under the tutorship of a Methodist. But likewise should Meth- 
odists study the Dispicles of Christ under the tutorship of a i Disciple ?' 
And so on including all the denominations possible. And this should be 
done under the same roof. I can think of nothing that would so effectively 
conserve every good thing in each denomination, and at the same time 
weed out all prejudice. But just now such a thing is a dream. Some day 
it, or some other equally effective scheme, will be realized. And I am 
praying for it, working for it, talking for it. But in the meantime ! What ? 
My chief criticism of your paper is that it manifests impatience. We are 
headed right. The spirit of unity is at work. God does not work by revo- 
lution but by regeneration. And that, from our viewpoint, is a slow proc- 
ess. But nevertheless it spells progress. I would not contend that we 
should be satisfied with our present educational situation. Its inadequacy 
is so appalling that it is tragic." 

President James G. K. McClure, McCormick Theological Seminary 
(Presbyterian), Chicago, 111., writes: "My opinion is — (1) that the de- 
nominational school is the creature of the denomination, and is designed 
to express the mind of the denomination. It is not the creator of the 
denomination, and ordinarily cannot create the thought of the denomina- 
tion. (2) The denominational school will remain as long as the denomina- 
tions are virile and believe that they stand for some worthy distinctive 
principles. (3) The more the spirit of brotherliness in Christ exists be- 
tween denominations, the more fraternal and cooperative will be the teach- 
ings of the denominational schools. (4) There are today denominational 
schools of other communions which heartily accept the Roman Catholic, the 
Episcopalian, the Baptist and the Disciple as full brethren in Chirst, and 
as valid ministers of the grace of God. (5) Sometimes proximity of de- 
nominational teaching tends to sharpen difference into antagonism. (6) 
When denominations as denominations will accept one another's creeds and 
particularly one another's 'orders,' the denominational school may and 
should cease. Until then, our main work must be along the lines of bring- 
ing the Roman Catholic, the Episcopalian, the Baptist, the Disciple, and 
all other denominations to see heart to heart, and believe that each and all 
are valid instruments of the full grace of God." 

Rev. Raymond Calkins, pastor First Congregational Church, Cambridge, 
Mass., writes: "I have carefully read your article. With much of it I 
am in entire agreement. That such education tends to be sectarian and 
divisive and thus to perpetuate divisional Christianity, I am inclined to 
agree. I do find myself asking, however, in case there are true religious 
values in the separate approaches to the common Christian idea, how can 
these values be conserved if a type of education is evolved which super- 
sedes, if it does not eliminate, them. In a word, if these values need to 
be perpetuated must they not be embodied in some form of educational 
institution? If to the Churches could be frankly entrusted the develop- 
ment of denominational idea, and if the seminaries could be entirely inter- 
denominational in their educational outlook, both ends might be reached. 
I fear, however, that such an ideal is fairly remote, for is not the resur- 
gence of denominationalism one of the strongest aspects of the war's after- 

Professor Francis J. Hall, General Theological Seminary, (Episcopal), 
New York, writes: "That the denominational school has serious limita- 
tions and disadvantages you have clearly shown. It cannot be reasonably 
denied. The leading thought that is suggested to me by your presenta- 


tion is that the denominational school is an inevitable by-product and 
revelation of conscientious adherence to denominational conceptions of 
Christianity, one which will stand or fall with the vitality or decadence of 
such conceptions. The inference which I am constrained to make is, that 
the real solution of the difficulties which you so clearly indicate lies in 
a solution of the larger problem of which it is an incident — the problem 
of the present divergence of Christian faith and order embodied in denom- 
inationalism itself. Admitting that this divergence, as between many Prot- 
estant denominations, is not now at least such as should keep them apart, 
the remedy lies in their reunion and coordination in the education of their 
young. But the divergences between sacerdotal and anti-sacerdotal Chris- 
tians are deemed by their respective maintainers to be vital. They affect in 
radical ways the religious positions, ideals and practices which they be- 
lieve they ought to inculcate in their children. Education is not Christian 
when its religious and secular branches are mutually sundered for religion, 
if true at all, is the organizing principle of life as a whole, furnishing its 
standpoint and determining its dominant aim. But this is equivalent to 
saying that religion must be inculcated in its wholeness, and with deter- 
minate teaching of its truths. To a saeerdotalist, for instance, religion 
is mutilated unless the sacramental elements thereof are given full and 
clear emphasis, along with the background of evangelical doctrine which 
these presuppose. This is not and cannot be done in an undenominational 
school, which necessarily teaches only the residuum of religion that re- 
mains when the differences between Christian bodies have been eliminated — 
practically only an ethical idealism. In our universities to-day the in- 
fluences for scepticism are very strong — not less so because there is not 
usually any formal propaganda in that direction. I know this from sad 
experience. As theological teacher I find I have often to eradicate, if I 
can, a form of thought that precludes any recognition that Christian doc- 
trine in its more fundamental lines can be a subject-matter at all of valid 
certainty. Our secular schools are producing a generation of pagans — 
pagans in fundamental thinking, even when Christians in nominal alle- 
giance. The sum of the matter is that Christian believers who see these 
evils will be driven by conscience to provide for a determinately religious 
education, and this means one which does justice to their conception of 
Christian faith and practice. I do not see how their attitude is open to 
criticism, except by giving true religion a secondary and non-determinate 
place. I cannot do this. Denominational schools represent denominational 
consciences. The remedy lies in the cure of denominationalism — the growth 
of one mind in one great Church of Christ. To cooperate in religious edu- 
cation presupposes a common mind as to what is involved in true religion." 
Professor Garrett Droppers, Williams College (Congregational), Wil- 
liamstown, Mass., writes: il l believe that you are discussing a question 
worthy of the attention of all Churchgoers. This question indeed goes 
back to the days of the Reformation and raises the issue whether the 
Protestant Reformation ever really accomplished the reform it intended. 
I am a Protestant of Protestants with the ' dissidence of dissent, ' as Burke 
says, in my veins. Yet I can see that with Protestantism as it is, America 
is bound to become Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church wins in the long 
run in the United States and this is because the Protestants are divided 
into many sects and quarrelling amongst themselves. Personally I believe 
we should unite with the least amount of compromise possible. Although 
I am a Unitarian I should like to see a Protestant union of Churches into 
the Episcopal Church. This Church has a very wide amount of liberty, 
has but a minimum amount of sacerdotalism and yet enough to satisfy 
those who like ritualism. In fact I do not see why any Christian cannot 
adequately express his Christian life and convictions in the Episcopal 
Church. And this being so it is merely a form of selfishness to fight for 


the shibboleths of the small Protestant sects. However, I have not much 
hope for such a desirable union and so I predict that the Roman Catholic 
Church will win in the United States. The Protestants will dwindle and 
deservedly so, because they were not willing to forgo the lesser to achieve 
the greater result." 

President W. A. Harper, Elon College (Christian), Elon College, N. C, 
writes: "You are right in your position that the denominational college 
is a stronghold of denominational life. The very reason, however, that 
impels you to oppose the denominational college is in the mind of its sup- 
porters the chief necessity for it. I have had some experience in soliciting 
funds for such a school and I know that the great majority of givers to 
education are influenced by their desire to see their own conception of 
Christian truth propagated. What you regard as a weakness, the plain men 
and women of the Churches regard as the highest virtue. The issue is 
clearly drawn. They want the thing you oppose, and for the very reason 
you oppose it. What you really object to is denominationalism, or to be per- 
fectly frank, sectarianism. You have discovered too that the great majority 
of the denominational colleges are not sectarian in their teaching any more. 
What you really plead for is the ' interdenominationalizing * of Christian 
education. Can this really come while we have denominations, except in 
rare instances? Ought we not rather to strike hard at the very heart of the 
trouble? The denominational college is merely a symptom of denomination- 
alism, as is the Church paper. The quack physician treats symptoms. The 
real physician diagnoses the case and applies his remedy to the underlying 
cause. Our disease is denominationalism. The Master Himself has pre- 
scribed the cure. We read it in John 17:21. We cannot cure the ills of 
the denominational colleges while the festering sore, the cancerous growth 
of denominationalism afflicts the body of Christ. And when denomina- 
tionalism has been cured in the reunion of Christ's disciples, even as He 
prayed, then the denominational college will have become the Christian 
college, for which there will ever be need under a civil government requir- 
ing the absolute separation of Church and State.' ' 

Rev. M. J. Bradshaw, secretary Congregational Education Society, 
Boston, Mass,, writes: "It seems to me that as a matter of fact there 
is great need for educational experimentation. I think that a way of prog- 
ress is along this line. There are differences within Protestantism, very 
vital differences. Why not do our best to find out precisely, if possible, 
the social value of these different viewpoints? What we need is not the 
attempt to remove all differences, an attempt which inevitably opens us 
to the danger of becoming colorless, but we should rather attempt in a 
scientific way to work out the implications of different viewpoints. I be- 
lieve that the primary difficulty is with the denominational leaders rather 
than with the college people. As I see it, the great cleavage in our day 
is between those who taken the historical viewpoint in religion and those 
who bow before a fixed authority. " 

Dean Henry B. Washburn, Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, 
Mass., writes : "I want to thank you most heartily for your article. I am 
inclined to think you are laboring under the impression that denomina- 
tional schools cannot exist without a certain amount of hard feeling. Fur- 
thermore you seem to imagine that denominational schools are intent upon 
sectarian emphasis rather than upon real religion or real scholarship. As- 
suming that these facts are true, your conclusions are correct. Is there not, 
however, another side? We here at Cambridge have three theological 
schools and one university closely affiliated. We like the affiliation be- 
cause it throws our students together as well as the members of the facul- 
ties, thereby keeping our minds open and our sympathies sensitive. We 
like the denominational aspect of our schools because each school can make 
its own contribution to the common life of the neighborhood, and each school 


may have its own spiritual life. These two results should be looked upon 
in the light of real scholarly expression and real religious expression, and 
each school's contribution should be valued by the other schools. From 
this point of view it would seem to me that denominational schools are an 
asset rather than a liability. Once assume a friendly and sympathetic 
relationship, and the problem is solved. Once assume that we can have 
nothing but denominational schools, and we lose an immense amount of the 
finer shades of opinion in both scholarship and religion, and as for wor- 
ship we find ourselves reduced to a drab medium of expression which ap- 
peals to practically nobody.' ' 

A number of other opinions are summed up in the fol- 
lowing letter : 

Professor M. L. Bonham, Jr., Hamilton College (Presbyterian), Clinton, 
N. Y. : "I have long believed that the denominational school, both as a 
preparatory institution and as a college has outlived its usefulness. I had 
felt that the only denominational institution of an educational nature, 
which still had a right to exist was the theological seminary. Since read- 
ing your article I am prepared to follow you in thinking it should go into 
the discard too, and let the ministry be educated at non-denominational 
schools. However, I fear that the denominations, and particularly the 
seminaries, will not agree with you. Perhaps the most that can be hoped 
for, for some years to come, is that seminaries may be persuaded to re- 
quire as conditions for admission graduation from a non- denominational col- 
lege or university, with at least one year of graduate study at a university. 
Even that step forward will be hard to secure, as long as the seminaries 
find their present difficulty in securing candidates for the ministry. 

"With one factor in your interesting and scholarly paper I find myself 
at issue. Like many other leading thinkers of today, you are evidently 
strongly in favor of Church union, with the corollary disappearance of 
the denominations. I cannot follow you there. It seems to me, since the 
tendency to vary is one of the laws of progress, that it is a good thing that 
there are enough Churches for any one who really desires spiritual fellow- 
ship to find one in which he can feel at home. I am quite certain that 
my own Church is the best one for me, but equally certain that it would 
be the worst for some people, and of little benefit to others. So I should 
be sorry to see Church union at the present, believing that it would soon 
lead to new schisms. 

■"I readily grant that we have more denominations than are necessary 
and see no valid reason why such institutions as the Presbyterian, Congre- 
gationalism and Dutch Reformed Churches should not unite. It would be 
quite feasible, I think, to reduce the number of our denominations, and still 
steer clear of rigid uniformity, which would mean stagnation. Interde- 
nominational cooperation, rather than unification, seems the best plan. For 
this end your suggestion of training all ministers in an undenominational 
seminary, where they will have the benefits of contact and cooperation with 
all lines of religious thought, is the best means. I trust that you will find 
it practicable to put your essay into the hands of governing bodies of all 
our Churches and seminaries, as well as into the hands of all teachers in 
seminaries and denominational schools, and the editors of all Church pa- 
pers. ' ' 

There needs to be added only a paragraph in closing 
this collection of opinions. The paper in question raises 


but one issue and that is the necessity of interdenomina- 
tionalizing all denominational schools in America — from 
the parochial school to the denominational university and 
theological seminary, as is being so satisfactorily done in 
many instances on the foreign missionary field and in 
a few instances in America. There is no suggestion of 
any revolutionary plans, but instead the establishing of 
evolutionary processes under the guidance of a Christian 
commission. The issue is not raised regarding the small 
school nor the state university. It attempts to deal solely 
with the denominational school, to make it Christian, rep- 
resenting the Christian thought and experience of the 
whole community, rather than denominational, which nec- 
essarily represents only a part of the Christian thought 
and experience of the community. What is being so gen- 
erally done in cooperative educational work in China, 
etc., we ought to be able to do in America, unless the 
atmosphere of heathenism furnishes the opportunity to 
freer cooperation than the denominational atmosphere 
of America. The interdenominationalizing policy is the 
scientific method of approach, for there are values in all 
these denominations. These values depreciate when sep- 
arated; they increase when coordinated. The opinions 
herein cited, irrespective to which classification they be- 
long, reveal a necessity more impelling than the paper 
dared to affirm. American Christianity faces a crisis in 
her educational system which can be met only by adopt- 
ing such unitary processes as will coordinate her entire 
educational efforts, from which the good of none will be 


Dk. Ainslie 's article on "Has the Denominational 
School a Place in Present Day Education V ' which has 
been so widely circulated, certainly deserves thought- 
ful consideration and open-minded judgment as to the 
issues involved therein. Inasmuch as Dr. Ainslie has 
invited suggestions and criticisms with respect to it, I 
am venturing to comply with his request. Before going 
into a critique of the essential arguments advanced I 
desire to add a word of appreciation of Dr. Ainslie 's 
courage to speak out boldly on this important topic; 
of his magnanamous spirit as evidenced in every para- 
graph; and of his excellent literary style which the ar- 
ticle evidences. It is an able production — ably conceived 
and ably written. 

However much I admire this excellent paper and its 
gracious author I find myself compelled to dissent-not 
from its general position regarding the unity of the 
Church, but from its assumptions. There are certain 
premises which Dr. Ainslie takes as his starting points 
and which he accepts without questioning, which are, in 
my judgment, fallacious. He is wrong in his major as- 
sumptions. Therein lies not only the weakness of the 
paper but its grave danger as well. If these assump- 
tions are to go unchallenged and the contentions which 
Dr. Ainslie makes are to be taken at their face value, 
then I fear that this article will do great damage — not 
only to Christian education, but to the very cause for 
which Dr. Ainslie so constantly and passionately pleads. 
May I be pardoned the impertinence of pointing out the 
fallacies which underlie the contention for the aboli- 
tion of the denominational school. 

One of the factors always necessary to any clean-cut 
discussion of an issue is a clear definition of the terms 
involved. In this vital matter Dr. Ainslie is especially 


in error. I have no desire to cavil or quibble, over non- 
essentials, or to becloud the issue by discussing inciden- 
tals, but it does seem important to know just what it is 
that Dr. Ainslie is talking about. He uses the vague, 
indeterminate word " school.' ' Just what does he mean 
by that term? Does he mean academies, training schools, 
etc? Does he mean the standard — four year course — 
Christian college? Or does he mean theological semin- 
aries ? It makes a very great difference what he means. 
If he means theological seminaries, then I find myself 
in substantial agreement with most that he has to say. 
If, however, he means the Christian college — so-called 
denominational — then I cannot agree. Does he mean 
all schools of whatever sort supported by the various 
Churches? I assume that he means this latter thing 
and therein lies his first fallacy; namely, the use of a 
general term to cover a specific contention. He has 
swept too much into his thesis by his terminology. For 
to contend for the abolition of all schools of whatever 
sort supported by the church would be disastrous, both 
educationally and religiously as I shall further point 
out. Dr. Ainslie has tried to prove too much. 

This brings us to a second and even more serious de- 
fect in the use of terms. What does Dr. Ainslie mean 
by ' ' denominational' ' school? Does he mean any 
school which maintains an affiliation with any particular 
religious body? If he does, then I am confident there 
are scores of colleges — under Church auspices — which 
will repudiate the imputation. The assumption that 
Church colleges so-called denominational — are for the 
most part, sectarian in their spirit and denominational 
in their outlook, is false. Precisely the reverse is the 
case. Dr. Ainslie admits that some are not. I maintain 
that most are not. I am not now referring to theological 
seminaries, for a very much greater number of them are 
committed to the denominational bias. What I mean to 
say is that the vast majority of Church colleges are not 


sectarian. That there are some sectarian colleges I ad- 
mit, but they are the exception and not the rule. Dr. 
AinshVs assumption is the opposite. The truth is that 
Church colleges are not sectarian, because they cannot 
be and actually be educational institutions worthy of 
the name. 

Intercollegiate contacts are too numerous and potent 
to permit the sectarian spirit to dominate. The student 
bodies are more or less interdenominational in their 
character. Then there is the constant impingement of 
the spirit of one college upon another, due to the mul- 
tiplicity of intercollegiate activities. Intercollegiate 
oratorical contests, debates, athletics, fraternities, Y. M. 
C. A. and Y. W. C. A. conferences, student volunteer con- 
ventions — state and national; all these and many other 
student relationships, make impossible the spirit of ex- 
clusiveness and sectarian ambitions. And what shall 
we say of the interchange of faculties'? The faculty of 
the average college is gathered from the four quarters 
of the educational world. I have in mind now one 
typical Church college which has a distinctly Christian 
atmosphere and spirit, that has twenty-three different 
colleges and universities represented on its faculty. 
Those men and women are cosmopolites. They cannot 
be encased by any sectarian walls. Besides there are all 
the many state and national faculty associations. There 
is the Association of American University Professors; 
the Modern Language Association; the botanical socie- 
ties; the history, mathematics, sociology, philosophy, 
chemistry, physics, religious education, New Testament, 
Old Testament — and every other kind of — association; 
all of which hold national gatherings and nearly all of 
which publish some sort of magazine for the interchange 
of ideas. These are the antipodes of denominationalism. 
But above all there is the spirit of modern learning it- 
self. The modern method of approach, whether it be in 
the sciences, the humanities, or what not, is the spirit 


of open-mindedness. Furthermore it is progressive in 
its outlook and is never satisfied to take opinions ready 
made. The creeds have a hard time in the presence of 
the scientific, historical method of approach which char- 
acterizes present-day education. Modern education 
knows no such thing as denominational lines. It is a 
well-known fact that the colleges are always the center of 
attack from the denominationally minded. The most 
powerful ally Dr. Ainslie has in the world to-day for the 
breaking down of denominational lines and the destruc- 
tion of the sectarian spirit, and for the bringing in of 
that glad day when all the people of God will be one, is 
to be found in the Christian colleges of our land. When 
you seek to destroy them, you are putting to the sword 
your best friends. They spell the death of denomina- 

A third fallacy is to be found in Dr. Ainslie 's assump- 
tion that, so far as education is concerned, the sectarian 
spirit is confined to Church schools. By no means. 
Granted for the sake of argument that educational, de- 
nominational propaganda is confined to Church schools, 
there is to be found elsewhere in education a sectarian- 
ism of another sort, which with the destruction of the 
Church college, would not be as Utopian as Dr. Ainslie 
imagines. The political doctrine of the separation of 
Church and State has often been pressed to absurd 
lengths in our tax-supported system of education. 
There is the sectarianism of "non" and "anti" 
Church as well as the sectarianism of "pro" denomina- 
tion. There is the sectarianism of indifference, of con- 
descension, of aloofness, of supererogation, and even 
intolerance; which has all too commonly characterized 
education divorced from Church support and influence. 
Eead the tragic story of the moral and religious decay 
of those modern nations which have relied completely 
upon a national system of education, without Church col- 
leges. It is by no means reassuring. 


Then there is the sectarianism of what, for want of 
a better phrase, I am pleased to call, practical material- 
ism — the sectarianism of the emphasis upon things; the 
sectarianism of a bread and butter education; the sec- 
tarianism of false ideals of success ; the sectarianism of 
Moloch and Mammon. Much as I hate the present de- 
nominational order, I fear this latter sectarianism far 
more than the former. And the antidote for it is the 
Christian college. We need now and shall need ever 
and anon, colleges which would rather make a man than 
a mechanic, and which consider it their chief business 
to teach young men and women the worth of ideas and 
the glory of ideals and which have set themselves to the 
task of turning out leaders who shall help to bring 
speedily to pass that new heaven and new earth which 
shall constitute the Kingdom of God on the morrow. 
Nothing in my judgment would be more disastrous both 
educationally and religiously than to carry the argu- 
ments of Dr. AinshVs paper to their logical conclusions 
and to see to it that those conclusions were carried into 
effect. It would mean the doing away with the schools 
where one can get best the full orbed life of which Dr. 
Ainslie speaks. 

This leads to the fourth and last fallacy which I shall 
mention; namely, the assumption that you fulfil by de- 
stroying. We have in the problem with which Dr. Ains- 
lie wrestles the ever puzzling question of how to bring 
the ideal out of the real, or better still, the real up to the 
ideal. It is the deep-seated paradox, which runs through- 
out all life. But the problem certainly cannot be solved 
by annihilating that which is, or by detaching ourselves 
from the existent order. We have to live in the world 
in which we now are. It is our duty to help make a bet- 
ter world, of course. But the question is not only What? 
but How? Granted that we need Christian union, the 
question remains, How? I hope Dr. Ainslie will pardon 
the seeming discourtesy when I say that it appears to me 


that it is in his attempt to, or rather failure to, answer 
the "How?" with definiteness and tangibility which 
constitutes not only the weakness of the paper under dis- 
cussion, but the whole proposition of Christian unity. 
Perhaps it is asking too much of any one to answer that 
question ; but if one attempts it, then he should be willing 
to be held accountable to practical tests. And certainly it 
would be a most impracticable procedure to abandon 
at this time the Church colleges with nothing better in 
sight. To do so would mean for the Churches indi- 
vidually and collectively to commit suicide. 

A leaderless Church could not function. To destroy 
the present base of supplies, would be not only poor 
generalship, but foolhardy. You cannot get somewhere 
else unless you start from where you are. There is no 
such thing as a man's lifting himself by his own boot- 
straps. You cannot reach the ideal by one huge leap, or 
by the destruction of those forces which are now work- 
ing toward that end. At the present the Church does 
not have the facilities nor the machinery by which to 
train a leadership aside from the schools and colleges 
which it supports. To kill them now means to kill itself. 
A series of dead communions might bring Christian un- 
ion, but it would be the silent and inert union of the 
tomb. It would have the chill of sepulchral dampness 
upon it and the terms of its consummation would be 
chiseled on tablets of stone. No, Christian union will 
not come by the destruction of, or even the abandonment 
of, the Church colleges. Quite the opposite. 

I cannot close this paper without a word concerning 
the illustration of the four boy friends, from a Texas 
town, with which Dr. Ainslie began his article and which 
in a way constituted the major premise of all he had to 
say. He bemoans the fact that they came back from 
their respective colleges ardent denominationalists. We 
all do. But does Dr. Ainslie think for a single moment 
that, had they gone to some undenominational school and 


remained in the ministry they would have been any 
less denominational? Does Dr. Ainslie think that these 
men came back from college more denominational than 
when they started? I will hazard the guess that if they 
attended the average Church college of their own com- 
munion they were less denominational as seniors than 
they were as freshmen. 

Furthermore, what would Dr. Ainslie have these men 
do? Suppose they were to go to some union school and 
all come out entirely undenominationalized ; and suppose 
they all wanted to give their lives to the ministry ; where 
could they preach? Which Church would Dr. Ainslie 
have them all go into? In other words, do not these men 
have to work in the midst of the existent order? And 
are they not made denominational by the Church and 
not the college? Would the abolishment of the Church 
college solve the problem? To claim that it would means 
to confuse effect with cause; to substitute nothing for 
something; to create an educational vacuum in the life 
of the Church. One might go on piling up valid and ir- 
refutable arguments in behalf of the Christian college 
— or Church college, if you please — justifying it from 
the standpoint of sound economics, efficient education, 
and wise statesmanship, but that is a subject for another 
paper. It is sufficient here to point out the fallacies of 
Dr. Ainslie 's assumptions which I have tried to do with 
clearness and becoming courtesy. 

H. 0. Pritchard. 

Disciples ' Board of Education, 
Indianapolis, Ind. 


The many-sided issue of Christian unity has frequently 
evoked the question— what can be done under all circum- 
stances to achieve the desired cooperation among the 
numerous denominations! Alliances have been sug- 
gested ; concordats have been drawn up ; and resolutions 
have been adopted. If all that has been said and done in 
connection with the various irenic efforts could once be 
collected together, they would fill many good sized vol- 

Christian unity is not a new issue. Its consideration 
is by no means in the first stages of development. The 
memory of the Christian life in the early eras still 
sounds its tuneful harmony. Ever since the, great schism 
between the East and the West in the eleventh century, 
and the great upheaval at the time of the Eef ormation, 
the longing heart of man has held as its inmost desire 
that Christians should be one. The demand for unity 
has recently become insistent in every practical, eco- 
nomic, ethical, or religious sense. ' ' Unity is in the very 
air that we breathe' ' has been well said. The world war 
has taught a lesson well worth applying — that the allied 
powers achieved a victory that must have been impos- 
sible if each had continued independent action. So much 
has already been done in the twentieth century in deal- 
ing with the diverse interests in the many other depart- 
ments of life, that it is only to be expected that it should 
contribute something towards solving the difficulties of 
disunited Christendom. Nor is it too much to say that 
of all questions before the minds of men to-day, the way 
to achieve unity is nearly, if not altogether, the most 
important. In fact the distinctive problem of the pres- 
ent is the problem of uniting the Christian Church. 

What to do next in behalf of Christian unity is the 
subject of our thoughts. The first requirement is to 
achieve a decided agreement, based on past experiences, 


as to what we should not do as well as to what we might 
attempt. The present outlook suggests a fourfold de- 
velopment of thought to be considered: 

1st — Christian unity is a problem, and will be solved 
by dealing with it as a problem. 

A problem is a question demanding some answer as 
to how things that are going wrong may be made to go 
right, so that the proper and desirable results may fol- 
low. Let us all be convinced that neither theories nor 
schemes nor resolutions will ever solve this problem. 

2nd — Christian unity is a spiritual problem. It must 
be dealt with in the way of the Spirit. 

Most people seem to overlook the fact that the great 
gift of the Holy Spirit was given amid social relation- 
ships. We all remember that a number of the disciples 
of Christ were all with one accord in one place, when 
there came that sound from heaven as of a rushing 
mighty wind. Now, spirituality is not sentimentality ; it 
is not having a good intention and leaving the rest for 
the Lord to carry out in His own appointed time. It is 
not the Lord's business to solve the problem of unity, 
while we wait inactive. It is necessary that we cooper- 
ate with Him, using the means which He has placed at 
our disposal. 

Spirituality means real hard work on the Christian's 
part. It means man's actions undertaken with his eyes 
open and his heart exercised. 

3rd — Christian unity is distinctly a Christian problem. 

Life and love are two great features that must set 
forth the even balance of the faith. It is by the use of 
such that the distinctive features and characteristics of 
Christianity are to be maintained, and also that the 
very fundamentals of Christianity, in its establishment, 
are to be duly considered. 

4th — Christian unity is definitely a human problem. 

It is the man knowing, feeling and willing — the whole 


of man and not any one part that is so necessary in this 
work. One of the most encouraging signs toward the 
unity problem is the increased use and importance of 
psychology in our religious thinking. It has been well 
said, " Logic, if it leads to good conclusion, bids us mind 
the facts before we employ the reason.' ' The religious 
life is like an orchestra that calls for harmony for its 
best results. But to-day it is the bass horn that spoils 
the harmony on account of its over-emphasis and self- 

The unity problem has a distinct goal towards which 
all efforts tend, and that is to make the 178 varieties or 
classifications of Christians appear and act as one large 
family. Such an aim may seem to some a mere dream, 
impossible of accomplishment; also perhaps, to many 
too fanciful to be seriously considered. We should re- 
call the statement once made: "The only difference be- 
tween the difficult and the seemingly impossible is that 
the impossible takes a little longer time." 

But in order to make these 178 varieties really one, a 
sharp distinction should ever be maintained between 
unity and uniformity, which are not the same in essence 
or in value. And besides that a clear and definite state- 
ment should be made as to the meaning of unity itself. 

What is to be done next to advance the great object of 
Christian unity? There is great need of education, so 
that Christians may better understand the mind of 
Christ on this great subject. Many obstacles to-day 
stand in the way of a more perfect understanding of the 
Master's mind. Many troublesome non-essentials have 
been collected during the ages of the past. These must 
all be removed before any real progress can be made. 
Furthermore, it should be considered that the divisions 
of Christendom, as they have been handed down from 
the past, have mostly been caused by making self and 
not God the great object of interest. How easy it is to 


exalt personal ideas as all important, and maintain them 
against the ideas of others. But the statement applies 
here: "The centrifugal age is at an end, and the cen- 
tripetal age has begun." Yet, notwithstanding the fact 
that this is a "New Era," we should realize that our 
present conditions are the effect of self-opinionation, 
self-will, and self-seeking. 

The resultant religious atmosphere that we breathe 
to-day is unchristian, for individual ideas have proved to 
be the curse of Christianity, just as individual whims 
and fancies are to-day most frequently accepted as 
Christ's truth. Both the ideas and fancies have become 
idols before which people make obeisance. 

But what is the trouble with the average Christian 
that he is willing and able to remain so far removed from 
the essence of Christ's truth, and also finds it difficult to 
realize the power of that truth? Well, for brevity's sake, 
I shall be dogmatic in replying to this question. Disunity, 
which is to say, the present condition of Christianity, is 
a disease, and religiously we are all living, as far as our 
mental and moral viewpoints are concerned, amid dis- 
eased conditions. Surely everyone to-day who cares for 
Christ and His truth and has any depth of feeling is 
simply tired of the confusion, the wrangling, and the in- 
efficiency that sectarianism breeds, commonly called 
Christianity. Christ's truth has been so distorted, that 
professing Christians are perfectly satisfied with the 
trivialities, the inefficiencies, the smallness of aim and 
ambition, and the inadequacies that are characteristic of 
our present day Christianity. 

Now, in the twentieth century, what to do in many 
different departments of life has been fully demon- 
strated. Why should not this rule apply in religious con- 
cerns 1 

In the first place the physical life presents to us many 
complex and confused conditions. Yet physical science 


has done wonders in restoring the diseased and withered 
members of the body to life again. It has amputated as 
well as attached parts of the body. It has made diseased 
organisms whole again, so that they can perform their 
alloted functions. Some diseases and troubles, to be 
sure, seem to have as yet no cure. But the causes of 
such maladies are often insidious so that their very na- 
tures are buried deep in the secrets of life. Through the 
work already accomplished by the Eockefeller Founda- 
tion, for example, we to-day feel assured of the value of 
scientific research Avork and investigation. The aims of 
this Foundation are (a) "To eradicate certain causes of 
human ill and to build up positive programmes for bet- 
tering conditions : and (b) to make demonstrations in va- 
rious fields and to inaugurate helpful work for the well- 
being of mankind throughout the world. ' ' The Founda- 
tion tabulates and classifies the different discoveries, 
theoretical and practical. It also maintains independent 
research work, undertaken by experts in the different 
fields of therapeutics. 

In the second place the industrial or social conditions of 
to-day show clearly how complete and confused human 
affairs can become. There is decidedly a call to do jus- 
tice to various classes of society, to deal with industrial 
and economic conditions, and to alleviate the sorrow and 
suffering of poverty, and the distress of the human heart. 
All such is a tax too great, too much involved unless some 
organized force of human energy and power attempts its 
solution. In answer to the call just mentioned, the Rus- 
sell Sage Foundation has been established with a large 
endowment to do what scattered and independent work- 
ers could never accomplish. The purpose of this Founda- 
tion, as stated in its charter, is "the improvement of 
social and living conditions in the United States of Amer- 
ica.' ' It shall be within its purpose to use any means, 
including research, publication, education, the establish- 


ment and maintenance of charitable and benevolent 
activities. Bnt it does not relieve individual needs. 

The third division presents ns with the religions con- 
ditions to-day. In this we do not find affairs any less 
grievous nor disastrous than those with which the Kocke- 
feller Foundation and the Eussell Sage Foundation en- 
deavor to deal. The need of concerted and organized 
effort is just as great in the religious field as in social, 
industrial or physical conditions. As Christians we must 
first learn how to see aright and act aright, but in order 
that we may see and act aright, our present conditions 
must first be changed. We must, for religious purposes, 
be able to delve deep in dealing with insidious symptoms 
as to the cause and reason for disunity, scientifically con- 
sidered. The mere fact that we have inherited the condi- 
tion of disunity is no great honor to our divine Master. 
We must find the way back to the "Deus Vult." Such 
can never be really done as long as we are advancing a 
part truth without due care and consideration for the 
whole truth. We must learn how to make cooperation do 
the Lord's work, if it is ever to be done, and not to de- 
pend upon competition in order to work up the zeal on 
man 's part for the Lord. 

Christian unity is not a mere academic question to be 
considered and decided by the thoughts and ideas, the 
whims and fancies of men. Christian unity is a very 
practical matter, founded upon the truth established by 
the great Master of Life, Jesus Christ. As in the words 
of another, "The teachings of the Master are not mere 
precepts to be obeyed, but illustrations of the perfect 
life to be followed. His truth composes not only duties 
to be done, but forces to be dealt with." Thus then, 
when Christ prayed that His followers might "be one as 
Thou Father art in me and I in Thee, ' ' it was not a mere 
ideal of some far vision with which He dealt, but an ac- 
tual working condition of life. It is this working law of 


the religious life — the law of unity in Christ — and it must 
be understood and applied in its original value and im- 

All of us are aware that the great characteristic fea- 
ture of the Catholic and Protestant is that of the 
emphasis upon the objective and the subjective side of 
the Christian religion. As already stated by another, 
"This contrast has been delineated before hand by our 
Lord Himself in the parable of Mary and Martha — the 
contrast between mysticism and efficiency." But, "in 
order to give our Lord a perfect hospitality, Mary and 
Martha must combine. ' ' So it is the combination of these 
two attitudes that is necessary for a full religion to-day. 
That is the great object that we have in hand to ac- 

In the first place we meet even to-day with the false 
idea of Christianity — that we go to Church or profess 
faith in the Gospel in order to save our souls in the world 
to come. The teaching that salvation consists in "getting 
into heaven' ' and escaping hell (principally the latter) 
is contrary to the divine principle of the Church in and 
through which God works to-day. Then the evident fail- 
ure to recognize the Christian principles of organic unity 
leads to a false individualism, which often results in 
practical neglect of important ethical principles, because, 
as stated, salvation comes from faith and not from works. 
Now, although the phrase "salvation by faith' ' when 
properly understood, through analysis of the meaning 
and implications of faith, may represent an essential 
Christian truth, the usual understanding that salvation 
results from assent to certain promulgated opinions 
rather than to the contemplation of the ideal of the life 
of righteousness in God, amounts merely to a very spe- 
cious form of blanket indulgence. As expressed in actual 
practice, it is often quite as subversive of complete ethi- 
cal and moral loyalty, particularly the former, to the 


commands of Christ, as any of the spiritual nostrums 
vended by Tetzel and his associates. 

The segregation of professing Christians into the va- 
rious sectarian groups is a far more radical and serious 
situation than is involved merely in the preference as 
generally supposed for some method of worship or some 
one variety of Church government. The several sects or 
cults represent numerous variant conceptions of God's 
character, and of His relations to mankind, that must in- 
evitably exert a vital influence upon the thoughts and 
character of persons coming under their influence. For 
surely a man's idea of God is his highest ideal for him- 
self. Thus, as we may say, a false idea of God is all that 
constitutes a false god. If any of us persist in holding 
the notion that God is principally occupied in dealing out 
his "vengeance" upon sinners, how can we expect to 
embody merciful and generous attitudes to our fellow 
men? Such false notions are inevitably hostile to the 
Christian life, no matter how completely supported by 
logical processes. Furthermore, if — as in many formula- 
tions of the past — people represent God as so immersed 
in His own "holiness" as to be immeasurably removed 
from sinful man, how can we expect that such people 
will not become spiritual Sybarites and consistent ex- 
amples of complacent self-righteousness! All such 
opinions are irreconcilable with a proper understanding 
of the Gospel of Christ. Now it is that condition that 
we are obliged to consider more than anything else. 

But what are we to do about the matter! In the first 
place we can use the teaching of the Bible, or rather be- 
come ourselves greater students of the Bible. Secondly, 
we can appreciate what the Church really means from the 
Bible and experience of the Christian centuries. With 
such an object in view we can intelligently deal with 
every type of Christian mind. But what is the Church 
of God from the Bible and the consensus of Christen- 


dom? All in the New Testament is founded on the more 
manifestly practical truth in the Old Testament. God 
has made but one covenant with man, and that covenant 
is divided into the old and the new dispensations. Now 
under the Law a man approaches God as an Israelite, 
performing the duties assigned to all Israelites, and seek- 
ing no special avenue of approach. As a true believer 
no one believes that there is an avenue of approach ex- 
cept in obedience to the Law. His acts of seeking ad- 
vantages for himself, apart from the advantages of the 
nation, is declared unrighteous and opprobrious, inval- 
idating his claim to righteously approach God. Further- 
more, the salvation that is promised in the observance 
of the Law refers entirely to the concerns of this world 
and the relations of this world. Here then is our back- 
ground. The Gospel is indeed the fulfilment of the law 
and of the Prophets. It is also founded on the Law and 
the Prophets. The words and teaching of Christ are un- 
intelligible, and His message is undecipherable unless 
we recognize the plain and obvious fact that He pre- 
supposes the Jewish Law and Covenant. In all of His 
discourses, Christ is speaking as a Jew and to Jews 
about the Jewish Law and traditions. He is constantly 
calling attention to the community of Israel first, then 
the community of mankind, which means the grand aggre- 
gate of all the neighbors in the world. The human com- 
munity, the chosen people as expressed in the Old Testa- 
ment, is the basis of Christ's teaching and is needed to 
develop and make personally applicable the truth that 
Christ taught. Now nothing is truer of the early Chris- 
tian Church than the sign of its fellowship, one with 
another — the fellowship of the faithful. Now all this 
was the new and greater Isreal that was to include all 
mankind — the fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham, 
"In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
blessed.' ' 


The next step in the cause of Christian unity that 
should be undertaken is to make real by our own personal 
work and cooperation the establishment of an institute 
or foundation for study and research in the whole field 
of Christian thought and activity. Then the great truth 
to be found in Christ could be scientifically dealt with as 
a whole. The distinct contribution that each part of 
Christendom was made could be considered. And the 
Christian mind would find how fit each single part of 
the Christian past into other parts, so that there might 
be presented in the wholeness of life to be found in Christ 
alone. From such an effort there would come a distinct 
call for a renewal or a survival of true Christianity ; and 
most of the paganism that is mixed with our common 
Christianity to-day would be removed. 

Yes it is true that in our present diseased condition we 
need not resolutions, however good and valuable they 
may be ; not manifestoes, whereby one part of Christen- 
dom expresses the willingness to deal with other parts, 
or certain conditions, that will solve the problem before 
us. What is most needed is knowledge and inspiration 
on the part of the average member of Christ, whereby 
"the Body" itself can be made fit for the Master's use. 
We sadly need leaders to-day in the great cause of Chris- 
tian irenics, who can speak with knowledge of the whole 
field of Christianity, and be able to interpret the mind of 
the Master. With such an institute or foundation of 
study and research into the present conditions, justice 
could be done to the past, but not without thought for the 
future. But if we are to have a future of which we shall 
be proud, we must learn to view Christian truth in its 
wholeness, and not be satisfied with any one part or a 
number of parts. 

How few Christians of one name understand or appre- 
ciate to-day Christians of other names. In order for us 
to realize the wholeness of the truth in Christ, we must 


get rid of the bacillus of denominationalism. We must 
eliminate the microbe of opinions and foibles of indi- 
vidualistic tendencies. We must learn how to cut out the 
gangrene of prejudice, or amputate the withered member 
of spiritual indifference, in order to restore the whole- 
ness of life to its nobleness, purity and strength as is 
found in Christ and in Christ alone. 

From such a renewed and purified condition we could 
then respond to the call of duty, "That ye love one an- 
other, as I have loved you." "Then shall Thy perfect 
will be done when Christians love and live as one. ' ' 

The reunion of Christendom means a spiritual awak- 
ening such as the world has never before seen. It is 
a call to preserve what is true in Christianity and to 
make effective what is in our present day Christian 
life. It is alone the power that will Christianize all of 
life, whether it be commercial, industrial, social, or re- 
ligious. Would to God that we all could realize the truth 
of the remark and apply it to ourselves, "We have passed 
out of the epoch of polemic denominationalism, which is 
a dead issue, and have entered into the glorious epoch 
of cooperative democracy." 

Grace Church, 
Jamaica, N. Y. 


A committee representative of all the Free Churches 
of England has been appointed to prepare a report on 
the Appeal of the Lambeth Conference for the guidance 
of the denominations when they are called on to give 
their reply. That committee has just met at Oxford and 
their report, slightly abbreviated, is published in this 
issue of The Christian Union Quarterly. I desire to 
describe the general situation in this country upon the 
great subject in question. 

(1) It will be well to indicate as clearly as can be what 
is the principle which should be followed in all proposals 
for reunion. It is coming to be now generally agreed 
that it is not enough to confess the spiritual unity of all 
believers in Christ and to limit the quality of oneness in 
Him to the invisible Church, His Body. That body as 
one is an object of faith to believers; it is unknown to 
the world. Without laying any undue stress on the 
words of Jesus in John xvii, as the church exists to 
win the world for Him, it seems obvious that that unity 
should be in the visible Church, so manifest to the world 
as to impress and influence the world. The unity pro- 
fessed must be practiced; it must be expressed and ex- 
ercised in the mutual relations of all Christian com- 
munions. A world divided by class, nation, colour, will 
not receive the message of reconciliation from a Church 
divided about creed, ritual, polity. There are Christians 
still indifferent, if not hostile, to any proposals for visi- 
ble unity, but they cannot read the signs of the times 
nor hear the call of the hour. 

(2) It is also being now generally acknowledged that 
uniformity cannot be insisted on. Home stands alone, 
apart from the main currents of the thought and life of 
Christendom. The Eastern Churches have shown their 
readiness for closer relations with the Western. Prob- 


ably this is partly due to their sense of their relative 
weakness and need of the help that the stronger Churches 
might give them, and partly to their desire that Protes- 
tant missions should be restrained in propaganda among 
their adherents. In any case their attitude is less ex- 
clusive than that of Rome, although we should deceive 
ourselves if we supposed that they were prepared for 
any very close fellowship or stood much nearer to us 
Protestants in doctrine and practice than Rome does. 
Uniformity as the condition of unity is ruled out. 

(3) At the opposite extreme stands the view that all 
the differences should be allowed to continue and that 
the spiritual unity should be manifested in mutual recog- 
nition by interchange of pulpits and intercommunion. 
The Nonconformist Churches, at first inclined to favour 
this policy, now recognize to some extent that while it is 
necessary as a temporary preparation for a more vital 
and effective unity, it cannot be accepted as the final con- 

I. The bishops do not favour interchange of pulpits or 
intercommunion except where it is to be a transition to 
reunion in a fuller sense, because they fear that by such 
a policy the corporate unity of each communion would be 
weakened and no wider corporate unity of communions 
with one another would take its place, (a) For that fear 
there is some ground. What the Nonconformist Churches 
are exposed to in England is the evil of undenomination- 
alism instead of the good of interdenominationalism. 
Because distinctive principles have often been held in a 
spirit of exclusiveness these distinctive principles are 
being ignored in a spirit of indifference. Young people 
are not being taught, and, if they were, would probably 
not learn the principles of their own denomination, be- 
cause denominationalism has in the past degenerated 
into sectarianism. Hence their apprehension of Church 
unity itself is now vague and less definite than it would 


have been had they been taught and learned the convic- 
tions distinctive of their own denomination. These dis- 
tinctive, if partial convictions, have made the apprehen- 
sion of the common Gospel more distinct and less vague. 
What we need to find is a comprehensive unity which har- 
monizes instead of abolishing these distinctive convic- 
tions. We want not the greatest common measure, but 
the least common multiple of these convictions, not the 
small maximum which is included in them all, but the 
great minimum which will include them all. (b) Noncon- 
formity for its own sake, as well as to remove this fear of 
the bishops, must make it plain that it is as zealous as 
they are for such a comprehensive unity, in which all the 
treasures of thought and life gained in each separate 
communion will be contributed to the treasury of a united 
visible Church. Each denomination serves the cause of 
unity best not by ignoring what its past has given to it 
of distinctive conviction, but by preserving that in a 
spirit of charity. Not uniformity on the one hand and 
difference on the other, but variety-in-unity is the goal. 
II. As the course to that goal, however, mutual recog- 
nition of all Christian communions that hold the Head as 
members of His body seems urgently necessary, (a) 
The bishops have gone further than the Anglican Church 
has gone before not only in speaking of " other 
Churches" as well as the Church of England (although 
the term communion has been generally preferred in 
order that the term Church might be reserved for the 
one body, of which all baptized believers are members), 
but also in recognizing generally the value of the min- 
istry of these Churches. That recognition, however, is 
very seriously qualified by the demand that the ministers 
of other than episcopal communions should receive their 
commission or authorization by episcopal ordination, so 
as to obtain "a ministry throughout the whole fellow- 
ship" in the exercise of which they would administer a 


Eucharist in which all might share in ' ' that grace which 
is pledged to the members of the whole body, without any 
doubtfulness of mind." While effective and blessed of 
God within their own communion, it would seem that the 
ministry of those not episcopally ordained is not as yet 
a ministry of the whole body; and consequently the re- 
cipient of the Sacrament at their hands cannot be sure 
that he is getting the " grace that is pledged to the whole 
body." (b) If it were said that every ministry and Sac- 
rament is defective until the unity of the whole body is 
realized, and that a reunited Church would receive more 
abundant grace than can a divided, much could be said 
for such a conviction. But the bishops claim for their 
own Church, its ministry and Sacraments, what they do 
not allow to other communions. What makes the differ- 
ence is episcopal ordination. Even if apostolic succes- 
sion in the historic episcopate is not insisted on, that as- 
sumption alone can offer a justification for such a de- 
mand. And modern scholarship is more and more show- 
ing that that assumption rests on no convincing histori- 
cal evidence, but on an a priori conviction of the relation 
of Christ to the Church which contradicts the Gospel as 
Protestant Nonconformity understands it. As Protes- 
tant the Free Churches must, as a first step towards re- 
union, insist on an unambiguous recognition that their 
ministry and their Sacraments are not sectional but uni- 
versal. We can properly speak of reunion only if we 
admit that all the parts, though separated, are parts of 
the one whole. 

III. Although intercommunion and interchange of pul- 
pits would seem to be the most appropriate means of 
showing to the world that mutual recognition, and of 
fostering that fellowship in Christ which must prepare 
the minds and hearts of Christ 's people for reunion ; yet 
if the Church of England were to reply that it is only 
for the sake of order to preserve its own distinctive, cor- 


porate unity, until that can be taken up into the more 
comprehensive corporate unity, that it disapproves of 
those practices, Nonconformity with the experience I 
have just described would not in my judgment be entitled 
to insist on just these forms of manifesting this recogni- 
tion. On the recognition, however, it must insist. With- 
out it any movement would not be reunion, but absorp- 
tion of partial, defective communions into one commun- 
ion claiming to possess alone the marks of the whole 

(4) Nonconformists generally would welcome the ideal 
of a corporate unity such as is presented in the Lambeth 
report. That there should be some common organization 
to make manifest and effective that mutual recognition 
most of them would allow. As human society becomes 
more and more organized the Church must correspond- 
ingly be organized. 

I. Very many Nonconformists, of whom I am one, 
would admit that, in view of the past history and even 
the present condition of the greater part of Christendom, 
that organization would need to be episcopal. We should 
insist, however, that the episcopate would need to as- 
sume a constitutional, representative, elective character ; 
and that much that now marks it in England would need 
to disappear. Into that organization would need to be 
taken up what has proved of worth in the presbyterian 
and the congregational polity. The liberty of the Chris- 
tian people and the equality of the Christian ministry 
would need to be combined with the authority of the epis- 
copate. While the bishops assent to a change in the 
character of the episcopate, yet their insistence on epis- 
copal ordination gives us ground for hesitation, for they 
seem to claim for the episcopate exclusive functions and 
privileges which for us at present appear inconsistent 
with these other principles. Such an episcopate as 


would be acceptable to us the bishops do not seem to con- 

II. There are Nonconformists, however, who maintain 
that the assent to an episcopate is premature. The Spirit 
of God must not be bound, they hold, even by our antici- 
pations; and we must wait to follow whithersoever the 
Spirit may lead. It may be that some better form of 
organization than the episcopal may be disclosed in the 
future. While we must assuredly be guided by the 
Spirit, yet the illumination and operation of the Spirit 
in the Church have not been unrelated to its history, the 
teaching of experience, and the discernment of its men 
of vision. What the ultimate organization of the Chris- 
tian Church may be none can tell. What we are con- 
cerned with is what lies within our own horizon of fact 
and truth ; and so far as we can anticipate the next stage 
in the development of the Church we are warranted in 
expecting an organization which will be, not in opposition 
to, but in continuity with the past. Even a political de- 
mocracy must have an organization which reconciles law 
and liberty, and so must the Church, however democratic 
it may become in spirit. 

III. That organization should, however, not be so com- 
plete as to exclude a variety of organizations within 
itself. The distinctive features of the communions so 
united so far as they were not inconsistent with a mani- 
fest and effective unity could be preserved. Baptists, 
Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists should 
preserve their own creed, ritual, polity, within the unity 
of an episcopal organization with only such modifications 
as might be necessary for such unity. This proposal of 
the bishops the Free Churches heartily welcome as, while 
it has its own difficulty, it removes a difficulty, (a) Re- 
cent union negotiations, as among Presbyterians in Scot- 
land and Methodists in England, have shown how difficult 
it is to secure a union which involves a uniform organiza- 


tion. Wesleyan and Primitive Methodists differ as to 
their practice in the administration of the Sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper and the relation of clergy and laity, 
and on that account there is showing itself a strong op- 
position to the union proposals. In Scotland there is a 
body of out-and-out Voluntaries in the United Free 
Church, and they are opposing union with the Estab- 
lished Church, even should it gain freedom from state 
control in the administration of its own affairs, so long 
as it retained any of its state endowments. Baptists and 
Congregationalists are very much akin, but they differ 
as regards the rite of Baptism, and among the Baptists 
there is a section much more conservative theologically 
than is any section of Congregationalists. Consequently 
no formal proposals for union are under discussion. Be- 
sides manifest differences, it must be recognized that 
each denomination has its own traditions, customs, asso- 
ciations, memories as a hindrance to the merging of it- 
self in or with another communion. These instances 
seem to prove that the way of progress towards reunion 
is the way of comprehension and of concession, allowing 
each of the uniting communions to keep as much as pos- 
sible of its distinctive doctrine and practice with only 
such measure of common authority as may be needed to 
make the unity manifest and effective, (b) While re- 
moving this difficulty the proposal of the bishops itself 
raises a difficulty if the theory of the episcopate involved 
in their demand of episcopal ordination is not modified. 
An episcopate claiming to be in an apostolic succession 
as an exclusive, or even privileged, channel of sacra- 
mental grace, would necessarily reserve to itself func- 
tions and claim for itself privileges, demand an author- 
ity, and expect a submission which the Free Churches of 
England would hesitate about acknowledging as consis- 
tent with the priesthood of all believers, and the repre- 
sentative ministry which such a priesthood involves. 


Functions may be delegated, privileges may be accorded, 
an authority may be recognized, and a submission of- 
fered as free acts of the Christian people for the common 
good; but not as the necessary consequences of a theory 
of the episcopate, which history has not justified as ex- 
pressing the mind of Christ, the leading of the Spirit, or 
the common will of the Christian people. Welcome as 
the bishops' proposals are in admitting variety-in-unity, 
yet as they conceive the episcopate as the common bond, 
the liberty of the Spirit is not assured, (c) This is the 
crux of the whole problem. Nonconformity does not de- 
sire to close the door on any attempts to find a solution ; 
but nothing is gained and much would be lost by trying 
to gloss over the fundamental difference between the 
Catholic and the Protestant view of the Church. The 
bishops still hold the Catholic view; the Free Churches 
stand for the Protestant view. Much more is involved 
than a detail of organization. To attempt a common or- 
ganization with unreconciled convictions would be an 
unreal unity. The relation of the three sections of the 
Church of England to one another is not a happy omen. 

(5) What is the Protestant view as held by most Non- 
conformists in England may be briefly and frankly 
stated. The Gospel made the Church, and the Church's 
primary function is to preach the Gospel, and to this 
preaching the administration of the Sacraments as the 
signs and seals of the truth and grace offered in the 
preached Gospel must be subordinated. 

I. This Gospel is the proclamation of Jesus Christ the 
Lord as the Eevealer of God and the Eedeemer of men. 
While it is uttered in human speech, yet it is also the 
living Word of God, as the Spirit of God present and 
active makes the presentation of Christ and Him cruci- 
fied and risen the power and the wisdom of God unto 
salvation. As Christ's promise of His permanent pres- 
ence and supreme authority has been fulfilled in the ex- 


perience of believers that grace Is not an impersonal 
thing or force preserved in and communicated by any 
ordinance. Whether the Gospel is heard, or the Sacra- 
ment is received, it is Christ Himself who saves and 
blesses. "While He founded the Christian community, He 
does not stand at the head of a historical succession, to 
which alone He has delegated the communication of His 
grace ; but He Himself is always and everywhere active 
in immediate contact and intimate communion with the 
soul of man. The sole condition of receiving and re- 
sponding to this grace is faith, inclusive of repentance. 
The perfect sufficiency of Christ Himself on the sole con- 
dition of faith unto justification, sanctification, and glori- 
fication — this is the core of the Gospel. 

II. As in the grace of Christ the believer receives and 
responds to the love of God, the purpose of God to make 
every man His son in fellowship with and likeness to 
Himself, the Spirit of God is shed abroad in his heart, 
and he becomes a member of the community of the Spirit, 
the Church, the body of Christ. While the necessity may 
be fully recognized no less in practice than in doctrine, 
that this community of the Spirit should become a visible 
society on earth with its appointed ordinances and ap- 
proved ministry, and that not only the express teaching 
of Christ and the arrangements of the primitive Church, 
but also the historical development of the visible society 
should receive due consideration in determining creed, 
ritual and polity today; yet because the freedom of His 
Spirit and not the bondage of the letter results from 
Christ's own continued presence and constant activity, 
no organization, however venerable or general, can be 
regarded as alone regular and valid. Thus the episco- 
pate, whether it has or has not been for the advantage of 
the communions which possess it, cannot be regarded as 
essential to the Church. With the constant sufficiency of 
Christ for every community of believers there cannot be 


reconciled the theory that it is only by an episcopal or- 
dination that a ministry can be obtained as the channel 
of some specific or exclusive grace for ministry or admin- 
istration of the Sacraments valid for the whole body. 
Christ alone, bound by no historic episcopate or apostolic 
succession in the freedom of His grace, is all-sufficient to 
call to and endue with all needed grace for the ministry 
of the whole Church. 

III. Further, as all believers have freedom of access 
unto God, the whole Christian community is a holy 
priesthood, within which many varied ministries corres- 
ponding to the different gifts of the Spirit may be exer- 
cised. Even those ministries which are representative 
as exercised for the whole community grow out of and 
are rooted in this priesthood of all believers; and there 
must be no claim made for them that would ignore or 
deny that common privilege. 

IV. As we Nonconformists or Free Churchmen in 
England believe that for the progress of the Church un- 
der the guiding of the Spirit it is imperative that the 
view of the Church, its Sacraments, and Ministry, which 
is determined by the Gospel, should become the guiding 
principle of Christian reunion, we must stand fast in the 
liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, in the hope 
that God Himself by His Spirit will teach us and all our 
brethren how the Catholic may yet be reconciled with the 
Protestant view in His full-orbed truth. 

Alfred E. Garvie. 

New College, London. 



Being the Abbreviated Report of a Committee appointed by the 
Federal Council of the Evangelical Free Churches of Eng- 
land and the National Free Church Council 

When the Spirit of the Lord moves a sister Church, oc- 
cupying a great place in this country and extending into 
many parts of the world, to appeal to Christendom on 
the subject of reunion, and when the appeal is made 
with the sincerity and impressiveness of the recent dec- 
laration from Lambeth, such an approach is to be met 
not only with respect, but also with earnest and cordial 
welcome. The subject is a great one, and to-day it 
presses on the hearts and the consciences of Christian 
people as it has never pressed before. The Evangelical 
Free Churches of England share in the sense alike of its 
importance and of its urgency. Moreover, we recognise 
in the Lambeth Appeal a deep and grave concern over 
the evils of disunion, which we also feel. As Free 
Churchmen, we acknowledge that our concern over these 
evils has often been too slight, and we would learn from 
others who have felt it more profoundly. In now ap- 
proaching the consideration of the far-reaching issues 
raised by this communication, we desire to be freed from 
all prejudice, as also from any seeking of ends other 
than those which should be sought in Christ's Church 
and which may serve His Kingdom. We pray that His 
Spirit, who is the Spirit at once of truth and of charity, 
may be our guide. 

It is not necessary to recall in more than the fewest 
words the circumstances out of which the question, in its 
present form, has arisen. The conference of more than 
two hundred and fifty bishops of the Anglican com- 
munion, gathered from all parts of the world, which met 
at Lambeth last July, devoted special attention to the 
subject of the reunion of Christendom. They not only 


deplored the broken fellowship and the unhappy divi- 
sions which so long have crippled the work of Christ's 
Church, as His appointed witness to the world, but de- 
clared that the times call for "a new outlook and new 
measures." " Inspired by the vision and hope of a visi- 
ble unity of the whole Church of Christ on earth," they 
felt themselves called of the Holy Spirit to take a marked 
initial step in order to prepare the way for this manifes- 
tation to the world of our oneness in Christ Jesus our 
Lord. They issued An Appeal to all Christian People; 
and this, during the last six months, has stirred multi- 
tudes of Christian hearts. 

A copy of this Appeal* has, we understand, been sent 
by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the recognized 
authorities of the various Free Churches in England, 
and the subject will doubtless be brought before their 
several assemblies or conferences meeting in the course 
of this year. The Federal Council has no authority, nor 
has it any desire or intention, to frame a direct reply to 
this communication. Each Church will take its own 
course and make its own response. But as all non-epis- 
copal Churches are alike vitally interested in this mat- 
ter, and as the larger non-episcopal Churches in England 
are officially represented in the Free Church Federation, 
the Federal Council, after careful consideration, has 
thought it well that (in conjunction with the National 
Free Church Council) a statement should be issued, for 
the information of the Churches we represent, to recall 
and to express fundamental evangelical principles held 
by us in common, and their bearing on the present issue. 
These principles must determine our attitude to the Ap- 
peal and its practical proposals, and are, in our view, of 
vital importance at a time which may prove to be an 
epoch in the history of Christendom. 

Before entering on this discussion, we would realise 
that the whole matter is more than one between our 

'See The Christian Union Quarterly, October, 1920. 


brethren of other branches of the Church and ourselves. 
It is a matter between all the Churches and their Lord. 
The Church being His Church, it is His mind and His 
will which we must set before us to be our rule and guide. 
We must consult with Him even more than confer with 
each other. We have our various thoughts and plans 
about unity: He Who loves His Church has his own 
thoughts of unity. If we all could learn of Him, we 
should be at one. 

A movement towards union has, it seems to us, three 
stages; and these must be taken in order. There must 
be first of all the right spirit between Churches — the 
spirit that is brotherly and desires union, that is free 
alike from suspicion and from self-seeking, that is both 
penitent and prayerful. In recent years a large measure 
of this spirit has been attained between the conformist 
and non-conformist sections of English Christianity ; and 
it has been increased by the whole tone of the Lambeth 
Appeal and by the courtesy and friendliness of many 
Episcopalian brethren. The second stage is not a scheme 
of practical proposals. That comes third. Prior to that, 
there must be a real agreement on what we may call pos- 
tulates — that is, vital principles regarding the Church, 
and, still more, regarding the Gospel. This second stage 
is, it seems to us, passed over rather slightly in the Lam- 
beth documents. It is of vital principles or postulates 
for which the Evangelical Free Churches stand that we 
must now speak. This is not done in any "denomina- 
tional" spirit; the Appeal itself recognises that all the 
communions concerned inherit what constitutes for them 
a sacred trust. Moreover, that of which we shall chiefly 
speak is not denominational, but simply Christian. 

Our very name implies the positions on which we stand. 
We are Churches — claiming to be, in our corporate ca- 
pacity, parts of the one Holy Catholic Church of Jesus 
Christ. We claim this, and cannot do less than claim it, 
because of our relation with Christ, who is the Head of 


the Body and who has recognised us and used us, not 
merely individually but corporately, for the ends of His 
Church. We are Free Churches — claiming liberty in all 
spiritual affairs that we may be free to listen to and obey 
Him whom we all acknowledge as our only Head. And 
we are Evangelical Free Churches. We use the word in 
no party sense. But there is, we believe, a definite New 
Testament Gospel, and this — which carries with it its 
conception of the Church — we cannot and dare not com- 
promise for the sake even of union itself. This, indeed, 
is our supreme and, in a sense, sole principle, for it con- 
tains the others : the Church is the outcome of the Gospel 
— hence the importance which has always been attached 
by evangelical Churches to "the preaching of the Word" 
— and the Church thus made by the Gospel must be free. 

What then, for us, is the Gospel? And what is the 
bearing of that Gospel on the conception of the Church? 
We desire to answer these questions simply and clearly. 

In the Gospel, Christ is proclaimed as the power and 
the wisdom of God unto salvation. This salvation is es- 
sentially a personal relation of the soul to God — a rela- 
tion which is immediate, and is constituted by grace on 
God's part and by faith on man's. Through this Gospel, 
the Holy Spirit is shed abroad in the hearts of those that 
believe ; and this common possession of the Spirit creates 
a fellowship in which the humblest and loneliest Chris- 
tian is a fellow-citizen with all the saints. This fellow- 
ship, which is the Church, gives visible expression to its 
corporate life in common faith, order, and worship ; and 
to it belongs the vocation of witnessing for Christ and of 
winning the world for Him and thus bringing in the 
Kingdom of God. 

The essentials of the Church are, therefore, in the Gos- 
pel, not in organisation. The former is that by which 
the Church is : the latter is something which the Church 
has — and, of course, the more perfectly she has it, the 
better. We value the organisations and institutions of 


the visible Church, and we seek a conception of the 
Church as large and lofty as the New Testament offers ; 
but we cannot allow any Church order or rite, or even 
the idea of the Church taken by itself, to displace the 
Gospel as the regulative and — under the divine Spirit — 
the creative principle of all ecclesiastical doctrine and 

The position above stated carries with it another. The 
Spirit being given of God to all who receive the Gospel 
of Christ, so that all may thereby have personal, direct, 
and immediate access to God, the primary priesthood in 
Christ's Church is "the priesthood of all believers." But 
within this priesthood there are diversities of functions, 
constituted by differences in the gifts of the Spirit. 
Some of these are personal: some are representative of 
the whole Church. Preeminently representative is the 
ministry of the Word and Sacraments of the Gospel. 

In these ministries, as everywhere and in everything 
that concerns the Church, we lay continual emphasis on 
the immediate and personal agency and sufficiency of 
Jesus Christ. He is not merely the Founder of a society, 
or the Source of a succession, or the Institutor of ordi- 
nances ; but it is He Himself who always brings pardon 
and newness of life and growth and perfecting to His 
people, and who still is to His Church her living Lord 
and present Head. 

It is with this limited and non-controversial purpose 
that we now touch on what seem to us to be the three im- 
portant elements in the Lambeth scheme which need to 
be examined with care in view of the general conceptions 
we have briefly indicated. The matters we shall look at 
are these : 

(1) The Becognition of Churches. 

(2) Episcopal Ordination, as proposed in the scheme. 

(3) The Spiritual Freedom of the Church. 

Other points might easily be suggested; but, for our 


present purpose, it will be sufficient if we refer to each of 
these three. 


The evangelical conception of the Church of Christ, in- 
volving the position that the essential of the Church 
(or of any branch thereof) is in its relation to the 
Gospel and not in anything of outward organisation, 
raises a question which concerns the relation of 
Anglicanism to ourselves and also our relation to others. 

About the recognition or non-recognition on the part 
of Anglicanism of the Churches we represent as, in their 
corporate character, parts of the one Church of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, we have little to say merely on our 
own account. It is to their Master that Churches, as in- 
dividuals, stand or fall. We shall only remark that, in 
our unanimous opinion, without the cordial and practical 
recognition of one another's Church standing, proposals 
for union cannot be carried out and, indeed, can hardly 
with propriety be suggested. 

But it is in respect of our relations with others that 
this question has for us a vital interest. Our members 
are, it must be remembered, in a wider and larger 
Church fellowship than Anglicanism is. The true sign 
of Church fellowship is the communion of the Holy Table. 
A Congregationalist, for example, is in this fellowship 
not only with Congregationalists, but also (because there 
exists mutual recognition) with Baptists, Methodists, 
Presbyterians, and others. An Anglican, for reasons we 
do not here discuss, is not countenanced in seeking this 
wider fellowship; and his fellow-communicants are lim- 
ited to fellow- Anglicans. The result is that when a Con- 
gregationalist passes from his communion to Anglican- 
ism, he passes into a smaller Church fellowship, if he 
were held to cut himself off from his former company of 

This raises for us an issue which is a most practical 
one. Even on a sanguine view, it is hardly to be supposed 


that all, or the greater part, of non-episcopal Christen- 
dom — in, for example, Scotland or America — will enter 
at once within the Lambeth scheme of episcopacy. If we, 
in England, should accept it, would this mean we should 
no longer be in fullest sacramental communion with any 
of those whom we now welcome to our pulpits and with 
whom we join in the celebration of the Lord's Supper! 
If we should not continue to be in such fellowship with 
them, we should be committing schism — and a treacher- 
ous kind of schism — in the very act of union. If we 
should continue to be in such full communion, that would 
mean " recognition.' ' 

What our Churches will desire, therefore, to know is 
this — whether Anglicanism is prepared to recognise non- 
episcopal communions (or any of them) as corporate 
parts of the Church of Christ, and their ministries as 
ministries of Christ's Word and Sacraments. As we read 
the Lambeth Appeal, it logically implies — particularly 
by its recognition of our ministries as "'effective minis- 
tries of grace," and its use of the words "all ministries 
of grace, theirs and ours" — that our communions, like 
episcopal communions, are already parts of the visible 
Church of Christ. But, if this be the correct interpreta- 
tion of the Appeal, it should be made clear that it is so. 

Essentially and ultimately, the question is one of what 
the living Lord, through His Spirit, says of the Churches. 
We, for our part, must recognise Churches and ministries 
which manifestly He recognises : and recognise them not 
merely in a general way as blessed of Him, but as 
Churches and as ministries of the Word and Sacraments 
of the Gospel if He does so. We find it quite compatible 
with this to adhere firmly to what Ave may believe to be 
true and scriptural polity, and to decline to treat with 
indifference what may seem to us to be erroneous or de- 
fective in other systems. But the mind of Christ, ex- 
pressed through the action of His Spirit, must be the 
Church's guiding rule in this question of recognition as 


in any other. For this reason, we must not be asked to 
take any step which would prevent or hamper our con- 
tinued recognition of sister-Churches with which we are 
at present in sacramental fellowship. We desire to say 
no word which would make agreement here difficult. But 
we are certain that the Churches which we represent will 
require a perfectly clear understanding on this most 
practical issue of recognition — alike of ourselves on the 
part of Anglicanism, and of others by a reunited Church 
— and we trust that the answer may be made unmistak- 
able by being given in word and in act. 


A second issue, which is raised for us in the Lambeth 
scheme, concerns episcopacy, especially in connection 
with ordination. 

Of episcopacy as a form of ecclesiastical polity we 
need say only a word. We have indicated that our view 
of the Gospel and of the Church keeps us from regarding 
any one form of polity as essential in the Church Catholic 
or in any true part of it. We hold — as leading Anglican 
scholars also hold — that no one form of polity for the 
Church has been prescribed by the Lord. For this very 
reason we are the more free to consider what form may 
be shown to us by the leading of the Spirit as expedient 
for a reunited Church, and we, therefore, have an open 
mind towards episcopal order as towards any other. To 
this, however, we must add that we cannot be expected to 
consider any form of polity which claims to be an ex- 
clusive channel of grace or which fails to recognise the 
place and the rights of the Christian people in the af- 
fairs of the Church. 

These are points, however, into which we need not at 
present enter further. The question which calls for spe- 
cial examination arises over the proposal of " episcopal 
ordination. ' ' 

We venture to draw attention to one point. The pro- 


posal to make episcopal ordination of ministers who have 
not received it a part of a scheme of union is in direct 
opposition to the considered decision of the resolutions 
of the Mansfield Conference of 1920.* That Conference 
definitely put aside the suggestion of episcopal ordina- 
tion (which was made to it by an episcopal member), 
and substituted the declaration that any mutual author- 
isation was to be ' 'not re-ordination. • ' We, of course, at- 
tach undue authority to this declaration: but it was 
signed by a number of representative Free Churchmen 
(as well as by many Anglicans), and there can be little 
question that it represents the practically unanimous 
Free Church view. We feel, therefore, that the obliga- 
tion rests on those who set episcopal ordination — partic- 
ularly in its Anglican form, which is not accepted by the 
majority of Episcopalians — in the forefront of a scheme 
of union, to bring forward exceptionally cogent grounds 
for doing so, if they are to win the support of the Free 

In the Lambeth scheme episcopal ordination is intro- 
duced as an element in a scheme of mutual ministerial 
recognition. Its significance and purport in this connec- 
tion are not quite clear to us. When it is proposed that 
episcopalian clergy should be authorised to officiate in 
Free Churches through "a form of commission or recog- 
nition" which would "commend" their ministry to these 
congregations, and that Free Church ministers should 
be authorised to officiate in Anglican congregations by 
"a commission through episcopal ordination," what is 
meant by this last crucial phrase! Is it meant that our 
ministers should be made "ministers in the Church of 
God," as the ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer 
phrases it ? Or is it meant that, being already * * ministers 
in the Church of God," they are to be formally admitted 
and authorised to minister within the Church of England ! 
If the former be the meaning, we obviously are thrown 

*See The Christian Union Quarterly, January, 1920. 


back again on the question of recognition. We should 
not be asked to accept any form which carries, or which 
could be construed to carry, this interpretation. If, on 
the other hand, the latter meaning be what is proposed, 
then certainly ordination is not the requisite or appropri- 
ate ceremony or word. Ordination to minister Christ's 
Word and Sacraments is a general thing, to be given 
once for all ; license to exercise it in any district or com- 
munion is a particular thing which may, of course, be 
extended. But the two things are different in idea. We 
are of opinion that the ambiguity here should be cleared 
up. It is possible, indeed, that we may be told that it is 
better not to press for its being cleared up, and that the 
meaning may be left to various, even contrary, construc- 
tions. This does not commend itself to us either intel- 
lectually or ethically. To begin to' build a union in the 
Church of Christ on a conscious ambiguity is not, it 
seems to us, to build in God's name and in God's way. 
Whether the Free Churches may find themselves able to 
accept this proposal of "commission through episcopal 
ordination" or not, they can hardly be expected to accept 
it — and they certainly should not accept it — without 
knowing quite clearly what it means. 

We do not think it necessary or expedient to pursue 
these issues further. We shall add that the whole ques- 
tion about episcopacy, especially about the indispensable- 
ness of episcopal ordination, will never be settled by 
either side appealing merely to its ecclesiastical tradi- 
tion. Nor, we must remark, can it be approached (as the 
Lambeth Appeal at this point suggests) merely by "the 
way of mutual deference to one another's consciences." 
This may be the right and Christian course in many 
secondary matters ; but it cannot be made a guiding prin- 
ciple for large issues in Christ's Church. If it had been 
so regarded at the Council of Jerusalem, then St. Paul 
should have deferred to the doubtless often conscientious 
demands of the Judaizers. Our appeal must be to the 


Lord of all our consciences, and to His Spirit whose mind 
is to be discerned from what He does. We declare our 
readiness alike to learn and — what is more difficult — to 
unlearn, according to what He manifests to be His will 
as His Spirit works among the Churches. 


The third matter which seems to require mention as 
arising out of our principles concerning the Gospel and 
the Church is the spiritual freedom of the Church of 

In general terms, what we mean by the spiritual free- 
dom of the Church is this. It is to the corporate life 
of the Christian Church what freedom of conscience is 
to the Christian man. The Christian man claims liberty 
of conscience in matters of religious faith and moral duty 
that he may learn of and obey his Lord. In the same 
way, the Church must be free in matters of religious faith 
and moral duty to learn of and to obey the Lord, who is 
still living and present in her midst. This is the mean- 
ing of the spiritual freedom of the Church ; and it arises 
directly out of the principles regarding the Gospel and 
the Church which we have, in the previous section, laid 

The Lambeth scheme suggests questions which concern 
this freedom in two main respects. One is the matter of 
the relation of the Church to the creeds ; the other is the 
relation of the Church to the State. 

With regard to the former, we believe that there need 
be little difficulty. We recognise that the reunited 
Church will require some common declaration of faith, 
not to be used as a test, but to be a testimony and witness 
to the Lord and the Gospel. Here we fully realise the 
value of the ancient creeds. The Federal Council of the 
Evangelical Free Churches has, in its published Declara- 
tory Statement of Common Faith and Practice, said that 
these Churches " claim and cherish their place as in- 


heritors, along with others, of the historic faith of Chris- 
tendom, which found expression in the oecumenical creeds 
of the early and undivided Church. ' ' We are convinced, 
therefore, that Free Churchmen generally would be able 
to give as " whole-hearted' ' an acceptance to the Chris- 
tian faith underlying these creeds as do their Anglican 
brethren ; while, as to the Nicene creed in particular, such 
Free Churchmen as are acquainted with the history of 
doctrinal development in the fourth century can recog- 
nise in it " a sufficient statement of the Christian faith' 9 
expressed in the terms of the thought of that age. While, 
however, recognising all this, we are concerned also to 
maintain that truth is ever learning new language, so that 
terms and modes of thought grow old, and, when they 
have grown old, easily misinterpret and mislead. While 
reverencing the traditions of the past, we must keep our 
minds free to learn of the Holy Spirit, who continues to 
guide the Church in truth as in duty, and who we believe, 
has yet more light to break forth from His Word. 

As regards the bearing of the question of spiritual 
freedom on the relations between the Church and State, 
all that it is necessary to say here is that the Lambeth 
proposals for reunion no less than our principles con- 
cerning the Gospel and the Church imply great changes 
in these relations in England. These need not be dis- 
cussed at this stage. It is enough if we say that Free 
Churchmen cannot be asked to consent that the civil 
power — which, within its own sphere, is called to be the 
servant of God — has any authority over the spiritual af- 
fairs of the Church; or, further, to accept any position 
which would involve injustice or violate the rights of 

We close what we say on the subject of freedom with 
a word of agreement. We heartily welcome the inten- 
tion, evident in the Lambeth proposals, that ample lib- 
erty should be preserved with regard to forms of worship 
and much else which is distinctive of different i i groups. ' f 


(This liberty would extend to the practice of some 
amongst us as regards the subjects of Baptism.) We be- 
lieve that in a reunited Church such liberty would vin- 
dicate itself, and that the forms of worship and service 
eventually surviving would be those approved by the 
Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ as most suited to the 
fullest life of His Body, the Church. 

In thus calling attention to the above issues as, in our 
judgment, important for any candid and adequate con- 
sideration of the Lambeth proposals, we must again state 
that we are addressing our own people, not entering into 
controversy with others. Further, even where our re- 
marks are negative in form — as necessarily they must 
be in part, if the scheme is to be tested by what we hold 
as the New Testament view of the Gospel and the Church 
— still, we hope that our positive motive is not only pres- 
ent but apparent. The spirit should be more than the 
letter; and the spirit of the Lambeth Appeal is such a 
new thing in the relations of conformist to non-conform- 
ist Christianity in our Land that we must not lose sight 
of it even in the necessary scrutiny of details. If the 
right spirit prevails among us all, it may lead us through 
difficulties which at present seem impassable and may 
bring into view new proposals not yet upon the horizon. 
It is with this aim, and certainly with no intention of 
closing any doors, that we have made the comments 
which we have felt it our duty to make on certain points 
which we think the Free Churches must, in faithfulness 
to their principles, carefully consider, and, if we have 
spoken of these with frankness, may we add that we 
would be the first to recognise that there are also points 
which our Anglican brethren must, in faithfulness to 
their principles, consider not less carefully, and we hope 
they will state these not less frankly! 

The Lambeth Appeal has set before us a " vision. ' ' It is 
that of "a Church, genuinely catholic, loyal to all truth, 
and gathering into its fellowship all who profess and call 


themselves Christian, within whose visible unity all the 
treasures of faith and order, bequeathed as a heritage of 
the past to the present, shall be possessed in common 
and made serviceable to the whole Body of Christ." In 
this great and lofty conception, we share with profound 
sympathy; and we recognise in the appeal to seek its 
realisation the accents of our Lord's voice which we can- 
not disregard. In saying this, we, of course, are not to 
be held as committing ourselves to any particular form 
of corporate union. But that all who name the Name of 
Christ should be united — and that visibly — is a Christian 
ideal, which we would pursue with all who will seek with 
us to learn and carry out His will regarding it. 

This so great end cannot be attained except under the 
guidance of God's Holy Spirit. Along what lines the 
Spirit may ultimately lead the Churches, we cannot de- 
termine, and at present do not presume even to antici- 
pate. But such steps as are clear and immediate we are 
called on to take at once. Our vision implies it, for an 
ideal ceases to be an ideal if nothing can be done to- 
wards its realisation. The hope of the future involves 
the duty of the present. In these first steps, even though 
they may seem small, we must be guided, not by our own 
ecclesiastical predilections, but by what the Holy Spirit 
seems to indicate and countenance. We must refer 
everything about union — even the simplest steps — seri- 
ously and earnestly to Him. We therefore ask ourselves 
this question — What are the things which the Lord is 
making clear to us as our present duty in the relation- 
ships between the Churches, and in doing which we 
should be following what, through the action of the Spirit, 
He Himself seems to do? May we answer this question 
out of our own experience and the experience of the 
Churches to which we belong? 

First, we have been finding more and more — largely 
through the "interchange of pulpits" — how the various 
communions of the Evangelical Free Churches are at one 


with each other in the Gospel of our common Lord and 
Saviour. Secondly, from the consciousness of the pos- 
session of the same Gospel, we have been led naturally 
and inevitably to " inter-communion" — to that supreme 
expression and seal of the Gospel in the Sacrament 
which manifests the unity of Christians with one an- 
other as well as their oneness with Him. And, thirdly, 
from this Christian fellowship in Word and in Sacra- 
ment, we have been led and are continually being led 
farther into the unity of service, and even towards cor- 
porate unity. The Kingdom of God at home and, still 
more, in foreign mission fields has known new life and 
power as the outcome of the measure of Christian fellow- 
ship to which we have attained by these simple and ob- 
vious steps in which God has guided us. Union itself 
has, in many places, assumed a practicability and even 
urgency which, in earlier times and before these steps 
were taken, seemed impossible. 

We ask — Is it not possible that God would have a wider 
measure of such intercourse in the Word and Sacrament 
of the Gospel and in the work of the Gospel in order to 
open the way to further unity and even to union, and to 
the more effectual service of His Kingdom? May He 
not be calling us to stand together in these things at 
once, that we may learn together in the fellowship of His 
Spirit thus created, what may be His will as to questions 
regarding the character and constitution of a reunited 
Church! Our observation is that the manifest action of 
His Spirit sanctions these steps, and our experience is 
that His blessing accompanies them. We believe that if 
to the readiness for evangelical and sacramental fellow- 
ship which the Free Churches have shown were added 
the sense of the value of visible unity which the Lambeth 
Appeal has so impressively presented, that would be a 
combination the possibilities of which for the cause of 
reunion, under God's blessing, are incalculable. Is this 
combination not attainable in England to-day 1 


In an editorial in The Christian Century, Chicago, Dr. 
C. C. Morrison says, 

We are all aware, some vividly, some vaguely — all except the eccelsias- 
tical tinkerers and engineers — that we have passed into a new dispen- 
sation, a new world of thought and value, and that our problem is noth- 
ing less than to create fresh and vital categories for our faith, a new 
and richer organism for our fellowship, novel and workable instruments 
for our common labors, and noble and meaningful modes for our wor- 
ship. We are in a creative dispensation. All things are becoming new. 
The mood of the time simply will not allow us patiently to re-thread 
the labyrinthine ways of ecclesiastical history in the hope of finding 
Christian unity. The solution of our problem is not there. We assert 
this not because we scorn history, but because we know history. It is 
because we of this generation have mastered history that we refuse now 
to be its slave. It is history herself that has freed us from the fu- 
tilities of the past and has ushered us into the presence of those crea- 
tive forces that are symbolized by our modern knowledge of society, 
of the human personality and of the universe itself. 

This is no philistine or nihilistic attitude toward the past. It is no 
foolish iconoclasm toward ancient institutions. It is the very contrary 
of all such destructive and blind revolutionism. It would keep the past. 
It would not let "one accent of the Holy Ghost' ' be lost. It would 
break no single thread or filament of continuity. It would venerate 
the past, but it would not be smothered by it. Its creative activity 
would be in large part an interpretative activity. It would translate 
ancient creeds and institutions into modern terms before it began a dis- 
cussion of them as a basis of union. It would ask, not, What did the 
Fathers think the Church was? or, What did our denominational found- 
ers think of the Church? but, What as a matter of fact do we of to- 
day know the Church to be? This way of asking our question makes all 
the difference in the world in our discussions and our conferences. For 
a great ideal has come upon the horizon which the fathers did not descry 
as we have descried it, and it is coloring and determining all our think- 
ing about the Church. 

That ideal is the Kingdom of God as conceived by Jesus. The Church 
is the instrument of the Kingdom of God. It is a social, human, ob- 
jective institution, definable sociologically, just as the family and the 
state are definable. It is here for definable purposes, and its structural 
elements and activities must submit to the functional tests with which 
we measure every social institution. It is out of this conception of the 
Church that the movement for Christian unity has chiefly arisen. It 
is back to this basis that the discussion must be carried. In carrying 
the discussion back to this basic conception of the Church we need 
have no fear that we shall be sacrificing those venerable and inspir- 
ing categories of a visible and an invisible Church, of a mystical body 
of Christ, or of a spiritual instituton against whch the gates of hell 
shall not prevail. All these historic ideals are implicit in the social 
ideal, but the social ideal is a basis of fruitful conference and discus- 
sion in terms in which men of to-day actually are thinking, while the 
historic ecclesiastical categories lead to endless disputation when they 
are taken as the point of departure in discussion. 


History — and this is the gist of the matter — has failed to give us 
unity. Why bother her further? Why seek the living among the dead? 
Unity is a present, urgent duty. Why wait until ecclesiastical con- 
ferences allow us to practice it? Why not let the dead past bury its 
own dead, while we rise up and follow Christ? 

Dr. F. D. Kershner in The Christian-Evangelist , St. 
Louis, Says, 

Mr. II. G. Wells in his recently published ' ' Outlines of History ' ' has 
given a graphic picture of the proceedings of the Nicene Council. He 
shows us Constantine who, although not a member of the Church, pre- 
sided over the proceedings, seated on his golden throne and listening 
to the fiery contentions of the bishops with interest, although plainly 
without the slightest intellectual apprehension of what the squabbling 
was all about. The meeting was indeed turbulent. Certain of the dele- 
gates indulged in fisticuffs and when Arius rose to speak a number of 
his opponents stuffed their fingers in their ears and even ran out of the 
building in order that they might not hear the dangerous pronounce- 
ments of the arch-heretic. There was considerable difference of opinion 
on the part of the Church leaders. Athanasius and his party finally 
won out but Arius was left with a considerable following. Constantine 
himself took the part of the heterodox presbyter when his enemies at- 
tempted to outlaw him and required his reinstatement. The Roman 
Emperor knew next to nothing about theology and cared less. His 
interest in Arius arose simply from his desire to harmonize all factions, 
and the fact that the Arians commanded his attention shows that they 
possessed no little influence in the empire. 

The idea that there is something peculiarly sacred or divine about 
the result of the Nicene deliberations is not borne out by a candid ex- 
amination of the history of the period. The age was one of speculation 
as well as one of political diplomacy. The Christianity which took its 
start from Nicea was something altogether different from the Chris- 
tianity of Peter and James and Paul. After Nicea, the Church pro- 
ceeded rapidly on her pathway to political imperialism. 

The question now before Christians of all creeds and classes is whether 
we want to go back to Nicea as a starting point for union or whether 
we want to go back to Jerusalem. The two propositions involve two 
radically different conceptions of the Church. If we are to have union 
by way of Nicea, it will mean that many of the most progressive and 
forward-looking advocates of the Christian religion will be forced outside 
of the fold of the united Church. Whatever our orthodox churchmen 
may think about the matter, the theology of Nicea possesses an anti- 
quarian flavor which is out of touch with our modern age. Nobody 
objects to individual tolerance of the finely spun Trinitarian formulae 
which characterize the Nicene symbol. The idea of requiring these out 
of date spculations of No-Platonic Alxandrianism as essentials of sal- 
vation, however, harmonizes neither with the modern nor with the 
New Testament conception of the Church of Christ. 

The union which may come by way of Nicea will not be Christian 
union. It will be a certain type of ecclesiastical unity which may pre- 
serve the dry bones of orthodoxy, but which will miss its inner con- 
tent. Moreover, it will alienate still further that increasingly large 
group of what may be styled " semi-Christians " who believe in the 
ideals of Jesus but who have no patience with ecclesiastical domina- 
tion. This group includes some of the most self-sacrificing and devout 
men and women of our age. These people, or most of them, will be 


glad to get together on the doctrinal basis involved in Peter's con- 
fession of Jesus as the Christ; but they will not accept the Nicene 
formulae of 325 A. D., as binding on their conscience and thought. 

Rev. E. C. Herrick, Pastor First Baptist Church, Fall 
River, Mass., said recently in the Boston Transcript, 

At the present time, there is a great unrecognized yearning through- 
out the world that these old and open wounds in the body of Christ 
may be healed. Since the war, there has been a constant procession 
of conferences and conventions in the interest of Church unity. There 
have been extraordinary pronouncements in favor of it, like the World 
Conference on Faith and Order in Geneva and the deliverance of 
the Lambeth Conference of bishops. There has been almost no end 
of printed articles and books on this subject, and in religious circles, 
especially in continental Europe, there is a discussion of it everywhere, 
we are told. The desire is not confined to one or even a few com- 
munions. You will recall that that gracious and memorable visit of 
Cardinal Mercier to our country was a revelation, as surprising as it 
was beautiful, of this suppressed longing in the hearts both of Cath- 
olics and Protestants. 

We cannot, of course, fail to realize that there is also a spirit of 
reaction against Church unity. The spirit of nationalism, which is so 
rampant politically just now, is paralleled by a spirit of narrow sec- 
tarian, un-Christlike denominationalism. But just as down underneath 
there is a real drawing together of the nations in the interests of inter- 
national peace and justice, so there is underneath a drawing together 
of the great Christian bodies. It is in the hearts of people and not 
in the newspaper headlines, and, whatever happens, it can never be 

Of course we realize there are tremendous obstacles in the pathway 
of any real advance. These can be largely included under two 
heads — the inheritance of history and diversity of human nature. Most 
of us, who are' — as we ought to be — intensely loyal to our own par- 
ticular Church, are apt to feel as if we were almost responsible for 
starting it, but we all know that the history of the Church, like every- 
thing else, is marred by human mistakes. In our great zeal for our 
particular Church organization we sometimes think we are defending 
the faith once delivered to the saints, when as a matter of fact we 
are defending the mistakes once imposed upon the saints. If we 
could leave it to the saints, themselves, there would be nothing to it, 
but unfortunately, the real saints get mighty little hearing sometimes 
save at the Throne of Grace. When a real saint, for instance, is made 
a cardinal, like Mercier or our own American Gibbons, it is heard to 
escape the conviction that there must have been an accident or an 
interposition of Providence. 

Human diversity is an obstacle and always will be as long as unity 
is thought of as artificial and hierarchal. This human diversity is 
everywhere except in the graveyards. Among Protestants, it is un- 
conceded, often over and even super developed. Among Catholics, it is 
sometimes concealed and temporarily suppressed. Some like forms and 
some do not, some are dogmatic and some are not. Some are cathedral 
worshippers and some meeting-house worshippers. Some are mystical 
and some are practical ; some are high, some are low. Some are ' ' post ' ' 
and some are ' ' pre. ' ' 

There are two things that are gaining constant and wider recogni- 
tion in the Christian world, and both are hopeful. First, there can be 


no Church reunion that does not recognize to the fullest the principle 
of religious freedom. That is above all else — what America, inter- 
preted religiously, means. You can see the thought of mankind mov- 
ing toward religious freedom like an Arctic iceberg drifting toward the 
great warm currents of the ocean. It is irresistible — this movement 
toward religious freedom. In that direction and in no other lies unity. 
The coming Church must be a Church of democracy, a Church of the 
people, for the people, and by the people, and to the glory of God. 

The other growing conviction is that there can be no real and effec- 
tive unity that does not recognize all the branches of the Vine that 
have been cherished for generations and sustained by unmeasured sacri- 
fices. It must mean rather that each Church will bring its own con- 
tribution to the larger and richer Church of us all. This conviction, 
especially in the Protestant world, is gaining rapid ground. 

In his plea for a new creed the Archbishop of Uppsala, 
in a recent address in London before the Anglo-Swedish 
Society, said. 

The Church and congregation of Christ in all countries is called upon 
through the gospel of brotherhood to inspire the cooperative life of 
the nations with the spirit of love and to unite them. The Church 
must mean unyielding opposition to, and separation from, the spirit 
of worldliness and selfishness. But, unfortunately, the word, Church, 
too often rather denotes a frontier against religious communities, and 
against other nations, instead of uniting upright Christian hearts with- 
in all nations. We ought, therefore, not to speak of the Church of 
England, or of the Church of Sweden, or of the Methodist, or Roman 
Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian Churches, but we should al- 
ways speak of the Church in the singular, that is, of the one con- 
gregation of Christ's disciples: the Church in England, in Sweden, 
In Scotland, in Germany, and so forth, including all who desire earnest- 
ly to serve the Kingdom of God. 

At the present time there is another division that is more mo- 
mentous even than the mutual opposition of nations. It runs through 
every nation and country, and threatens our whole civilisation. It is 
due to the economic and social situation. In the Gospel, our Saviour 
says much about mammon. Should not the Christian Church as such 
have a clear and powerful programme in connection with the recon- 
struction of society? 

In solving these two problems, brotherhood between the peoples, 
and social and economic justice, there is great need of zeal and sacri- 
fice. There is a very dangerous lack of clear thinking on these mat- 
ters, and such lack of clear views may either provide an excuse for 
selfish indifference or lead to rash and ill-considered action. 

I hesitate to speak about the united life and work of the Church 
of Christ in this classical country of the idea of Church union, where 
British Christianity, with its distinct history and character, has fo- 
cussed the fundamental tendencies of the Church, and where, especially 
beneath the pressure of war, the idea of reunion has been promoted 
in a way beyond all expectation. There have been many exhortations 
to unity, but last summer the great bell was sounded. Surely, all 
Christendom must be profoundly stirred in mind and heart by the 
deeply earnest appeal from Lambeth, originating so palpably in the 
moving of the Holy Spirit, and marked by the unselfish sinking of 
private views and differences. 


What we need is a new confession of faith. I do not mean an altera- 
tion of, or addition to, the Church 's historic confessions of faith, but 
a clear expression of the teaching of Christ and our Christian duty 
with regard to the brotherhood of the nations and the fundamental 
moral laws for the shaping of society. Just as, in the past, the enun- 
ciation of dogmas was preceded by eager discussion and profound in- 
vestigation, so in our time, too, the enunciation of the definite doc- 
trines that we need to move us on and guide us is being prepared, not 
least in Great Britain, by the investigations and reflections of indi- 
vidual Christians and the joint efforts of larger and smaller groups. 
And just as certain parts of the historic creeds are paradoxical ex- 
pressions of ideas that Christianity must proclaim, even if human 
thought cannot quite penetrate and systematise them, so, perhaps, 
Christianity's new creed of supranational brotherhood and Christian 
principles for social and economic life must stop at clearly conceived 
propositions and sacred tasks, without being able to combine them into 
a logical unity. But our duty is clear, I do not think we can be, or 
ought to be, content with anything less. 

I have just spoken of the Church as of one Holy Catholic Church 
throughout the whole world. While waiting for this unity to be 
brought about, as far as it is necessary, in matters of Faith and Order, 
let us, according to the exhortation in the Report of the Archbishops' 
Fifth Committee of Inquiry of 1918, "begin at once to act together 
as if we were one body in one visible fellowship. ' ' 

For this purpose we need a common organ, an (Ecumenical Council 
which ought to be constituted as soon as possible, and in which British 
Christendom in general and the Church of England in particular should 
have a central place. As long as I can speak and act, I shall stand 
for this new creed of Christianity, advocate such a programme for 
common preaching and action, and work for a representative Body 
to act as an organ for corporate practical effort. God haste the day 
when our vision shall be realised! 

In The Spectator, London, Lord Hugh Cecil says, 

Let me sketch the course which I should like to see the movement 
for reunion take. I do not desire what is called home reunion if by 
that is meant reunion limited to the subjects of King George V. On 
the contrary, I think reunion so limited would be actually mischievous. 
For, in my view, the Church of England (and, if I may judge from 
outside, the Church of Scotland also) is already excessively national- 
ist. I fear that if all or most British subjects were united in a single 
communion which did not comprise foreigners as well, ecclesiastical senti- 
ment would reinforce national pride and we should become drunk 
with the same horrible intoxication that induced some Germans to 
speak of their "good German God." The Jewish nationality is quite 
as respectable as the British; and St. Paul did not fight a life-long 
battle against judaizing the Christian Church in order that we should 
brittannicize it nowadays. I dread nationalism in religion, and I 
am glad to think that in this I have the sympathy of many Free 
Churchmen. But if foreigners are to be included, what foreigners? 
Plainly Rome is out of the question at present. The rulers of the 
Roman Church do not, I think, even desire corporate reunion, whieh 
must be fatal to ultramontanism. But, apart from Rome, there are the 
orthodox Churches of the East, there are the old Catholics, and the 
Scandinavian Church and the Danish Church, and perhaps some other 
bodies of Christians, in addition to the great body of American Meth- 
odists. I should like an effort to be made to unite these various Christ 


tian communities with the Church of England and the Presbyterians 
and Methodists of Great Britain. And I would postpone the question 
of the ministry until it had become clear whether the difficulty about 
holy orders was or was not the only obstacle to reunion between these 
bodies. I fear it would be found that there are other obstacles. But if the 
controversy about the ministry alone blocked the way, I would have 
it removed by all the Protestant Christian communions, including the 
Church of England, soliciting conditional ordination from the Ortho- 
dox bishops. By such ordination two great objects would be gained: 
First, the bishops of the Church of England would set, as it is fitting 
they should, an example of humility and charity to their Protestant 
brethren. Secondly, the question of the ministry would be finally dis- 
posed of and it would be out of the way whenever it should become 
possible to attempt the ultimate reunion with the Romans. Frankly, 
I do not sympathize with or understand reluctance, whether among 
Anglicans or Presbyterians, to accept conditional ordination. What 
harm could it do? Can anyone suppose that it would be unpleasing 
to the Holy Ghost! — which is, after all, the only question we ought 
to care about. Can anyone deny that we ought to do whatever is not 
sinful to promote reunion? Or can anyone maintain that conditional 
ordination would be sinful? Reluctance to accept it whether among 
Anglicans or Presbyterians seems to me quite indefensible; it is unreason- 
able, uncharitable, stubborn. 

At a meeting of Free Catholics and Eoman Catholics 
in London Father Leslie Walker, S. J., and Eev. W. G. 
Peck, a United Methodist and a member of the Society 
of Free Catholics, spoke on "My Vision of a United 
Church." The Challenge gives the following report of 
the meeting: 

Father Walker and Mr. Peck were in agreement as to the necessity 
of one united Church, though, for Father Walker, this ideal was already 
realised, while to Mr. Peck, all Churches seemed to have such marks of 
failure upon them, that it was impossible to identify any one of them 
with the voice of Christ. Father Walker maintained that our Lord did 
not preach Christianity, at least, as a complete system. He only attended 
to the moral way; the mysteries of the Kingdom were to follow when 
the disciples began to preach under the influence of the Holy Spirit. 
There had certainly been development in the Catholic Church, but it was 
development along the line our Lord Himself designed. Unless there 
was some special channel through which the Holy Ghost could speak, man 
would not be able to discern which of the spirits which spoke to him was 
the Spirit of God. 

If the Church was to make any progress against the fearful moral ills 
of the times, there must be one head; even the war showed the importance 
of unity of command. The great thing that those who were not Roman 
Catholics could do was to preach the Catholic faith, though they must not 
be surprised that one result of this would be that people would begin to 
cross over to the Church that had maintained that faith. He felt that this 
was all that non-Romans could do, and it was for this reason that he wel- 
comed the work of Dr. Orchard and others. 

Mr. Peck lamented the fact that definite proposals for reunion seem 
only to succeed in widening the breach, and held that the Church might 
never again be great until there had fallen upon her some scourging sor- 
row. The present state of Christian organization could not continue, for 


it was manifestly a betrayal of Christ and a mockery of the City of God. 
If there was already in the world one Church that did seem equal to face 
the crisis, the only thing those not in that Church could do was to get 
absorbed into the victorious type. But he did not feel that there was 
any existing embodiment of Christian faith which he would wish to see as 
its sole embodiment. He was a sort of Methodist, but if he thought there 
was any chance of Methodism providing the one Church of the future, 
he would go mad. The Free Churches were not only without any theory 
of reunion, they were without any theory of themselves. At the very 
time when Dr. Meyer was protesting that Free Churchmen could not 
admit that their ministers were not truly ordained, Mr. Peck said that 
he was sitting in a conference of Free Church ministers where it was 
being declared that there were no Orders in the Christian Church. Their 
moral influence was to-day negligible. From the age of brimstone they 
had passed into the age of treacle. 

Yet Rome seemed to have obtained her unity at too great a cost, for she 
had been ready to buy it at the price of moral effectiveness. If papal 
authority was just a legal fiction, it was a pity to let it remain the bete 
noire of all dreams of reunion. But, if it was a reality, what was to 
be said of the spectacle of Italian and Austrian Catholics assailing one 
another with poison gas at the command of some military or financial 
patriotism? What was the good of an authority only big enough to 
boast of having suppressed modernism, but not big enough to save Catholics 
from being enslaved by modern devildom? There would be little difficulty 
with Quakers or Salvationists when the Mass had become the sign of 
supernatural friendship, the Church's daily declaration against war and 
strife. When the Church was able to call her people out of international 
wars and out of economic strife, the world would begin to believe in her 
claims, for what was the good of being a supernatural society unless you 
could do something supernaturally courageous and good? 

In closing the proceedings, Dr. Orchard pleaded for penitence from 
both sides. The Roman Catholics must acknowledge that the Reformation 
would not have come about without its efficient cause, while Protestants 
must see that, in their endeavour to reform abuses, they had begun to 
throw away the faith. The Lord, disbelieving in divorce, would never 
forsake His Bride, fitful and wayward though she might be. 

Eev. John A. Hutton in The British Weekly, London, 


Undoubtedly there is a danger to the public interest from such vast 
co-ordinations and concentrations of human power and against such dangers 
society will always have to safeguard itself — so I am not blind to the 
dangers that may threaten the great world-interest and kingdom of Cod 
from the very bulk and mass and prestige and possible tyranny which 
would result from the union of the religious forces of the world. The 
danger of a religious tyranny or monopoly is perhaps not so great in 
modern conditions, if for no other reason than this, that in the long run 
the power of such a co-ordinated Church would continue to rest as it does 
to-day upon the cordial and free assent of human beings. Of course, once 
again in history the secular authority might tempt this powerful spiritual 
corporation as in the days of Constantino to enter a compact — the one 
to support the other. In which case we should have a repetition of the 
history of Europe from the fourth century until these present days. But 
that is at the worst a shadowy possibility, though indeed a possibility 
which shallow people in our own day, who have allowed themselves to sup- 
pose that religion is an exploded force, are apt most foolishly not even 
so much as to imagine. 


The Christian Unity Foundation, of New York, has established a 
lectureship on Christian Unity, giving a series of lectures every spring 
in the Brick Presbyterian Church, New York, by distinguished persons of 
various communions. The series of 1920 has appeared under the title ' * The 
Problem of Christian Unity " by various writers (Macmillan). There are 
seven. "Can a Divided Church Meet the Challenge of the Present World 
Crisis?" is discussed by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, who sees the necessity of 
being "more intent upon making the Church the alter ego of her Lord 
than upon the sectional interests which have too often monopolized our 
thought and energy.' ' He recognizes other outlets than sermons for the 
life of the Church and sees the value of the mystical blending of things 
seen and unseen in the Christian system, instructing us that the Awful 
Being raised above the sphere of sense is not beyond the reach of sensory 
perceptions. Bishop Thomas J. Garland, of Philadelphia, discusses "Steps 
Toward Organic Unity: The Present Situation." He sees that objections 
center largely in differences as to governments and order and he discusses 
five important conferences held in Canada, Australia, South Africa, England 
and the United States. He says, ' l The steps taken in the past fifteen years 
have clearly manifested an unsuspected agreement in the essentials of the 
faith — the historical investigation of our differences have shown that there 
is no valid reason to-day for our continued separation; in all our Churches 
there is a growing ''will to unity.' The present situation in the world's 
crises demands that we nail our colors to the mast, arouse the members of our 
respective Churches, and resolve 'not merely to promote, but to secure re- 
union '. ' ' 

Under "Causes Leading Up to Disunity" Dr. A. C. McGiffert discusses 
the result of the Gnostic controversy, the division between the East and the 
West in 1054, and the divisions between Catholics and Protestants in the six- 
teenth century. Concluding he says J 

"First, it should be noticed that the causes leading to disunity are by 
no means identical with the causes that keep Churches divided. The for- 
mer might be wholly removed and yet reunion not be accomplished. After 
division has taken place all sorts of new situations emerge. Men become 
attached to the body within which they were born and to which they belong. 
Habits of mind, family affections, traditional loyalties, love of accustomed 
ways — many influences keep Churches apart, which had nothing to do with 
parting them. 

"Another remark I sholud like to make is this. As a rule the reasons 
for disunion given by the Churches themselves are far from accurate. 
Commonly in the creeds and other official documents of the various bodies 
concerned the situation is described in a way quite foreign to the real 
facets. Take for instance the illustration that I gave of the justification of 
the schism between East and West by an appeal to a verbal difference in 
their respective creeds. No one could get at the real cause of that schism 
by studying the official ecclesiastical documents. Similarly with the creeds 
produced as a result of the Reformation — the Augsburg Confession, the 


Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, the Westminster Confession, 
the Thirty-nine Articles, and the like. None of them reveals the secret 
of the break except in part. They contain statements of the faith of the 
particular body which they represent and in that faith there is much, and 
it is well that there is, in which they all agree both old and new. And 
where their statements disagree, often there is least real difference. In 
fact almost the last place to go for the reasons that have led to the divisions 
of Christendom is the confessions of faith of the various sects. 

"One more and final remark. Of all the causes that have led to dis- 
unity the belief in infallible truth, which one must know in order to be 
saved, has been the most potent. Whether it be sound belief or a salutary 
belief it is not my place to discuss here. But I may be permitted to eall 
attention to the fact that it has been without question the one most fruitful 
cause of division. If, as I have already said, the belief in infallible truth 
be conjoined to the belief in an infallible interpreter, it may not cause 
division, it may on the contrary bind men more closely together; but di- 
vorced therefrom it has proved the most prolific of all the causes of dis- 
unity. If the Church as a whole should ever abandon that belief, unity 
would be possible even with the widest diversity of opinion, or if the 
Church while retaining the belief could in some way secure universal agree- 
ment as to what the truth is, unity might equally be maintained. But so 
long as the belief persists without universal recognition of an infallible 
interpreter competent to enforce agreement, disunion I suppose may be 
expected in the future as in the past. " 

Six obstacles are named by Bishop W. F. McDowell under "Obstacles in 
the Way. " These are (1) lack of definition, (2) ecclesiastical inertia, (3) 
doubt of the advantage of one ecclesiastical union, (4) lack of a large 
motive, (5) lack of a satisfactory plan, and (6) difficulty of reversing a 
historical process. And, says the Bishop, "It is because Christ is in His 
Church and in His Churches that the obstacles to Christ's purpose can be 
overcome. ' ' 

Nowhere have there been larger attainments in the spirit of coopera- 
tion and unity than on the foreign missionary field, and Dr. Eobert E. 
Speer presents obvious considerations why this should be so, as follows: 
the magnitude of the task, the needs of the non-Christian people, the sim- 
plicity of the missionary aim, the occidental character of our divisions, and 
our fundamental agreements. But beyond this he raises the question, What 
is the degree and measure and kind of Christian cooperation and unity for 
which these considerations call? And to this question he answers that it 
is that cooperation and unity which will render impossible all rivalry 
and waste and that which will secure, in addition, cooperation and united 
action. He then discusses the cooperation and unity which have already 
been achieved on the foreign missionary field, emphasizing the abolition 
of party names, the adoption of the policy of distribution of the forces, 
the development of confidence and cooperation, the practice of prayer and 
the achievements in actual unity which have gone in advance of the work 
in the home land. He further says: 

' ' And not only are we to-day learning from foreign missions the methods 
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 disunity, out of which we have not emerged, make us ashamed of our 


divergence? The one great need of the world to-day is unity. The central 
principle of Christianity is unity. The fundamental element of all life 
is unity. How can we, in the Christian Church, obscure or qualify that 
principle by our divisions ?" 

"The Mind of the Master' ' is the ideal to which all turn. Dr. Henry 
Sloane Coffin begins in his discussion of this theme with the statement 
that "possibly we may say that the earliest name given to the Christian 
Church was 'The Fellowship ■' and all that it recorded concerning the 
life in Jerusalem seems designed to accentuate and inspire and increase 
that sense of fellowship." Again he says, "Jesus did not give His dis- 
ciples a set of doctrines. He gave them a Spirit." He cites four fac- 
tors: historical — clearing the ground; social — increasing the need; ex- 
perimental — removing the terror due to misunderstanding and practically 
forcing the necessity of some organization of the fellowship for construc- 
tive service upon us, and he asks, ' ' Are not these factors in the mind of 
the Master for our own day?" 

The closing chapter is by Bishop Ethelbert Talbot, entitled "The Next 
Step," and he says: 

"Church unity can never come until the spirit of Christian unity has 
become so strong as to be irresistible. By Christian unity we mean that 
strong bond of union between disciples of our Lord that enables us to rec- 
ognize His claim upon our allegiance as absolutely preeminent. The very 
core of the heart of Christianity is love for Jesus Christ. In the past it 
has often been too true that we have been adherents of a system, lovers 
of an institution, devotees of our particular Church or theological school 
of thought, members of a party, or believers in a religion primarily when 
we ought to be first of all, and perhaps in some ways last of all, lovers of 
a Person. ' ' 

Bishop Talbot regards the next step in Christian unity to be endeavors 
to unite the various Evangelical Churches and he cites the plan proposed 
by the American Council, which had its origin in the Presbyterian Church, 
and the concordat, created by a joint conference between a group of 
Congregationalists and a group of Episcopalians. He treats at length 
both of these movements. 

Each chapter is a worthy contribution to the problem of organic union 
and the whole book is a healthy and up-to-date volume, remarkably sug- 
gestive and comprehensive. The Christian Unity Foundation had a sim- 
ilar course in 1921. This will appear in book form later. All such books 
as these help to a clearer understanding of the difficulties that lie in the 
way of a united Christendom. 

One of the sad chapters in wholesale massacre is told in the Yale 
Oriental Series — Researches — Volume VII, entitled "The Lebanon in Tur- 
moil — Syria and the Powers in 1860" (Yale Press). It is a translation 
of a work called ' ' The Marvels of the Times Concerning the Massacres in 
the Arab Country" by Iskander Ibn Yaq'ub Abkarius. The translator is 
Dr. J. F. Scheltema, who writes the introduction and conclusion. Iskander 


reveals himself as a Christian and from his account their calamity was 
largely, if not wholly, of their own making. The twenty-nine officially 
recognized religious sects, the pretentions of the clergy and political trick- 
ery, instigated by European Powers, led to the unspeakable massacres 
of the Christians in the Semitic Orient. The Druzes, adherents to another 
creed, becoming alarmed at the intentions of the Christians, particularly 
the Maronites, repaid them in their own coin, and a tremor of indignation 
went throughout Europe. It is a powerful lesson of the rivalries of Chris- 
tian denominations and the explosions of religious hate, revealing, as has 
so frequently been the case in massacres and persecutions of Christians, 
that Christianity had been deserted for political and personal interests 
under the cover of the religion of the Christ. The book is of merit in 
that the story is told by one who, himself a Christian, was conversant with 
all conditions and was a witness to much that transpired. The Tale Press 
has done a real service in presenting this volume in its Oriental Series. 

" Dedicated to all those working in faith and love throughout the world 
for Christian unity," is the dedicatory sentence on the opening page of the 
handsome volume entitled " South Slav Monuments" (11x15 inches), this 
volume being devoted to the Serbian Orthodox Church, edited by Michael 
J. Pupin, Ph.D., Professor of Columbia University, with introduction by 
Sir Thomas Graham Jackson, Bart. (John Murray, London). It abounds 
in beautiful pictures and a most interesting historical narrative that perhaps 
will come as a gratifying surprize to English readers. Associated with this 
is another interesting volume entitled ''Early Bulgarian Art" (9^x12% 
inches), by Professor Dr. Bogdan D. Filow, Director of the National 
Museum in Sophia (Paul Haupt, Berne), likewise profusely illustrated. 
Both serve as a charming introduction to Church architecture in the Balkan 
territory, especially in Serbia and Bulgaria. 

The eighteen sermons in Dr. W. L. Watkinson's latest book entitled 
"The Shepherd of the Sea" (Eevell) will be interesting, especially to 
those who are troubled about reconciling religion and science. With 
fascinating and convincing power he brings a wealth of scientific findings 
to interpret the Scriptures. It is both refreshing and satisfying. It is 
beautiful in style and devotional in spirit. 

In the January Quarterly "Christian Unity: Its Principles and Pos- 
sibilities" (Association Press) was reviewed under the title "Next Steps 
Toward Church Union" (Association Press). The confusion occurred by 
reviewing the book in its proof pages. Before the last reading by the com- 
mittee it was decided to change the title from the original proof pages 
to the title it now bears. It is a book of great merit and ought to be in 
the library of every minister and Christian worker. 

Another book of the same type is "The Churches Allied for Common 


Tasks, ' ' being a report of the third quadrennium of the Federal Couneil of 
the Churches of Christ in America, edited by Samuel McCrea Cavert 
(Federal Council). The full reports of the commissions and the list of 
delegates are contained in its 419 pages. 

The Constructive Quarterly, New York, for March carried six interesting 
articles dealing directly on Christian unity — " Reunion: A New Outlook 
and a New Program/ ' by Bishop Edwin James Palmer, Bombay, India; 
"The Lambeth Ideal of Unity,' ' by Bishop Philip M. Rhinelander, D.D., 
Philadelphia, Pa.; "The Lambeth Conference and Its Appeal,' ' by the 
Most Rev. C. F. D'Arcy, Archbishop of Armagh; "Unity, Reunion and 
the Lambeth Appeal/ ' by Canon Oliver C. Quick, Newcastle Cathedral, 
England; "The Ideal of One World-Wide Christian Church,' ' by Leslie 
J. Walker, S.J., M.A., Campion Hall, Oxford, England; "Church Con- 
solidation in America," by Frederick D. Kershner, M.A., LL.D., Drake 
University, Des Moines, Iowa, and "Lambeth and Reunion, and After," by 
Eugene Stock, D.C.L., secretary of the Church Missionary Society, London. 

Some recent articles of merit dealing with Christian unity are "The 
Perilous Pursuit of Unity," by Rev. Frederick S. Penfold, D.D., in the 
April number of The American Church Monthly, also in the May number of 
the same magazine "The Greek Church and the Anglican Question," by 
Rev. Frank Gavin, Th.D. In The Challenge, London, of April 29, 1921, is 
an artiele entitled "The Ministry of the Church of England: Priestly or 
Prophetic?" by Rev. R. Meiklejohn, B.D., LL.B., and several correspondents 
make protests in succeeding numbers of that journal, one saying, "If you 
make room for an article of this kind, it is surely waste of effort to plead 
editorially for ' Reunion within the Church'." In The Christian WorTc, 
New York, of April 23, 1921, is a strong editorial by Rev. Frederick Lynch, 
D.D., entitled "Some Obstacles to Christian Unity" and in the same 
journal of May 21, 1921, an article entitled "The Contribution of Presby- 
terians to Christian Unity," by Professor William Adams Brown, D.D., 
"The Historic Causes of Disunion in the Church," by Rev. James M. 
Wilson, D.D., canon of Worcester, is made the subject of two papers ap- 
pearing in The Guardian, London, of March 25th and April 1st, 1921. An 
interesting pamphlet is that of the Continuation Committee on the World 
Conference on Faith and Order under the title "Compilation of Proposals 
for Christian Unity," containing proposals as expressed in the Lambeth 
Appeal of 1920, the Eastern Orthodox Church at Geneva of the same year, 
etc. It may be obtained by writing to the secretary, Robert H. Gardiner, 
Gardiner, Me. 

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 irenie 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 alj 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. XI NO. 2 

fe God gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. " 




^JHHIS journal is the organ of no party oilier 
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 tliat, 
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, 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 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.' V — 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 speak with Freedom for itself in these Pages as to 
what Offering it has to bring to the Altar of 'Reconciliation. 

Vol. XL OCTOBER, 1921 No. 2 



EUROPE • 89 

By Professor Adolph Deissmann, D.D., University of Berlin, 
Berlin, Germany. 


By Rev. Seth W. Gilkey, D.D., Minister United Presbyterian 
Church, Bridgeport, Ohio. 

ENCE 122 

By Rev. Professor R. E. Welsh, D.D., Convener of the Committee 
of the Presbytery of Montreal. 


By Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., General Theological Seminary, 
New York City. 



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. 

The Universal Week of Prayer January 1-7, 1922. For prayer topics write 
World's Evangelical Alliance, 19 Russell Square, London, W. C, 1. 

Meeting of the World Conference on Faith and Order. Date and place 
unannounced. Robert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Me., secretary. 

Meeting of the Universal Conference of the Church of Christ on Life and 
Work, perhaps in 1922 or 1923. Archbishop of Uppsala, president; Rev. 
Henry A. Atkinson, 70 Fifth Ave., New York City, secretary. 


(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. 8. A.) 

[Prayer for the union of the Christian Churches which was read in 
the Bulgarian Churches on the eve of Pentecost and will be read on 
other appropriate occasions with the blessing of the Holy Synod of the 
Bulgarian Orthodox Church.] 

O Lord, Jesus Christ, who like our everlasting Father art without be- 
ginning and coeternal like Him, Thou who for us men and for our 
salvation, hast come down upon this earth, hast been spat upon and 
slapped, hast suffered the cross and death; Thou who with Thy blood 
shed upon the cross, hast established Thy Church over a rock of pure 
worship; Thou who hast strengthened it with the grace of Thy Holy 
Spirit and hast adorned it with all celestial gifts so that we who are 
sailing on the sea of life and are overwhelmed by the storms of different 
evils may live in it righteously in this century as in a ship which 
is indestructible and may reach eternal rest which is Thine eternal 
Kingdom; Thou who hast commanded to all who believe in Thee to be 
in one body as Thou art in the Father and the Father in Thee so that 
all of us may be one in faith, worship, love and in performance of 
righteous deeds. 

But on account of the envoy of the evil one and the vain wisdom, 
insufficient faith, and unbelief of men, false doctrines have appeared as 
well as heresies, sects, strifes and dissensions and many have fallen 
(from the One love and have become as enemies one to another. During 
the last days the whole earth has been filled with terror, troubles, un- 
godliness, evil deeds and murders. Enemies have risen with fury against 
truth and against Thy Holy Church. We recognize, O God, that our 
strength against the enemies who have risen against us lies in this: 
To be one with Thee as Thou art with the Father. For this reason we 
have always offered prayers in our Church for the union of all mankind, 
and now we glorify Thee for having so graciously looked down upon 
our prayers so that in all nations who confess Thy name has risen the 
Spirit of brotherly love and zeal for smoothing the discords and hatreds 
and for the union of all the Churches. 

"We confess Thy goodness, we glorify Thy Majesty, and we pray Thee 
with humility, as on the day of the Pentecost, to send Thy Holy Spirit 
upon all of us; strengthen with His Almighty Grace those who are 
anticipating the union of Thy Holy Churches; extinguish the troubles 
raised by the pagans, and the guile of those who are benighted by un- 
belief; destroy and uproot their audacity, turn them through the divine 
light of Thy knowledge of God to Thy saving Truth, and gather all 
those who confess Thy Holy Name in one Holy Apostolic Church, so 
that we may with one heart glorify, praise, extol and magnify Thy most 
Holy and Glorious Name and the Name of Thy Father and of the life- 
giving Spirit, now, for ever and in all eternity. Amen. 


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. 


Bishop of Manchester, 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, 1921 


By Rev. H. O. Pritchard, LL.D., Secretary of Dis- 
ciples Board of Education, Indianapolis, Ind. 

By Rev. Rockland T. Homans, D.D., Rector Grace 
Episcopal Church, Jamaica, N. Y. 


By Rev. Alfred E. Garvie, D.D., Principal New 
College, University of London. 

PEAL 54 





/jft LORD, save us from pride of our 
personal opinions and the party 
pride of our own communions. Grant 
us the light to so shine upon others that 
we may see the good in them as thine 
eyes beholdest. Then we shall seek for 
the paths of our common walk whence 
we shall meet Thee in Thy ministries to 
all alike, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. 


The indifference of the Christian church toward 
crime and immorality springs from its lack of unity. 
If Christians were united in their love of one an- 
other, as members of Christ's body, instead of ask- 
ing each time "To what denomination does he 
belong?" if only the one great query was "What 
think ye of Christ?" then all these evils would be 
rapidly purged out of our midst, for no public sen- 
timent could long stand up against a united Chris- 
tendom. This requires no argument for it is com- 
monly acknowledged. Such unity would mean the 
election of only decent men to office, and at once a 
chief source of our troubles would be at an end. If 
we were but one in our desire to exalt the person of 
Christ as the Son of God, our risen and living Sav- 
iour, and our Advocate on High, then we would go 
forward like one man in the accomplishment of 
right. Such a oneness depends upon the doing away 
with all denominational names and divisive atti- 
tudes. We are not looking for a sort of a legal con- 
cordat, such as Gladstone tried to bring about with 
the Pope. No, by no means; I can enjoy the very 
union Christ had in His heart when He prayed, if I 
at once purge out of my heart all the spirit of de- 
nominationalism, and love all Christians for what 
they manifest for Christ, and if I see only Him in 
them. Henceforth names mean nothing to me but 
only the image of Christ. — Dr. Howard A. Kelly, Bal- 
timore, Bid. 


SO long as the Church is satisfied to 
remain divided, each party contending 
that its theological declarations are in- 
fallibly right, it shows to the world that 
we are more deeply concerned about 
theological opinions than about the will 
of Christ in ourselves and those about 
us. A divided Church cannot represent 
Christ except in part, neither can the 
world be saved except by a whole Christ. 
How long will theology hold the supreme 
place over religion in the minds of 
Church leaders? The paths to unity 
are social rather than theological. 


(Translated from the German by Rev. Dr. Julius Hofmann, 
Baltimore, Md.) 

The World War marks an epoch in the history of the 
Church. Viewed from the standpoint of the Church its 
most important results doubtless are: A tremendous 
weakening of world-Protestantism by mutual suicidal 
laceration of its principal peoples which appears to be 
continued to this day in the oppression by England of 
German missionary work, and by the actual intense mu- 
tual distrust among the Protestant Churches, and on the 
other hand the great strengthening of the moral and 
political authority of the pope. 

Weakened as it is, world-Protestantism in all nations, 
especially, however, in its Germanic and Anglo-Saxon 
groups, is confronted by a nihilism and indifferentism 
that have hugely increased through the war and in some 
countries now by legislature is aiming at the very founda- 
tions of Christian education and is about to reduce or 
abolish the freedom of the Churches. 

This being the situation, there seem to result two prin- 
cipal issues as to the Protestant Churches, viz. : Spirit- 
ually — new birth from within; and materially — consoli- 
dation in an organization which crosses the boundaries 
of the provincial or territorial Churches and those of 
nations and states. 

While thinking people in all Churches everywhere for 
some time past fully realized both problems, it is perhaps 
more the former than the latter that has been considered 
by us in Europe at least. There, more than in America, 
the sense of the necessity of ecumenical Christian rela- 
tions has been disturbed by a war interfering in a more 
direct and brutal manner with the life of our soul. 


Notwithstanding this, even with ns the urgent need of 
consolidation and the necessity of ecumenical solidarity 
begin to be realized with an increasing intensity. In the 
following I wish to emphasize two facts, two events of 
last year which, though concerning Church union in the 
realm of two nations only, certainly mean a step in the 
way to an ecumenical corpus evangelicum. 

In order that the canvas may not lack the shadow, I 
shall add a third section which will show the tearing 
asunder by the brutal force of the state of a Church union 
that in the past had proved to be a blessing. 

The Coming Deutsche Evangelische KircJienbund* 

In the beginning of September, 1919, the foundation for 
a union of all German evangelical Churches was laid at 
the city of Dresden. A Church Congress (Kirchentag) 
composed of delegates from all Geramn territorial and 
provincial Churches and of prominent personages had 
prepared the foundation of a federation of the German 
Churches. The obliteration of the summepiscopate of 
the German princes by the German revolution in Novem- 
ber, 1918, necessitated the reorganization of our German 
Church. The abolition of the institution of the summ- 
episcopate, though venerable to many, it being an out- 
growth of the Reformation, yet created a situation which 
favored Church independence of the Church from the 
State, and accordingly was felt a great progress by the 
vast majority of German Christians. The Congress of 
Dresden was inspired by the new and great possibilities 
offered in this situation. 

*The Federation of the German Evangelical Churches. — German technical terms in 
this article preferably remain untranslated. The meaning of the most important ones 
is given here: Landeskirchen are Churches in the different states of Germany, or 
in the provinces of these states (not, as is often Englished State Churches,). 
Kirchentag: Church congress. KircJienbund: Federation of the Churches. Reichs- 
kirche: Empire Church. Kirchenkonferenz: Conference of the Church leaders. 
Kirchenausschuss: Committee of the Churches. Volkskirche: a complicated term, 
perhaps best translated: National Church. Freikirche: Free Church. 


With no little expectations I went to Dresden, yet the 
event excelled them. The spirit of this great German 
Church parliament (parliament, however, for the time 
being not in the judicial, forensic meaning of the term) 
showed the mighty impact of the commotions of these last 
years ; but not to its disadvantage. An increased brother- 
liness among those who otherwise were divided as to 
their religions viewpoints, dogmatic formulas and Church 
usages, a profound understanding of the great psychic 
necessities in these distressful days of our nation, and 
the universal joyful satisfaction offered by the possibili- 
ties of spontaneous constructive work, and responsibility 
now left to individual initiative — these were the powers 
that, in spite of occasional relapses in small synodal 
squabble, kept the Congress on its lofty height ; and be- 
sides one could recover breath at the services in the 
Churches and the spiritual music offered therein. 

Two culmination points of the Congress may be 
pointed out : The debate of the question how to treat the 
religious minorities, and the resolution unanimously 
arrived at, which, spoken in the manner of men, gave to 
the Bund the safe foundation long wished for by the best 
of us. The transactions concerning the religious minor- 
ities were carried on with most sincere and profound 
fraternity. The result of the deliberations on the Kirch- 
enbund is represented by the following articles, their 
ecumenical spirit being especially manifest in III A. 1, 
4 and 5. 

Kirchentag and Kirchenbund 

I. The Kirchentag opens the way for a Federation of 
Land e shir chen. The Federation is to effect a most thor- 
ough linking together of the German evangelical terri- 
torial Churches, and to bring about the advancement of 
German Protestantism in general, in all its branches and 
domains, acting as the representative of German Protes- 
tant interests. There is no thought of a Reichskirche 


(Empire-Church). The Federation fulfils its duties 
while respecting the independence and the creeds of the 
units in its realm. 

II. Until the Kirchenbund be in force, the German 
Evangelical Church Congress (KircJientag) shall con- 
tinue the work of the German Evangelical Church Con- 
ference (Deutsche Evangelische Kirchenhonferenz) which 
is governed by the fundamental principles laid down 

(a) at the opening of the Conference in 1851, viz. : "Dis- 
cussion of important questions of Church life in 
free exchange of opinion on the basis of creed. 
Without detracting from the autonomy of each 
Church body a union will thus be created and the 
uniform development of conditions will be en- 
hanced ; ' ' 

(b) at the constitution of the German Evangelical 
Church Committee (Deutscher EvangeliscJier 
KircJienausscJiuss) in 1903, viz. : It acts as the rep- 
resentative and promoter of common evangelical 
Church interests. 

These principles the Church Congress (KircJientag) 
extends and completes in that it purports the furthering 
and deepening of the Church life and of the religion of 
evangelical Germany, in their entirety. 

III. The problems which the Congress is to solve at 
this very hour may be divided in immediate and implicit 
problems. As to the former, the decisions of the Con- 
gress at once shall be valid. 

On the other hand it will be the implicit task of the 
Congress to advance the uniform development of the 
LandesMrchen into autonomous and free V olkskirchen 
by means of suggestions as to their own decisions and to 
further the free activity of individual Church work or- 

New problems, the solution of which neither was in 
the sphere of competence of the LandesMrchen, nor can 


be attacked at all by them, and also such problems as the 
Landeskirchen may assign to it, may be trusted to the 
Congress with the latter 's definite competence. 

A. Matters immediately and exclusively within the 
competence of the Kirclientag : 

1. Supernational representation of evangelical Ger- 
many and both the reservation and the ecumenical 
recognition of the religious and ethical tenets of the 
evangelical Church of the German Reformation. 

2. Representation of evangelical Germany and her 
provincial and territorial Churches over against the 
German Empire, its legislation and administration. 

3. Representation of evangelical Germany over against 
the individual states at the suggestion of the Church 
of the respective territory. 

4. Representation of evangelical Germany at other 
German or non-German religious bodies. 

5. Administration of and assistance to the spiritual 
care for the evangelical Germans outside of Ger- 
many in harmony with the Landeskirche or free or- 
ganization in question. 

B. Implicit competences of the Kirclientag: 

1. Advancement of uniform development of the Lan- 
deskirchen, with special reference to 

(a) the constitution and all the grades and branches 
of congregational and synodal organization, 

(b) the keeping of the German evangelical body na- 
tional within the Church, 

(c) the interior and exterior safeguarding of the 
ministers and officers of the Church, 

(d) the development of the spiritual functions (pro- 
tection of Christian and legal holidays, worship, 
and clerical functions), 

(e) religious education in all the grades of all 
schools and the professional training of the new 


generation of theologians by the theological 
faculties of the universities, 

(f) the Church's share in Christian charities and in 
matters social, 

(g) the economic state of the possessions of 
Churches and congregations and titles as far as 
taxation is concerned, 

(h) spiritual care of public institutions for prison- 
ers, for the abandoned, the sick, the orphans, etc. 
2. Advancement of the activities of foreign and home 
missions and of the People's Public Mission, and of 
all movements aiming at a deeper understanding of 
the Scriptures and the winning over and penetra- 
tion of the evangelical people with the powers of the 
The election of fifteen extraordinary members of the 
Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchenausschuss (Committee 
of German Evangelical Churches) is provided by section 
4, which, however, I do not print here. The election took 
place immediately with the following result, viz. : mem- 
bers : Lie. Carola Barth, Frankfurt a. M. ; Behrens, Ber- 
lin; Dr. Berner, Berlin; Pastor Fischer, Berlin; Dr. 
Ihmels, Leipzig; Dr. Kahl, Berlin; Dr. Kochelcke, 
Schwelm ; Pastor Michaelis, Bielefeld ; Dr. v. Pachmann, 
Miinchen; Dr. Philipps, Berlin; Dr. Schreiber, Berlin; 
Dr. Schoell, Stuttgart; Dr. Titius, Gottingen; Winckler, 
Salsitz; Dr. Zoellner, Minister. Alternates: Kektor 
Adams, Barmen; Tischendorfer, Berlin; Dr. Kendtorff, 
Leipzig; Frey, Karlsruhe; Pastor Bernbeck, Okarben; 
Dr. Scholz, Berlin ; Pastor Wolff, Aachen ; Paula Muller, 
Hannover; Dr. Oehlkers, Hannover; O.-Reg.-Ret. Hoff- 
mann, Konigsberg; Dr. Schian, Giessen; Dr. Everling, 
Berlin; Dr. Baumgarten, Kiel; Dr. Schimmelpfennig, 
Breslau ; Haccius, Hannover. 

To whomsoever these names be familiar will readily 
agree that in more than one way they reflect the truly 


modern spirit open to the stern facts of reality that per- 
meated the meeting. It may be especially worthy of 
mention that a Christian woman was elected member of 
a governing ecclesiastical body. 

Dr. Titius's address was a mighty profession to the Una 
Lancta, Owing to a happy innovation by the experienced 
organizers of the meeting, both main sessions were 
opened with a lecture by a leading theologian. Dr. 
Ihmels, Leipzig, spoke on ' ' Evangelical Faith as a Source 
of Strength in the Present ;" Dr. Titius, Gottingen, on 
"Evangelical Christianity as an Element of Culture.' ' 
Both contributions did not call for a discussion, nor were 
they intended to express the sense of the meeting. Yet 
both were great manifestations and had the nature of a 
programme. Dr. Titius 's task was especially difficult 
when he touched upon the international situation both of 
Germany politically and of German Christendom. But 
at this station he was fearlessly carried away by the 
mighty evangelical pathos of his powerful personality. 
Would that his credo might find an echo across the boun- 
daries of our land ! 

"To us Christians also our country is more than our 
life. Yet even more than country or nation means for us is 
the ruling supreme of eternal justice and love. God may 
shatter the very nations which prove no longer capable 
of being bearers of Life Spiritual which He had kindled 
in them. God sorely has afflicted us, but He not as yet 
has destroyed us. He broke the imperial power, our 
pride and joy, and now places us on a long arduous, 
boundless Calvary. We are prepared to tread it, know- 
ing that the ways He intends for us are ways of grace and 
blessing; nevertheless, we whose arms kept the world at 
bay now are to learn how to walk through a world in 
arms, ourselves unarmed. We who were conquered by 
hollow words of justice, liberty and happiness to be real- 
ized in a future League of Nations are to be taught to 
believe that these words ever will be capable of becoming 
truth. Be it as it may, for that ! We German Christians 
shall mortify all thoughts of revenge, and shall, since 


God wills it thus, bury the ideal of military power. We 
honestly shall stand for the League of Nations; of our 
own free will choosing for our most sublime task whatso- 
ever the ruling of God has forced upon us through our 
own history. Who will deny that here too an exalted 
ideal and a most precious duty beckon us? Germany 
through centuries, did she not owe her highest renown to 
her heroes of the soul, not to generals and princes? If 
justice and love have proved such power even where they 
were but mere words, how mighty will they be, backed 
up by the living reality of a mighty people, such as the 
German ! If in truth it should be God ? s will to lead the 
world into a new epoch of a genuine community of na- 
tions, and if it should be Germany's task to realize that 
ideal, its attainment would not be bought at too high a 
price with the downfall of our nation. 

"But our own being ready and being of good will can 
be of no avail without the good will of the world. I there- 
fore turn to the millions of Christians, especially of Prot- 
estant Christians among the nations that fought against 
us, and charge them : The Protestants of Germany to-day, 
as ever, are the people of the Eef ormation, and mean to 
show themselves worthy of their fathers. Be ye truly 
seekers of peace, and we shall clasp the tendered hand 
and do our best to fulfil our duties even if they are hard. 
Only do not allow the instrument of peace to be turned 
into a man-trap and a rack ! As true as there is a living 
God, no one will believe without penalty that he can keep 
a nation like the German for ever without arms and in 
servitude! He who enslaves others disgraces himself! 
Give back to us therefore the brave brethren forthwith, 
who still wither away under your scourge. Our people 
have made superhuman efforts and undergone super- 
human sufferings ; they are entitled to their pride even if 
they were denied the wished for success. It is most un- 
worthy, to be sure, that Germans should be found now 
who besmirch that which hitherto we worshiped as genu- 
ine greatness ; but it is not any less unworthy that other 
nations deny to the German nation that honor and re- 
spect which are due them. The true Christian ever will 
ponder over his sin and confess it openly, and in this 
confession we German Christians, yea the German peo- 


pie shall not be found wanting. But it is far more scan- 
dalous to force a confession of sin upon another man 
when he has a good conscience, and there is nothing more 
absurd than to condemn a man under a law which is not 
his, and to make him a martyr whom his own law does 
not reprove. Protestants, Christians, men of good will 
in all nations, into your hand are delivered the crown of 
mankind, humanity, peace and culture. Help us to save 
these precious goods ! Trust and be trusted ! Without 
mutual confidence and common labor the nations are 
bound to perdition. By furnishing the basis for that con- 
fidence our evangelical faith to-day is making an un- 
rivaled contribution towards the preservation and ad- 
vancement of world culture. ' ' 

It is a matter of course, and it is pardonable, that espe- 
cially when the speaker spoke of the League of Nations, 
reminding us of that caricature of Versailles, part of the 
gathering did not suppress its opposition. Notwithstand- 
ing, the confession of the Gottingen professor will ever 
have its mighty support in the ideal dear to every Chris- 
tian of the ' ' real ' ' League of Nations, the sister of ' ' real ' ' 
peace though not identical with it. 


The Schiveizerische Evangelische Kirchenbund* 

While the Union of the German Evangelical Churches, 
however excellently prepared, still is not officially con- 
stituted as yet — the work of constitution in the individual 
Churches being unfinished — in Switzerland the consol- 
idation of the evangelical Churches was completed a few 
months ago. 

On the 7th of September, 1920, this exceedingly im- 
portant event took place. The fifteen Swiss Protestant 
Churches, formerly but very loosely connected in "The 
Swiss Conference of Churches,'' have entered upon a 
closer union in the "Federation of the Swiss Evangelical 

^The Federation of the Swiss Evangelical Churches. 


Churches' ' {Schweizerischer Evangelischer Kirchen- 
bund.) Its constitution was definitely adopted, and a 
board of seven members was elected with Professor Dr. 
Hadorn (Bern), president, and Pastor Adolf Keller 
(Zurich), secretary. The other members are: District 
Schoolmaster Ammann (Zofingen), Concellor, Dr. Baum- 
gartner (St. Gall), Professor Dr. Boehringer (Basel), 
Professor Fornerod (Lausanne), Pastor Ferrier (Gen- 
eva), Dean Herold (Winterthur). 

Thus the spirit of evangelical union which in these our 
times mightily is marching through the Christian world 
has been creating an organ for itself, destined to fulfil an 
exalted mission in this new era of ours. Evangelical 
Germany will never forget that among its first resolu- 
tions the Kirchenbund passed one inaugurating the re- 
lief work for the suffering Churches of other lands, par- 
ticularly their charities. Being engaged in a huge 
enterprise of consolidation ourselves, we in Germany 
shall follow the development of the Swiss Evangelical 
Kirchenbund with our brotherly wishes. 

An article by A. K.,* appearing in the Neue Zurcher 
Zeitung of September 12, 1920, reflects the opinion of 
Swiss Protestantism on the new foundation: 

"Particularism in Swiss Protestantism has outlived 
particularism in the Swiss body political. The Churches 
of the cantons were absolutely independent from one an- 
other, and there existed hardly an inner organic connec- 
tion between them. It was strictly speaking their com- 
mon past only that united all the Churches, for the com- 
mon hymn book, the examination concordat, and the 
several collective undertakings of the Churches did not 
even have the power to unite all Swiss Landeshirchen. 
There was but one loose bond which in the last decades 
united the Swiss Landeshirchen of the Swiss Church Con- 
ference (Kirchenhonferenz). Its decrees, however, did 
not find the single Church bodies, and therefore one could 
not say that there existed an organization proper. In the 

*Most likely Adolf Keller, the acting secretary of the Kirchenbund himself. 


development of the Swiss Church the Conference, never- 
theless, will play a prominent role, by forming the basis 
for common deliberations and common work, upon which 
the greater union may be established. 

" Then the consolidation of the Swiss Churches into a 
Schweizerischer Evangelischer Kirchenbund, this greater 
union, has been realized at this writing. The consolida- 
tion was brought about by several factors. First among 
them we note the presence of a strong, inner, spiritual 
feeling of solidarity, resulting from the common inheri- 
tance of the Swiss Keformation. But there were also 
practical reasons at work, given by common problems to 
be solved in common, and intensified by the intense shift- 
ing of the evangelical population in our times. A strong 
motif also may be found in the movement for union which 
actually pervades the whole evangelical world. In the 
past such a consolidation was rendered difficult much less 
by the great variety and complexity of constitutions and 
creeds or by the peculiar religious life of the single 
Churches than by the sharply divided State Churches and 
by that genuine Swiss individualism which had produced 
and preserved a mass of original ecclesiastic formations. 
The cantonal Churches are to be united in the new Kirch- 
enbund, founded at Otten a short time ago. It is to com- 
bine the independence of its members with the great ad- 
vantages of coordination, at any rate of a homogeneous 
activity. Nothing of the existing individuality, or of the 
peculiar life of the various bodies that make up the union, 
will be sacrificed, but their strength is to be concentrated, 
and their contact will be intensified. First of all, the 
Bund represents the Evangelical Landeskirchen of the 
cantons and their respective diaspora. But other reli- 
gious bodies also, particularly the cantonal Freikirchen 
(Free Churches) ; the newly formed Diaspora-units and 
other free religious associations may join this greater 
evangelical union with which common interests unite 
them. In Eomance Switzerland the rapprochement of 
Free Churches and Landeskirchen and other free reli- 
gious associations had made considerable progress at a 
time before the foundation of the Bund. There existed, 
in most of the Eomance cantons, interchurch committees 
and other associations like the Joumees Protestantes, 


trying again and again to gather the evangelical people 
on the basis of the common cause. In German Switzer- 
land only the initial steps for such an interchurch rap- 
prochement had been made. But it was in the city of 
Zurich that they met with extended approval and there 
they surely will progress in the future. The time when 
the Churches and associations had excess strength which 
they consumed in combating one another may be deemed 
definitely passed. These times of ours command adapta- 
tion, concentration, brotherly communion. 

"As to its constitution, the Bund will be represented 
by a convention of delegates and a board of seven mem- 
bers with a secretariate. There seemed to be no other 
form of consolidation possible but that of a federation, 
if independence and individuality of the members should 
be guaranteed. The Bund, by the way, is not an out- 
growth of confessional or denominational antagonism 
but of great inner evangelical necessities. The Bund 
also represents its members in matters common to them 
in the transactions with the state authorities. In a given 
case and in questions pertaining hither the authorities of 
the Swiss Confederation in all probability will be just as 
willing to deal with a central organization representing 
Swiss Protestantism as with the Nunzius, in whose per- 
son the Catholic interests in Switzerland are united — if 
the principle of religious equality is to be upheld at all. 
Not a small part of the business of the board will be the 
upkeeping of the newly established relations to the 
Churches of other countries and the vigorous support of 
the union tendencies that during this very summer have 
made so much progress in our own country. Within the 
Church as within society the barriers of past centuries 
are breaking down. In new times there are new duties. 
One of the greatest duties of modern Protestantism is 
concentration of power and creation of a real com- 
munion. ' ' 


The Destruction of Church Union in Poland 

During August, 1920, there were gathered together in 
St. Beatenberg, Switzerland, nigh unto one hundred and 
fifty Church leaders from twenty-three countries of the 


Orient, the Occident and the New World, among them also 
the editor of this Quarterly; delegates of The World Al- 
liance for Promoting International Friendship Through 
the Churches (Weltbund fur Freundschaftsarbeit der 
Kirchen), gathered for the purpose of discussing in 
brotherly fashion the international exigencies created by 
the war and left unsolved for the present day. This im- 
portant gathering among other things was concerned 
with the problem of the minorities in the Polish State. 
The problem was treated with good will and sympathetic 
understanding, showing that it is impossible to call it the 
private affair of a handful of wearisome fault-finders, but 
that rather it is a European, a world problem. 

Before the conference a prominent jurist placed for 
consideration a detailed account of most urgent distress- 
ful conditions. His communication I shall quote at sev- 
eral places in the following: 

In the eastern territory, as far as it is ceded to Poland, 
there are living 1,300,000 Germans with 1,860,000 Poles. 
Of these Germans not quite 1,100,000 are of the evangeli- 
cal, 180,000 of the Catholic confession; 30,000 to 40,000 
are Jews. To this large minority in its totality the peace 
of Versailles, in article 93, guaranteed protection, the 
meaning of the article obviously being no other than that 
it should comprise the national, ethnical (language) and 
religious interests of that group as a whole. Conse- 
quently in the treaty made June 28, 1919, between the 
allied and associated powers and Poland, these guaranties 
were stipulated in detail. In article 3 full safety of life 
and limb, liberty and free public and private exercise of 
religion were guaranteed to all inhabitants of Poland, ir- 
respective of nativity, nationality, language, race or reli- 
gion. Article 7 promises equality before the law in 
the enjoyment of all private and political rights and 
furthermore the unrestricted use of any language 
in private life, in commercial intercourse, in mat- 


ters of religion, in the press, in any publication, whatso- 
ever be its character, and in public meetings. According 
to article 8 the minorities share the right of the majorities 
to establish, to govern and to control institutions char- 
itable, ecclesiastical and social, at their own expense and 
therein making free use of their language and enjoying 
religious freedom. Article 9 states that in towns and 
districts with considerable lingual minorities the Polish 
government in an adequate way is to provide that ele- 
mentary instruction be given to the children of these 
minorities in their language, while on the other hand also 
these considerable racial, religious or lingual minorities, 
wherever they be, shall be granted an adequate share in 
the amounts allotted to purposes of education, religion or 
charity by the State, the communities or other public 
units. Finally article 12 expressly states that these stip- 
ulations as to Poland have the character of international 
obligations and are consequently placed under the pro- 
tection of the League of Nations. 

The treatv of June 28, 1919 — this must be acknowl- 
edged from the German viewpoint also — has charged the 
Poles with a series of obligations which per se offer full 
protection to the Germans living among them. The guar- 
antees given to the Germans work in a twofold way. 
Firstly, by establishing complete equality before the law 
they intend to enable them to maintain themselves in 
social life in the same manner as their Polish fellow- 
citizens. Secondly, they intend to protect the spiritual 
interests of the Germans, viz. : their political rights, their 
Church, school, language and press. 

But how do the Polish government and its organs fulfil 
these international obligations 1 

The Germans, in their social and commercial life, 
throughout the ceded regions are not only restricted and 
interfered with from the very day of their cession to 
Poland, but they are exposed to an overpowerful pres- 


sure. This pressure caused a considerable part of the 
native German population, at this hour already, to leave 
the land and to emigrate into Germany. 

I shall, in this journal, however, not enter specifically 
upon this very serious question; I have done so in my 
Evangelical Weekly Letter Nos. 25 to 32. Here I merely 
wish to point out how dreadfully the yoke of Polish im- 
perialism rests upon the life, upon the religious life espe- 
cially, of the evangelical minorities within the ceded ter- 
ritories and how through this pressure a time-honored, 
blessed religious union be disrupted. 

As in the case of every national minority it is in the 
existence and continuation of their schools that they see 
the strongest guarantee for the preservation of their 
language and the cultural body in general. The attitude 
of the Poles exactly corresponds to this. From the first 
moment of their rule they have directed their fiercest at- 
tacks against the German school, which they found de- 
veloped in a strong and excellently graded system. 

The Polish government refused to acknowledge the 
ownership of German school communities as to buildings 
and real estate, though it had been officially recorded. 
Without considering the number of German inhabitants, 
even in cases where German school children and parents 
were in the majority, schools and property were turned 
over to the Polish school communitv. In the turn of a 
hand German schools that had existed for a century and 
a half and even longer were lost to German instruction. 
At the same time a systematic persecution of German 
teachers set in. Teachers of elementary schools, with 
their being German as their only offense, were arrested 
and kept in concentration camps, and German teachers 
were dismissed en masse. Such a procedure could have 
no other consequence than the emigration en masse of the 
German teachers, and thus the Polish method of ferreting 
out has succeeded in driving out about 2,000 German 


teachers, leaving thousands of German children to grow 
up without any instruction whatsoever. 

Which, now, is the position of the Evangelical Church 
in Poland? 

In the new Poland — not counting the Eeformed con- 
gregations and the Evangelical Church of Galicia — there 
exist the old Lutheran Church of former Eussian Poland, 
which before the war had several hundred thousand 
members, its creed and worship being of the specific Lu- 
theran type, and the United Evangelical Church (Unierte 
Evangelische Kirche) with originally far over a million 

The United Evangelical Church, representing a close 
union of Lutheran and Eeformed tendencies based upon 
the German Eeformation, was from the beginning part 
of the Prussian LandesMrche. Immediately after peace 
being declared the congregations belonging to this 
Church within the ceded territories unanimously and 
without exception, so far as their utterances in the prov- 
ince of Posen were not suppressed by the Polish usurpers, 
expressed their firm decision to maintain for the sake of 
their religion and their Church life their communion with 
the Prussian united mother Church under all circum- 
stances. They were and are still of the conviction that 
only the condition of such a lasting union they may 
count upon the retaining of their ministers, upon an ade- 
quate and lasting supply of young theologians, upon the 
securing of their denominational peculiarities in preach- 
ing and the administration of the sacraments, and 
upon the continuation of the existing provisions for its 
superannuated and invalids. To sever their connection 
with the mother Church, in their opinion, will of neces- 
sity, being diaspora Churches, lead to stunt their growth 
both socially and spiritually and reduce them to mere 

Their will to maintenance of the connection with the 


mother Church is strengthened by the fact that the Prus- 
sian LandesMrche even before the Polish occupation auto- 
matically turned into a FreiMrche (Free Church), inde- 
pendent from the State of Prussia as soon as its summ- 
episcopate became extinct — the fact which had been 
acknowledged by the constitution of the German Empire 
of 1919, article 137. Furthermore, through adoption of 
the Church laws decreed by the Prussian General Synod, 
the Preussische Landesversammhmg (Prussian National 
Assembly) on July 8, 1920, established the principle and 
made it a law that the Church shall be entitled to make its 
own constitution in unrestricted independence from the 
power of the State. When the work of the constitution 
of the Church shall have been completed, which in all 
probability will be in 1921, every trace of State dominion 
over the Church will have disappeared. Accordingly the 
desire of the Polish United Evangelical Church for the 
preservation of its connection with the mother Church 
cannot be repudiated by pointing to the character of the 
Prussian Church as a State Church of any type whatso- 

That State and Church boundaries should coincide, 
that therefore, with the changing of political boundaries, 
the existing Church units should be put asunder, is a 
principle nowhere stipulated in the Versailles treaty, nor 
recognized anywhere else. Numerous instances, proving 
the reverse, may be brought forth. The very Prussian 
LandesMrche e. g., has numerous congregations in for- 
eign lands, especially in South America; a condition 
never contested. The Methodist Episcopal Church of 
North America has numerous congregations in Germany 
and other countries. The bishops of the Episcopal 
Church of America are members of the Lambeth Confer- 
ence of the Anglican Church meeting in London, England. 
The National Lutheran Council of America has sister 
Churches in Canada and other countries. But above all, 


the Eoman Catholic Church ever emphasized its super- 
national character, and frequently Catholic dioceses were 
made up by the population of different states. 

To demand therefore the preservation of its connec- 
tion with the mother Church in no way spells disloyalty 
to the Polish State. This follows also from the fact that 
the United Evangelical Church of Poland expressly rec- 
ognizes the sovereignty (jus circa sacra) of the Polish 
State in matters ecclesiastical. 

The Polish government, however,. the government of a 
chiefly Catholic state, usurped nothing less than Church 
power (jus in sacra) over the United Evangelical Church. 
On July 3, 1920, the Polish ministry for the former Prus- 
sian territory published an ordinance which declared 
void every legal connection between the United Evangeli- 
cal Church of that territory and the Supreme Church 
Council (Oberhirchenrat) at Berlin (Posener Amtsblatt 
of that date). The functions of the OberkircJienrat, the 
highest organ of the United Church, are transferred to 
the Konsistorium at Posen. The president and members 
of the Konsistorium, an increase in its membership being 
expressly provided for, shall in the future be nominated 
by the Polish State president at the recommendation of 
the Polish authorities of the respective district! Thus 
with one stroke the connection with the mother Church 
which the United Evangelicals did not wish to forsake, 
was severed, and at the same time, in contradiction to all 
promises of Church autonomy made hitherto, the ap- 
pointment of the most important Church officials was 
commissioned to the Catholic State ! 

The ordinance of the Posen cabinet was the more op- 
pressive and alarming for the forthcoming, so to speak, 
answer to the immediately preceding declaration of the 
Posen Provincial Synod, and for being accompanied by 
arbitrary annulment of the preliminary constitution 
which the Provincial Synod thought it its duty to give to 


the Church of which it is the representative. This last 
Synod at Posen, where also delegates from the Evangeli- 
cal congregations of the ceded territories of West Prussia 
and Silesia were present, once more had expressed its 
hope that the natural claim of the Evangelicals, now part 
of the Polish State, to a preservation of their union with 
the United Church of Prussia, would be recognized. To 
this resolution and to the drawing up of a preliminary 
constitution it was moved by events which could not be 
interpreted but as foreboding trouble. 

Now, immediately after the city of Posen came into the 
hands of the Poles the Evangelicals of Posen sorely were 
offended when the chapel of the Castle of Posen, which 
had been dedicated to their worship exclusively, was 
handed over to Catholic worship and Polish service. 
This was followed by the internment by force of not less 
than forty-six Evangelical ministers, among them the 
general superintendent of Posen, Dr. Blau ; partly under 
humiliating circumstances were they made prisoners. 
The Polish military authorities from the very outset had 
singled out the Evangelical parsonages and parish 
houses. They preferred to commandeer these houses for 
their purposes, even if ever so many houses were at their 
disposal ; in doing so, that not only caused much damage 
to the buildings but also in many cases the registers and 
Church records were torn to pieces, burnt or given to the 
mob. These were acts of personal license, to be sure ; yet 
from the beginning the Church authorities and the con- 
stitution were among the objects of general attack. An 
ordinance by the Wojewode commanded the Posen Kon- 
sistorium to publish the official Church sheet which was 
mailed to the ministers, in Polish also, not in German 
alone ; while the 1st of October, 1920, was set as the date 
when German would cease to be used as the official lan- 
guage in interchurch intercourse ! 

I refrain from continuing the series of ecclesiastical 


gravamina. The one ordinance by the Posen cabinet of 
July 3, 1920, may suffice as a type for all the rest of them. 
At any rate the Polish Unierte Evangelische Kirche 
seems to be in great danger to lose its independence and 
autonomy through a government which endeavors to re- 
establish a State Church of the most uncompromising 
character and of a type outgrown long ago by the prog- 
gressive development of other countries. 

If the destruction of the union of that Church is not 
prevented by intelligent and right thinking Polish poli- 
ticians, if not the other Evangelical Churches of Poland, 
in wise cooperation, see Unierte Evangelische Kirche 
righted, then we should have in Poland the terrible spec- 
tacle, that in an age w T hen the idea of union together with 
the idea of self determination permeates mankind with 
power and might, these great achievements of modern 
civilization are trampled under foot. 

As to the rest, the cause of the united Evangelical 
minorities of Poland, if Polish personalities should not 
make it their own for chivalry's sake, stands before the 
forum of world conscience. That amounts to very little 
in the eyes of a policy of force which continues the 
methods of czarism — but it means everything to him who 
believes in the ultimate victory of justice. The Polish 
leaders who see farther than the noisy everyday agitator 
may inquire from Americans and Swiss, from Hollanders 
and Englishmen as to what these countries, in whose his- 
tory the word liberty is written with letters of blood, 
think of the oppression of the minorities in Poland and 
of the destruction of Church union in the Polish State. 
They will not hesitate one moment, whether otherwise 
sympathizing with Poland or not, where to draw the di- 
viding line between the Occidental and the Asiatic. 

Adolf Deissmann. 

University of Berlin, 
Berlin, Germany. 


Jesus was a man of great ideals. He had great ideals 
for His individual followers. He had great ideals for 
His Church. One of the greatest of these was His ideal 
of unity for it. He clearly saw the relation of unity to 
its great mission and the efficiency of its work. 

This ideal is shown in all His teaching in regard to the 
Kingdom of God. He gives only one system of laws for 
one body of subjects who are all under one King. This 
ideal was shown in His mention of "one flock," and was 
involved in His emphasis upon the new commandment. 
But this ideal was specially revealed in His intercessory 
prayer, where He entreats the Father for His followers 
1 i That they may all be one," etc. (John 17 :21-23.) 

The ideal here given is surely a very great one — far 
above and beyond the present condition of His Church. 
Is the Church ready to accept this ideal? There are 
many signs just now that it is not. Late efforts at co- 
operation have revealed a strong divisive spirit. Steps 
toward unity have been followed by steps away from 
unity. The great need of the hour is spiritual. Until 
His ideal has permeated the thinking and feeling and 
conduct of church leaders and people all attempts at 
unity of ecclesiastical machinery must fail. The present 
need of the people of all the Churches is a new appre- 
hension of the meaning of Jesus' prayer and a new ap- 
preciation of the importance of unity, organic unity, to 
the growth and efficiency of the Church. 

The great significance of His ideal is shown by the 
circumstances in which His prayer was offered. He had 
just instituted the Supper by which to be remembered, 
and had spoken words for His disciples' comfort, en- 
couragement and guidance. He was anticipating the 
agony and sacrificial death just ahead. His soul was 
Spirit-filled as well as filled with sorrow, and the great 
burden of His heart was for His Church. He prayed 


for Himself, but in relation to His Church. He prayed 
for those who were to found it, and for those coming into 
it through them, and the high point of His desire for 
them as His followers on the earth was their perfect 
unity. The preceding parts of His prayer lead up to 
this high point, and thus is revealed the mind of Jesus 
in regard to the unity of His people. At this crucial time 
His mind and heart were on His Church and His great 
desire for it was the oneness of His followers. 

What kind of unity did he desire 1 The unity which he 
so earnestly desires has certain intrinsic qualities, as is 
evident from the language of His prayer. A careful study 
of His words will show both the intensity and breadth 
of His longing. He evidently wants a unity that has the 
highest standard for its pattern and one that is very far- 
reaching in its effects. The following qualities inherent 
in His ideal are indicated by His words. 

1. His prayer shows His longing for the spiritual 
unity of His people. When He prays that they may be 
one as He and the Father are one He prays for spiritual 
unity : for God is a spirit and they who pattern after Him 
must do so in spirit and in truth. But what is meant by 
spiritual unity ? What can it mean but unity in the things 
which spirits do? What else can spirits do than think 
and feel and will? These three functions belong to every 
spirit, whether it be embodied as ours are, or free as is 
the Father and the Son. 

It follows then that spiritual unity is found in think- 
ing the same things, feeling the same way, and willing 
the same conduct. How can there be spiritual unity of 
any other kind? So far and so long as the spirits of men 
think and feel and choose the same and kindred things 
they have unity among themselves. So far and so long 
as the spirits of men think and feel and will with Jesus 
and the Father they have unity with each other and with 


Jesus wants His people to think the same things, feel 
the same way, and choose the same ends in regard to the 
great and essential things of religion. He knows man 
and what is in man and is anxious for a spirit of unity 
that will hold His people together amid all the possible 
divergences toward which the human mind might natu- 
rally incline. Different talents and tastes will lead to 
different lines of thinking and feeling and yet these di- 
vergences can be in harmony with greater, broader and 
more important religious facts. He desires a unity that 
is wholly comprehensive of all these differentia. He 
knew that men can think alike on great and vital ques- 
tions and He was anxious, and still is anxious, that they 
do so. He saw that His Kingdom, which is a spiritual 
kingdom, is an impossibility without the spiritual unity 
of His people in their thoughts, feelings and aims. 

2. Jesus' prayer shows that visible unity is included in 
His ideal. He seeks a unity that can be seen and known 
by men. He is anxious ' ' that the world may know ' ' that 
certain great religious facts are real. Men of "the 
world' ' are both unwilling and unable to apprehend that 
which is spiritual alone. They must have the evidence 
of sense to cause them to know, and He wants them to 
know. He realized also, as no one else can realize, that 
spiritual truth and unity can only be fittingly expressed 
in becoming Christian conduct. He was anxious that His 
mission, and the Father's love for men, be seen and 
known by that visible unity which is the truest and best 
testimony to these great spiritual facts. His prayer is 
in full harmony with that principle of modern education 
which teaches that expression is essential to the comple- 
tion of any idea. Visible unity is the true expression of 
an all-pervading love, and spiritual unity. 

Jesus' ideal is for visible unity, because it is the only 
kind that is effective in leading the world to believe on 
Him and in His Father's love for His children. He 


knows most perfectly that ' ' seeing is believing, ' ' here as 
well as elsewhere. He fully realizes the effect of a united 
testimony upon the minds of men and longs for that 
visible unity which will be most effective in persuading 
men that He is the special gift of the Father's love. He 
understands full well why spiritual unity cannot be 
known to exist until it has become visible in the conduct 
of those who are held together by its bonds. He com- 
prehends most perfectly the weakness of any claim of 
unity that is not manifested, and wishes to escape that 
failure which want of unity is sure to bring. He com- 
prehends most clearly how that love which is the bond of 
union among His people must be fully exhibited in all 
important relations that its full power of persuasion may 
be realized. In His prayer He longs for that combination 
of spiritual and visible unity which will be most effective. 
3. Jesus' ideal for His people is a perfect unity. His 
prayer "that they may be perfected into one" is exceed- 
ingly significant. He knows that various degrees of 
unity are possible and that many of them are far from 
being perfect. He is anxious for an aspiration and an 
effort toward perfection among His people. He knows 
the power of love, and its relation to individual perfec- 
tion and to the perfection of His Church, when He prays 
that His followers may be perfected into one body. In 
His sermon on the mount He was talking of love in its 
most difficult exercise and manifestation when he said 
"Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in Heaven 
is perfect. ' ' The highest perfection of the individual, or 
of the Church, is to be found in that spirit of unity which 
true love is sure to bring. Any claims of perfection in 
which love is wanting are false and pharisaic. "Love is 
the fulfilling of the law. ' ' 

When Jesus held up this ideal in His prayer for unity, 
He knew the sinful bent of human nature, and foresaw 
that many imperfections and failures in regard to unity 


would arise. He knew also that many would accept and 
defend as sufficient a unity far short of His ideal. But 
He wanted His followers to have the right ideal, and kneAV 
that the Holy Spirit sent by Him would be ever seeking 
to inspire this ideal in the minds and hearts of those be- 
longing to His Church and concerned with its affairs. 
He fully fathomed the meaning of perfection and longed 
for that degree of it which would be a true and percep- 
tible imitation of the oneness of the Father and Himself. 
Yes, He knew the power of love to make unity perfect 
through its reconciliation and harmonization of the dif- 
ferences which will arise among His followers, and the 
victories which it will gain over pride, selfishness and 
sinful ambitions. He was very solicitous for that perfect 
unity which can be realized only by the most perfect vis- 
ible organic unity, especially of the Church's ecclesiasti- 
cal machinery. 

What kind of unity do we have 1 Our consideration of 
Jesus ' ideal calls for an examination of the kind of unity 
now in reality existing. It prompts the inquiry, How 
far does this unity conform to His ideal? 

1. There is much spiritual unity among the Churches. 
It is evident to every one that we think the same things, 
feel the same emotions and choose the same ends in re- 
gard to a large number of religious facts. Now these 
common beliefs, emotions and aims in religious things 
determine the existence and amount of spiritual unity 
there is among the Churches. It is idle to imagine that 
there is any spiritual unity that transcends the action of 
man's spirits in thinking, feeling and willing alike. "We 
can conceive of no spiritual unity except where the 
natural and recognized activities of spirits are function- 
ing in harmony with one another. In so far as it is pos- 
sible to know exactly how far the people of the Churches 
are alike in their thoughts, desires and aims, it is not 
difficult to determine the exact amount of spiritual unity 


there is among the Churches. But this can be done only 
so far as the harmonious activities of their spirits are 
manifested by their visible conduct. It follows therefore 
that there cannot be much greater spiritual unity among 
the Churches than there is of unity that is visible. But 

2. There is much visible unity among the Churches. It 
is seen in the expressed beliefs, or testimonies of the va- 
rious Churches. Even those widest apart hold many 
things in common. Those most alike hold very largely 
to the same beliefs. It is seen also in the similarity of 
emotions with which the people of all denominations re- 
gard religious things. The love and devotion of Chris- 
tian people to great spiritual truths and facts and to 
Church affairs in general are very much alike in all de- 
nominations. The aims and purposes of all Christian 
people are essentially the same, and the modes and 
methods of their activities very much alike. Worship is 
rendered in a very similar way, and the affairs of Church 
administered very similarly in most points and the same 
ends gained whether any particular body of Christians 
be Episcopal, Presbyterian or Congregational. 

In addition to these facts a number of interchurch or- 
ganizations bring the people of the various Churches to- 
gether along special lines of Christian effort. The 
growing number of these movements and the wide and 
deep interest of the Churches generally in them surely 
indicate the working of the Spirit toward the unification 
of the Churches. It is well to remember that in this work 
the Spirit has to deal with people who like to have their 
own way as to how it shall be done and how far it shall 
go. Nevertheless He has stirred the hearts of multitudes 
in this direction, and has made evident in many ways the 
value and power of cooperation as a great step in the 
right direction. 

All efforts at cooperation are approaches toward or- 
ganic union. Their value depends upon the range and 


degree of unity secured. Some of them have done, and 
are doing, great things and indicate by their results what 
could be done by a more perfect unity. 

3. We do not have a unity that has been perfected. 
Many of us would say that it is still far from it. No 
other proof of its imperfection is needed than the two 
hundred, and more, denominations in America, largely in- 
dependent of each other, with all their envies, jealousies, 
suspicions and dislikes of one another. No one of broad 
experience can deny that these antipathies exist and are 
often very keen and that cross-purposes hinder the best 
work. The Church of Christ will not "be perfected into 
one" until its ecclesiastical machinery, as well as other 
features, has been completely unified. But this visible 
unity will not be hard to gain when spiritual unity has 
once been perfected. It is very evident that the spiritual 
unity of the Churches is still defective, for it is inherent 
in spiritual unity to express itself in the visible conduct 
of men. So true is this that men of the world are not 
willing to give credit for any claims of unity until it can 
be seen. They are so sure that if it really exists it will 
make itself manifest. 

This inherent quality of spiritual unity makes it, when 
it is enlarged, soon to begin to manifest its greater ex- 
istence by some movement in the line of greater visible 
unity. That spiritual unity has been increasing consider- 
ably these later years is evident from the new manifesta- 
tions of unity that have arisen. The Holy Spirit has been 
instilling thoughts, feelings and aims along the line of 
unity, and although His voice may have been heard im- 
perfectly, it has been heard clearly enough to make cer- 
tain movements possible, and to secure through them 
much evidence on the value and importance of united 
aim and action. These movements have had their real 
successes along those lines where spiritual unity made 
it most possible, and gained abiding results only so far 


as spiritual unity had reached. It has been shown that 
the Churches are ready for cooperation along certain 
limited lines, and that much good has been accomplished, 
and much will yet be accomplished, by such cooperation 
as the Churches are ready to accept. The results that 
have been gained ought to give a new vision to the 
Churches of w T hat is possible when a more perfect unity 
and its inherent cooperation has been established through 
their more perfect union into one body. 

The possible results from that kind and degree of co- 
operation which perfect unity would bring are very great. 
What great economies would be secured! How much 
more truly democratic the Church would become ! What 
strength for mighty tasks would be insured! What 
mountain peaks of prejudice would be obliterated! 
What great steps in religious education could be taken! 
What increasing power to the gospel message would be 
gained! What greater diversities of work could be un- 
dertaken and made effective ! What rightful preeminence 
could be given to those virtues and graces which make 
perfection in Christian character! Such possibilities 
are worth thinking about and worth a great effort to se- 
cure, and these are only a few of them. 

What can be done with this ideal? Late movements 
have clearly shown that the Churches are not yet ready 
for organic union, and to be rather shy of any open step 
toward that visible unity through which this ideal can be 
fully realized. And yet that this is the true ideal and the 
one that ought to be the inspiration of all the Churches 
is recognized even by those opposed to all considerations 
of organic unity. The highest count of one of the most 
conservative of Churches in a resolution relating to this 
great ideal, says: "Whether we must look forward a 
decade, a century, or a thousand years, it is blessed to 
look. ' ' But the blessedness of looking can be found only 
in the effort to attain. What then can be done to make 
this looking real and effective? 


1. We can think more deeply and rightly about this 
ideal than we have been doing. Many of us have not been 
thinking much about it, and what we have thought has 
been mostly against it and therefore wrong. In Bible 
reading and study we have not often turned to John 
seventeenth to meditate on Jesus \ prayer and to be deeply 
impressed with His most earnest desire. Indeed this 
ideal has seemed to us too impossible, or too remote, to 
think much about. But it is well to remember that all 
great ideals are considered impossible, impracticable 
and very remote by most people in certain stages of their 
growth. Earnest thinking and careful effort by a few 
are sure to work a change. The impossible becomes pos- 
sible and the remote becomes imminent as the vision 

Moreover, is it not too true that we have not cared to 
think much about it, because our personal tastes and ap- 
parent interests did not seem to favor it? We have 
grown up thinking the divided condition of the Church 
to be natural, necessary and abiding, and have thought of 
Jesus ' ideal as for a very distant future, or perhaps only 
for the future world. We have been told so often that 
an army has many divisions and that the vine has many 
branches and that the Church is like an army, or a vine, 
in its divided state, and we have accepted these ideas as 
right ideas. The writer confesses that he was more than 
twenty-five years in the ministry before he had given 
this prayer of Jesus for unity such careful thought as it 
deserves. He had heard and accepted the common de- 
fenses of our divisions, and had himself used these argu- 
ments and defenses. New circumstances demanded of 
him a new consideration of Jesus' ideal as indicated by 
His prayer and kept him thinking until a new vision of 
its meaning became clear and strong and gained that 
place in his thoughts, desires and purposes which he be- 
lieves it deserves. He now sees that it is worthy of a 


very high place in the thinking of all the followers of 
Jesus. It is big enough an ideal when developed by se- 
rious, frequent and submissive meditation, to fill the souls 
of men with great longing for its consummation, and 
readiness for any fitting step that will hasten its ap- 

2. We can use more frequently than we have been do- 
ing the prayer of Jesus for unity. Such praying will be 
helpful to our thinking. It will help us penetrate and 
fully understand the heart of Jesus when He prayed this 
prayer. "We have not been praying much along this line 
and there is a reason for it. We have not very much 
wanted the ideal of Jesus to be realized. We have en- 
joyed our associations with some particular group of 
Church people, and are pleased with the class distinc- 
tion which it brings. Sectarian pride has rather a deep 
hold upon our hearts, and prejudices against other de- 
nominations are rather strong. We can pray with zest 
for "our beloved Zion," but have too few longings for 
the whole body of Christ. It is well to remember that 
Jesus' prayer for unity is as much the Lord's prayer as 
the one so named and is just as worthy of frequent and 
general use. Such use would help us understand and 
appreciate how the coming of the Kingdom prayed for 
in the other is to be realized. Our praying for its coming 
will be much better praying when His plan for its coming 
is clearly recognized and frequently expressed. 

3. We can be open-minded in regard to this ideal. The 
times demand this state of mind. The Holy Spirit is 
stirring the minds of many with a vision of its import- 
ance. Efforts to suppress this ideal have come to nought, 
while at the same time its value has been more fully 
shown. It is a question that cannot remain suppressed, 
or be indefinitely postponed. It is beginning now to de- 
mand the attention which it rightly deserves. To cherish 
a closed mind in regard to its full and free consideration 


is surely a great sin. The Jews of Jesus' time had ears 
to hear but would not hear, and we cannot be like them 
and be without much sin. 

This ideal is worthy of much consideration because we 
are brethren. Such consideration ought to be charitable, 
broad and thorough. It must go forward under the do- 
minion of a genuine Christian love, or it will not be ac- 
cording to His plan and must fail in its objective. It 
should examine the subject anew and thoroughly from 
every standpoint. It should make the proper estimate 
of all the hindrances to the realization of this ideal and 
of all the impelling forces that are urging it forward to 
its full realization. This consideration should proceed in 
a spirit of complete submission to the will of Jesus, a 
ruling purpose to execute His plan and a deep sense 
of Christian brotherhood. A friendly, frank and full dis- 
cussion of this ideal would do all the Churches great 
good. Done in the right spirit, it will stimulate and 
strengthen that kind of thinking, feeling and choosing to- 
ward one another that will greatly increase our spiritual 
unity, the most essential step at present in reaching more 
visible and more perfect unity. 

4. We can make this ideal immanent in our thinking, 
praying, and working for the coming of Christ's King- 
dom. We have believed somewhat in this ideal, but have 
thought of it, and may still be thinking of it, as some- 
thing far, far away. So we thought of prohibition a very 
few years ago. But prohibition is here, thanks to that 
small group of temperance workers who believingly and 
persistently filled the Churches with its propaganda. 
This ideal of Jesus is worthy of a similar immanence. 
It is worthy of such an immanence as is being stressed on 
Christ's second coming. His coming as the exalted 
Saviour of mankind surely involves the perfected oneness 
of His people. The nearness of this ideal depends in no 
small degree upon the earnest thoughts, desires and ef- 


forts of Christian people in regard to it. We can help 
forward its realization by thinking of it as near at hand. 

5. We can recognize and testify against the evil of di- 
visive courses. If this ideal of Jesns is the true one, di- 
visive thinking, aims and efforts are very wrong, and 
ought to be avoided and condemned. They are wrong, 
too, because they are contrary to that love which suff er- 
eth long and is kind. Pride, and not love, is the instigator 
and promoter of such evil courses. They are wrong, too, 
because they are a resort to a wrong kind of force to gain 
some selfish ascendency in a struggle where unselfishness 
should reign. Many a good cause, whatever apparent 
success it may seem to have gained, has been actually 
degraded and seriously injured by the divisive teaching 
and efforts of its supporters. Truth had better meet 
error in the open field than trust in the closed fortifica- 
tions of a separate organization, if its character as truth 
is to be fully shown and vindicated. A spirit of divisive- 
ness among those who claim to be the followers of Jesus 
is very contrary to the spirit and purpose of His prayer. 
It ought to be discouraged and overcome by the ruling 
power of a genuine Christian love. It vitiates the right- 
eousness of any cause in which it is conspicuous. 

Such things as these can well be done in the promotion 
of this ideal and may now fittingly receive our earnest 
attention. Such things are very necessary before any 
special steps toward organic union can be successfully 
undertaken and accomplished. These things will help to 
produce that spiritual condition which is fundamental to 
all future progress toward organic unity. Surely the 
Holy Spirit is striving with the people of the Churches to 
move forward along these lines. He is calling for such 
a charitable consideration of this ideal of Jesus, and 
such a propaganda in regard to its great longing, as will 
bring the Churches into that condition of spiritual con- 
cord which in itself will be an incomprehensible blessing, 


and which will soon make itself manifest in a visible unity 
that is reaching toward perfection. 

The effort of the Holy Spirit to impress this ideal of 
Jesus upon His Church is surely to be seen in the various 
movements toward unity that have arisen within the last 
few years. Such approaches toward unity as have been 
made by the Federal Council, the Faith and Order Con- 
ference, the American Council on Organic Union, the 
Concordat, and the Interchurch World Movement are 
significant and must have a cause that is fully sufficient 
for their existence. The spirit and appeal of the great 
conferences held this last summer in London, England, 
and in Geneva, Switzerland, when forty nations and 
eighty denominations were represented, give strong evi- 
dence that the Spirit of Jesus has been working in the 
minds and hearts of Christian men all around the world. 
The large place which subjects relating to this ideal are 
gaining in the religious press of to-day and the number 
of new books appearing in support of its claims are also 
evidences that Jesus' Spirit is moving on the minds, 
hearts, and wills of many of His people in the promotion 
of this ideal. Who can doubt that the Holy Spirit has 
been, and now is at work in the effort to persuade the 
followers of Jesus in all the churches that His ideal of 
unity for His Church is the only true one and absolutely 
necessary to the right fulfilment of its mission? 

Seth W. Gilkey. 

Manse United Presbyterian Church, 
Bridgeport, Ohio. 


Report of the Committee on Reunion of the Churches 

in Relation to 
The Lambeth Conference 

Submitted to and Received by the Presbytery at its 
Meeting on the 20th May, 1921* 

The Presbytery of Montreal, at its meeting in Novem- 
ber, last, passed resolutions paying honour to the friendly 
spirit of the Lambeth "Appeal to All Christian People," 
sharing the earnest desire of the Lambeth Conference for 
increasing unity among Christian Churches and for well- 
considered methods of approach thereto, and expressing 
readiness to enter into conference on the subject with au- 
thorities of the Anglican communion. The Presbytery 
agreed to "transmit these resolutions to the next meeting 
of the General Assembly, respectfully requesting it to 
take the whole matter into its consideration." 

Subsequently the Presbytery appointed a committee 
to meet and confer with any similar committee appointed 
by the Bishop of the diocese of Montreal. 

That committee has satisfaction in now submitting its 
report to the Presbytery, and first presents the joint re- 
port of conferences between the Presbyterian and the 
Anglican committees. 


First is the report of the conferences between the com- 
mittee of the Presbytery of Montreal on the Eeunion of 
the Churches in relation to the Lambeth Conference and 
a similar committee appointed by the Bishop of Montreal. 

Following is a list of the members of the two commit- 
tees: — 1. Presbyterian: Chairman, Eev. Professor 

■"Unanimously adopted by the Presbytery at its stated meeting June 28, 1921. 


Welsh, Principal Fraser, Professor A. E. Gordon, Eev. 
Dr. Clark, Kev. Dr. Dickie, Eev. Dr. Duncan, Eev. Dr. 
Hanson, Eev. A. Gr. McKinnon, Eev. J. B. Maclean, Eev. 
S. T. Martin, Eev. E. J. Eattee, Eev. A. S. Eoss, Dr. Gr. 
A. Berwick, Mr. W. S Leslie, Dr D. A. Murray, Mr. 
James Eodger. 

2. Anglican : Chairman, The Bishop of Montreal, Arch- 
deacon Paterson-Smyth, Canon Eexford, Canon Horsey, 
Canon Willis, Canon Shatford, Canon Almond, Eev. Dr. 
Abbott-Smith, Eev. Dr. Howard, Eev. J. E. Fee, Eev. W. 
H. Davison, Eev. A. H. Moore, Eev. E. K. Taylor, Eev. 
E. Y. Overing, Chancellor Davidson, Professor H. A. 

The conference was organized under the joint chair- 
manship of Bishop Farthing and Professor Welsh, and 
Dr. D. A. Murray and Dr. 0. W. Howard were appointed 
joint secretaries. 

There were five conferences held, on the following 
dates: Jan. 28th, Feb. 11th, March 4th, May 17th and 
Mav 20th. 

It having been agreed to consider first questions of 
Faith and then to pass to the Subject of Order, the fol- 
lowing resolutions were successively adopted by the con- 
ference : — 

I. Faith 

That the Lambeth Statement represents the view of 
this conference, namely : — 

"We believe that the visible unity of the Church will 
be found to involve the whole-hearted acceptance of : — 

"The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revela- 
tion of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ultimate 
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 confes- 
sion 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. 

i ' 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." (Lambeth Report, p. 28, Sec. VI.) 

II. Order 

The following resolutions, dealing with Sections VII 
and VIII, pp. 28 and 29, were adopted : — 

1. In view of the ultimate ideal of a reunited Chris- 
tendom, a representative and constitutional episcopate, 
coordinated with Synodical, Presbyterial and Congrega- 
tional representation, is adapted to the achievement of 
the larger unity. 

(At the third conference the following resolution was 
submitted, but not formally adopted. A joint sub-com- 
mittee was appointed to deal with the same, the text of 
which is here given as it formed the basis for subsequent 
discussion and action : — 

"In view of any action involving union between the 
Anglican and Presbyterian communions, bishops and 
clergy of the Anglican communion would accept a form 
of Presbyterial commission, and ministers of the Presby- 
terian communion would accept a form of Episcopal com- 
mission. Any who at the time of union may not desire to 
receive such a commission, entitling them to officiate at 
all acts of worship in the united Church, would retain 
their present status and functions." — Compare Lambeth 
Report, p. 143). 

After several meetings both of the joint sub-committee 
and of the separate committees, the joint committee sub- 
mitted to the fourth conference the following forms of re- 
ciprocal commission, which, after amendment, were 
adopted in the following form : — 

presbytery of montreal 125 

1. Presbyterian Form of Commission to Anglicans 

A declaration will be made to the effect that there is no 
repudiation of or reflection on the ministry to which we 
have been set apart by the Holy Spirit, but that the au- 
thorization is given to enable us to exercise the ministry 
in a wider sphere within the re-united Church. The exact 
phraseology of this has not been determined. 

Then the clergy of the Church of England will be ad- 
mitted according to the form in the " Draft of the Book 
of Common Order of the Presbyterian Church in Can- 
ada," pp. 35, 36, as follows : — 

Now may be sung "Come, Holy Ghost, our souls in- 
spire," or other hymn of supplication for the presence of 
the Holy Spirit. Then shall the Candidate kneel, and, 
other Presbyters standing about him, the Moderator shall 
say: — Since no man is of himself sufficient for these 
things, let us call upon God in prayer. 

Let us Pray 

Almighty and most merciful Father, who of Thine 
infinite goodness hast given Thine only Son, Jesus Christ, 
to be our Eedeemer and the Author of eternal life ; and 
hast exalted Him unto Thy right hand, from whence, ac- 
cording to Thy will, He hath sent down the Holy Ghost 
and given gifts unto men, send down, we pray Thee, the 
Holy Ghost upon this Thy servant, whom, in Thy name, 
and in obedience to Thy most blessed will, we now by the 
laying on of our hands (here the Moderator and other 
Presbyters lay their hands on the head of the Candidate) 
admit to a wider exercise of the Ministry of the Word 
and Sacraments. 

We entreat Thee to grant unto Thy servant, to whom 
this sacred trust is now committed, such fulness of grace 
as shall fit him more and more for the work to which he 
has been called. Give him utterance, that he may boldly 
make known Thy word and will, and faithfully dispense 


the mysteries of the Gospel. Endue him with wisdom and 
zeal to rule aright the people over whom Thou hast set 
him, and to preserve them in peace and purity, so that 
Thy Church, under his administration and example, may 
increase in grace and holiness. Strengthen him by Thy 
Spirit, that he may abide steadfast to the end, and be 
received, with all Thy faithful servants, into the joy of 
his Lord. 

God, give grace, we beseech Thee, to Thy people to 
whom Thy servant is to minister in holy things, that they 
may be enlightened by divine truth, edified by the ministry 
of the Word, quickened by the Spirit of Life, established 
in all holy living, guided into manifold Christian labours, 
and used for the furtherance of the Saviour's kingdom. 
May both minister and people be kept by the power of 
God through faith unto salvation. 

Our Father which art in heaven, etc. 

Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly 
above all that we ask or think, according to the power 
that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the Church by 
Jesus Christ throughout all ages world without end. 

Prayer being ended, the Minister shall rise, and the 
Moderator, addressing him, shall say: — 

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only King 
and Head of the Church, and by authority of this 
Presbytery, I invite you to take part with us in this min- 
istry, and admit you to all the rights and privileges there- 
to pertaining. 

Then the members of the Presbytery shall give him the 
right hand of fellowship, the Moderator saying : — 

We give you the right hand of fellowship to take part 
with us in this ministry. 

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you. 

peesbyteey of montreal 127 

2. Anglican Form of Commission to Presbyterians 


The Candidates having been presented to the Bishop 
then shall the Bishop say : — 

Forasmuch as terms have been arranged between the 
Church of England in Canada and the Presbyterian 
Church in Canada, with the purpose of realizing, through 
a visible and corporate union, their common fellowship in 
the Universal Church of Christ, and of manifesting that 
fellowship to the world, and forasmuch as it is necessary 
that there should be in this united Church a ministry that 
shall be acknowledged in every part thereof, it is our pur- 
pose now to give to these our brethren, by the laying on 
of our hands, a commission to the office of priesthood, it 
being clearly understood that herein there is no repudia- 
tion of or reflection on their past ministry, to which they 
were set apart by the Holy Spirit, whose call led them to 
that ministry and whose power enabled them to perform 
the same. 

Invocation: Then shall be said or sung, "Come Holy 
Ghost," etc. 

Prayer: Then shall the Bishop say: — 

Almighty God and heavenly Father, who of Thine in- 
finite love and goodness towards us hast given to us Thy 
only and most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, to be our 
Redeemer and the Author of everlasting life ; who, after 
He had made perfect our redemption by His death, and 
was ascended into heaven, sent abroad into the world his 
Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Doctors, and Pastors, 
by whose labour and ministry he gathered together a 
great flock in all the parts of the world, to set forth the 
eternal praise of Thy holy Name: For these so great 
benefits of Thy eternal goodness, and for that Thou hast 
vouchsafed to call these Thy servants here present to the 
same office and ministry, appointed for the salvation of 


mankind, to be exercised in the wider sphere of the united 
Church; we render unto Thee most hearty thanks, we 
praise and worship Thee, and we humbly beseech Thee, 
by the same Thy blessed Son to grant unto all, which 
either here or elsewhere call upon Thy holy Name, that 
we may continue to show ourselves thankful unto Thee 
for these and all other Thy benefits; and that we may 
daily increase and go forward in the knowledge and faith 
of Thee and Thy Son, by the Holy Spirit. So that as 
well by these Thy Ministers, as by them over whom they 
shall be appointed Thy Ministers, Thy holy Name may be 
forever glorified, and Thy blessed Kingdom enlarged, 
through the same Thy Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who 
liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the same 
Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen. 

Commission: Then the Candidates shall kneel, and 
the Bishop with the priests present, shall lay hands sev- 
erally on the head of every one, the Bishop saying : — 

*Take thou authority to execute this office now com- 
mitted to thee by the imposition of our hands. And be 
thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His 
Holy Sacraments. In the Name of the Father, and of 
the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 


The Joint Report of the conference ends as above. 
The committee of Presbytery submits it as a basis of 
mutual understanding for the consideration of the Pres- 
bytery, and it makes the following addenda in its own 

(a) The following is the statement or declaration 
which the Presbytery's committee had prepared to take 
the place of the first paragraph (p. 3 of Eeport) in "1. 
Presbyterian Form of Commission to Anglicans''; but 

*Adapted from alternative formula in Ordinal of Protestant Episcopal Church, 
U. S. A. 


it was read to the conference at too late a moment to be 
considered and included in the Eeport. It is identical 
with the statement in "2. Anglican Form of Commis- 
sion to Presbyterians" (pp. 5 and 6 of Report), with the 
exception of a phrase, printed in italics in the copy below, 
substituted for the corresponding phrase in the Anglican 
form, as being the phrase used in the "Book of Common 
Order of the Presbyterian Church. ' ' 

1. Presbyterian Form of Commission to Anglicans 


The Candidates having presented themselves before 
the Moderator of Presbytery, the Moderator shall say : — 

Forasmuch as terms have been arranged between the 
Presbyterian Church in Canada and the Church of Eng- 
land in Canada, with the purpose of realizing, through a 
visible and corporate union, their common fellowship in 
the Universal Church of Christ, and of manifesting that 
fellowship to the world, and forasmuch as it is necessary 
that there should be in this united Church a ministry that 
shall be acknowledged in every part thereof, it is our 
purpose now to give to these our brethren, by the laying 
on of our hands, a commission to take part ivith us in this 
ministry, it being clearly understood that herein there is 
no repudiation of or reflection on their past ministry, to 
which they were set apart by the Holy Spirit, whose call 
led them to that ministry and whose power enabled them 
to perform the same. 

(b) It was agreed by common consent without definite 
resolution that in the reciprocal commission each com- 
munion would accept the form or order in present use in 
the other communion, with alterations in the terms of the 
formula required by the existing ministerial status of 
those concerned. This explains the difference in the 
forms of commission. The " priesthood " named in the 


Anglican commission stands for a specific grade of min- 
istry in the Church. 

(c) It will be observed in the scheme that re-ordina- 
tion of Ministers is not involved. 

(d) It was stated by responsible spokesmen of both 
committees that uniformity of worship would not be re- 
quired, although no specific resolution to that effect was 
passed or considered by the conference. 

E. E. Welsh, 

Convener of the Committee of the 

Presbytery of Montreal. 


The temples of the flesh are reared, and fall; 

Our sanctuaries crumble stone by stone. 
And yet, in life triumphant over all, 

Through age on age increasing, thou alone, 
Intangible, and so from worm and time 
Immune, dost bear to us the Theme Sublime. 

"What if men tear thy robes of faith apart 
(By such rare portions blinded to the whole 

Still past conception of the mortal heart), 

And with but partial truth would warm the soul' 

Thou art the Christ's, and even hosts of hell 

Thy final sovereignty may not quell. 

Heaven's beloved! Eeign Queen, Messiah's Bride, 
Bought with His pain, anointed by His blood. 

Arise! To all His children open wide 
Thy portals — like the arms of motherhood; 

Eedeem within thyself His love-sealed vow: 

The fainting world awaits its revelation now! 

— Edna Marie Le Nart. 







I esteem it a great privilege to perform the part which 
you have assigned to me in this discussion of Dr. Head- 
lam's Bampton Lectures in relation to the problem of 
Christian reunion. Time limits forbid me to review these 
Lectures in their details except so far as they bear in a 
determinative way on his main argument, conclusion and 
recommendation. Even so I may have to employ abrupt 
and blunt expressions. I trust you will not interpret 
them as indicating an unsympathetic dogmatism. 

Inasmuch as the nature of Dr. Headlam's thesis com- 
pels me to give what may seem to be a disproportionate 
emphasis to the episcopate, I wish to say at this point 
that, while in agreement with over two-thirds of Chris- 
tendom to-day, I deem the episcopate to be a divinely 
provided, and therefore unalterable, means for oversee- 
ing and safeguarding the Church's administration of its 
God-given system of truth and grace. It is as a means 
rather than as an end that I regard it. None the less, in 
view of the function which I believe it has received from 
Christ and His Apostles, I am forced to give its general 
acceptance a necessary place among the conditions of 
visible unity. The vast and ancient consensus which sup- 
ports this view forbids that my standpoint should be re- 
garded as individualistic, partisan or provincial. If I 
seem individualistic in my method of argument, I claim 
no exemption from criticism on that score. 

^Read at a recent meeting of the Christian Unity Foundation, New York. 


I. Dr. Headlamps Lectures 

Dr. Headlam's Lectures demand attention both on ac- 
count of their source and because of their giving a fresh 
turn to unity discussions. But they uncover no new data, 
and are not likely to have more than a passing vogue. 
They contain many good things that need attention ; but 
their main thread of argument, that upon which the lec- 
turer bases his final conclusion and recommendation, is 
vitiated by mistaken methods, by misinterpretations of 
the positions which he rejects, and by failure to reckon 
sufficiently with certain determinative facts and testi- 
monies. He makes many disputatious assertions and 
generalizations, and non sequitur is the true comment on 
several inferences that determine his general argument. 
His tone is dignified and, except towards sacerdotalists, 
kindly. The calm confidence and rapidity with which he 
solves many troublesome historical problems is magiste- 
rial and sublime. 

At the obvious risk of being accused of the same type 
of assurance in speaking so summarily — there lie, of 
course, many years of study of the lecturer's subject 
behind my words — I feel constrained to confine my at- 
tention to the line which I have already indicated. I am 
concerned with the validity of his conclusion that no spe- 
cific and unalterable form of the Church's ministry has 
been prescribed by Christ or His Apostles, but that the 
ministerial commission was given to the Church collec- 
tively ; so that it has authority to determine the methods 
and agencies of ordination, provided the laying on of 
hands with prayer and visible intention of doing what 
the Church means to do in ordaining ministers of Christ 
are retained. On this basis he urges that episcopal and 
non-episcopal communions should recognize each other's 
ministries ; but that, for practical success in recovering 
and preserving visible unity, all future ordinations 
should be conformed to the traditional episcopal method. 


The method by which the lecturer's conclusion is 
reached is open to grave criticism. He provides an elab- 
orate argument for a foregone conclusion, but describes 
it as an attempt to pursue the historical method with as 
little bias as human nature will permit. If a scholar has 
reached conclusions in his study which he believes to be 
practically important for others, he is entitled to publish 
an argumentative treatise in their behalf. But if he 
visibly fails to realize and acknowledge the polemical na- 
ture of his production, this failure will necessarily reduce 
the thoughtful reader's estimate of its scholarly value. 

The lecturer accentuates his mistake by contrasting his 
method with that which he ascribes to Bishop Gore in his 
great work, The Church and the Ministry , and to Dr. 
Moberly in his Ministerial Priesthood. Both of these 
works contain argumentative matter, but have a gener- 
ally accepted scholarly form and method. That is, they 
clearly set forth the theory which their authors employ 
as their working hypothesis, and proceed to verify it by 
reckoning with the known relevant facts. They are evi- 
dently at home with the historical method, and endeavor 
to do justice to the relevant facts. If any details of their 
interpretation of them are open to dispute, their method 
of procedure is not. It is scholarly. 

In substance their working hypothesis is that the broad 
stream of tradition concerning the apostolic origin, and 
the appointed form and method of perpetuation of the 
Christian ministry which possessed the field in the earli- 
est post-apostolic period of which we have adequate 
knowledge is to be accepted until we obtain sufficient con- 
trary evidence. On this basis Bishop Gore proceeds to 
discuss comprehensively the relevant facts of the New 
Testament and sub-apostolic period, and concludes that 
they agree with the working hypothesis previously 
adopted, and apparently with no other. 

Dr. Headlam stigmatizes this hypothesis as indicating 


polemical bias, and goes to the length of ignoring the 
tradition referred to, even as one of the facts to be 
reckoned with. He insists that the documentary mate- 
rial of the apostolic period afford the sole data for argu- 
ment, and that we may not assume the apostolic origin 
and prescription of any arrangements which are not in- 
disputably set forth in these .documents. He acknowl- 
edges more than once that the data to which he thus shuts 
himself are fragmentary and insufficient for assured con- 
clusions, and then refuses to take just account of the im- 
pression which apostolic action and teaching produced on 
the general mind of the Church which emerges half a 
century later. This is the more striking because no trace 
appears of any revolution during the intervening period 
that would have tended to interrupt and subvert the 
Church's memory of apostolic appointments. Further- 
more, the testimonies of St. Clement of Eome and St. 
Ignatius of Antioch, who had first-hand personal ac- 
quaintance with apostolic arrangements, directly confirm 
determinative elements of the Church's tradition con- 
cerning them. St. Clement declares that provision for 
continuance of oversight in the Churches was made by 
the Apostles in obedience to forewarnings of Christ, 
Himself; and St. Ignatius asserts a necessity for ecclesi- 
astical organization of the ministry of bishops, presby- 
ters and deacons which plainly implies divine or apostolic 

To put this in another way, the state of the question in 
the second century as to whether the Apostles made per- 
manent prescriptions concerning the form and method of 
perpetuation of the Church's ministry, and as to the 
fundamental nature of these prescriptions, agrees with 
that which held its own in the whole Church until the 
Protestant revolt, and which still prevails in over two- 
thirds of Christendom. Dating so far back as it does — 
to a generation which could still consult those who had 


listened to apostolic teaching — and having the chronic 
vitality which for many centuries it has exhibited in a 
Church to which the Lord pledged the permanent guid- 
ance of His Holy Spirit, it plainly throws the burden of 
proof on the shoulders of those who would go behind the 
returns and reject the conclusions thus impressively 
handed down. 

In accepting this solidly supported state of the ques- 
tion as his working hypothesis in investigating the frag- 
mentary data of early documents, Bishop Gore proceeded 
in accordance with a generally accepted scientific method. 
In ignoring it, and in basing his contrary thesis upon 
what he explicitly acknowledges to be inadequate data, 
open in details to mutually conflicting interpretations, 
Dr. Headlam violates the scientific method; and he con- 
spicuously fails to shoulder the burden of proof, either 
in form of procedure or in sufficiency of disproof of the 
previously dominant teaching of the ancient Catholic 
Church. I feel justified, therefore, in maintaining that 
the validity of his main conclusions is discredited by the 
fundamental mistake of his method. 

And his method is not soundly historical. He ignores, 
or fails to acknowledge the significance of certain trouble- 
some facts. Throughout his volume he is obviously con- 
cerned to establish a thesis rather than to let all the 
relevant facts — in particular the ancient stream of tradi- 
tion of which I have spoken — speak for themselves. His 
motive — that of facilitating a solution of the problem of 
Christian reunion — is, of course, worthy of praise; but 
this motive does not justify his frequent special pleading. 
It may not warrant forgetting that reunion based upon 
rejection of the ancient mind of the universal Church as 
to what is integral to its divinely constituted order in- 
volves violation of an ancient sense of stewardship, and 
cannot secure general consent. 

To transfer the basis of acceptance of the episcopate 


from that of Spirit-guided apostolic ordinance to that 
of twentieth-century unity-compact is to open up the pos- 
sibility of subversion of the ancient ministry, if the fu- 
ture drift of opinion concerning its pragmatic value 
should point that way. Stewardship cannot compromise 
with pragmatism, except at the risk of forfeiture. Of 
course, if modern scholars successfully shoulder the bur- 
den of proof and clearly establish the mistaken nature of 
the sense of stewardship referred to, the state of the 
question will be altered. Furthermore, the importance 
of Christian reunion imposes upon us the duty of pa- 
tiently weighing their evidence. But those who are con- 
vinced of the truth of the traditional doctrine in this 
matter ought not to be expected, even for unity's sake, to 
assent to arrangements inconsistent therewith, until their 
convictions are modified by convincing evidence. It is 
just possible that the agreement on this thorny subject 
for which we all earnestly long will come through modi- 
fication of modern rather than of traditional convictions. 

II. The Apostolic Ministry 
I shall perhaps most effectively meet certain important 
errors of our Bampton lecturer in his treatment of his- 
torical data, by presenting a differently constructed rapid 
survey of the data that bear on the truth of the traditional 
view of the ministry. 

(a) I start, as I believe sound methods of argument 
require me to start, with the outstanding fact that, when 
the mind of the Church as to the appointments of Christ 
and of His Spirit-guided Apostles first registered itself 
in ways that unmistakably reveal to us its determinative 
content — a content which underwent no essential change 
in subsequent centuries — the so-called Catholic view was 
in full possession, with no appearance of its being new. 
I assume that the freshness of the concurrent traditions 
which explain this view justifies provisional acceptance 


of its credibility, at least until sufficient contrary evidence 
of earlier date is forthcoming. I reject the contention 
that its prevalence can have no determinative value un- 
less clear and self-sufficient demonstration of its validity 
can be obtained from earlier documentary data. I reject 
it because, many competent scholars being witness, these 
earlier data are not sufficient, that is, when considered in 
isolation from the main stream of tradition, to afford 
demonstration in either direction. I ought to add, how- 
ever, that they tend to confirm rather than to overthrow 
the general tradition. 

This traditional view included the following determina- 
tive particulars : 

(1) The Apostles under divine guidance, whether of 
specific directions from Christ or not, established the 
form and method of perpetuation of the permanent min- 
istry of the Church. This element of the tradition is 
explicitly confirmed by St. Clement's testimony, given as 
early as 95 or 96 A.D. 

(2) As a consequence, no other ministry was acknowl- 
edged to be consistent with a full and valid organization 
and functioning of a Christian Church except that of 
bishops, priests and deacons. This is clearly set forth 
by St. Ignatius of Antioch about 110 A.D., a man who, 
like St. Clement, enjoyed first-hand acquaintance with 
apostolic teaching. 

(3) Bishops in the finally crystallized meaning of that 
designation were considered to be the only agents compe- 
tent to perform valid ordinations to this ministry ; and no 
undeniable evidence exists that either in the apostolic or 
in the sub-apostolic period any ordination was accepted 
as valid which was not performed either by the Apostles 
or by the higher Order of "apostolic men" of which the 
historic episcopate was and ever has been the continua- 
tion. Dr. Headlam himself is compelled to acknowledge 
that the cases alleged as exceptions "are doubtful. Either 


the evidence is inconclusive or the readings vary." The 
local custom of " confessors" exercising the presbyterate 
without ordination is non-relevant, and as confessedly an 
abnormality soon passed away. And these confessors 
never ventured to ordain ministers. The precise nature 
of the peculiar early method of appointing the bishop of 
Alexandria is open to dispute, but the supposition that 
mere presbyters consecrated him is not a necessary in- 
ference from the testimony, nor is it supported by any 
proof; and whatever the peculiar custom was, it gave 
way in the third century to the methods elsewhere pre- 

Dr. Headlam's discovery that the phrase "apostolic 
succession" did not mean in patristic use a succession by 
ordination, but of oversight in particular Sees and of 
ministerial functions, is not so modern as he appears to 
think, and for his purposes is what is popularly called a 
"mare's nest." The question is not of conformity of 
patristic phrase to modern usage but of the antiquity of 
the principle that no one can validly receive the apostolic 
power of ordaining ministers for Christ's Catholic 
Church except by devolution from above. The ancient 
requirement of episcopal ordination, coupled with be- 
lief that such requirement was of apostolic origin, 
is obviously equivalent to acceptance of the principle 
of uninterrupted devolution. As no serious contro- 
versy on the point arose until the Protestants of the 
sixteenth century were constrained to defend their in- 
novating practice, we naturally find no ancient discus- 
sions of the subject. But what we mean by the phrase 
"apostolic succession," or uninterrupted devolution of 
the ministerial commission from above, was in full pos- 
session and carefully adhered to on the basis of apostolic 

(b) The above indicated broad stream of tradition 
which is found to prevail in the Church from the earliest 


post-apostolic period of which we have assured knowl- 
edge, coupled with the earnest care then notoriously em- 
phasized in preserving and adhering to apostolic tradi- 
tion, determines the state of the question and appears 
to dictate substantially the following line of enquiry. 
Does our available knowledge of the apostolic age, and 
of the brief sub-apostolic period previous to the clear 
emergence of the general stream of tradition referred to, 
enable us to determine the trustworthiness of this tra- 
dition in the fundamental particulars of doctrine and 
practice pertaining to the ministry? 

The broad circumstance has to be faced that no formal 
exposition of the subject such as would afford self -suffi- 
cient demonstration as to the particulars of the tradition 
under consideration, is to be found in first-century docu- 
ments. The same lack of determinative apostolic exposi- 
tion besets the argument for other vital things. The 
question of the sacred canon itself affords an example. 
We are forced, therefore, to depend upon certain New 
Testament passages of limited scope, and upon the cir- 
cumstantial evidence which a very incomplete history of 
the apostolic Church affords. My contention here is that 
in spite of these limitations, the available data of the 
apostolic age tend to confirm the hypothesis that the later 
Catholic tradition of which I am speaking is substantially 
correct. Certainly not one indisputable circumstance or 
utterance of apostolic significance precludes such a con- 

(1) The Lord probably did give His ministerial com- 
mission to a larger ecclesiastical assembly than "the 
twelve,' ' but He gave it to the Church as Church, that is, 
as the organism, of which He had made the twelve to be 
the original official organs. Dr. Headlam accepts the 
organic conception of the Church, which is strongly em- 
phasized by St. Paul, but overlooks the implication that 
the divinely appointed corporate functions of the Church 


have to be exercised organically; and the same Apostle 
clearly teaches that the structural nature and ministry 
of this organism is not determined by the collective will 
of Christians but by its divine Creator. God has set in 
the Church its ministers, and they represent the agency 
by which alone the Creator of the Body of Christ deter- 
mines its organic functioning. The Church, therefore, 
can no more change the form of its ministry than a hu- 
man body can change the form of its organs. The Creator 
of the organism has determined this forever. 

(2) For the creative work of establishing the Church 
its apostolic ministry was supplemented by an extra- 
ordinary and, as the event proved, temporary ministry 
of men with charismatic gifts. But the permanent pas- 
torate of the Churches apparently fell into the hands of 
those whom the Apostles ordained to that end. The char- 
ismatic ministry was largely itinerant and bore marks of 
being supplementary. We have to look to local arrange- 
ments for evidence of Apostolic appointments and of the 
permanent form which the Christian ministry was de- 
signed to take. The process of local organization was 
gradual. Most of "the Churches' ' had presbyters and 
deacons ordained for them by men empowered to ordain 
by the Apostles. Timothy and Titus are examples. The 
local presbyters during this period were also called bish- 
ops as having the local oversight. It was apparently not 
deemed safe at the missionary stage to equip the local 
Churches with a self-perpetuating ministry. But the 
Mother Church of Jerusalem was completely organized. 
Dr. Headlam acknowledges that its organization "sug- 
gests an exact resemblance to that in later days of bishop, 
presbyter, and deacon ' ' ; adding that " it is not improbable 
that that model assisted in the building up of the later 
organization of the Church.' ' None the less he strangely 
describes it as "abnormal." A more reasonable view is 
that the subsequent rule of the Church in employing this 


constitution as the prescriptive norm for the organiza- 
tion of local Churches when they were ready for full 
equipment, was in accord with the known mind of the 
Apostles. This view is confirmed by the fairly well es- 
tablished fact that the Apostle St. John, to whom fell 
the task of completing the organization of the Churches 
in Asia, organized them in strict accord with the Jeru- 
salem pattern. And his disciple, St. Ignatius, declared 
that bishops, presbyters, and deacons are necessary for 
a fully organized Church. 

These facts of the apostolic age appear to me strongly 
to confirm the subsequent Catholic tradition ; and no facts 
are known which offset them. The details of completion 
of local Church organization during the intervening half 
century or more of obscurity are largely beyond our 
reach. But no trace of any revolution appears. And no 
evidence of the use or acceptance of presbyterial or con- 
gregational ordination can be found. In brief, the genetic 
facts of the apostolic period, coupled with the apostolic 
doctrine that the Church's ministry is of divine ordering, 
fit in perfectly with the subsequent working system of 
the Church and with the then general belief in the apos- 
tolic origin of that system. 

My conclusion is that the ancient state of the question 
concerning the apostolic origin and prescription of the 
form and the method of perpetuating the Church's min- 
istry is susceptible of as complete verification as the 
available data permit, and of sufficient verification 
abundantly to justify the sense of responsibility still felt 
in over two-thirds of Christendom for refusing to com- 
promise the Catholic doctrine and practice as to the min- 
istry and the method of ordination. Those who are per- 
suaded that the Catholic ministry is a sacred trust from 
above cannot righteously agree to shift its basis of pres- 
ervation to that of human compacts, subject to revision 
as such compacts necessarily are. 


Unless my argument is fundamentally astray, the fatal 
obstacle to Dr. Headlam's proposal of mutual recogni- 
tion of ministries and of compact hereafter to employ 
episcopal ordination everywhere is very clear. It would 
violate the consciences of a vast majority of those who 
would have to accept it. Its plausibility lies wholly in 
the provincial atmosphere of its origin. Considered in 
ecumenical light, it is a hopelessly futile scheme. 

III. Conditions of Unity 

I realize fully that my conclusion will seem to Prot- 
estants to be equivalent to an obstinate non possumus in 
the matter of reunion between Protestant and Catholic 
believers. It really means that the road to visible unity 
between these sections of Christendom lies through 
change of existing convictions concerning this and cer- 
tain other matters, also deemed to be insusceptible of 
righteous compromise. If such change of convictions as 
will bring these sections into accord in fundamental re- 
gards is impossible, the visible unity for which we are 
laboring is impossible. But the plain call of God to unity 
teaches me that it is not impossible, but that our studies 
and conferences will in due course develop a larger 
atmosphere and create a standpoint from which, by the 
Spirit's guidance, we shall be able to think the same 
things fundamentally speaking, and use common terms — 
terms which, unlike current ad interim eirenicons, will 
not be interpreted by their signers in mutually discordant 

At present it is clearly futile to push for the adoption 
of any schematic procedure for union, whether complete 
or partial, between episcopal and non-episcopal com- 
munions. They are nobly meant, of course, but hope- 
lessly premature. The old malicious aloofness is giving 
way, thanks to God's merciful grace, to a growing mutual 
kindliness and sympathy. A course of mutual educa- 


tion, the long continuance of which is essential to real 
mutual understanding and growth into fundamental ac- 
cord, is now getting under way. It has only begun. Why 
should forcing schemes be intruded at this delicate stage I 
Mutual interchanges of pulpits must alarm many Epis- 
copalians and prejudice them against the whole move- 
ment; and the same result, along with a weakening of 
our normal internal discipline, must attend the advocated 
practice of admitting to our communicant privileges those 
who not only have not been confirmed, but who reject that 
"foundation," as the Epistle to the Hebrews describes 
it. The advocated scheme of giving episcopal ordination 
to nonconformist ministers, while leaving them free to 
retain the nonconformist status, appears to many of our 
clergy and laity to be obviously and hopelessly incon- 
sistent with what they are convinced is integral to a God- 
given stewardship. 

These are conditions to be reckoned with, and to over- 
rule them is to retard instead of helping on the cause 
we have at heart. Let us then adhere carefully to the 
line of least resistance. Let us face our differences in 
loving conference, while recognizing that hasty action, 
likely to upset concord, must wait for the completion of 
our mutual education. 

What ought to be the result of such education? I 
cannot express it more successfully than in the words 
of the Declaration on Unity published by our bishops in 
1886. It will lead us to perceive that Christian unity 
"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 sub- 
stantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed 
by Christ and His Apostles to the Church unto the end of 
the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or sur- 
render by those who have been ordained to be its stewards 


and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all 
men." The four articles appended to this Declaration, 
called i ' The Quadrilateral, ' ' were not given as a compre- 
hensive list of terms of unity, but ' ' inherent parts of this 
sacred deposit," which might well be considered at the 
outset in conferences concerning the conditions of unity. 

The Lambeth Conference of 1888 republished the 
Quadrilateral with the same limited intent — as "a basis 
on which approach may be by God's blessing made to- 
wards Home Keunion." Each article thus set forth in 
skeleton form really stands for a field of inquiry in 
which many subjects require discussion; and much 
growth towards a common mind is indispensable, if we 
are to achieve a visible unity which shall not be followed 
by subsequent disillusionment and renewed discord. The 
Lambeth Conference of 1920, as the eminent Congrega- 
tional divine, Dr. A. E. Garvie, perceives, has not re- 
versed our attitude in principle. He says (The Construc- 
tive Quarterly, Dec, 1920, P. 563) of the Anglican 
bishops, ' ' They have felt as Christians, and every Chris- 
tian heartily responds; but they have thought as Cath- 
olics, and there their Appeal challenges doubt and 
question." He is right; and if the bishops hinted at 
possible procedures, pending the restoration of unity, 
which if actualized at this stage would seriously disturb 
many Anglicans, they were obviously straining at limi- 
tations which they could not conscientiously repudiate 
in order to demonstrate the strength of their craving for 
unity with their separated brethren. 

Let us re-gather ourselves. What in other terms does 
the Anglican Appeal, as denned in these documents, come 
to! I think that Dr. Palmer, Bishop of Bombay, ex- 
presses it with some success, in The Constructive Quar- 
terly for March, 1921, and with more elaborate discussion 
in his little book, The Great Church Awakes. His thought 
in a nutshell is that the unity to which we are being called 


is that of the great universal Church of Christ, and that 
the problems of unity cannot be successfully considered 
and solved except from the standpoint of that Church. 
When this standpoint is reached by us all, new and larger 
light will come to us all, and thorny problems will some- 
how lose their thorniness and simply fade away. It is in 
that direction that I am convinced our education and 
mutual approximation lies. And the consummation is 
possible, for ' ' God wills it. ' ' But for some time our work 
should consist of study, conference and prayer — not 
schematic procedures. 

I believe we shall all come to see that what we need is 
not to save our denominational faces but to save the face 
of God's great universal Church. It is not to build a 
Church of the future out of denominational material, but 
to discover the great Church already existing, and to be 
absorbed with every really good thing we have in the 
abounding life and light thereof. It is not to frame a 
concordat of faith and order, but to return all of us to 
the fulness of the great Church's faith and order. It is 
not to denominationalize principles, which means to iso- 
late them from their balancing context to caricature them, 
and to bring them into odium in the rest of Christendom, 
but it is to end denominationalism entirely, in favor of 
the stronger and more enlightened stewardship of the 
whole Church of God. We have need to see that in that 
Church alone can the brethren unite their resources for 
the effectual guarding of things needing to be guarded, 
whether in the direction of the common faith, order and 
discipline or in that of true freedom. When we see this, 
we shall see much that we now fail to understand; and 
the awakening of the great Church will be our own awak- 
ening to the pettinesses of denominational stipulations 
and adjustments. These can never be more than "flick- 
ering expedients" to reduce or conceal the consequences 
of disunion without curing it. We really need the 


extinction of denominations and of their divisive stand- 
points. Denominational Churches are the forms of dis- 
unity, and their continuance is the continuance of a 
broken and spiritually impoverished Christendom. 

Francis J. Hall. 

General Theological Seminary, 
New York. 


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. 
Righteousness 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 cease; 

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. 


In the Dallas Christian Unity Conference, Dallas, 
Texas, held under the auspices of the Association for the 
Promotion of Christian Unity, Bishop G. H. Kinsolving, 
of Texas, speaking on the Lambeth Conference of which 
he was a member, said, 

Among the many arguments advanced in the Lambeth conference in 
behalf of the need of unity which impressed me very much was the one 
which came from the Bishop-Chaplains who had served in the late war, 
and had witnessed the disadvantages under which the Church had tried 
to do her work. Prominent in this number was our own Bishop Brent, 
the ranking chaplain in the American Expeditionary Force. It set one 
thinking along the lines of how hate and fear seem to be chief unifying 
principles in human affairs, and love seems to be so comparatively weak. 
Here was a great war waged, and at once all the nations with a common 
hate united as one body to destroy several other nations who were bound 
together by the same kind of low and earthborn passion. And so it has 
always been in the history of the nations. Bishop Temple in a recent 
article on Church unity has pointed out how in ancient times the Greeks 
were one in their wars with the oriental powers. The Romans were one 
while Cato cried daily in the forum " Delenda est Carthago." And when 
we skip across the centuries we find the same phenomenon in Europe in 
our day. We know how united Mahommedanism is, which is a religion of 
hate, and uses the sword as the principal instrument for its propagation. 
Yet Christianity, which claims to be a religion of love, found itself unable 
to function, save in a very limited degree, in allaying the passions of hate 
which inspired men at war, or in ministering to the suffering and needs 
of those who were engaged in this awful struggle. The great Protestant 
Churches had their hands tied by reason of their unhappy divisions, and 
we were subjected to the humiliating substitute of doing our work through 
semi-secular organizations like the Red Cross Society and the Young Men's 
Christian Association. Even a Jesuit priest, Father Leslie J. Walker, who 
was a chaplain, realized the sadness of such a spectacle, and the grievous 
loss of spiritual influence Christianity suffered because of the diversity of 
its champions. And he has written a very suggestive book on ' ' The 
Problem of Reunion" in which he pleads for a union of Christian bodies 
among Protestants, and while the book is full of Rome's peculiarities and 
claims, it seems to be the product of a mind inspired by a sincere desire to 
improve and strengthen the cause of our common religion. 

After the adjournment of our conference I visited some of the battle 
fields of France, and again this subject of reunion which we had discussed 
so earnestly • was forced home upon my mind. I stood gazing over some 
of the cemeteries where our dear boys were lying at peace and rest, and 
would that I could express to you what a tumult of emotions rushed in 
upon my heart as I looked upon the long rows of white crosses, which 
stood as headstones over each of the graves. ' ' Ah, Lord God \ ff I asked 
myself, ''did our boys have to die before they could be united and have 
their graves marked by the same emblem of a common faith!" How 
sick and weary it makes one feel as we think of this subject of Christian 


disunion and discord when brought face to face with suggestions which 
come into the mind from considerations like these! Is our religion, indeed, 
a religion of love, or, on the contrary, can it be true of us, as Dean 
Swift in biting satire said of the Church in his day "We have learned 
enough religion to make us hate each other but not enough to love?" 
Is the sneering mockery of Herbert Spencer descriptive of us when he 
says "It would clear up our ideas about many things if we distinctly 
recognized the truth that we have two religions, the religion of amity and 
the religion of enmity. Of course I do not mean that they are both 
called religions. I am speaking, not of names, I am speaking simply of 
things. Nowadays men do not pay the same nominal homage to the 
religion of enmity that they do to the religion of amity: the religion of 
amity occupies the place of honor, but the real homage is paid in large 
measure, if not larger measure, to the religion of enmity. The religion 
of enmity nearly all men actually believe; the religion of amity most 
of them merely believe that they believe." 

The English poet, Shelley, once sighed to his friend — "What a divine 
religion might be found out if Charity were made the principle of it 
instead of Faith ! ' ' And this he said, though it is written in the Book 
of books ' ' The greatest of these is charity. ' ' And ' ' A new commandment 
give I unto you that ye love one another." President Lincoln is reported 
to have made the remark to a visitor at the White House, "I have never 
united myself to any Church, but when any Church will inscribe over its 
altar as its sole qualification for membership the Saviour's condensed 
statement of the substance of both the law and the gospel, * Thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself that Church will I join with 
all my heart and soul." 

Are these taunts and criticisms justly taken? Is the Church so funda- 
mentally lacking in practice that we have deservedly become the objects 
of ridicule and contumely to those outside the forms of organized Chris- 
tianity? I am asking myself in all seriousness that question, and our 
branch of the Church is asking such questions, and that is another of the 
many reason why we are making our overtures to the Christian world. 
Speaking for myself may I not be permitted to express my own personal 
conviction that this great movement which is stirring in the hearts of 
thousands of the most thoughtful and earnest among Christ's people, 
will continue to grow, and finally formulate itself into some system where- 
by we can ail come together in substantial agreement and do our work 
in harmony and love, as beeometh true and loyal followers and disciples 
of the great Head of the Church. I am very hopeful for the ultimate 
outcome. I am convinced that it is God's cause and He will open the 
way for its triumph. I have put myself into the work because I believe 
in it. I am not talking merely for the sake of making a speech, my 
heart is in the work. Let us not dispose of the subject now by simply 
passing some pious resolutions, or to use a slang expression, if you will 
pardon it "passing the buck" on to other meetings and organizations. 
Let us get down to heart-searching consideration of the subject and see 
it through. 

The day is breaking upon God 's church and we are most sanguine and 
enthusiastic in our belief that we are on the right road to win the ap- 
proval and blessing of our one divine Lord and Master, whom we all 
love and in various ways are trying to serve. I am willing now to 
answer any questions and offer explanations of any points in the Appeal 
which anyone present may wish to be made clear. 

Dr. Graham Frank, of the Central Christian Church of Dallas, asked 
if he should come to Episcopal authorities and receive orders, and be 
ordained by a bishop, would he then be free to remain in charge of 


the Central Christian Church and be permitted to preach in an Epis- 
copal Church, to which question the Bishop replied, that he would 
be free in both particulars. The movement is intended for fellowship, 
not for absorption nor uniformity. The Bishop referred to the case 
of the Archbishop of York, who hoped by some such arrangement that 
he, the Archbishop, might be welcomed authoritatively into his father's 
pulpit. His father is a distinguished Presbyterian minister, while 
the Presbyterian father with an Episcopal ordination might be wel- 
comed into the pulpit of York Minster. 

Rev. "William E. Gilroy writing in The Christian Cen- 
tury, Chicago, regarding Church union in Canada, says, 

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, meet- 
ing in Toronto, in June, voted by an overwhelming majority, 414 for, 
and 107 against — about four to one — to proceed with the necessary 
steps for the consummation of union with the Methodist Church of 
Canada, and the Congregational Churches of Canada. As this action of 
the Presbyterians was taken upon a definitely proposed basis of union, 
already almost unanimously approved by the Methodists and Congre- 
gationalists, who had taken official action, and were waiting only for 
the Presbyterians to come to a decision, it would appear that these 
three bodies have now entered upon the closing stages of the most re- 
markable Church union movement in modern times. 

The movement has been remarkable for its extent, covering, terri- 
torially, the entire dominion, and the interests of the three bodies in 
foreign lands; involving the two largest Protestant denominations in 
the country, and representing, all told, much more than one-half of the 
Protestant population, and almost one-third of the total population, 
of Canada. It has been remarkable for the persistence with which, in 
a period of almost twenty years, it has gone on, in spite of some 
elements of determined opposition, and in spite of the inevitable delays, 
which often prove more disastrous to such movements than actual op- 
position. But more remarkable is the fact that the movement has been 
from the beginning a definite movement for organic union, largely taking 
for granted sentimental and academic considerations regarding church 
union in general, and resisting strongly every effort toward compromise 
on the basis of federation, or cooperation. And this fact is itself the 
more remarkable when the elements seeking such organic union are taken 
into account — two great bodies, historically divided, not only by temper 
and tradition, but by the bitter cleavage between Calvinism and 
Arminianism, not only seeking organic union with each other, but putting 
polity as well as dogma into the melting-pot in their effort to take into 
the union a group of churches, small, but vigorous, and almost fero- 
ciously independent. So far as I am aware, it is the first effort upon a 
wide scale to bring into organic union these opposite poles of Calvinism 
and Arminianism, connexionalism and Congregationalism. 


The question will naturally be asked, Why has a movement so broad, 
and so diverse, not taken in all the Protestant elements in Canada? 
The fact is that as far back as 1906, when the nature of the movement 
was already fairly well defined, official action was taken explaining 
what had been done thus far, and inviting both the Baptists and the 
Church of England to participate in further discussions, should they 


deem it advisable to do so. The Baptist Convention of Ontario and 
Quebec replied to this overture by setting forth their distinctive prin- 
ciples, and stating that because of these principles they considered it 
11 necessary to maintain a separate organized existence," and "to propa- 
gate their views throughout the world." The Episcopalians received 
the proposals cordially. There are undoubtedly many in that com- 
munion who have earnestly desired to see their church a party to the 
negotiations, on much the same basis as the other bodies, but the pre- 
vailing opinion has been favorable toward parleyings, approaches and 
academic discussions, such as we are familiar with in all negotiations 
with Episcopalians on this side of the line. The Presbyterians, Meth- 
odists and Congregationalists have been unwilling to halt their move- 
ment, or to sacrifice its immediacy and its definitely practical character 
for the sake of some less certain, and far distant, if broader, results. 
There has been question, also, as to whether the result would prove 
broader, or whether the inclusion of the Episcopalians in the negotia- 
tions would not introduce new necessities for compromise. My impres- 
sion is that the invitation to the Church of England in Canada was sug- 
gested rather as a concession to the general sentiment regarding Church 
union, than as an act of hope. In any case, the movement nears con- 
summation, as it began — a movement involving only the three fellow- 
ships, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational. There is room for 
wide latitude of interpretation as to what may constitute the steps neces- 
sary for the consummation of the union. My own opinion is that it 
will be some years yet, at least five, and possibly ten, before the final 
consummation takes place. 

Dr. William Adams Brown in The Constructive Quar- 
terly, New York, says, 

The relation of federal union to organic union is not so easy to de- 
fine, since there is a sense in which they overlap and many even coalesce. 
In theory federal union may be either (a) a step toward organic union, 
or even (ft) a form which organic union may take. But as usually under- 
stood it represents a form of Christian union which, while affecting the 
denomination as a. whole, stops short of organic union. There are those 
who would go farther and regard it as a substitute for organic union. 

What is characteristic of federal union as distinct from other forms 
of corporate union is that it retains the individuality of the uniting 
Churches unimpaired. Even if they delegate their powers to another agency, 
they are able to resume them at any time. But organic union carries 
with it a note of irrevocableness such as exists in the relation of the several 
states in the American union to the central government. 

The analogy of the states of the union is a helpful one, because it shows 
not only the difference between federal union and organic union, but also 
their points of contact and transition. The theory of the Southern states 
before 1861 was the theory of federal union in the narrower sense. They 
had surrendered powers but for the time only. What they had given they 
believed they could resume. But to the North this alternative no longer 
existed. Federal union to them meant organic union; not because they 
denied the right of the separate states to existence and sovereignty within 
the sphere of rights reserved, but because they believed that the rights 
surrendered when the union was constituted were surrendered irrevocably. 

In distinguishing organic union from federal union, therefore, this is 
the point on which we must insist. Organic union is not a matter of 


degree, but of kind. It is union which, however far it extends, is in its 

nature irrevocable, or at least is believed to be so by those who enter 

into it. 

* # * * 

What is essential in the matter of organic union, is not so much the 
form of organization as the attitude of mind involved. Underlying all 
differences of attitude toward the practical questions involved are deep- 
seated differences as to the conception of the Church itself. What do we 
mean by the Church of Christ? What it its nature and authority? Above 
all, what is the relation between that oneness in spirit and experience 
which we have agreed to call unity and the outward forms of organization 
to which we have reserved the term union? Are these separable or do they 
necessarily go together? Which is dependent upon the other? How far 
may spiritual unity co-exist with differences of external organization? 
According to the way in which one answers these questions will be his 
attitude to the question of organic union. 

Rev. L. W. McCreary in The Christian Century, Chi- 
cago says, 

Christian leaders of today are almost unanimously agreed that the im- 
mediate outlook for the church is alarming. It was thought that the 
church would profit by the experiences of the war and that hereafter a 
closer unity and co-operation would characterize all religious endeavor. 
Instead, it may be seriously doubted if there has been a time in the last 
twenty years when denominationalism has been more assertive. Its move- 
ments are more subtle just now because they lurk behind an attempted 
brotherliness. It is true, there is a real ache for Christian unity in the 
hearts of forward-looking churchmen, but the denominational appeals by 
the socalled Forward Movements of the religious bodies show that de- 
nominationalism has never been more active. The great mass of men out- 
side the chruch care nothing for our denominational differences, and while 
it is true that the coming generation will more and more ignore them, at 
present denominational machinery is all we have with which to cope with 
conditions. If somehow we could get the denominations themselves to look 
outward rather than inward the challenge of a needy world might be suffi- 
cient to change the curve of endeavor. So long as the church constituencies 
are intent upon saving their several denominations, just so long will the 
church stand impotent in the presence of appalling need. 

That organized denominationalism today seems destined to fail in win- 
ning the world constitutes our chief hope for tomorrow. Physicians some- 
times tell us that when certain diseases have laid hold upon the body little 
can be done but to allow them to run their course. In other words, the 
patient must get sicker in order to recover. Denominationalism has about 
run its course. It is persistent because it is fighting its last battle. The 
throes of the present crisis in church life may be but the travail of a new 
birth which will compel the church to lose her life in order to save it to 
the Master's program. Our Lord's prayer for the union of all believers, 
reinforced by his life of lowly service, is the blazed trail along which the 
church must move to the redemption of the world. 

It seems quite evident that for years to come the churches will not 
get together on polity. Doubless there is a growing spirit of democracy 
in church government, but those denominations in which democracy is 
least prominent seem to have distinct advantages in certain forms of gov- 
ernment. Some day we shall make the discovery that there is one thing 


vastly more important than any particular form of church polity, namely, 
to get the thing done that Christ wants done for the salvation of the 
world. Some day we shall learn that the church is only an expedient; that 
the Bible instead of handing down a finished form of church government, 
as Moses was given explicit direction for building the tabernacle, has 
rather enunciated the principles that must govern the body through which 
the Kingdom of God is to manifest itself. 

Likewise it seems quite certain that we shall not unite on a sacramental 
basis. All religious communions are agreed that baptism and the Lord's 
Supper are rites to be observed in the church. A wide divergence of opin- 
ion exists concerning the eucharist, yet each denomination finds blessing 
and value in its own particular approach to this feast of love. The ma- 
jority of churches to-day do not practice baptism as it was . practiced in 
the first century, but the Lord seems to have set the seal of his approval 
upon other forms of committment by the individual that seek to en- 
throne righteousness and love in the life. Baptism stands for enlistment. 
It comes at the beginning of the Christian life. The cross, which con- 
stitutes the chief glory of Christ's life, is the thing to which he attaches 
most importance. The real service in which one presents his body a liv- 
ing sacrifice daily must follow baptism, and on this our Lord placed the 
true emphasis. 

Nor does it now seem that we shall get together on church doctrines. 
Indeed this is the point at which the churches have wasted years in fruitless 
contention. What was the doctrine of Christ? Let any group of leaders 
come together and spend six months studying his life and program, and 
then outline his doctrine if they can. They will discover that a summary 
of this entire ministry could be made in a single sentence — God is your 
Father and all men are your brothers, and you must live and act in ac- 
cordance with that truth. The Master's emphasis was on life, not doc- 
trine. He predicated heaven and our assurance of it on one condition — 
that we serve the needs of his little ones. In that most graphic picture 
of the Judgment in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew our Lord places 
the sheep upon the right and the goats upon the left, saying to those upon 
he left, ' ' Depart, ' ' and to those upon the right, ' ' Come inherit. ' ' Why ? 
Because ye believed in the preached faith, repentance and baptism? Not 
so! Though the Master preached it, and would have us follow him in this. 
Because ye believe in the ''restoration of primitive Christianity 1 ?" Not 
so! Although his simple form of life and teaching needs to be restored. 
Because ye preached Christian union? Not so! Notwithstanding the 
need of preaching and living this message. Read it with care. Come, be- 
cause ye ministered to one of the least of my needy ones. Our passport 
then to heaven is obtained through service. 

Canon E. W. Barnes in his Mayflower Tercentenary 
address in Westminster Abbey, according to The Chal- 
lenge, London, said, 

But we must tolerate divergence of standpoints, differences in modes 
of worship, which exist between ourselves, confident that truth will pre- 
vail over error and that different forms of worship correspond to diversi- 
ties in religious temperament. There are diversities of gifts, but it is the 
same Spirit which quickeneth. As a means to religious unity persecution 
failed utterly. The story of the Pilgrim Fathers teaches that lesson con- 
clusively. Conflict, semi-political, semi-theological, has been no more suc- 
cessful. It has merely weakened the religious vitality of the nation. It 


has caused men who tried to be true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ 
to distrust one another when they ought eagerly to have sought fellow- 
ship in the Spirit. Real unity can only result from this same fellowship 
in the Spirit. Questions of organisation, of the precise value to be given 
to ancient symbols and traditions, are of subordinate importance. What 
transcends all is loyalty to the indwelling Spirit Who is the Lord Jesus 
Christ. The statement of orthodoxy which I set above any other I find 
in the fourteenth chapter of St. John 's Gospel : ' ' No man cometh unto the 
Father but by Me. " "I am in the Father and the Father in Me." "I 
am in my Father and yet in Me and I in you. ' ' The test of orthodoxy, 
which no follower of the Lord can challenge, is "By their fruits ye shall 
know them." And the judgment upon orthodoxy is contained in the 
solemn words: "Not every man that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter 
into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father 
which is in Heaven. ' ' 

Regarding episcopacy Principal W. B. Selbie, D. X)., 
of Mansfield College, writing in The Constructive Quar- 
terly, says, 

' ' The question, however, is one which needs much further discussion, and 
there are many difficulties on the Nonconformist side which yet need to be 
removed. Secondly, the question of inter-communion is perhaps the most 
vital of all those that have been raised in the discussion hitherto. If there 
is any meaning in the admission of the equal status of all the denominations 
as parts of the Church of Christ it would naturally involve the admission of 
all duly qualified members of all the churches to the communion in any of 
the Churches. For the moment this need not carry with it what is known 
as inter-celebration, as to which there is a great hesitation in some quarters. 
If the first point were conceded as a matter of practice it would go a long 
way in the direction of the desired end. Thirdly, on the question of inter- 
change of pulpits it may be said that probably too much has been made of 
this point. There is no wide-spread desire on either side for any such inter- 
change save as an occasional and exceptional thing. It is felt, however, that 
where it is desired and where there is good reason for it, it ought to be 
possible to carry it out without regarding it as anything that needs apology 
or defence. This action would naturally follow from the acceptance of 
the equal status of the churches. 

1 ' The attitude of the Anglo-Catholics makes it very clear that the funda- 
mental issue is one between the Catholic and Protestant ideals. Free Church- 
men cannot consent to equate faith and order in the way that Anglo- 
Catholics seem to require. Nor can they allow the work of the Holy Spirit 
in the Churches to be lightly put on one side. That this work is real and 
effective Catholics seem willing enough to grant, but they do not seem to 
understand the implications of this concession, nor are they willing to follow 
out its logical conclusions. To fail to do this seems to be fighting against 
God, and while it is true that He is not tied to His Sacraments it is also 
true that where the fruits of His Spirit are manifest, it is not for men to put 
them on one side. The work of the Holy Spirit shows that in all the Churches 
there is already a fundamental spiritual unity. It would seem, there- 
fore, the plain duty of Christians at the present time to discover some method 
of organization which will give proper and visible expression of that unity 
and secure the existence of one Church within which room may be found for 
wide diversities of gifts and operations. The best way to this will probably 
be to continue the process of conference and discussion which has now been 


so well begun. Both sides need to learn very much more about their own 
deficiencies and about the advantages possessed by others. Both alike need 
to be still further convinced that unity is not merely expedient but right, 
and that only by securing it can the Churches fulfill the will of their 
Master. ' ' 

In Archbishop Du Vernet 's recent charge to the Angli- 
can Synod of the Diocese of Caledonia, he says, 

For fifteen hundred years the spirit of God as the divine Administrator 
of the Church made use of the episcopal line of succession in the trans- 
mitting of the authority of the Church. This is strong presumptive evi- 
dence in its favor. But for the last five hundred years the same Spirit of 
God has abundantly demonstrated that His power is not tied to this 
episcopal line of succession, but overleaps the bounds of such narrow 
limitation. The old system of the historic episcopate must not be aban- 
doned for it is still effective, but by the side of this we must make room 
for other systems of ecclesiastical order which have proved their worth. 

The principle of historic continuity is essential but when the Spirit of 
Him Who is the same ''Yesterday, today and forever' ' is manifestly 
working through the organism of some Church we have the highest guarantee 
of this essential continuity. 

Loyalty to our Church traditions forces us to hold fast to the historic 
episcopate, but loyalty to the Spirit of Christ will not allow us to erect 
this piece of ecclesiastical machinery as a barrier in the way of Christian 

Social contact is the great solvent for religious prejudice. Let men of 
the different Churches come together for common worship and common work 
for the common cause of Christ and humanity, and the unity of the Spirit 
will be felt with such overwhelming power that the variety of men will no 
longer be an obstacle in the way of a comprehensive Church. 

As one step in this direction I am glad to be able to say that in this 
Diocese we have made a beginning in the way of putting into operation 
two of the resolutions adopted by a joint-committee appointed by the 
Anglican Provincial Synod and the Presbyterian Provincial Synod of 
British Columbia, these resolutions having first received a general approval 
from both Synods. The resolutions are as follows: 

"That before occupying new territory, where there are few settlers 
and there is little prospect of rapid growth, or where other special cir- 
cumstances exist, conference be held between the Bishop of the Diocese and 
the Superintendent of Missions, so as to prevent overlapping during the 
pioneer stage, upon the clear and definite understanding that each com- 
munion reserves to itself the right to send a clergyman from time to time 
into such districts to administer the sacraments to its people. " 

"That in cases of sparsely settled districts where missionaries of both 
communions are at work, services should be held either on different Sun- 
days, or at different hours on the same Sunday, so as to avoid apparent 
conflict, and that the Bishop of the Diocese and the Superintendent of 
Missions should use their influence to promote such arrangements. ' * 

Early last February the Superintendent of Presbyterian Missions and 
I, with map in hand, surveyed the territory covered by this Diocese and 
came to a mutual agreement in regard to many places in accordance with 
the terms of these two resolutions. As this Diocese consists of 200,000 
square miles and our resources in men and money are so limited it 
is our bounden duty to cooperate with other Churches so as together min- 
ister to the spiritual needs of the people scattered over this vast territory. 





To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly: 

Dear Sir: — I have read with much interest the above report as given 
in your last issue and I must confess my disappointment with the 
tone it manifests and the general stand it takes. Though courteous 
in its language and apparently appreciative of the spiritual character 
of the Lambeth Appeal, there is in it but little recognitin of the evils 
of division, or manifestation of eagerness to do away with them. Much 
less is there any acknowledgment of them as sinful, and not an expres- 
sion of penitence for any share that their authors had in causing them, 
or themselves in perpetuating them. Whereas, the Lambeth bishops are 
most explicit in declaring their penitence and sorrow for anything that 
they or their predecessors may have done which in any way gave cause 
for their justification. 

It seems to me that unless there comes to be a general and genuine 
recognition of the sinfulness of schism, there can be but little hope of 
the present ones being healed or future ones being prevented. 

Then the claim is made that "Churches" are voluntary organizations 
of different kinds into which Christians have formed themselves on the 
reception of the ' ' preaching of the Word, ' ' and that this conception 
must be accepted by all, before even the question of their union in one 
body can be ' ' with propriety suggested. ' ' Now there can be no question 
on the part of any of the value of the preaching of the Gospel, for 
Christ commanded His Disciples to go into all the world and preach it 
to every creature, but why should that be exalted and the other com- 
mand, given at the same time and by the same authority, to baptize, be 
ignored? And baptism means the admission into an organization, "a 
Body, " as St. Paul calls it, in which there should be no divisions. 

Here are two distinct conceptions as to the relations which should 
subsist between Christians. One is that they may associate themselves 
into any number of separate and different bodies having simply a 
spiritual union with one another; the other is that all should be members 
of one body, welded together, and having the same relationship to each 
other, as the varying members of a human body, and possessing the same 
efficiency. The latter has been the ideal at least of the vast majority 
of all Christians throughout the Christian centuries. The former con- 
ception of Christian relationship has come into vogue only among some 
Christians since the Protestant Reformation, and yet the demand is 
made that this idea must be accepted by all, before union even can be 

The claim is even made that those holding this view have a wider 
and larger Church fellowship than those who hold the other view because 
they are all willing to "partake of the same Holy Table." But if that 
Communion produces no unity of organization or action, as it has not, 
it is not of much use beyond the spiritual sense of fellowship it pro- 
duces upon the individual recipients. 

It is asked whether, if the Lambeth proposals were acted upon, it 
"would prevent or hamper continued recognition of sister Churches — 
in sacramental fellowship." The answer is, that every one would be 


just as free as he is now to hold whatever conception of the Church he 
chooses, and to hold whatever Communion he desired with others, even 
with those who are not members of any Christian body. The Anglican 
claims he has that freedom now. 

But to recognize all the varying Christian bodies as properly con- 
stituted Christian Churches, and that their relationship of Christians 
to each other is the normal and proper relation which should subsist 
■among them, is a totally different question. The Lambeth Appeal is 
indeed to Christian fellowship, but it is insisted that where it exists 
it should lead to an organic unity. The various ministries and ordi- 
nances may be perfectly acceptable, and act as veritable means of 
grace, to those using them, but if they are not acceptable to all, then 
some means should be found by which all Christians could come under 
a common ministry and share common sacraments. And if there was a 
real will to do this, a way could be found. 

The objection however is again raised by this report that an ordina- 
tion that would be acceptable to all should not be required, but that all 
existing ministries should be l ' recognized. ' ' But ordination is the 
only means by which a ministry in the Church can be conferred, and 
if there is any doubtfulness on the part of some in regard to those 
ministries, should there not be a willingness shown to accept one which 
would be acceptable to all? 

I doubt if there is a bishop in the Anglican communion who would 
not be willing to accept a conditional ordination from Greek or Roman 
bishops if their doubt of the validity of the Anglican orders, was the 
■only obstacle to obtaining the inestimable blessing of organic union 
with either of those bodies. And should not Protestant clergymen show 
a like spirit towards Anglicans? We cannot understand their appar- 
ently invincible objection to the reception of another ordination to what 
they already have, if it would bring them into a wider fellowship and 
convey such inestimable benefits upon the Christian world. 

As to the Episcopal form of government, the Report professes to 
have "an open mind, " on the ground that it "does not regard one form 
of policy as essential to the Church Catholic or any part of it. ' ' But 
it is manifest that there can be no organic unity unless there is one 
form of government, and is it reasonable that the question of the correct 
form of government of the Christian Church should be determined by 
a plebiscite of some modern groups of Christians in the twentieth cen- 
tury of its existence? The all but universal acceptance of episcopacy 
throughout the Christian world for so many centuries, would seem to be 
sufficient reason for its acceptance. 

We are glad to see that the Report seems to be in accord with Lam- 
beth in regard to the reception of the historic creeds, as some indi- 
viduals have declared their unwillingness to belonging to a body re- 
quiring a credal statement of any kind. And if those creeds are 
accepted as "a sufficient statement of the Christian faith," all should 
certainly be free to learn of the Holy Spirit all that it may have yet 
to teach the Church. 

We are glad also to note the readiness of the Report to welcome 
liberty of use in regard to "forms of worship," as these have been at 
times strenuously objected to by many Protestants. 

The truth is in regard to this question of reunion, that the generality 
of Protestants do not yet realize that the tendency to division is the 
inevitable result of the Protestant view, that Churches are only volun- 
tary associations, which may be formed or modified at pleasure, that 
their existence alienates Christian from Christian, which is unchristian, 
and destroys the efficiency of the Church as an organ for the propaga- 


tion of the Gospel. Until these truths are realized there can be but 
little hope of the union of all Christians in one body. But more and 
more are coming to this realization, and we can only continue to hope 
and work and pray that all may come to do so. 

George Woolsey Hodge, 
Philadelphia. (Anglican). 


To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly : 

Dear Sir: — ''Whom do men say that I am?"— Mark 8:27, Luke 9:18. 
Are all prepared to-day to say bravely with St. Peter, "Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God." St. Paul never tired of preaching 
Christ, the God-man crucified. Can the same be said of all Christian 
pulpits to-day? Have not some pulpits been used merely to discuss 
secular affairs? Strange that the world is well posted about all earthly 
facts and persons of note and the central fact is forgotten. Strange 
that God surprised the angels by coming here in human form and those 
for whom He came, suffered, and died are indifferent about that tre- 
mendous fact. Indeed we are a fallen and perverse, stupid and ungrate- 
ful generation, by being indifferent to the sacrifices of the God-man. 

Were we entirely awake our leading occupation would be the study 
and admiration of the Redeemer of our earthly days. The world is 
extremely restless. The masses are in sore distress. The world has 
lost its equilibrium. Unhappiness is the companion of those who have 
all the comforts which this world can give them. Whence comes this 
sad condition? The day has been when, the masses were happy with 
much less than is possessed to-day. The cause is easily found. Christ 
and His Gospel have been forgotten. The recent war made it plain 
that our young men know very little of the God-man. If their elder 
population were examined the same condition might prevail. What 
shall we say of the 20,000,000 school children who seldom hear the name 
of the great God-man who walked in this earth? What a sad condition 
to see 60,000,000 of our citizens churchless! 

It should then be plain to all who have the interest of souls at heart 
to see the need of bringing Christ back to tre multitudes. Each day 
new plans for the reconstruction of the world are brought forward. 
Legislatures are having special sessions, at which plans are made for 
the betterment of mankind. Are they making much progress? When 
will they be convinced that outside of Jesus Christ there can be no 
peace or permanent reconstruction? If men were humble this would 
be plain to them. Only in the Christ can we have individual, social, 
industrial peace. With Christ alone is found the power to still the 
restless. Christian pulpits should realize the need of Christ if condi- 
tions are to be improved. It has been said that if Christian pulpits 
had been true to their trust and preached Christ crucified the late dread- 
ful war would not now blacken the pages of history which our children 
will read with disgust. See the power the Christian pulpit could be! 
Will we allow the opportunity to pass by without exerting ourselves? 
The masses are crying, "What shall we do to be saved? To whom shall 
we go?" Show them the way to Christ who is the way, truth and life. 
Give them the pure word of Christ in lieu of that of men. The millions 
are on the brink of eternity. Is that no concern of ours? St. Augustine 
says, "Thou madest us for Thyself and our hearts are restless till they 
find rest in Thee." 

The clear-sighted Gladstone saw the remedy for the ills of the world 


only in Him who said, "Come to me all you who are heavy ladened and 
I will refresh you." Christ is the fountain of life, truth, peace and 
holiness. May Christian pulpits point out the direction to the only 
clear fountain. By so doing pulpits will not only lead to eternal hap- 
piness but the earthly peace also. Can there be a nobler calling than 
preaching Christ crucified to the restless masses? 

Rectory Catholic Church, Raymond, Vernimont. 

Denton, Texas. 


To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly: 

Dear Sir: — In the face of a world of unrest, with the nations of the 
world on the verge of moral bankruptcy, the question is frequently 
asked, what is the value of the Christian religion; what has it ac- 
complished; what does it propose to do; and what is to be its future 
effect upon the human state. A demand is being made to-day for 
"Applied Christianity ' ' for a religion that shall regenerate the citizen- 
ship of the nation, that shall hold the passion of men in leash, that 
shall turn a world of anarchy and unrest, of sin and strife, into a 
paradise of God. I suppose we are all willing to admit, that in the past 
the Christian Church has made many grave mistakes, and perhaps the 
chief reason has been because the Church has sought to live apart from 
its citizenship. We frequently hear it said, my citizenship is in heaven, 
and of course in a sense that is true, yet, if our religion doesn't help 
us to be better men, and help us to make a better community by reason 
of having lived in it, then I say to you, our religion is no good. Henry 
Ward Beecher was one time preaching on the "Power of the Gospel " to 
regenerate a human life, and at the close of the sermon he was ap- 
proached by an Irish woman, who asked him if he meant what he said, to 
which Mr. Beecher replied that he meant every word of it; then said 
the Irish woman, "Well, begorra, I wish you'd try some of this here 
truck on my man Mike ; for faith, he 's beat me up three times already 
this week." If a man's religion doesn't help him to be the best kind 
of a citizen, or if it doesn't keep him from engaging in a business which 
isi demoralizing to the manhood and womanhood of the nation, then 
there is something the matter with that man's religion; it's no good. 
But we still believe in the religion of the Christian Church, its Gospel 
is still the Power of God unto Salvation to every one that believeth, it 
still has the power to take men and women who in the past, have been 
a menace to the State and society, and transform them into good honest 
citizens, and I want to make a plea to-day, for the application of the 
Gospel of Jesus Christ, to every phase of social, industrial and economic 
life. Let us face a few facts. During the year 1919 the Interchurch 
World Movement through its department of survey, brought to light 
some facts that the Church of Jesus Christ cannot pass lightly by, 
neither can anyone who places any value upon their American citizen- 
ship. The report shows that there are five and one half millions of 
illiterates in the United States above nine years of age, that there are 
fifty-five millions above nine years of age not identified with any church, 
and that figure is conservative as compared with other reports; there 
are thirty-five millions of children under twenty-five years of age not 
enrolled in any Sunday-school, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, and 
twenty-seven millions of these children are Protestant. The report 
further shows that if these three classes above were placed on review 
before the President, and should pass by in double column, at the rate 


of twenty-five miles a day, it would take three and one half years 
for the procession to pass by. What an awful seed plot for immorality 
and crime. Now, what is the effect of this illiteracy and lack of re- 
ligious education upon the youth of America? Follow the report further, 
and it shows, how in one city, in one week, there were one hundred and 
ninety-seven arrests under sixteen years of age, 182 boys and 15 girls, 
and 75 of these were children of American born parents. Classified 
according to age, there were 20 between the ages of eight and ten, 63 
between the ages of 10 and 13, and 114 between the ages of 13 and 16, 
and the report states that the number of arrests for the week was 
below the average, the number for the year being above 10,000. These 
figures speak for themselves, they reveal the fact that the Church has 
failed to hold human passions in check, and to regenerate human society, 
they further show the need of something different. 

But what are we going to do about it? How change these conditions? 
Somebody says, you must educate the people to see the awfulness of 
such conditions, yes but education in itself will not keep the people 
from sin, the only power that can do this is the religion of Jesus Christ, 
and His Church is the one institution ordained by Heaven, for the dis- 
pensing of that Grace, but somehow the Church seems helpless and in- 
efficient. I believe the time has come when we must recognize the wicked 
waste and extravagance of sectarian duplication. I sometimes wonder 
how much longer the Christian world will tolerate such wickedness and 
folly. If a general in an army would divide up his forces in attacking 
an enemy like the Church is divided to-day in its attack upon worldli- 
ness, he would be sent to the insane asylum; yet the divided Church 
pursues with satisfaction and pride this insane policy against a greater 
enemy than any general ever led an army. Is it any wonder that the 
world war revealed the Church without a voice to check the tragedy 
of war, and not until we unify our Christian forces, shall the Church 
be able to make a lasting impression on the forces of evil. There is no 
longer any honor in one calling themselves by the name of Baptist, 
Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Catholic ; the world needs 
Christians, and is wearily waiting for a display of the Spirit of Christ, 
realizing that his Spirit alone applied to our social, industrial and 
economic life, can prove the solution to a better state. We must 
recognize that the Church exists for the community, rather than that 
the community exists for the Church. Too long the Church has been 
saying to the community, give us your money, give us your time, give 
us your energy for the support of our cause; the community is now saying 
to the Church, what are you going to give back to us for all the money, 
and time and energy, we have been putting into you, during all these 
years of your existence, and no Church ought to be excused from de- 
claring its right to existence and support. 

Then we must have more time for religious education. Judge Fawcett 
of the Juvenile Court of New York City, tells how of 2,900 offenders 
arraigned before his court, he asked the question; How many of you 
have attended Sunday-school regularly for any given period of time, 
and he found that not one of the 2,900 were regular attendants, and he 
says he was so impressed with the good influence of the Sunday-school 
upon child life, that instead of confining these youthful offenders to a 
term in a penal institution, he sentenced them to one year of regular 
attendance at a good Sunday-school. But what chance does the Sunday- 
school teacher have to form Christian character in the lives of her 
pupils, when she has them only one-half hour per week for religious 
education, and the Sunday-school reports show that fully 50% of en- 
rolled pupils only attend half time. Even if they attended regularly, 


what chance has the teacher with only 26 hours for religious education, 
as compared with the 950 hours which the average child spends in the 
public school room each year. 

The parents of the child must assume larger responsibility for the 
religious education of their children in the home, if the moral condi- 
tions referred to above are going to be any different than they are. It 
is estimated that the average child spends four-fifths of his time in his 
home, at least should do, and thus the home affords the best place in 
the world to instill the principles of Christian citizenship in the minds 
of our boys and girls. I never can understand why so many parents 
calling themselves Christians leave the religious education of their 
children to strangers, when it is their duty more than anybody's else to 
teach these things to their children. 

Then we must build a statesmanlike programme of religious educa- 
tion, by securing trained religious teachers, who can make it worth 
while for the children to go to Sunday school, we must employ the func- 
tion of teaching rather than preaching in our Churches and colleges, we 
must have teacher training classes for those who are to teach, we should 
make use of the vacation Bible school during the summer holidays, and 
last but not least, the establishment of parent training classes, seeking 
to bring the parents face to face with the dignity and sacred duties of 

Federated Church, J. T. Sharmon. 

Bonami, La. 

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. Galbraith 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 
Christiins 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. 


ULu Al AN". O 

"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, 1922 





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 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 graee, 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 speak with Freedom for itself in these Pages as to 
what Offering it has to bring to the Altar of Be conciliation. 

Vol. XI. JANUARY, 1922 No. 3 



By Eev. J. J. Castleberry, Minister Walnut Hills Christian 
Church, Cincinnati, Ohio. 


By Et. Eev. G. H. Kinsolving, D.D., Bishop of Texas. 


By Nikolaos Evangelides (Metropolitan) of Nubia. 


By Eev. C. H. Shawe, Minister Moravian Church, Swindon, England. 

THE LOST IDEAL. The Communion Table, as Observed by the 

Primitive Christians, a Basis for Church Unity 223 

By Mason A. Green, Boston, Mass. 



THE CHEISTIAN UNION QUAETEELY 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. 


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. 

The Universal Week of Prayer January 1-7, 1922. For prayer topics write 
World's Evangelical Alliance, 19 Russell Square, London, W. C, 1. 

Meeting of the World Conference on Faith and Order. Date and place 
unannounced. Robert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Me., secretary. 

Meeting of the Universal Conference of the Church of Christ on Life and 
Work, perhaps in 1923 or 1924. Archbishop of Uppsala, president; Rev. 
Henry A. Atkinson, 70 Fifth Ave., New York City, secretary. 


' ' The common complaint and regret of the devout is that they find prayer 
so difficult. There is earnestness and diligence; but little sense of progress 
and freedom. This grave matter has received consideration at the hands 
of many writers. It has been mainly approached from the side of the diffi- 
culty of prayer. Some are not troubled by scientific and philosophical 
difficulties. They only ask to be helped to see how they may better their 
praying. The deadness of prayer is due to a want of resolved lifting up 
of the soul to God — to lack of consciousness of God." 

There is no principle of the heart that is more acceptable to God, than, an 
universal fervent love to all mankind, wishing and praying for their happi- 
ness; because there is no principle of the heart that makes us more like 
God, who is love and goodness itself, and created all things for the enjoy- 
ment of happiness. — TV. Law. 

Ask and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it 
shall be opened unto you; for every one that asketh receiveth; and he 
that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. — Jesus. 

O Lord, in whom is the truth, help us, we entreat thee, to speak the 
truth in love, to hate a lie, to eschew exaggeration, inaccuracy, affecta- 
tion. Yea, though tribulation or persecution should arise for the truth 's 
sake, suffer us not to be offended. Amen. — Christina G. Bossetti. 


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 


President Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, Lancaster, Pa. 


Bishop of Manchester, 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 Professor Adolph Deissmann, D.D., University 
of Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 


By Rev. Seth W. Gilkey, D.D., Minister United 
Presbyterian Church, Bridgeport, Ohio. 


By Rev. Professor R. E. Welsh, D.D., Convener of 
the Committee of the Presbytery of Montreal. 


By Rev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., General Theological 
Seminary, New York City. 





/jft LORD, the way seems farther to 
our brothers than to Thee. What- 
ever be our name or creed we come to 
Thee through Jesus Christ and we be- 
lieve that we go away satisfied that our 
communion has been real. But it is not 
so in our approaches toward our broth- 
ers. Teach us then to find the path of 
penitence in order that we may no long- 
er hinder Thy will among men, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 


I would venture to suggest that there are 
three main stages requisite to Reunion; these 
stages have been indicated in our Lambeth 
report. I would call the first Unity of heart, 
the second Unity of mind, and the third Unity 
of organic life. And this order needs to be 
strictly observed. Some people would wish 
to rush the first two stages and begin arrang- 
ing the third right here; others would say 
that so long as you have got the first you can 
afford to jump the second. Both those pre- 
scriptions would be disastrous, because Re- 
union of such a kind would fail to satisfy 
what I might almost call "the acid test", 
given us by Christ Himself — the very pur- 
pose of Unity, viz., that the Church should 
manifest to the world more effectively the 
divinity of her Incarnate Saviour. — Roscow 
G. Shedden, Bishop of Nassau. 


There are grave difficulties in our ap- 
proaches toward Christian unity be- 
cause the heart of the Church is not 
right before God. We have strayed 
so far that it will be difficult to find the 
common path, but it is either a com- 
mon path or no path, for separate 
paths for each communion are no paths 
at all. Jesus prayed for the oneness of 
His disciples. Shall it be said that it 
is the will of God to hold back the 
answer to that prayer or shall we con- 
fess that the will of man has blocked 
the way? 


We are living without question in the greatest and most 
challenging period of the world's history — a day big with 
ideals, with deeds and with destiny — God's day and onrs. 
How tragic, therefore, and out of joint with the fitness of 
things in this great day of the world's rebuilding for one 
to think, to feel or to do in a petty and unworthy way or 
to motive his life by other than the highest and best. 

The war has thrust upon us anew three great problems : 
one is political and involves international relationships; 
another is economic and looks to industrial rehabilita- 
tion ; while the third is religious and has to do with Chris- 
tian unity. 

The Crime or Christendom 

The crime of Christendom is the divided Church of 
God. Witness the spectacle. The Christian Church is 
marked by three great cleavages — the Greek Catholic, 
the Eoman Catholic and the Protestant — each rooted in 
ancient prejudices and therefore hostile one toward the 
other. Then Protestantism is divided and subdivided, 
presenting the sorry spectacle of scores of denominations 
and petty sects and parties, each lifting its feeble and 
pusillanimous cry, ' ' Lo here ' ' and ' ' Lo there. ' ' Too often 
indeed particular bodies are rent by unholy schism, and 
that for the most trivial and supercilious reasons. Thus 
the spiritual body of Christ is broken and mangled and 
lacerated even worse than was His physical body two 
thousand years ago on the hill outside Jerusalem. 

What tragedy, that when a world was swept into the 
maelstrom of war and all the Titans of darkness bent on 
destruction, there was no great, commanding voice 

*Address delivered at the International Convention of Disciples of Christ, 
Winona L,ake, Indiana, September 4, 1921. 


through which the collective conscience of Christendom 
could speak, either in protest or appeal. In the final ap- 
praisement of that horrible struggle its darkest page will 
be, not the invasion of Belgium or the nameless atrocities 
in France — diabolical as these things were — but rather 
that such a war was fought and the world crimsoned in 
blood without any united or effective effort of the Chris- 
tian Church against it. 

All this not only demonstrates the impotency of divi- 
sion, but what is more its unspeakable shame, its crime 
against God and humanity ! 

Now over against this condition of sectism and weak- 
ness let us put the testimony of Jesus and His holy apos- 
tles. The ideal of unity is so pronounced in our Lord's 
utterances that anything else seems flagrant betrayal. 
For example, in the universal prayer He taught us to say, 
' ' Our Father ' ' — not ' ' my "or ' ' mine, ' ' but ' i our Father ' ' 
— thereby implying that we are all brothers and sisters. 
Again, "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; 
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; 
and they shall become one flock, one shepherd." Or 
again, under the very shadow of the cross, with its bitter 
anguish and flow of blood, in sublime intercession, He 
poured out His great soul : ' ' Holy Father ... I pray 
that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in 
me and I in Thee, that they also may be in us ; that the 
world may believe that Thou didst send me." Likewise 
Paul, in words of fire, protested against divisions at 
Corinth, attributing them to carnality; and later in ten- 
der appeal he urged the Ephesian Christians to "keep 
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." 

How far indeed we have departed from this New Testa- 
ment ideal and done violence to the mind of the Son of 
God ! Who can contemplate our backsliding and low fall- 
ing without a deep sense of humiliation and disgrace? 


' ' Oh Christ, the world still turns to Thee, 
A beacon in the night; 
Though human creeds and loveless deeds 
Have clouded Thy true light. 


Shine forth! With Thy clear face 
Dispel the doubts that now betide, 

Till faith and hope abound with men 
And love in each abide." 

The Disciples and Unity 

It is the unique distinction of the Disciples of Christ 
that our movement was born out of the passion for a re- 
united Church. True, certain envisioned souls through 
all the Christian centuries have seen the evil of division 
and cried out against it — men like Tertullian and Augus- 
tine, Bernard and George Calixtus, Richard Baxter and 
Robert Hall. Bernard said, "Who can grant me before 
I die to see the Church of God such as she has been in 
primitive times V 9 George Calixtus declared, "I will 
spare neither my life nor my blood, if so be I may pur- 
chase the peace of the Church.' ' And Robert Hall re- 
ferred to schism as the ' ' rending of the seamless coat of 
our Saviour and by far the greatest calamity that has 
befallen the Christian interest." 

But a hundred years ago these scattered voices became 
a mighty chorus and these isolated lights fused into a 
consuming flame. Here in the New World — for the first 
time since Pentecost — a great movement sprung forth 
out of the impulse and with the definite plea for Chris- 
tian unity. Read again the "Declaration and Address" 
by Thomas Campbell, every word athrob with the passion 
for a reunited Church. The thesis of this memorable 
document is that the Church of Christ on earth is essen- 
tially, intentionally and constitutionally one; that there 
ought to be no schisms in the Church ; and that nothing 


should be considered an article of faith except what is ex- 
pressly taught and enjoined in the Word of God. "With 
yon all," he declared, "we desire to unite in the bonds 
of an entire Christian unity. Later Thomas Campbell's 
gifted son, Alexander, threw the weight of his great per- 
sonality and influence into the movement and with un- 
rivaled eloquence pleaded for reconciliation. "Nothing," 
said he, "is essential to the conversion of the world but 
the unity and cooperation of Christians; and nothing is 
essential to the unity of Christians but the apostles' 
teaching or testimony." 

Our historic mission therefore, as charted by the fa- 
thers, is sun clear. It is not primarily to restore the Bible 
— others believe in it profoundly ; neither is it to restore 
Christ — others love and honor Him with unswerving de- 
votion ; nor is it to restore baptism — others plead insist- 
ently for this New Testament ordinance; and even the 
idea of restoring the apostolic Church came as a later 
development in our history. But the original impulse of 
our movement and the essential genius of our plea is that 
of peacemakers ; it is to bind up the broken body of our 
Lord, who has been crucified afresh and put to an open 
shame. "To this end were we born and for this purpose 
came we into the world." 

But now after a century of history, committed all the 
while to the inspiring, thrilling task of uniting a divided 
Christendom, the Disciples to-day are confronted by cer- 
tain dangers, grave and serious. 

First, there is danger of losing our vision, and through 
-over-emphasis upon secondary matters reducing our- 
selves to the status of a sect or denomination, and that 
of the most reactionary and objectionable type. We have 
taken a great, universal ideal and institutionalized it — 
perhaps indeed necessarily — but have we not thereby nar- 
rowed it to inevitable limitations! Thus we talk about 
"our brotherhood," "our plea," "our conventions," 


"our societies'' — all of which is the dialect of division. 
The dream of Jesus was a dream of the Kingdom. Only 
twice did He speak of the Church, but again and again 
He insisted on the Kingdom. This was His central idea 
and ruling passion, as with Moses it was law, or with 
Confucius it was morality, or with Socrates, the soul. We 
need to get back to this fundamental concept of Christ 
and think in terms of the Kingdom, the reign of God on 

There is likewise danger of losing our leadership, and 
through a policy of isolation and non-cooperation lapsing 
into a negligible force in the Christian world, misunder- 
stood, if not indeed mistrusted. We are pioneers in the 
promotion of unity, and it belongs to us to lead the pro- 
cession ; it is our right by decree of history and the fate 
of circumstance — yes, and by the call of God. But if, 
like the blind man at the pool of Siloam, we hold back 
and timidly wait, others shall pass ahead of us into the 
agitated and healing waters. 

Further, there is danger of losing not only our vision 
and leadership, but our testimony as well, and that 
through failure to exemplify unity among ourselves. 
Even now the census lists us as two bodies, divided over 
the most puerile and inconsequential matters. But this 
fact is too sad to dwell upon! Surely Christ's prayer for 
the oneness of His followers applies to a group as well as 
to the whole of Christendom. For a hundred years our 
fathers, with trumpet voices, have pleaded for a united 
Church, urging this as the final condition to the evangel- 
ization of the race. Shall we not demonstrate the glory 
of this plea by remaining ourselves a united brotherhood 
— a unity based upon loyalty to and liberty in Jesus 
Christ, and cemented forever by love? Let the heart of 
a great people to-day cry out with one voice : 


"Faith of our fathers, holy faith 
We will be true to thee till death. ' ' 

The Basis or Unity 

What is the basis of Christian unity? I mean rather, 
along what lines can this ideal be worked out and real- 

To approach the problem negatively, let me say, unity 
cannot come by compromise — that is, of anything vital 
and essential. Nothing is settled permanently until it is 
settled right. To force the issue is to defeat the aim; 
indeed it cannot be forced any more than the healing of a 
wound can be forced. "It is not by power, nor by might, 
but by my Spirit, saith the Lord." It must therefore 
come by the working of the Spirit of God ; the operation 
of silent influences in men's hearts — love, goodwill and 
Christian charity. 

It is not by reversion to the past. Indeed the restora- 
tion of primitive Christianity in its high reaches of 
catholic truth, spiritual idealism and missionary passion 
were a glorious dream, and blessed is he who catches the 
vision and follows its gleam; but to reproduce the apos- 
tolic Church in outward detail of accident and circum- 
stance were as impossible as it would be impracticable. 
Can the plant go back to the seed, or the oak to the acorn, 
or the butterfly to the chrysalis? Does the astronomer 
go back to Kepler, the physician to Hippocrates, or the 
artist to the crude etching on some ancient tomb ? Indeed 
would we want to go back, for example, to the communism 
of the Jerusalem Church, to the legalism of the Church 
at Antioch, or to the strife and division of the Church at 
Corinth? No, the way to unity is not backward, except 
as we may incarnate the ideals of the early Christian so- 
ciety; but it is forward, forward, and that under the 
guidance of the divine Spirit in Jesus Christ. 

It is not by intellectual uniformity. That likewise is 


not only impossible, but it is undesirable as well ; and if 
this principle were followed to the ultimate it would turn 
back the dial of civilization thousands of years. Suppose 
it had maintained in the field of pure science — then we 
would still believe that the earth is flat and be studying 
the stars in order to discover the destiny of man; or in 
medicine — then we would still be ignorant of the circula- 
tion of the blood and the beneficent use of anaesthetics ; 
or in religion — then there would be no Jesus or Luther or 
Campbell, with all the blessings that follow in their train. 

There will always be, as in the past, diversity of judg- 
ment and interpretation. Unity can never come by in- 
tellectual formula. From the days of Athanasius to the 
present men have tried standards and rubrics, imposed 
from without; but the further we have gone the more 
hopelessly divided we have become. The great creeds of 
Christendon, hoary with age and fragrant with sentiment, 
have been far more divisive than they have been unifying. 

Turning now to the positive side, if unity ever come — 
as come it must — it will be along three lines. 

To begin with, it is a biological process. That is to 
say, it is a growth, a growth from within, and a growth 
toward God. It cannot be thrust upon us by arbitrary 
or mechanical methods. No edict of pope or vote of 
council or convention can bring it about. It is something 
vital, and therefore it must be achieved, and that in ac- 
cord with the great universal law of nature and of life. 

In the second place, unity must come by spiritual co- 
hesion. And even now there are two great influences at 
work in this direction — one from within and the other 
from without — moulding God's people into oneness. 

The first of these is the unifying power of true, spirit- 
ual religion. The only unity worth having is that which 
centers in and springs from the great deeps of religious 
experience. Jesus interpreted religion in terms of spir- 
itual values. To Him it did not consist in empty forms 


or meaningless dogmas — the "tithing of mint, anise and 
cummin;" but it was inner and experiential — the life of 
God in the soul of man. ' i The Kingdom, ' ' said He, ' ' is 
within you." 

The word "religion" means literally "to bind," "to 
bind fast." Hence it is the great unifying and organiz- 
ing principle of life — of all the interests, values and rela- 
tions of life. There must, therefore, be this inner tie 
binding heart to heart — a unity of the Spirit — before 
there can be any true and lasting unity. • 

Thus all of us claim kinship with the great saints of 
the past, regardless of their theological bias or relations 
— Francis, Newman, Wesley and Livingstone. We sing 
their hymns, exalt their faith and tell the story of their 
beautiful lives to our children. Indeed, does not the spir- 
itually-minded Disciple feel closer to the spiritually- 
minded Baptist or Presbyterian than he does to the 
worldly-minded Disciple? "Whosoever," said the Mas- 
ter, "shall do the will of God, the same is my brother 
and sister and mother." 

' ' Oh, brother man, fold to thy heart thy brothers ; 
Where pity dwells the peace of God is there ; 
To worship rightly is to love each other, 

Each smile a hymn, each kindly deed a prayer. 


The other influence working towards spiritual cohesion 
is the gigantic, staggering task of saving a lost world — 
lost physically, lost intellectually, lost socially, and lost 
morally. It presents a task so stupendous that no single 
group of Christians can accomplish it alone, as one na- 
tion could not have won the Avar. The whole task must 
be attacked by the whole Church, else irretrievable fail- 
ure shall mock us. 

Yes, brethren, the world is lost. It sits to-day amid 
the wreck and ashes of its own undoing. Its head is 
bowed and sorrow furrows its face. If then argument 


will not convince, if the prayer of our Lord means naught, 
I hold up before you a broken, bleeding world, and beg 
that for its sake the divided Church of God get together, 
united in Jesus Christ, and go forward — 

' ' Fair as the moon, 
Bright as the sun, 
Terrible as an army with banners. ' ' 

Thirdly, it remains to be said that Christian unity 
looking to a universal end can be realized only on a uni- 
versal basis. It must sweep the entire horizon of truth, 
grounding itself in the great catholicities of our Chris- 
tian faith. Nothing else will appeal to our modern age 
or break down the barriers of centuries. 

All this, like the varied colors of the rainbow converg- 
ing in a single ray of light, is summed up and focalized in 
the universal creed of Christianity; namely, "Thou art 
the Christ the Son of the living God." This is a living, 
growing, divine, eternal creed, and it is the only creed 
under heaven one is required to subscribe to — be he min- 
ister, professor, secretary, or missionary. It is not a 
matter of syllogism or theology, but of a Divine Person- 
age. Whoever believes in Jesus Christ, and is loyal to 
Him, is my brother and comrade. In Him — God's ideal 
man and man's ideal God — is found the glorious and alto- 
gether adequate synthesis of all our faiths and philoso- 

"Not what, but Whom, I do believe, 
That in my darkest hour of need 
Hath comfort that no mortal creed 
To mortal man may give. 


Not what, but Whom! 
For Christ is more than all the creeds, 
And His full life of gentle deeds 

Shall all the creeds outlive.' ' 


A Challenge to Disciples 

I love the Disciples of Christ. I believe in our move- 
ment — its ideals and its destiny. Surely it was born of 
God and at the right time. But now after a century of 
history there comes to us a great, new challenge — a chal- 
enge borne on every wind that blows ; a challenge loud as 
the thunders of Sinai and sweet as the whisperings of 
Calvary; a challenge springing fresh out of the heart 
of this generation. It is a call to our ancient moorings, 
to a reassertion of the impulse out of which we were born 
and a recommitment to the ideal which has led us as a 
pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night through all 
the years ; namely, to plead for the unity of the divided 
family of God. 

It is a challenge to think unity. The greatest power 
in this world is thought. It is the source and dynamic 
of all achievement, as the bud precedes the blossom or 
as the seed precedes the harvest. 

What is nature but thought materialized! Indeed, this 
great universe with its blazing suns and whirling planets, 
was once but a thought in the mind of the Creator. 
What is art but thought thrown on canvas, chiseled in 
the marble or sung in oratorio ? What is science but the 
discovery of the thoughts of God and the thinking of 
those thoughts after Him? What is literature but 
thought articulated in language, expressed in terms of 
life and poured out on the printed page? What is war 
but thought coming into conflict on the field of battle and 
making the land billowy with graves? What is govern- 
ment but thought organized into laws, binding together 
people of kindred spirit and ideals and looking to the 
common weal of the body politic? What is religion but 
thought embodied in creed, incarnated in life and tested 
by experience? Christianity, with its whole great com- 
plex of ideals, teachings and influences, is traceable back 
to a single thought in the mind of a Galilean peasant; 


namely, a divine kingdom on earth — a kingdom whose 
throne is the human soul, whose crown is love, whose 
sceptre is righteousness and whose end is the conquest 
of the whole world. 

Indeed, when God would lift up a nation, regenerate a 
race or save a world He drops some great thought into 
the mind of a leader, and lo, the work is done. He dropped 
the thought of liberty into the mind of Cromwell, 
hence the destruction of that citadel of iniquity known 
as the ' ' divine right of kings ; ' ' He dropped the thought 
of democracy into the mind of Washington, hence there 
sprang up in this western wilderness the world's great- 
est republic, at once the hope, the inspiration and the 
guiding star of all humanity; He dropped the thought 
of inalienable human rights into the mind of Lincoln, 
hence by one master stroke the shackles of slavery fell 
from two millions of our brothers in black ; He dropped 
the thought of altruism into the mind of McKinley, hence 
Spanish tyranny was driven forever from the subject 
and bleeding island of Cuba; He dropped the thought 
of world peace into the mind of Woodrow Wilson and 
Warren G. Harding, hence we look forward to the ful- 
filment of the poet's dream when 

"The war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle 

flags were furl'd 
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the 

World.' ' 

So Christian unity must take deep root alike in the 
individual and collective consciousness of our great 
brotherhood. We must think unity and this will direct 
our whole attitude and effort toward its realization, for 
"as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." 

It is a challenge to feel unity, for, after all, it is not 
so much what we believe as what we feel and purpose 
and do. We must recognize at the outset the unity that 


already exists and build upon it. For in the great fun- 
damentals we are nearer together than some would ac- 
knowledge. Do we not believe in the same God, our 
Father! In the same Christ our Saviour! In the same 
Holy Spirit, our Comforter! In the same Bible, our in- 
spired guide! In the same heaven, our eternal home! 

Moreover, the conditions which brought about our 
historic cleavages in the main exist no longer, just as 
slavery which precipitated the Civil War is gone forever. 
Thus we should be forbearing toward our brothers — 
ready at all times to counsel together in the spirit of our 
Elder Brother. 

There should be a new approach to the whole union 
question ; namely, upon our knees. This was the method 
of Jesus and we too must wrestle with it in prayer, sur- 
rendering ourselves to the will of God, crying out in utter 
abandon, ' ' Not my will, but in all things Thine be done. ' ' 
When the divided children of God face the problem in 
this spirit — praying over it, really, truly praying over 
it and praying together — then the glorious consumma- 
tion will have come. 

Further, there must be self-dedication to the task. 
"For their sakes," said the Master, "I sanctify myself," 
and with these words upon His lips He passed through 
Gethsemane and poured out His life upon Calvary. Sac- 
rifice, always and everywhere, is the law of life and prog- 
ress — the sacrifice of the lower to the higher good. The 
seed dies that the plant may bud and blossom ; the moun- 
tian is made bare that the valley may become fertile and 
fruitful ; the martyr yields to flaming fagot that from his 
ashes the cause of truth may spring forth and flourish; 
the patriot bares his breast to screaming steel that by 
his blood humanity may have a new birth of freedom. 
Likewise must the Church of Jesus Christ hear the call 
of the cross, dedicating itself to the world's deeper need, 


losing its life that it may thereby find it in greater 
growth and achievement. 

It is a challenge to practice unity. Brethren, are we 
not derelict just here! It is far easier to talk about 
unity than it is to practice it ourselves. 

The psychologist tells us that expression follows im- 
pression, and that that which does not find expression 
languishes and dies. Art, music, faith and love — all 
these must express themselves, definitely and concretely, 
else they perish. So we must translate our vision into 
reality, clothing our ideal in flesh and blood. 

The whole Christian society to-day acknowledges the 
evil of division; that it misrepresents the Spirit of 
Christ ; that it is at variance with the growing social con- 
sciousness of the time; and that it renders the Church 
impotent to grapple with the present world situation. 
But to recognize the disease is not to cure it. We must 
go forth to smite and destroy and heal, giving expression 
in every possible, right way to our desire for unity. 

All this, be it said, means denominational disarmament 
and the cultivation of the arts of peace ; for surely unity 
signifies more than an armed truce. If the maintenance 
of great war machinery, with its panoplied soldiers and 
bristling bayonets, creates dangerous suspicions and 
jealousies among nations, will not this principle produce 
the same pernicious result in religion ? Men everywhere 
to-day are weary and heart-sore of animosities ; they are 
yearning for something better. Eight million graves in 
Flanders and France cry out against war ; a hundred mil- 
lion hungry stomachs and bleeding hearts cry out against 
war ; a world soaked in blood and groaning under intol- 
erable debt cries out against war ; and even now, thank 
God, statesmen are planning for an international confer- 
ence at Washington, looking to the destruction of this 
damnable scourge of mankind. Surely the children of 


this world shall not prove wiser than the children of 

Let us then, Church of the living Christ, rise higher 
than traditional cleavages and inherited hatreds, and as 
free sons of God go forward, thinking, feeling and prac- 
ticing unity, thereby fulfilling our divine mission to this 
new and destiny-making age. If these ideals are carried 
out sincerely, humbly, prayerfully, Christian unity will 
come — come silently as the stars, unobtrusively as the 
dawn, surely as the sunrise, and fraught with blessings as 
the summer showers. 

Fellow Disciples : I am hopeful — profoundly hopeful 
— a hope born of faith. I believe in God — a living, im- 
manent God, 

" Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns 
And the round ocean, and the living air, 
And the pure sky, and in the mind of man. ' ' 

I believe in the Divine Spirit, and that it broods over the 
hearts of men to-day, softening our hatreds and integrat- 
ing our purposes, even as it brooded over the ancient 
chaos out of which a world of law and order and harmony 
came forth. I believe in my brethren of every creed 
and cult, their nobility, their spiritual vision and hun- 
ger for fellowship. I believe in Christ — a victorious, 
achieving Christ — and that His intercessory prayer will 
yet be answered in a united Church. 

Just after the French Revolution, near the close of the 
eighteenth century, the Sultan of Turkey visited Paris. 
Seeing a broken and disfigured statue of Christ in front 
of an erstwhile cathedral he sneeringly remarked, ' ' Sire, 
your day is past ' ' — and so it seemed amid the wreck and 
disaster wrought by internecine war. Years afterwards 
Thomas Carlyle was in Paris and chanced to look upon 
the self-same image, now reproduced and perfect, look- 
ing down upon the multitudes with commanding impres- 


siveness as if again about to speak his mighty impera- 
tive. Addressing it in profound reverence the great 
Scotsman said, "Sire, your day is yet to come." 

Ah, the Christian prophet spoke more discerningly 
than did the pagan ruler. Christ's day is indeed to come, 
and we are waiting for it, waiting for it as watchmen wait 
for the morning. Even now there are signs of the dawn, 
and with it a new world is being born — a world ruled by 
Him of the thorn crown and the borrowed tomb ; a world 
of peace and goodwill and brotherhood — a new world 
wherein dwelleth righteousness. 

Inspired by this vision may we go back to our fields 
with courage and high hope; and as the hand takes up 
the task — so heavy and at times unyielding — let the heart 



All hail the power of Jesus' name, 
Let angels prostrate fall; 
Bring forth the royal diadem 

And crown Him, crown Him, crown Him 
Lord of all." 

J. J. Castleberry. 

Walnut Hills Christian Church 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 


W7HY do we follow, like a flock of sheep, 
** Tradition with a crook, 
Or leave the vastness of the calling deep 
To paddle in a brook; 

When on the hills of sunrise stands the Lord — 
Triumphant with a lifted flaming sword? 

Why, when upon our lips the great new name 

Waits eager to be said; 

When cloven tongues of Pentecostal flame 

Burn over every head: 

Do we build Babel towers to the sky 

From bricks and mortar, who have wings to fly? 

— Eooert Norwood 


May I not assume at the outset that under any definition 
of the term, the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, 
in which all Christians believe, is not as much at unity in 
its various parts and branches as is desirable, or as is 
required by the teaching of the New Testament, and par- 
ticularly as that teaching is exemplified in such language 
as our text, and also for example in such a kindred pas- 
sage as the prayer of our divine Master when He says : 
" Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which 
shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may 
be one; as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that 
they also may be one in us ; that the world may believe 
that Thou hast sent me." In the light of such teaching, 
no one perhaps, would gainsay the statement that the 
body of Christ is divided, is rent and torn in pieces to a 
degree, which, upon the contemplation of it, must always 
carry shame and sorrow to the hearts of all true and 
earnest-minded people. We believe that it could be dem- 
onstrated without much argument that the will of Christ 
calls for a deeper, truer and more substantial union of 
His people than they are wont to exemplify in the out- 
ward manifestations of Church organization and life. It 
is a subject of just reproach against Christianity that 
those who profess to believe in it are divided into in- 
numerable sects and parties, which, making all due allow- 
ance for legitimate differences and diversity, are not 
compatible with even the most moderate requirements of 
oneness in our fellowship in the household of faith. 
Christ's flock is a scattered one. His prayer to His 
Father that His disciples might be one is not realized 
save in a very imperfect manner in the spiritual and or- 
ganic life of the Church. 

The desire for unity, therefore, in the first place, is 
based upon the fact that unity in His body, in His flock, 


is in accordance with the will of Christ. It is tanght ns 
in the New Testament, and is urged upon us in some of 
the sweetest and noblest passages in the Gospels and 
Epistles, and constituted the subject-matter of the most 
touching portion of our Lord's dying prayer for His 
Church : and to thwart the will of Christ is sin. To seek 
to fulfil it should be the chief desire of the human soul. 
Again, this desire for unity is enhanced by the fact that 
the lack of unity is itself a source of incalculable evil to 
the Church, aside from the question of the divine require- 
ments to the contrary. Unity is strength. Division is 
weakness. The motto of one of our Western States con- 
tains a perfectly sound principle when applied to the 
Church: "United we stand; divided we fall." The 
Church is strong up to the point where she is united. She 
is weak from the point where she is divided. The Church 
broken up into many detachments can neither resist the 
attacks of the enemy with half her effectiveness, nor can 
she in turn assault the strongholds of sin with that con- 
centration of effort which is so essential to great achieve- 
ment and permanent success. Every regiment and divi- 
sion in the army of Christ may fight bravely and may win 
many victories. Each one of them has won many glorious 
and magnificent victories, and they have been led by 
grand heroes and men of renown. But until they can 
present a more solid front, and unite with a common pur- 
pose in view, they will remain at a great disadvantage, 
and the contest will be prolonged at endless cost and 

Nearly every battle in any serious war is lost or won 
by either side in large measure, owing to a lack of con- 
cert of action on the part of the different bodies of troops 
at the time of attack, and to a scattered fire of the guns, 
instead of massing them in a proper manner and at the 
right place. In our spiritual warfare the same principle 
holds true, only the mistakes in our warfare are always 


on our side. Satan rarely, if ever, plays the part of a 
bad general, and he seldom imitates the Christian's 
method of doing battle. For this reason mainly has he 
been able to resist so long and so successfully a power 
which if wisely used, and as commanded by the Great 
Captain of our Salvation, would long since have over- 
thrown him with a mighty destruction. Alas! how the 
Christian Church has wasted her resources and exhausted 
her strength in guerrilla raids and free lance fighting; 
and how often have her soldiers forgotten the presence 
and power of their real foes, and turned their guns upon 
each other, or like Achilles have sulked in their sectarian 
ships and left their comrades and friends to take care of 
themselves, and with their rivalries and jealousies have 
often brought defeat and disgrace upon a righteous cause. 

Of course I could multiply such considerations indefi- 
nitely. Let these suffice to illustrate the evils of division 
and serve as a brief explanation of why unity is desirable. 

But now the question arises, What is unity? What do 
we mean by one body, or one fold under one Shepherd? 
This question has been answered in three ways. There 
have been three forms which the conception of unity took 
in those periods of the Church's existence when her unity 
was preserved in all essential respects. Dr. Hatch, in 
his Bampton Lectures has contended that in the earliest 
period the basis of Christian fellowship was a changed 
life, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord 
Jesus Christ. "It was the unity of a common relation to 
a common ideal and a common hope. 'By their fruits ye 
shall know them' was the bond which knit together the 
whole body of Christ's chosen ones." 

In the second period "the idea of definite belief as a 
basis of union dominated over that of a holy life. The 
meshes of the net were found to be too wide. The simple 
creed of primitive days tended to evaporate into the mists 
of a speculative theology. It became necessary to define 


more closely the circle of admissible beliefs. The con- 
tention of those who looked upon Christians as a whole 
was that they were held together by their possession of 
a true and the only true tradition of Christian teaching. ' ' 

In the third period "insistence on Catholic faith had 
led to insistence on Catholic order, for without order 
dogma had no guarantee of permanence. Consequently 
the idea of unity in a general and common order was 
superimposed upon that of unity of belief. It was held 
not to be enough for a man to be living a good life and 
to hold to the Catholic faith and to belong to a Christian 
association: that association must be part of a larger 
confederation and the sum of such confederations con- 
stituted the Catholic Church.' ' 

This threefold conception of unity has had still another 
phase added by the Church of the Middle Ages, which, 
seeking to carry to the utmost verge of logic this last 
conception, insisted upon absolute uniformity in all out- 
ward as well as inward matters ; and in the place of al- 
liance or confederation, with free play for diversity and 
individualism, the idea of complete centralization was 
urged, and the one body was to be made one, not only in 
spirit, and in its general aims and principles, but one in 
shape and form in all particulars, even to the extent of 
dress, forms of worship, and the same language and sub- 
servience to one earthly head, all powerful and infallible. 
When the dominant portion of this ambitious Church 
began to enforce this conception of unity as a substitute 
for the primitive and Catholic ideas, as a matter of course 
it defeated its own object, and split the Church into frag- 
ments, first alienating the mother of all Churches, the 
oriental and Greek Church; and in the days of the Eef- 
ormation driving into a struggle for freedom and inde- 
pendence all the civilized and enlightened nations of Eu- 
rope, and ever since those days it has been impossible 
for the different portions of the body thus sundered to 


come together again on any common basis of mutual 
agreement and brotherly fellowship and outward recogni- 
tion. In our day, however, now that the Christian world 
has in large measure recovered from the shock and tu- 
mult of those years of bitter contention and controversy, 
recognizing the appalling disasters which have recently 
fallen upon civilization, and alarmed at the forces round 
about us threatening to overthrow and destroy all reli- 
gion and even all rational human government itself, thou- 
sands and tens of thousands of devout hearts in every 
portion of the Church are beginning to long for a more 
satisfactory condition of things with reference to their 
relations to each other, as disciples and followers of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

The past history of the Church has shown that all the 
unity which is needed or desirable can be attained along 
the lines of the threefold conception of it, of which we 
have spoken. For the first four hundred years of her ex- 
istence the Church was essentially one fold under one 
Shepherd, united on the threefold basis of a holy life, a 
common faith, and a common order ; and her work during 
that period was simply marvelous. Our own Church, 
together with the bishops of the whole Anglican commun- 
ion in conference assembled, has proposed to all other 
bodies of Christians, Greek, Roman and Protestant, to 
consider this tremendous question of Catholic unity, and 
to pray over it, until in God's good time and way we may 
come together again on the old historic basis, which once 
held the Church together, and would have continued to 
do so through the ages had not political ideas and compli- 
cations overshadowed and weakened, and finally de- 
stroyed such bonds. We have at times dared indulge the 
dream that just as political ideas in the Eoman Empire 
were the means of destroying the outward body of the 
Church by attempting excessive consolidation and em- 
perializing it and placing itself on Caesar's throne, so 


may God use the political ideas of this great American 
Republic with the democratic tendencies of our day as the 
means of human government, inspiring us with ideals 
which may give us back the precious heritage of which 
it robbed us — the heritage of unity in diversity, of many 
in one and one in many. The very idea of democracy is 
not only liberty and equality, but fraternity — fraternity 
not only in social and political affairs ; but if Christians 
are to come together and do their work in the world, 
fraternity must be especially in religion. We call our 
land of America the New World and we are seeking to 
make men everywhere partakers in our brotherhood, 
sharers in a federation of democracy which will ulti- 
mately embrace the human family. Why then can we not 
unite the forces of Christianity, and seek to spread our 
religion by substituting in the place of the selfish system 
of competition the new conception of cooperation and in- 
terrelationship f Governments are doing this to save 
themselves and civilization. Why cannot the Church 
work on the same lines to save itself and the whole race 
of man ? 

Alas ! though, no one can think of this vast subject with- 
out being confronted on every hand by the most formid- 
able difficulties. The more we study human nature and 
human history the less do we find to comfort us. And 
were it a mere question of human management and solu- 
tion it would require a very sanguine temperament in 
any man to be very cheerful and hopeful regarding the 
present and future unity of the Christian Church. And 
yet, because all things are possible with God, and because 
it is clearly the revealed will of Christ that Plis people 
should be one, and because they are one in two of the 
three requirements of unity, the requirement of a holy 
life and substantial agreement in the fundamental articles 
of faith, we are encouraged to look forward to the time 
when there will be such a thing as organic unity also. 


The unity of Christendom should not overtax our expec- 
tations any more than does almost every other question 
with which as Christians we have to deal. When the 
first apostles received their commission : ' ' Go ye into all 
the world, and preach the Gospel, making disciples of all 
nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost," the problem which confronted 
them made demands upon faith as compared with which 
the difficulties in the way of Church unity are as nothing. 
Yet God was with them and He brought mighty things to 
pass through their instrumentality. This same God is 
our God forever, and the weakness of our faith should 
never be the measure of His strength, except when as 
individuals or as Churches we refuse to do His will, or 
to give ourselves as instruments to carry out His pur- 
poses ; even then God often does His work in spite of us 
and without our help. 

Therefore the duty which is laid upon each one of us is, 
when we are asked to consider the subject of unity, that 
we are not to dispose of it with an easy and incredulous 
shrug of the shoulder, and say to ourselves, Ah ! such a 
thing can never be. It is visionary. It is impossible. Ee- 
member that the Jew expressed just such sentiments con- 
cerning salvation through the Cross. The Greek laughed 
at the idea of the resurrection. The disciples might have 
reasoned in that manner and never have undertaken the 
conversion of the world. If it is God's will to unite His 
Church, move in the current of that will, and do not allow 
your intolerance to cause you to fight against God. 

And again, seek by prayer and honest self-examina- 
tion to know your own heart in its relation to the differ- 
ent matters about which you disagree with other Chris- 
tians. Many of our differences are real and they concern 
questions of deeper moment than mere misunderstand- 
ings and prejudices. Still much of the bitterness of feel- 
ing and the strife and discord which these differences en- 


gender have their origin in a loveless and prayerless 
heart, and in a mind which does not know itself as it 
should. Our differences may grieve and pain us. They 
ought never to make us rancorous and contemptuous. 
Even when those who differ from us seem to fail in this 
respect, he begins the fight who strikes back ; and a soft 
answer not only turns away wrath but often accomplishes 
what the strongest blow could not effect. 

And more than all else each one of us has it in his 
power to help on the cause of Christian unity by deepen- 
ing in his heart a true and abiding spirit of unity, and to 
rejoice in that spirit when manifested by others from 
whom he differs in outward things. Just as there may be 
a diversity of spirit in unity of form so may there be a 
very genuine unity of spirit in diversity of form, and 
this unity of spirit is a quality which every Christian 
should seek after in all sincerity, and he should be glad 
and recognize it fully whenever and wherever he finds it. 
Many a sheep which belongs to the Good Shepherd 's flock 
may not have quite the outward mark for which we are 
looking; and yet if he knows the Shepherd's voice, and 
if we see that the Shepherd speaks to him, and that he is 
following the Shepherd, oh! then let us adore the love 
and goodness of the Shepherd, and rejoice that after all 
they are real sheep and not goats, and hence are not to 
be attacked with stones and staves, and driven away 
from the gracious presence of the Shepherd, but are to 
be numbered among those who though not of our fold 
are yet of the other sheep who belong to the flock. Some 
one once asked Martin Luther in contemptuous pride, 
' ' Where was your Church before the Reformation V 9 
And the quiet reply was, " Where was my face before it 
was washed % 9 9 Many a person whom in our ecclesiastical 
arrogance we might be tempted to look upon as an alien 
and outcast may have a cleaner face and appearance be- 
fore God than ourselves. Whether you and I are to be 


permitted to enjoy that unspeakable privilege of behold- 
ing the Church of Christ united or not, we can at least 
contribute this much towards that end. We can on our 
own part love Christ so supremely, and cherish such loy- 
alty for the soul and essence of His religion, as to be 
able to say with the apostle of old : ' ' Some indeed preach 
Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good 
will : what then ? notwithstanding, every way, whether in 
pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein 
do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.' ' We have got really 
to be real and great Christians to be able to feel in that 
mood, but St. Paul arrived there, and we may follow even 
though it be at a distance. Any man who loves the Lord 
Jesus Christ, him we should also love, whether he bows 
to the sway of Borne, or follows the teaching of Calvin or 
calls himself a disciple of that mighty man, the son of a 
black forest, charcoal burner — Martin Luther. The chil- 
dren of God, brothers in Christ, heirs of a common salva- 
tion are to be found even among the tiniest sects which 
like aphides crawl on the twigs and stems and leaves, or 
cling to the great branches of the Holy Vine ; or to vary 
the figure, parasites, do we call them, wild creepers, 
thorns and thistles seeking to fasten themselves to the 
true vine or the real fig tree ! Well, so be it. But if upon 
close scrutinv we find that the flower and fruit of this 
strange flora are not exotic, but spring from seed which 
comes alone from the Garden of God, then we are to be 
thankful that even in such unpromising and unlooked for 
places we have found the growth of a heavenly planting. 
Let us not begrudge the grace and love and goodness 
which God bestows upon the other sheep. And some day 
we may discover that we as well as they did not know 
everything ; and our surprise may be mutual at the reve- 
lation of a more profound and comprehensive principle 
of unity than anything of which in our highest moments 
we had ever dreamed. Our differences of form may then 


be shown to have resulted from the circumstances amid 
which we live rather than to the spirit in which we live ; 
and our separations may have subserved the purposes of 
God, and accomplished a work in perfect harmony with 
the plans determined in the councils of eternity, which 
by reason of finite limitations we could not understand, 
and would never have imagined had not eternity disclosed 
them. Yet, for myself I dare believe that God will not 
postpone such a revelation to the eternity of the future. 
Already there are signs of the coming in of a new and 
brighter day, in the fortunes of the Christian Church. 
Just as the moon sways the tides and the hound bays at 
it in vain, so will this movement which is now going on 
in the Churches accomplish the fulness and oneness of 
its purpose, if it be of God as I doubt not it is. Man may 
hinder the movement and throw obstacles in our path, 
and cause us to wade through sloughs of despond and 
climb hills of difficulty, and fight for victory against many 
a fierce dragon of despair ; 


But that city's shining spires 
We travel to, ' ' 

break upon our vision, and we will not faint nor fail until 
we have done everything in our power to bring all who 
profess and call themselves Christians into the way of 
truth, and to hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond 
of peace and in righteousness of life. God speed the day ! 

G. H. Kinsolving. 

Bishop's House, 
Austin, Texas. 




(Translated from the Greek by Balph W. Brown and abridged by the 


To His Beatitude Photios, Pope and Patriarch of 
Alexandria, and to the Holy Synod of the Apostolic and 
Patriarchal Throne of Alexandria. Memorial from 
Nikolaos Evangelides, Metropolitan of Nubia. 

Your Beatitude: 

The official report of what took place at the World 
Conference on Faith and Order in Geneva has been sub- 
mitted to your Beatitude and to the Holy Synod of the 
Church of Alexandria by the Committee which repre- 
sented the Patriarchate of Alexandria in that Confer- 
ence, and the purpose of the present communication is to 
express my individual ideas, by way of supplement, on 
the same subject and on the question of the union of the 

Every reverent Christian heart in which there dwells 
the Holy Spirit and the love of the divine Saviour, is 
deeply grieved by the lamentable division and cutting-up 
of the Church and the rending of the garment of Christ, 
considering this division closely connected with the 
grievous condition of the world, the strifes and conflicts, 
the wars and disorders, the mutual hatred and fanati- 
cism, the sufferings and predominance of sin in the world, 
which weaken the work of Christ (the salvation of the 
faithful, for whom He died), and delay the accomplish- 
ment of His work, which is the evangelization and salva- 
tion of those who dwell in darkness and in the shadow of 
death; and the name of the Lord is blasphemed in the 
nations, as the Prophet foretold. 

Indeed, one feels one's heart burned by the desire for 
the union of all Christendom, when one considers how 


many and what sort of good things would result from 
that work, pleasing to God — spiritual, moral and mate- 
rial benefits, in a word, the complete reconstruction of 
the world. 

If religious and moral unity in Christ prevailed in the 
world, if there were one and the same panchristian con- 
science, source of solidarity and mutual love, an irenic 
spirit would be developed and strengthened among the 
peoples, and there would be assured a lasting and world- 
wide peace incomparably better than by political cove- 
nants and armed alliances. Racial considerations, which 
separate the peoples like Chinese walls, would lose their 
power, and every citizen would regard his neighbor, of 
the same nation or of another nation, with love, as an 
equal and a brother, created by the all-good Father. He 
would respect the rights and the freedom of the other, 
and would consider every transgression of those prin- 
ciples as irreverence, fratricide and rebellion against 
God. The Christian would believe firmly that wars 
which people vainly try to justify as in defense of the 
right and as a necessary evil, are a fault, a moral de- 
railment, a failure of love and respect of the rights of 
one's neighbor, a distortion of the spirit of Christianity, 
a deadly sin against civilization and humanity; and he 
would require the leaders of the peoples to settle the 
differences and frictions which might arise between the 
nations with scrupulous justice and in a Christian way, 
by peaceful means. 

The Church, one and undivided, would come again into 
its ancient orbit, and would assemble in Ecumenical 
Councils, in which the Holy Spirit would speak again in 
public, as at the first Pentecost, and decisions and meas- 
ures of general interest would be taken, which the 
Church would have full power and might to make re- 
spected and effective. 

Then materialism and disbelief, religious coldness and 


indifference, the increasing laxity of morals and disso- 
luteness, alcoholism and evils, communistic and ungodly 
systems under many names, would be completely over- 
come, and serious general measures would be taken for 
the moral restoration of sick humanity. The diverse 
measures and half -measures of the Churches and states, 
which now encounter so much systematic opposition from 
mischief -working forces which hate the good, would be 
multiplied and strengthened, and the peoples whose 
means to this end are scanty would procure aid from the 
abundance of those who are more powerful, in behalf of 
the common effort, which is the establishment and pre- 
dominance of the Kingdom of God throughout the whole 

By means of the union of all, under our Saviour's law 
of love, beneficence and philanthropic activity would in- 
crease and the unavoidable wounds of humanity would 
be healed more speedily by Christian wine and oil. 

In short, the most important mission of the visible 
Church on earth, which is, in addition to the sanctifica- 
tion of the faithful, to spread the divine light of the 
Gospel to the peoples that still sit in darkness and in the 
shadow of death (Luke 1:79), will be accomplished more 
easily and speedily. The calling of the nations among 
whom the true faith is not yet spread, delayed by the 
mutual opposition of the missionaries, which sounds 
badly to those who do not know the facts, and which pro- 
vokes distrust, would be forwarded by the blessings of 
the Chief Shepherd, Christ, and the Church, as a mighty 
divine work, full of grace and truth, would increase daily, 
and would grow into a holy temple in the Lord, a habita- 
tion of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:21, 22). 

Led by these good intentions and hopes, the Orthodox 
Churches of the East hastened to be represented in the 
aforesaid Panchristian Conference by an adequate num- 
ber of delegates, thus manifesting, besides their readi- 


ness, the significance which the Eastern Church as a 
whole attaches to the movement for the union of the 
Churches. The other Churches and religious bodies, 
too, were represented by competent and distinguished 
members of the hierarchy and learned theologians. Thus 
there assembled 120 delegates of 80 Churches and reli- 
gious bodies, coming from 40 countries, so that it can 
truly be said that the Conference in question is the most 
important gathering and attempt for mutual acquaint- 
ance, rapprochement and eventual union of the different 
Churches since the lamented schism of the ninth century. 
The Conference met in the great hall, "Athenee," 
sitting morning and afternoon for eight days. The ses- 
sions opened and closed with silent prayer, the reading 
of a passage of the Holy Gospel relative to the matter in 
hand, and the recitation together of the Lord's Prayer 
each in his own language. The Orthodox and Old Cath- 
olic delegates occupied the first row of benches. It was 
an impressive, imposing and stirring sight, symbolizing 
the longed-for union of the Churches, peoples, races and 
tongues, led by the Holy Spirit to the unity of faith in 
the bond of peace. The subjects for discussion were laid 
down by the Et. Eev. President Brent as follows: (1) 
the Church and the nature of the united Church; (2) 
the Holy Scriptures; and (3) the Creed in relation to 
union. On the questions submitted for discussion, there 
were heard thoroughly orthodox opinions on the part of 
eminent higher clergy and theologians of world-wide re- 
nown, but very various opinions were also expressed, con- 
flicting with one another and differing entirely from the 
Orthodox faith. Of the former, we mention the Old 
Catholic conception, expressed by the Et. Eev. Bishop 
Herzog of Switzerland, whose vigorous and venerable 
old age, piety and religious fervor, evoked general re- 
spect and honor, and by the Et. Eev. Bishop of Haarlem, 
Holland. These men expressed very Orthodox convic- 


tions, basing them on Holy Scripture, genuine sacred 
tradition and the decisions of the seven Ecumenical 
Synods. Likewise great breadth of judgment and true 
understanding in many respects were shown in the 
speeches by Anglican and American Bishops, for in- 
stance, the Rt. Eev. Bishop Gore, formerly of Oxford, 
and Bishop Palmer of Bombay, who declared definitely 
against the federative union of the Churches according 
to the Protestant method, because such a union, being 
loose and for the most part external, is not adequate, 
since it includes a certain degree of diversity, and does 
not come up to the New Testament ideal. They likewise 
expressed themselves in behalf of the need of a creed in 
the Church, and spoke expressly in favor of the Nicene 

But while the aforesaid declarations filled us with joy 
in the Lord and with Christian rejoicing, there followed 
thick and fast statements of faith of various other bodies 
and systems. Besides the well-known Calvinists or 
Presbyterians and Lutherans, we have the Congregation- 
alists of America and England, the English Society of 
Friends or Quakers, the Methodists, the Baptists and 
Disciples of Christ, to mention only a few of these reli- 
gious systems. They differ radically from the Orthodox 
Church in the aforesaid subjects of the faith. For they 
teach other things with regard to the nature of the 
Church, and they do not consider sacred tradition neces- 
sary, and they do not recognize holy orders as a special 
grace in the Church, or they reject the grade of bishop 
and all the sacraments. They do not recognize the need 
for a creed in the Church. From that, one can under- 
stand what a gulf is fixed between the Orthodox Church 
and the aforesaid systems which ignore the historical 
development of Christianity and the teaching of the an- 
cient Church, and are based one-sidedly on Holy Scrip- 
ture alone. 


The Orthodox delegation expounded the true nature of 
the Church, the inward unity of the Orthodox Church in 
faith and worship, and its outward unity in administra- 
tion, the historical development of the Christian faith 
and the fixation of its present type by the ancient Coun- 
cils in creeds, canons and laws, whose observance is an 
indispensable dogma of the faith for every devout Chris- 
tian. They pointed out that the previous speakers had 
passed one-sided judgments upon the various questions 
of faith, taking only Holy Scripture as their basis, 
whereas the Word of God was consigned to the Church, 
in writing and orally ; that they had forgotten that Chris- 
tianity itself is the supreme historical fact, so that, in 
explaining the various questions of faith and of the Gos- 
pel, the voice of history and sacred Church tradition as 
an infallible criterion must also be taken into considera- 
tion ; that is to say, that since the time of Origen, gram- 
matical and historical interpretation is fixed and estab- 
lished ; and finally, that without the creed, and indeed the 
historical Nicene Creed, which replaced the ancient bap- 
tismal formulas, unity in the Church cannot be conceived. 
Finally it was declared that the unity which is desired 
and sought after must be complete dogmatic and moral 

So much by way of summary of what occurred at the 
preparatory Conference in Geneva. I think it fitting, in 
what follows, to express my own humble opinion on the 
interesting question of the union of the Churches, as a 
very slight aid to the wise and experienced minds of your 
Beatitude and the Hierarchy of the Alexandrine Throne. 

(A) Is anion possible and attainable? 

That the different Churches and the entire world will 
be united some day in one religious family, one Church 
and one flock, permits of no doubt, since this is Christ's 
will, which our Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Founder 
of the Church, declared prophetically. This idea is the 


ardent desire of all devout minds and teachers of the 
Church, and best serves the interest of right-thinking, 
religiously-inclined humanity, and is a question of its 
very life and existence. Whatever may be the opposition 
of impiety, selfishness, racial enmity and biassed inter- 
ests, it is impossible that in the end, the divine will that 
all may be one will not prevail and find fulfilment. 
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but Christ's words 
shall not pass away (Matt. 24:35) until they are fulfilled 
to the last iota and until there is one flock and one Shep- 

(B) Of what sort should the union of the Churches be? 

Should there be full and complete predominance of 
one and the same confession of faith, the same dogmas, 
the same worship and administration, or acceptance of 
only certain points, the principal ones, of the faith, but 
freedom concerning the points of disagreement? Or 
should there be complete indifference for the present and 
entire freedom with regard to dogma, worship and ad- 
ministration, and only moral union in Christ's law of 
love % From this it is plain that there are three different 
conceptions and methods of union, viz., (a) complete dog- 
matic union; (b) partial dogmatic union; and (c) moral 
union. We proceed to examine these three standpoints: 

(a) Complete dogmatic union. 

Those who took the initiative in calling together the 
Panchristian Conference in Geneva, moved by good will 
and evangelical zeal, having studied things diligently 
and possessing great experience, with history as their 
teacher and guide, declare in a pamphlet which they 
previously published that the differences between the 
confessions are very great, but they believe that it is pos- 
sible for them to be simplified in time by mutual explana- 
tion of the reasons for the various opinions, and by 
bringing the Churches into contact with one another. 
However, they pronounce against the method of religious 


debates and polemics, which embitters minds and has led 
to isolation and to petrified hatred, and to the cutting-up 
of Christianity. In other words, they consider that dog- 
matic and sacramental unity is for the present, if not 
entirely impossible, certainly very difficult. They extol, 
as possible and salutary, the moral union of the Churches 
in Christ's law of love, which brings about the union of 
souls, because Christianity is a religion of love and life. 
Peace, righteousness and justice of all nations and all 
men must be founded on Christ's law of love. These 
beautiful words about love in Christ and the bond of the 
world in love, were repeated by various speakers at the 

The supporters of this plan are inspired, as we have 
said, by history, according to which dogmatic debates 
have repeatedly come to no result and have in part in- 
creased the evils of fanaticism and racial prejudice, mul- 
tiplying heresies and schisms and weakening the working 
of Christ's love. And since the various Churches still 
hold firmly to their own opinions, each remaining im- 
movable in its own, which have been deeply rooted by 
the action of many centuries, and since the Churches are 
convinced that they crystallize the pure spirit of the re- 
ligion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Committee which 
published the pamphlet and took the initiative felt that 
for the present there is no other meeting place for the 
different Churches and religious systems except the 
ethical side, and in fact, the method of love. As is im- 
mediately plain from this scheme of union in Christ's 
law of love, which is extolled in the Gospel by the dis- 
ciple of love and identified with God Himself, and by the 
apostle to the nations lyrically as mightier than all faith, 
mightier than the knowledge of all the mysteries, than 
power to work wonders and to prophesy and speak lan- 
guages, and above any sacrifice and even life itself — in 
this scheme of union, in which the chief object seems to 


be to keep away from the reefs of dogmatic debate, the 
value of the true faith is degraded, being characterized 
as a secondary matter and of minor importance for the 
union and salvation of the world, whereas in Holy Scrip- 
ture, faith has the same value and power as love. Like- 
wise, for the sake of the moral union of the Churches, the 
colossal labor and the long and bloody struggles of the 
ancient Church for the right interpretation and dissem- 
ination of the lofty truths of the Gospel and for the 
prevalence of the true faith, are characterized as almost 
useless, scientifically and practically, and as causes of 
harm, causes of divisions. 

Christ by the Apostle Paul foretells the entrance into 
the Church of grievous wolves (Acts 20:29) to its con- 
fusion and the perversion of His doctrine, and He made 
the teachers of the Church responsible for watching over 
themselves and the whole flock, of which the Holy Spirit 
has made them overseers (bishops) to shepherd the 
Church of Christ. Again, by the same apostle, He pro- 
nounces a curse upon those who try to pervert Christ's 
Gospel and to preach something other than what they had 
received and were taught (Gal. 1:7). Thus the respon- 
sibility for the divisions does not weigh upon the inno- 
cent, the champions of the truth, those who held to the 
ancient traditions and truths of their fathers, but upon 
those who introduced new fancies. Of what great serv- 
ice the complete fixation of dogma in our Church has 
been, is clear from the variously-named heresies, impos- 
sible to count, which have arisen in late years in the Prot- 
estant Churches, precisely on account of the lack of dog- 
matic and administrative coherence and unity of their 

For these reasons the Eastern Orthodox Church, hav- 
ing its faith already fixed by divinely inspired Synods 
and ratified by so many centuries, cannot deviate from 


the ancient basis, as was clearly stated in the memorial 
submitted to the Geneva meeting. 

The holy Nicene Creed and the dogmatic decrees of the 
seven great Ecumenical Synods form a divine basis, in- 
fallible and of indisputable validity. By those Synods 
the Church of Christ, then one and united, spoke the final 
word on the questions of faith. Any change of those 
doctrines constitutes, not progress and completion, but 
perversion of the substance of the faith, pernicious and 
perilous innovation. In the Ecumenical Synods the 
truth of the faith was interpreted rightly and crystallized 
definitively, after long investigations and discussions by 
the Church, on the basis of Holy Scripture and the genu- 
ine ancient and catholic tradition. If on those founda- 
tions and from that standpoint the union of the Churches 
were attempted, there is much hope and probability of 
success. But the objection is advanced that such a dog- 
matic union as this has been attempted more than once 
with the Eoman Church and the Protestant Churches and 
has failed. If we attentively examine the various at- 
tempts at union, we shall acknowledge that the great 
differences as to dogma are not the only cause of the 
failure of the measures taken toward agreement. With 
reference to the Boman Church, the negotiations with it 
have failed both because of the innovations of the Popes 
in matters of the faith, and also because the efforts which 
were made had their origin in political necessity and in 
the designs of the Byzantine Empire upon the Church, 
and not in purely ecclesiastical initiative and desire for 

As concerns the unsuccessful efforts with the Protes- 
tants and Anglicans, we can distinguish internal and ex- 
ternal causes. Internal causes are the material differ- 
ences in faith and administration ; for the Protestants, in 
fleeing from the papal yoke, from the transgressions and 
innovations of the Boman Church, got into the opposite 


extremity. Bejecting even true doctrines, and laying 
down as their basis liberty and uncontrolled scrutiny of 
the Scriptures, they opened the way for many aberra- 
tions. The Anglican Churches are an exception, rela- 
tively speaking, being more conservative and closer to 
the ancient Church. 

As a final reason for the failure of the negotiations for 
union, we add the following: The Christian world of 
East and West, enslaved during the Middle Ages by the 
domination of religious and racial fanaticism and many 
prejudices, disturbed very often by internal convulsions 
and by wars with the outside, never rose to the plane of 
seeing things impartially from the single standpoint of 
love and the general interest. For those reasons, the 
failures do not indicate the impossibility of union in the 
future, nor must they inspire pessimism and disillusion- 
ment. On the contrary they must teach the avoidance of 
the mistakes that have occurred and the use of means of 
greater* promise, with zeal, good will and systematic ef- 
fort, until we all attain unto the unity of the faith (Eph. 
4:13), the ancient, genuine, apostolic and truly catholic 
faith. That is the first and only possible way of true 
union of the Churches — complete dogmatic union. 

(b) Partial dogmatic union. 

Another way leading to a sort of unity of the Churches 
is the following: Let dogmatic agreement and union be 
declared by common acceptance of the principal points 
of faith, on which the opinions of the Churches coincide, 
the other points of disagreement being characterized as 
theological opinions, with perfect freedom to accept them 
or not. This way was followed in the discussions of 
the delegates of the various Churches at the attempts 
for union with the Old Catholics, which occurred in va- 
rious cities, particularly at Bonn (1874-1875). But that 
method encountered much opposition in Greece and Eng- 
land. I shall not spend time on that method, because it 


reveals itself at once as not assuring a firm and promising 
union of the Churches, but one that is imperfect and 
loose, not curing the division and the existing disagree- 
ments, and not answering to the spirit of the Gospel and 
to the type of the ancient Church. Complete dogmatic 
union of the Churches remains the only right and effec- 
tive kind. 

(c) Moral union. 

Since complete dogmatic union on the basis of the 
ancient status of the faith appears to most people very 
difficult and unattainable, because of the freedom of 
thought and conception which prevails in our time even 
in religious questions, there remains and there is pro- 
posed another note of union, the moral side of the Gospel 
doctrine, viz., love of Christ, which is a truth accepted by 
all, complete freedom being left for the present as to be- 
lief, the doctrines of each Church being proclaimed 
worthy of respect. 

That plan of the union of all Christians in the law of 
Christ's love, regardless of faith, worship and adminis- 
tration, appears at first, as we have already mentioned, 
practical, and seems a beautiful, felicitous idea, with 
many strong reasons in its favor, and able to lead with- 
out difficulties and struggles to some result. Let us see, 
then, whether on this moral footing alone the desired 
union of the Churches is possible, practicable and advan- 
tageous from a religious standpoint. 

First it must be observed that this method leads to an 
imperfect and partial unity, and is a repetition of the 
method just preceding, with the difference that the 
ground of agreement is transferred from dogma to ethics, 
the ethics commonly accepted. I have characterized that 
plan as initially practical and felicitous, because when it 
is accepted as a basis of the union of the Churches, all the 
Churches and religious bodies, even the most extreme and 
liberal as to the faith, will coincide. The rationalists 


with the ultramontane conservatives, the religions in- 
differents and those who believe to snit themselves, will 
enroll as members of that world-wide society. 

But such union is moral and not religious union, a 
world-wide moral, not a Christian, league. For how 
could a follower of the true Church identify his convic- 
tions and religious ideals and expectations of future life 
— one who believes in Jesus Christ as God and in the 
mystery of the Incarnation— with the ideas of the ration- 
alist and the religious indifferent who denies the truths 
of revelation*? According to the former, the ethics of 
the Gospel are the will and law of God, revealed by the 
Son, of one substance with the Father, and have divine 
and perpetual validity. According to the latter, the Gos- 
pel ethics differ in no way from the philosophical ethics 
of Plato and Aristotle except in so far as the Gospel con- 
ception of it is loftier and more perfect, and according 
to natural reason some other moral teacher could per- 
haps in future draw up an ethical system more perfect 
and better adapted to the conditions of the times and the 
nature of man. For ethics based on human logic is 
changeable according to the way of thinking and living 
of the most developed minds. 

But ethics, deprived of a divine basis and divine au- 
thority, has no sure foundations and no absolute validity, 
but affords a ground for debates and doubts. Upon such 
an ethics, instable and not indissolubly bound up with 
religion, it is impossible that humanity should be con- 
solidated and advanced. That was tried at the time of 
the great French Eevolution, when religion had been 
abolished by law. The attempt was then made to estab- 
lish morality on the basis of philosophy, and moral and 
philosophical precepts were proclaimed as laws of the 
republic, inscribed on tablets in the public squares and 
streets for the instruction of the people. The conse- 
quence was the moral derailment of man to such a degree 


that the guillotine could not keep up with its frightful 
task, so that the leaders of the revolution themselves, and 
those who had established atheism by legislation, were 
compelled to restore by law the faith in God, and to es- 
tablish in religion the moral duties of man. Certainly 
we have gone far afield in these reflections, and have 
brought unusual conditions under consideration (com- 
plete abandonment of the spirit of religion, or at least 
the loosest sort of bond between religion and morals), 
but we wished by that means to call to mind whither a 
one-sided moral union can lead ; for it is well known that 
rationalism abolishes the religion of the Crucified and 
lays down a foundation other than that proclaimed by 
the Apostle Paul, on which the Church of Christ is es- 

On the other hand, moral unity in Christ's law of love 
already exists, without any formal declaration, among 
all those who believe in any way in Christ and accept the 
holy Gospel. Such moral unity can in time be advanced 
by good training, by improvement of the moral faculties, 
by education, by the wider application of the moral prin- 
ciples of the Gospel, by franker intercourse of the 
Churches. But it must be called moral unity and not 
Christian or religious unity. A Christian, according to 
the mind of the Church and of religion, has the name of 
a believer in Christ, and does believe in Christ as by 
nature the Son of God, and acknowledges Him as leader 
of his religious and moral life. A man is not a Christian 
who acts according to the law of the Gospel but who does 
not believe in the law-giver and in God, for the doctrine 
and work of Christ is indissolubly bound up with His 
Person. For that reason, those who initiated the World 
Conference at Geneva very rightly laid down as the basis 
and condition of the invitation, the confession of faith 
in Christ Jesus, "Who came in flesh. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds love in Christ 


very high, as the source of true life, as the firm founda- 
tion of peace and righteousness, as an indispensable con- 
dition of spiritual salvation and of the union of the 
Churches, and therefore tries to be at peace, if possible, 
with all men, and to live the life of love in Christ, teach- 
ing her own children that God is love. But she is never 
indifferent to the true faith, which she considers like- 
wise an indispensable element of salvation. Faith and 
works of love are the two foundations on which, accord- 
ing to the Gospel, the present happiness and future sal- 
vation of man is assured. Our Lord in receiving those 
who came to Him by faith and baptism, with all wisdom 
joined faith with good works, dogma with morality, in 
His teaching, and made salvation depend upon faith 
working through love. 

The love of Christ is surely an all-powerful bond, 
which nothing is able to dissolve, not affliction, want, per- 
secution, famine, danger, the sword; but it cannot de- 
velop save in hearts which are truly religious and which 
lean upon the arm of faith. To declare the union of the 
Churches upon the moral basis only, is itself incomplete, 
one-sided and unfruitful, and would moreover give 
grounds for many dangerous misconceptions. The peo- 
ple, not clearly understanding things, on seeing the 
Church concentrating its attention upon the practical 
side of love, would interpret this as a relegation of (the) 
faith to a lesser plane of worth, and one of two things 
would happen: — either free thinking and the optional 
acceptance of the dogmatic truths of religion would be 
introduced, and so we should fall into rationalism ; or else 
the panorthodox conscience would not accept this moral 
unity and would rise up and bring it to naught. For 
those reasons, dogmatic and moral union remains the 
only right, firm, fruitful kind in accordance with the 
Gospel, and any other one-sided, semi-union is unstable 
and harmful. 


(C) What is the suitable time for union of the 

The Lord in His authority has appointed the times and 
seasons ; but to judge things in a human way, we believe 
that the present time is very favorable and matters are 
very pressing. For the people are more developed spir- 
itually and are less prejudiced and fanatical, though they 
still remain under the influence of racial antipathies. The 
clergy has a broader conception of its functions. The 
Churches are more enfranchised from the State and less 
subject to ingenious manipulation from without. The 
awful conflict of the peoples, which, alas, is by no means 
ended, has brought about a general upheaval on the 
spiritual, moral and social horizon, and demands radical 
measures to conserve the ruins and to check the harm. 
The varied moral and material wounds of humanity, re- 
vealed by the flash of the cannon in the savage heat of 
war; the plastic and superficial character of European 
civilization of the present day, which hides poison be- 
neath a cordial smile, and a fratricidal dagger under a 
gloved hand — these things have thrust into the fore- 
ground the unmistakable and pressing need for measures 
to remedy the evil. The politicians and military men re- 
sort once more to the methods, so often tried, of political 
treaties and armed alliances to impose peace in the world. 
The socialists, communists and anti-militarists want to 
do away with law and with military service in time of 
war and with violent uprisings. But the radical and law- 
ful means, the one and only salutary remedy, is the coali- 
tion of the Churches everywhere under the empire of the 
love of Christ, to fight in a holy alliance, unbreakable and 
invincible, against sin, which in varied forms, like a many- 
headed hydra, is destroying humanity by fire and sword, 
materialism and unbelief, falsehood and superstition, 
fanaticism and religious enmity, corruption of morals 


and alcoholism, bolshevism and anarchy and other social- 
istic systems. 

However, in judging the present moment suitable for 
beginning to press our efforts for union, we are not of the 
opinion that the goal is near, for it is not possible to 
bridge quickly chasms which have been lying open and 
widening for so many centuries. We believe that the 
road to the desired goal is long and arduous, narrow and 
straitened (Matt. 7:14), but we must arm ourselves with 
patience and courage for the sake of Christ's love, for 
the sake of the peace and salvation of the world, and for 
our own sake. 

(D) Of what sort are the measures in preparation for 

Since dogmatic discussions would lead again to-day to 
the same result of disagreement, the Orthodox delegation 
at the Conference advocated in its memorial certain prac- 
tical measures which, if put sincerely and impartially 
into practice, would contribute to the removal of many 
existing misunderstandings among the Churches and of 
many impediments, and to gradual acquaintance, study, 
rapprochement, confidence and solidarity, which in time 
would greatly smooth the way toward the dogmatic union 
of the Churches. 

(1) Formation of a permanent committee of the 
Churches under the title League of the Churches, after 
the model of the League of Nations. This committee 
would have no executive authority, but would serve as 
an outward moral bond of union of the Churches. It 
would follow every ecclesiastical movement in the world, 
and would appear before the governments of the Powers 
as counsel for the general interests of the Churches. It 
would promote mutual explanations by the Churches on 
various questions, which would be discussed in its special 
periodical organ, as from a supreme pulpit of the 
Churches, and many dogmatic and ecclesiastical differ- 


ences would be settled. In this League, the Eastern 
Orthodox Church, with its ancient prestige, its commonly 
recognized orthodoxy, would exercise an active influence 
upon the newer Churches, making itself more widely 
known, and in time impressing its orthodoxy upon the 
other Churches. This central League would have the 
power and the means to forestall many transgressions by 
certain Churches to the injury of others, resulting from 
fanaticism and a spirit of domination, and in general it 
could prove itself a most useful factor for the Churches 
and the peoples. 

(2) Exertion of every effort by the great Churches to 
unite the small religious units, so as to limit the number 
of the disagreeing sections, and to have instead of many 
Churches and systems, fewer but larger groups. Such 
a task has already commenced, according to the state- 
ments of the Anglicans, who are making serious efforts 
for union with the related religious off-shoots, such as 
the Congregationalists, Baptists, etc. It is right that 
similar efforts should be exerted on the part of the Or- 
thodox Church among the neighboring Monophysite 
Churches of the East. 

(3) Cessation of proselytism among Christians. Just 
as to call the nations which know not the Gospel to the 
light and the truth is a duty and a praiseworthy pro- 
cedure for every Church, a continuation of the work of 
the apostles, the enlightenment of minds and the salva- 
tion of souls, so to detach Christians from the Church 
in which they were born is for the most part a work of 
seduction and an offense to conscience. The ill-inten- 
tioned proselytizing zeal of certain Churches and reli- 
gious bodies of Europe and America has come from an 
erroneous conception of the religious and moral condi- 
tion of the peoples of the East. While it produces the 
very fewest of strange fruits, it gives rise to many scan- 
dals, domestic, social and national, awakens the distrust 


of the Churches of the East toward the other Churches, 
nurtures fanaticism and religious hatred, and widens the 
chasm which separates the Churches. 

(4) Development of Christian solidarity among Chris- 
tians, to improve the lot of peoples, particularly in the 
East. The peoples of the East, who for centuries past 
have been consumed by fire and sword at the hands of 
infidels, to whom they are in political servitude, must en- 
counter a more Christian treatment on the part of the 
mighty ones of the earth. The Churches must show 
themselves more sympathetic and sensitive toward the 
sufferings of Christians of no matter what Church and 
nationality, in order that the spirit of love and union may 
be thus cultivated. Hitherto the Churches in Europe and 
America, which hold the practical spirit of Christianity 
in high esteem have not been stirred by the slaughters 
and destruction by the Turks of hundreds of thousands 
of Christians — Armenian, Greek and Syrian — and ex- 
cept for weak protests in England and America, no meas- 
ure of consequence has been adopted. Greater interest 
and solidarity is thus imperative to develop the spirit of 
love and mutual confidence, which would greatly further 
the work of the union of the Churches. 

General Conclusions 

As was emphasized in our official report, and as is 
clear from what precedes, the Conference, as a prepa- 
ratory meeting achieved its purpose. (1) The Churches, 
for the first time after so many centuries, interchanged 
opinions through official representatives and conferred 
together in a spirit of benignity and concord. (2) 
Through what developed in the Conference, the Churches 
became acquainted with each other's views and disposi- 
tions so as to orientate themselves for the future in their 
efforts to develop closer relations and rapprochement. 
(3) The foundations were laid for more conclusive work. 


(4) From an Orthodox standpoint, the unseemly method 
of proselytism among Christians was condemned from 
an official panchristian platform ; a voice was raised, and 
the need for developing Christian solidarity among the 
Churches was unanimously accepted. (5) Occasion was 
afforded to the Eastern Orthodox Church to acquaint the 
others with its ancient prestige and apostolic type in 
faith, worship and administration, and to remove so 
many misconceptions and erroneous opinions about it- 
self on the part of the other Churches, due to ignorance 
of the facts or to slander by evil-intentioned enemies of 
our Church. (6) The sympathy of the Conference was ex- 
pressed for the terrible sufferings of Christians in the 
East and in Eussia, and its approval of the formation of 
the League of Nations as an institution contributory to 
the establishment of lasting peace in the world. 

So much as to the results of the Conference. Since, as 
we have said, the Conference entrusted the continuation 
of its labors to a committee of over forty members, and 
since those who took the laudable initiative of the Con- 
ference will very probably continue with the same zeal 
their efforts for the work of the union of the Churches, 
the Eastern Orthodox Church must indicate its position 
and course in the matter. On that particular point per- 
mit me to submit my humble opinion, shaped by the 
labors of the Conference, by private interviews with rep- 
resentatives of other Churches and by my own studies. 

The Protestant Churches are convinced that the com- 
pletely decentralized system which prevails among them, 
with full liberty for each body to decide its own faith and 
administration and to change them at will, and the lack 
of all administrative coherence, have led to the enf eeble- 
ment and cutting-up of the Protestant Church and to 
deep decomposition. They have therefore recognized the 
need, and have started a strong movement, for closer 
religious and administrative union with one another. 


Likewise the Episcopal Church in England and America 
are working hard for closer union with each other, and 
to combine with their smaller off-shoots, the Congrega- 
tionalists, Methodists, Quakers and others. 

As concerns complete accord and dogmatic union with 
the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, 
Quakers and others of their kin, there can be no serious 
question, for they differ on very essential and funda- 
mental dogmas and sacraments. Likewise all efforts 
must be characterized as labor lost for union with the 
reformed Lutheran Churches in Germany, Switzerland 
and France, which have gone much further away from 
the ancient faith, having fallen into rationalism and re- 
duced the Christian religion to a system of ethics, deny- 
ing the truths of revelation and miracles. 

The situation is different in the case of the Episcopal 
and the Old Catholic Churches. With their representa- 
tives at Geneva the Orthodox delegation had more than 
one conference, unofficial but very enlightening, in which 
views were interchanged and explanations made on either 
side that could not be entered into in the complicated 
preparatory assembly. 

The Conference with the Old Catholic representatives, 
at which the well-known Bishop Herzog presided, was 
warmer and heartier. To questions on the subject from 
the Old Catholic delegates, Bishop Herzog, began by ex- 
plaining that the Old Catholics, having revolted against 
the innovations and transgressions of the Eoman Church 
and particularly against the high-handed acts of the 
Pope, had rejected every newer papal invention, among 
them the filioque and the infallibility of the Pope, and 
had returned to the ancient state of affairs before the 
schism of the ninth century, and to the faith of the seven 
Ecumenical Synods. He burns with an intense desire, as 
do all his associates, for union of the two Churches. 

Assuredly every work depends not on man's desires or 


activities, but on God's mercy. But on the logical pre- 
supposition and the words of the Gospel that the work 
of union is pleasing to God and beneficial, it must find 
deep and continual solicitude on the part of the holy 
mother Church. Convinced that the existing division of 
the Churches is a terrible calamity for mankind because 
it has enfeebled the work of our Lord, diminished the 
moral influence of religion in the world, cultivated the 
germs of great evils and great calamities, we are in duty 
bound to work for the complete removal of this world- 
wide evil. But as we have said, such things are not ac- 
complished briefly and by main strength, but gradually 
by prayer and unwearied effort, to the end that the world 
which has gone astray may be enlightened as to the truth 
and the true faith and the need for union, as the will of 
God, as a means of salvation and pacification of the 
world. Christ will dwell in us and will tarry among us 
when the scandals and divisions of the Churches cease, 
when one faith prevails, and the laAV of love, brother- 
hood and solidarity rules. Then the bleeding wounds of 
humanity will be healed and humanity will be fully re- 
stored to health, and the Church will take on its ancient 
prestige again and pursue its apostolic work, and the 
mind and heart of all who believe in Christ will be one. 


(Metropolitan) of Nubia. 

Geneva, September, 1920. 


I have been asked to treat the subject of Church re- 
union from a more general point of view than that of 
our own Moravian negotations on this subject with the 
Anglican Church. I will endeavour to do so. But the 
Anglican position is bound to be referred to ; not merely 
because it is uppermost in men's minds, but because it 
is the one practical effort at reunion which most clearly 
demonstrates our difficulties and which, on the other 
hand, if it could be accomplished, would be of the greatest 
importance for our national life. 

When Churches are negotiating, it is important that 
they should have the same aim and the same spirit. 

What are the Anglicans, the Free Churches, and our- 
selves hoping to get as the result of present negotiations f 
I have heard the word reunion used to describe the object 
aimed at. Hitherto I, and I think many others, have dis- 
tinguished between reunion and other forms of closer 
fellowship. Under reunion I have understood organic 
unity, i.e., two or more Churches become one in organiza- 
tion. They may have several "departments," but they 
have one representative body, one final court of appeal, 
one government, one name (thus, e.g. three Methodist 
bodies reunited to form one "United Methodist 
Church"). It may be that the larger body absorbs the 
smaller ones ; it may be that they interpenetrate one an- 
other fairly equally ; at any rate, they are amalgamated, 
they cease to be independent of one another. 

Anything less than that I have understood to be called 
intercommunion. In intercommunion the Churches re- 
main independent of one another; they have separate 
names, separate representative bodies, separate govern- 
ments. But they say to one another: we are friends, 
let us associate with one another. They may have united 
services, united communions, exchanges of pulpits; they 


may arrange for conventions, conferences, alliances, fed- 
erations. But they remain independent. 

Now, I have been puzzled that the Anglicans use the 
word reunion and not intercommunion, and that Canon 
Mason declared emphatically that he was out for reunion, 
that intercommunion did not satisfy him ; whilst the Free 
Churches and ourselves have used more frequently the 
word intercommunion to describe our aim. It looked as 
if there were diversity of aim. The communication from 
the Archbishop 's Committee to our own committee makes 
it, however, plain that there is not diversity but identity 
of aim. They and we use different words, but they and 
we mean the same thing. When they speak of reunion 
they mean what we mean when we speak of intercom- 
munion. Let me quote. They say ' ' the Church of Eng- 
land has no desire to lower the status of the Moravian 
Church or to take away its autonomy." The Anglican 
bishops would not "seek to interfere in the internal af- 
fairs of the Moravian communities. Those communities 
would remain responsible to the Moravian bishops alone. 
Their manner of divine service, their discipline, their 
finance, their missionary activities would be independent 
of the diocesan" [i.e., of the Anglican bishop]. 

Nothing could be more explicit and reassuring. The 
Anglicans do not propose to absorb the Moravian Church 
or the Free Churches, but simply to have closer fellow- 
ship with us as independent Churches. It matters little 
whether it be called reunion or intercommunion. The 
same thing is meant. There is unity of aim on all sides. 

I fear that to the question "Is there unity of the 
Spirit?" we cannot give so satisfactory an answer. I 
know there are people who seem to be impatient about the 
talk of unity of the Spirit. They say, "We are all agreed 
that there is unity of the Spirit, but we are tired of the 
perpetual hesitation of the Churches when it comes to any 
practical efforts to express that unity in real life." But 


I believe that our real trouble is just that there is not 
unity of the Spirit. The case is just the opposite to the 
one discussed before. We found that whilst Anglicans 
and ourselves used different words, reunion and inter- 
communion, we meant the same thing; but now I fear 
we shall find that whilst we all use the same words, 
" unity of the Spirit," we mean different things. 

All agree that any closer fellowship of the Churches 
must have at its basis a unity of the Spirit; but some 
think that this unity of the Spirit means acceptance of 
certain agreed principles. 

Now the Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ, is higher 
than any principles. Christ never tied Himself to any 
principle; He selected and handled principles as they 
might best serve His Spirit of Love. If you were to ex- 
amine the life of Christ you would find Him acting on 
principles not only varying very much but often opposed 
to each other. He upheld the principle of tradition ("not 
one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away") and the 
principle of innovation ("it hath been said to them of 
old . . . but I say") ; He commended the principle of 
authority ("all things that the scribes and Pharisees bid 
you do, these do and observe") and the principle of free- 
dom from authority, when He bade men worship "neither 
in this mountain nor in Jerusalem" but "in spirit and in 
truth"; He exalted the principle of economy when He 
had the fragments gathered up after the feeding of the 
multitude, but He gloried in the waste of more than 
three hundred pence worth of ointment; He established 
the principle of faith in the parable of the prodigal son 
and in His works of healing, but He bade us apply the 
principle of works when He said we were to judge by 
the fruits; He acted on the principle of caution when 
He taught in secret and bade men say nothing of His 
works, but on the principle of boldness when He went 
to challenge the people of Jerusalem; He commended 


poverty to the rich young man, but would not listen to 
a request to ensure a just division of inheritance; He 
blessed the peacemakers, but said He had come to bring 
a sword! 

Analyse Christ's life and you will find it a patchwork 
of principles, but a magnificent, a perfect unity because 
all those principles were at the service of the supreme 
and perfectly loving Spirit, which saw that in one case 
men were helped by applying one principle, in another 
case by applying another, but which above all always 
saw to it that they were helped. Christians have always 
gone wrong when they have taken a principle or a set 
of principles and have exalted them into the position of 
"essential principles" or ( 'the essential principles" of 
Christianity. They have seized upon the principles of 
authority, of liberty, of sacerdotalism, of the universal 
priesthood of believers, of faith, of works, of poverty, 
of non-resistance, and many others. It has always meant 
that they made their Christianity narrower than 

If the movement towards reunion of the Churches is 
to be a blessing, it must surely be based on the Spirit 
of Christ. We can never unite on principles (nor, con- 
sequently, on practices which depend on principles). It 
seems to me that what is holding up the cause of the 
union is the search for such a basis, the search for agreed 

That is what troubles one in the Lambeth Appeal. 
What are the Anglican terms of union? Firstly, accept- 
ance of the Holy Scriptures. This, happily, is not the 
acceptance of a principle but simply of an historical 
fact.* Secondly, the divinely instituted ordinances of 
Baptism and Holy Communion. There you have a prin- 
ciple implied, and you have narrowed your basis; the 

*Suppose, for a moment, the condition had been: acceptance of Holy Scripture 
"interpreted on the lines of literal inspiration," or "interpreted on the lines of the 
historical-critical method," it will immediately be seen how the condition would have 
been narrowed, and that purely by the application of a principle. 


Quakers and the Salvation Army are thereby excluded 
from a place in your reunited Church. Thirdly, the rec- 
ognized order of ministry. There you are plunged right 
into the old controversy about episcopacy. 

And if any one should say " these terms are not amiss 
as broad statements of principle," I would reply, "prin- 
ciples generally appear broad in statement, but in ap- 
plication are always just as narrow as the details, to 
which they are applied, are small." How narrow they 
can become is exemplified by the application thereof 
made by the Anglicans to the details of our own Church. 
What is amiss is that, being principles, they have lost the 
spaciousness of the Spirit of Christ. 

On the other hand, the reply to the Lambeth Appeal 
issued by the Federal Council of the Free Churches 
troubles me, admirable and even beautiful as it is in 
many ways. When the writers feel it their duty to as- 
sert, "vital principles or postulates for which the Free 
Churches stand," which seem to them a "sacred trust," 
which they even appear to consider "not denominational 
but simply Christian," I am afraid. There is no "vital 
principle" for the Christian. There is a vital Spirit, & 
Spirit by which we live as Christians, by which alone we 
can claim the name of Christ, a Spirit which uses dif- 
ferent principles according as it can help different peo- 
ple just as Christ did Himself. 

The attempt to unite on principles is not unlike the 
discussion on marriage associated with the word "obey" 
in the marriage service. There are those who argue that 
there must be a head to every household for the sake 
of order, discipline, and peace, and therefore they decide 
that "in principle" the husband shall command, the wife 
obey. But every Christian knows that in a true marriage 
"each counts other better than himself," and the true 
head of the household is the Spirit of Love which does 
not settle on any principle of subordination, but some- 


times bids the wife be subject to her husband, sometimes 
bids the husband be subject to his wife, a Spirit which 
tells both of them they need not trouble who obeys and 
who commands, because both will do both if they try to 
serve one another. 

The Churches cannot unite on principles. If they did, 
they would be less than the Church of Christ. And if, 
in spite of that, they did, the Spirit would explode their 
work. You can no more tie down the Spirit of Christ 
to principles than you can dictate to nature what laws 
it shall follow. The Spirit of Christ is great with the 
greatness of nature, surpassing our efforts to classify, 
to codify, to rectify, and even to clarify. It is sovereign. 
All we can do is to recognize that so it is, so it acts. 

I do not know why it is that there are people who are 
so much helped by the principle of episcopacy or the 
idea of apostolic succession. I only know that it is 
so, that the Spirit has used this principle to help men. 
I can only bow before the facts and recognize them. I 
do not know why it is that other people are more helped 
by the principle of freedom. It is so; the Spirit uses 
this principle. I must recognize the fact. 

Why cannot the Churches simply recognize one an- 
other as facts of the Spirit? There is no need to prove 
to one another the essentiality of our principles. There 
is no call to ask one another to sacrifice cherished prin- 
ciples or to accept unwelcome principles. No one is 
helped thereby. We have but to recognize the facts of 
the Spirit. Look at the "Appeal" of the bishops issued 
from Lambeth to the Christian world. It is to use a 
very touching document — so entrancing a vision uttered 
in so beautiful words ; so fine an inspiration to seek out 
and follow up in a great adventure of good will and faith 
1 i the creative resources of God. ' ' Then, suddenly, a col- 
lapse ! How are the mighty fallen ! Instead of a moving 
picture of "the creative resources of God," instead of a 


Psalmist's praise, " Lord, how manifold are Thy works, 
in wisdom hast Thou made them all, ' ' there comes an in- 
consequential suggestion: let us create thus and thus; 
and forthwith an unlovely piece of ecclesiastical scaffold- 
ing is reared before our eyes. 

No. We do not create. We can only recognize what 
the Spirit creates. Recognition is the keyword: mutual 
recognition among the Churches and cordial recognition, 
not because they have converted one another to any 
set of principles, but because the Spirit of Christ is 
amongst them and the Spirit is supreme. 

C. H. Shawe. 

Moravian Church, 
Swindon, England. 


In temporary pain 

The age is bearing a new breed 

Of men and women, patriots of the world 

And one another. Boundaries in vain, 

Birthrights and countries, would constrain 

The old diversity of seed 

To be diversity of soul. 

O mighty patriots, maintain 
Your loyalty! — till flags unfurled 
For battle shall arraign 

The traitors who unfurled them, shall remain 
And shine over an army with no slain, 
And men from every nation shall enroll 
And women — in the hardihood of peace! 

What can my anger do but cease? 
Whom shall I fight and who shall be my enemy 
When he is I and I am he? 

— Witter Bynner. 


The Communion Table, as Observed by the Primitive 
Christians, a Basis for Church Unity 

The religious moratorium in Europe and denominational 
unrest in America, which are features in the wreckage of 
the world war, must be dealt with as a condition prece- 
dent to the proper reconstruction of the social order. In 
this supreme ordeal the living elements in the faith of 
each division of the Church, that is, the spiritual values 
of the beliefs of the several denominations, must function 
to the practical neglect of the volume of sacerdotal prac- 
tices that do not matter so much. 

As a distinct result of intimate personal contact inci- 
dent to the war, schemes of unity among the Churches 
are widely welcomed. The pinions of many denomina- 
tions, long uncordial if not hostile, are now beating per- 
ceptibly toward one another in an atmosphpere of amity. 
The vital religious experiences affecting communities 
and nations spring from the common level ; organization 
into a movement is the last and not the first step. Note 
this layman declaration of Englishmen : 

It has become clear to-day, both through the ar- 
bitrament of war and through the tests of rebuild- 
ing of a life of peace, that neither education, 
science, diplomacy nor commercial prosperity, 
when allied with a belief in material force as the 
ultimate power, are real foundations for the or- 
dered development of the world's life. The spirit 
of good will among men rests on spiritual forces ; 
the hope of a brotherhood of humanity reposes on 
the deeper spiritual fact of the fatherhood of God. 
In the recognition of the fact of that fatherhood 
and of the divine purpose for the world, which are 
central to the message of Christianity, we shall 
discover the ultimate foundation for the recon- 
struction of an ordered and harmonious life for 
all men. 


This message was addressed "to our fellow citizens of 
the British Empire,' ' and was signed by Premier Lloyd 
George of the United Kingdom, Premier Bobert Borden 
of Canada, Premier W. M. Hughes of Australia, Premier 
Massey of New Zealand and Premier Squires of New 

We are told that in. a French city, where American 
soldiers were quartered, there was a service in a Hugue- 
not Church, conducted by a Methodist clergyman, as- 
sisted by four other ministers, a Lutheran, a Baptist, an 
Episcopalian and another Methodist, all in Y. M. C. A. 
uniform. The communion was often partaken by the 
soldiers, the invitations being offered without any condi- 
tion, except a desire to honor Christ and seek His help. 
"We have no time for denominational distinctions in this 
war," was the remark of one officiating minister. 

The writer at this point waives, but does not ignore, 
the nature of the interference of many learned and pious 
people stationed in the pathway of Church unity. The 
protests are many and vigorous. The movement, they 
maintain, advocates an ethical rather than a sacrificial 
Christ; it preaches the teachings of Christ and not the 
atoning blood of Christ; it strikes the trail of Keshab 
Chundar Sen, the Hindu theist, during his English tour 
of 1870, when he addressed the various sects, — "Think 
you that I have no Christ within me 1 Though I am In- 
dian, — I can still humbly say — Thank God, I have my 
Christ"; it is not morally esthetic; it has nothing to say 
about the joys of heaven and the woes of hell — and so on. 

These dogmas will keep, even if the movement toward 
Church unity does prosper. It does not menace the in- 
tegrity of any denomination on the lines of its particular 
faith and practices. Predilections as to Church govern- 
ment and biblical interpretation are often determined by 
temperamental or social casts of character. Structural 
unity of the Churches is not essential to an evangelical 


unity in the work of carrying the comfort of the oracles 
of Christ to every hearthstone. Let the Episcopalian 
cling to his ritual, the Baptist to his immersion and the 
Calvinist to his hell. By these are they edified. The 
Sermon on the Mount remains — the most perfect code for 
human action revealed to men. The heart of the world 
is sore and its mind spiritually distracted. No fatality 
of impotence can keep the Church from carrying the 
words of Christ to the peoples of the earth. 

The process leading up to a concert of the Churches 
must be direct and elemental. The common table of the 
primitive Christians, who interpreted the words of the 
Lord, is as vital to-day as in apostolic times ; but the ideal 
of a communion of believers is lost in an overgrowth of 
theological speculation. It is profitable, therefore, to fol- 
low down the story of the Eucharist as an historical de- 

The communion of the primitive Christians was a Sun- 
day meal partaken as a memorial of their spiritual 
teacher who had revealed their relationship to God, the 
Father. The earliest ritual used at the communion sup- 
per, which, as we know was a veritable meal as well as 
spiritual food and drink, has come down to us in the 
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," a copy of which 
was discovered in Constantinople in 1873, and which is 
supposed by Christian scholars to be second-century tes- 
timony. Quotations from it nearly back to the day of the 
first Christians are numerous enough in Christian liter- 
ature to have enabled one to arrange consistently the bulk 
of the "teaching" ages before the Constantinople dis- 
covery. The communion ritual in the "Teaching" runs 
as follows : 

Now concerning the Eucharist, thus give thanks: 

' i We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of 

David, Thy servant ; to Thee be the glory forever. ' ' 


And concerning the broken bread : 

"We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and 
knowledge which Thou hast made known to us 
through Jesus, Thy servant ; to Thee be the glory 
forever. Just as this broken bread was scattered 
over the hills and having become gathered became 
one, so let Thy Church be gathered from the ends 
of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the 
glory and the power through Jesus Christ for 
ever. ' ' 

i. But, let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist ex- 
cept those baptized in the name of the Lord; for 
in regard to this the Lord hath said : 
"Give not that which is holy to the dogs." Now ■ 
after ye are filled, thus do ye give thanks : ' 

"We thank Thee, our Father, for Thy holy name, 
which Thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts, and 
for the knowledge and faith and immortality 
which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus, 
Thy servant; and to Thee be the glory for ever. 
Thou, Master Almighty, didst create all things for 
Thy name's sake; both food and drink. Thou 
didst give to men for enjoyment in order that they 
might give thanks to Thee, but to us Thou hast 
graciously given spiritual food and drink and 
eternal life through Thy servant. Before all things 
we thank Thee that Thou art mighty; to Thee be 
the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, 
to deliver it from every evil and to make it perfect 
in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, the 
sanctified, into Thy kingdom, which Thou hast pre- 
pared for it ; for Thine is the power and the glory 
for ever. Let grace come and let this world pass 
away. Hosanna to the Son of David. Whoever is 
holy, let him come ; Whoever is not, let him repent. 
Marana tha. Amen ! ' ' 

This voice from apostolic times — "so let Thy Church 
be gathered from the ends of the earth into Thy king- 
dom" — seems like a summons unto Christians to-day to 
sit in unity at the Lord's table. 


A theological professor of our day, commenting upon 
the Eucharist given in the " Teaching,' ' remarks that 
there is no well-defined doctrine of the sacraments in it, 
adding that the term "eucharistias" in the text which he 
helped to edit, " seems hardly to have lost its etymological 
force. ' 9 Happily not, nor had the communion table lost 
its divine fraternal force. The table of the Lord in those 
first days was the table of the children of the Father of 
the Lord. And the Eucharist was the thanks given "for 
the knowledge and the faith and the immortality which 
Thou hast made known to us through Jesus. ' ' 

The observance of the Lord's supper did not end with 
the unction of the knowledge of divine fellowship. The 
partakers of one accord proceeded to give practical ex- 
pression of their love. The food that was left was dis- 
tributed to those who could not be present and also to 
the needy and to strangers. The first assault upon the 
new faith as originally received and practiced was made 
by converts from those learned in the schools of pagan 
belief. They were sincere converts, but they were unable 
fully to throw off their pagan training. Between the time 
of the communion liturgy of the ' ' Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles" and the meeting of the Nicaean Council (325) 
we find at work among the Churches a steady develop- 
ment toward philosophic and theologic interpretations of 
the observance of the communion. Justin in his first 
apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, emperor of Eome, 
declares that Christians do not receive the elements "as 
common bread and common drink.' ' Accordingly he de- 
clares that "as Jesus Christ, our Saviour, having been 
made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood 
for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that 
the food that has been blessed by the prayer of His Word 
and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are 
nourished is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was 
made flesh. ' ' Justin complains that the use of bread and 


drink at the Christian communion "the wicked devils 
have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding 
the same to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water 
are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rite for 
one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. ' ' 
Justin proceeds with his plea to the emperor : — 

"When our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water 
are brought, and the president in like manner offers 
prayer and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and 
the people assent, saying, 'Amen'; and there is a dis- 
tribution to each and a participation of that over which 
thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a 
portion is sent by the deacons. And they, who are well- 
to-do and are willing, give what each thinks fit ; and what 
is collected is deposited with the president, who succors 
the orphans and widows and those who from sickness or 
any other cause are in want, and the strangers sojourning 
among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in 

A practise arising between the era of the full com- 
munion meal and the use of symbolic bread and wine only 
is indicated by this injunction found in the Apostolic 
Canon : — 

"If any bishop or presbyter, otherwise than our Lord 
has ordained concerning the sacrifice, offers other things 
at the altar of God, as honey, milk or strong beer instead 
of wine, any necessities, or birds, or animals, or pulse 
otherwise than is ordained, let him be deprived, except- 
ing grains of new corn or ears of wheat or bunches of 
grapes in their season. ' ' 

The water mentioned in the canon quoted above was a 
nicety of speculative symbolism which may be properly 
credited to the learned converts. Says Clement of 
Alexandria: "According as wine is blended with water 
so is the spirit with man. And the one, mixture of wine 
and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the spirit, 


conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both — of the 
water and of the Word — is called Eucharist, renowned 
and glorious grace ; and they who by faith partake of it 
are sanctified both in body and soul/' He also declares 
that "it is not to be overlooked that those who feed ac- 
cording to the Word are not barred from dainties in the 
shape of honeycombs." 

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, born about the year 200, 
thus philosophizes on the spiritual significance of com- 
munion water and wine: "For if one offer wine only, 
the blood of Christ is disassociated from us ; but, if the 
water be alone, the people are disassociated from Christ ; 
but when both are mingled and are joined with one an- 
other by a close union, there is completed the spiritual 
and heavenly sacrament. Thus the cup of the Lord is 
not indeed water alone, nor wine alone, unless each be 
mingled with the other." 

This spiritual symbolism bears the mark of pagan 
thought and reminds one of the doctrine of numbers as 
emblematic of the mind and soul elements in man, which 
Pythagoras taught. 

This mystic treatment of the elements of the Lord's 
table must have had a tendency to turn the thoughts of 
believers from exemplifying in their daily lives the faith 
that was in them. It was in the maze of such theological 
speculations that the ideal of the primitive communion 
was lost. 

The religious life of the first Christians centered in 
their common meal. When they supped together they 
knew that they were receiving spiritual food as well, and 
communicants were eager to go forth with food, both 
material and spiritual, for the benefit of others. The 
communion was partaken, of course, as a spiritual exer- 
cise, but the unction and exaltation of Christian fellow- 
ship did not end with the supper. The believers were 
moved to carry its blessings to others. In a word, the 


Gospel was domesticated at the communion table. After 
the ordinance came the distribution of food and supplies 
to those who could not attend and to friends and the 
needy, when the ritual of giving thanks to God, the father 
was repeated. Thus were they following Paul's injunc- 
tion — ' ' But to do good, and to communicate, forget not. ' ' 
Paul charged the rich that "they do good, that they be 
rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to com- 
municate. ' ' To distribute merely would have been char- 
ity ; but they were enjoined to "communicate" also. 

This word " communicate " was often on the apostle's 
lips. It meant to commune in both spiritual and material 
things. As Bishop Jeremy Taylor states, ' ' The primitive 
Christians communicated every day"; that is, the contri- 
butions made on communion Sunday were daily carried 
to the needy, and the grace of the Lord's supper was the 
precious part of these acts. Or, to state it in another 
form, the first Christians always completed the grace of 
the Lord's supper by the grace of good works. 

Let it be repeated for emphasis, the Gospel of Christ 
was domesticated at the communion table. 

It is a dreary journey to take from the primitive Chris- 
tian table to the Eucharist of Church history. One mar- 
vels at the sounding liturgies which in after years vio- 
lated the quiet grace of the communion hour of divine 
fellowship. Schools of metaphysical and scholastic con- 
ceits set the table with doctrinal nicety, pushing it back 
farther and farther from the people and from the holy 
ideal of its birth. There were rencounters about leavened 
and unleavened bread, about the marvelous change of the 
elements, about fermented and unf ermented wines, about 
the mystery of the ubiquity of Christ's body through the 
elements. There was the bloodless sacrifice. There were 
liturgies for many and wine for one. Then came a touch 
of art, an ornate communion table standing under a flood 
of stained-glass light in a setting of tinted cathedral walls 


— and soft music ; then other magic — water with wine in 
the communion cup — water cold and water warm, and 
divers other plain and mixed communion drinks; then 
mixtures more serious than drink at any temperature — 
a blending of politics with the Eucharist — communion a 
test of allegiance to Christian king — communion a very 
judgment seat and price of life or title to regal power. 

Let him who will run the gamut of these invented 
Eucharists ; the words of the Saviour remain in the sacred 
record : 

If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come 
unto him and sup with him and he with Me. 

Why cannot the Christian men and women of to-day 
commune together in the light of the Gospel and seek for 
the lost ideal of the table of the purest brotherly love, 
living from day to day the faith and grace of their divine 
kinship? The time is near and the hour of the greatest 
of revivals has struck for the Church to draw about the 
communion board of the first days and to devote their 
spiritual exercise toward making a chart for their daily 
walk and conversation in harmony with the oracles of 

Preaching and singing and exhorting, but doing noth- 
ing, cannot rescue Christendom from the distractions of 
the present. Between our lips and our acts is a chasm 
deep and perilous. Priests have talked Christianity to 
death ; poets and choirs have sung Christianity to death ; 
artists have carved and painted Christianity to death — 
but who lives it? 

Without interfering in any manner with established 
Sabbath observances, let members of neighboring 
Churches meet in some parish house or assembly room, — 
say, at the Sunday-school hour, and, after they have par- 
taken and given thanks in the knowledge that they are 
the children of God, the Father, let them turn in confer- 
ence to His business in their neighborhood and to the 


holy concerns of a " commonwealth of heaven manifested 
here on earth, ' ' as the Patriarch Chrysostom phrased it 
in his day. 

And what a field for evangel work in the vast wreck of 
things — plagues of cold skepticism and Godless homage 
paid to riches, — plagues of benighted souls where no 
kindly word is spoken, — plagues of depravity and dirt in 
rural hovels and city rookeries, — plagues of wantonness 
where the starved heart or vicious mind runs to weeds in 
a social soil that kills, — plagues of ennui in the sheltered 
life where overflowing measures of selfish comfort fill the 
day with tired hours of uselessness in a civilization still 
crude from the lack of real workers, — plagues of mammon 
in the temples of the living God — all lying within the 
reach of concerted action, if Christians would live up to 
that part of their faith on which they all agree ! 

Such a communion would make laymen workers in the 
vineyard, now overrun with the wanton pastimes of the 
unchurched classes of every social grade. At such a com- 
munion the door for union might open to the Churches— 
and the lost ideal be recovered. 

Mason A. Green. 

Formerly Editorial Room, 
Springfield Republican, 
Springfield, Mass. 


In an article entitled ' ' What Theology Needs ' ' Eobert H. 
Gardiner in The Churchman, New York, says : 

Theology needs to be brought down to date, which is another way of 
saying that it needs to be brought back to Christ. Modernism has a bad 
sound in many theological ears and too much of it preserves the bad fea- 
tures of traditional theology in its narrowness and conceit, and, so far as 
it is merely destructive, it retards, instead of helping, the progress of the 
Kingdom. The modernism needed is the recognition that the theology of 
Christ is eternal and infinite, adapted to every problem of humanity and 
to endure to all eternity, and, therefore, applicable to the questions which 
are racking the world to-day. The province of theologians is not to prolong 
obsolete debates or to invent new and futile speculations of finite minds 
about the infinite mysteries, but to apply the faith once for all delivered 
to present conditions; to try to understand, and to teach us to understand, 
what is in the mind of Christ as He looks to-day upon the world He came to 
save, a world now weltering in blood and famine, in wars between nations 
and between classes, with selfishness rampant. Perhaps the Churches do not 
know enough yet to venture to pronounce on specific questions — the eight 
hour day, the open shop, the righteousness of war, and the like. If they do 
not, there is all the more reason for us who are churchmen, clerical or lay, 
in our studies, in our theological seminaries, in our offices or factories, to 
study with all our might to apply Christ's law to present day conditions, 
ready and eageri, if that study shows that those conditions do not fit the law, 
to give gladly all that we have, all that we are, to change them. 


If theology is to regain its proper place in human thought and affairs, 
it needs to show that the Faith is eternal, ancient yet ever new, eternally 
vital. It must teach us William Law's definition: "Now faith may be 
thus understood; it is that power by which a man gives himself up to any- 
thing, seeks, wills, adheres to and unites with it, so that his life lives in 
it, and belongs to it. Now to whatever the soul gives itself up; whatever 
it hungereth after; and in which it delights, and seeks to be united; there, 
and there only, is its faith; that faith which can work either life or death, 
and according to which faith, everything is, and must be done to man." 
Theology needs to be rewritten in terms of love, for the supreme fact of 
the world is that God is Love, and, because He is Love and has made man 
in His image, and man, if he wills, may be God's friend, sharing in God's 
purpose, love is the only power to solve the problems of a distracted world. 
Love, as S. Chrysostom says, is force, because it is the sharing in the Life 
by Whom all things were created. Who can doubt that if the faith, in 


Law's sense, that God is Love, were ours, the visible unity of Christians 
would be attained and that the world would believe that the Father sent 
the Son to redeem mankind, and that His Law of peace and righteousness 
and love would reign supreme? 

The action of the Pan-Presbyterian Alliance in its ses- 
sion at Pittsburg for the continuation of efforts toward 
unity called forth the following expression from The 
Congregationalist, Boston : 

We are just now at a stage in the slow process of declaring and making 
visible that unity of the Church of Christ which the Free Churches, the 
bishops of the Anglican Church and its daughter communions alike recog- 
nize, when the most pressing needs are enthusiasm, patience, courtesy and 
freedom of discussion. The Lambeth Council, composed of Episcopal 
bishops, took a long step forward in its frank assertion that differences^ 
yes, even from their own point of view, irregularities, of polity do not 
exclude from the fellowship of the Holy Catholic Church or destroy the 
fitness of other organizations than their own for use by God in His work 
among men. Bishop Manning, of New York, in discussing the continu- 
ing negotiations between his own Protestant Episcopal Church and the 
Congregational Churches put the matter in a different way some time ago 
when he said that the purpose of these negotiations was not to make Prot- 
estant Episcopalians of Congregationalists, but to ensure, from the Prot- 
estant Episcopal point of view, that they belonged within the ranks of the 
visible Holy Catholic Church. 

That the Lambeth bishops were deeply moved by the discussions and 
conclusions of their Council is evident in their individual expressions since 
the sending out of its appeal. In an address before the General Assembly 
of the Church of Scotland at its meeting last May, the Archbishop of 
Canterbury showed this warmth of brotherly affection and this earnest de- 
sire for reunion. Himself a Scotchman, he was able to stress the points 
of sympathy as well as of difference between these two established Churches 
in the sister nations. He was not thinking, he said, of "a mere aggregate 
of devout Christian folk scattered up and down the world, but (of) the 
Society of Christ among men, the living Society which He founded. if 
That is the ideal which inspired the Lambeth Conference to ask in regard 
to the divisions of the Catholic Church, "Is the fault ours? Is it remedi- 
able V and then (with) a great yearning: tf O, if so, let us under the 
good hand of God, repent of it and mend it if we can. ' ' 

There are difficulties in the way of a complete and open fellowship which 
must be faced but there is a real danger that negotiations here and there 
may result in new divisions, as a part of some communion accepts and 
another part feels it necessary for its witness to reject the terms proposed 
for equal fellowship. About these difficulties there must be frank speak- 
ing and clear understanding. 


Eev. George Hall in The Australian Christian Com- 
monwealth, Adelaide, tells of Christian unity in that 
country as follows: 

The utility of continuing the negotiations for the union of the Presby- 
terian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches of Australia has been called 
into question. 

Why, it is said, in view of the strong opposition of a large section of 
the Presbyterian people, do we not drop the matter until the Church, which 
has twice initiated the negotiations, has proved that it is really in earnest 
about it ? There is no doubt that since the meeting of the General Assembly 
of last year it has been difficult to go forward with any enthusiasm. The 
action of that Assembly heavily skidded the movement. It is difficult to 
see how, in view of the attitude taken by the opposition and the votes 
cast by Church members and courts, the Assembly could have done other 
than it did. It must, however, be remembered that in nearly every court 
of the Presbyterian Church there was a substantial majority of votes cast 
in favor of union, and that on the Basis prepared by the Joint Committee 
of 1918. 

In a tabulated statement, printed in the " Minutes' ' of the Victoria 
and Tasmania Conference, it is shown that the Presbyterian vote was: — 
For union, 43,638; and against union, 29,733. 

The Congregational Church vote was: — For union, 8,481; against, 1,705. 

Such figures do not justify any proposal to abandon negotiations, but 
rather encourage us to strive, by a wise propaganda, to win over the 

In the same journal Rev. Alfred Gilford says, 

We live in a big world, with stupendous problems, that no one denomina- 
tion is big enough to cope with. We need united counsels and pooled re- 
sources. Also the Western world of to-morrow will be politically united. 
The most gloomy pessimism would be justified if we had to look forward 
to a disunited Church in a politically-united world. It was the glory of 
the Christian Church in other days to lead in Anglo-Saxon and other unions. 
Her unhappy condition to-day is rather that of a hindrance to the world- 
union our most enlightened leaders seek. A disunited Church is a negligible 
quantity in world-councils. Our denominations are only relics of half- 
forgotten conflicts. Union is needed for power and victory. It will not 
do to mumble stories of great days past, nor fight ancient battles over again, 
that can only issue in Protestantism imitating Bunyan's Giant Pope, 
crouching helplessly by the wayside, while the world's life pours past, un- 
heeding or contemptuous. The conception of a United Church of Australia 
may restore the imperial idea to our faith, and we may capture this Com- 
monwealth for Christ, but we shall never denominationalize it, much less the 


The Archbishop of Canterbury in a recent address to 
his Diocesan Conference, said, according to The Church 
Family Newspaper, 

We mean business. We mean, or at least I mean, to go forward, but not 
lightly or with, mere sporadic independence and adventure. 

We have to deal with difficulties which are centuries old. They are not 
going to be levelled or shattered in an enthusiastic week or by men and 
women who have given neither adequate study to the history of the past, 
nor adequate deliberation or prayer to the complexities of the present. 
There are no short cuts. 

Some of our most fluent critics assure me that in our search for unity 
we are belittling the sin of schism. That particular criticism interests me 
a good deal, for if there is one motive force which lies behind our effort, 
one spirit which inspired us at Lambeth and has inflamed us ever since, 
it is the consciousness of the appalling gravity of the sinful schisms which 
have marred the influence and soiled the purity of the Church of Him who 
prayed, * ' That they all may be one. ' ' 

That denominationalism has its origin in human frailty 
and not in divine wisdom is pointed out by Unity, Chi- 
cago, as follows : 

Dr. Henry C. McComas reveals much of the true inwardness of religious 
denominationalism in his "Psychology of Religious Sects. " He lays bare 
the central fact in the situation when he says, 

' i The differences which appear in the religious life of different denomina- 
tions have their only justification in the differences of human dispositions 
and not in any divine preference. Nothing is more necessary to-day than 
the proclamation of this fact, for the heart of sectarianism is the belief 
that each sect is a divine favorite. When all religious people freely ac- 
knowledge that their differences are matters of individual tastes and tem- 
peraments, the real barriers to Church unity will be torn away. ,J 

Denominationalism, in other words, has its origin in human frailty and 
not in divine wisdom. We are people of one idea^ that is all; and being 
essentially egoistic, we insist upon confusing our own idea with the uni- 
versal will of God. If we could only learn a little humility, and come to 
understand that opinions belong essentially to the individual, not to the 
social group, least of all to what we know and recognize as God, then 
we should learn to relegate our opinions to the individual life where they 
belong, and form our religious associations on the basis of the common 
life in the community. The scandal of denominationalism will be done 
away with just as fast and as far as we transfer religion from the field 
of theology to the field of life, and find the reality of God not in intellect- 
ual conformity but in spiritual fellowship. 


For lucidity of style and fine poise of judgment in discussing Angli- 
can theology there are no set of books that exceed in merit the series 
being prepared by Eev. Francis J. Hall, D.D., professor of dogmatic 
theology in the General Theological Seminary, New York. The eighth 
volume — The Church and the Sacramental System (Longmans) — deals 
with the work of the Holy Spirit, the idea and nature of the Church, 
the ministry, unity and holiness, catholicity and apostolicity, Anglican 
Churches, the dispensation of grace, the sacramental system and outward 
signs covering in all 242 pages. With the author's wide scholarship is 
his beauty of spirit, which always softens the theological differences, 
but leaves them clearly defined. In the section dealing with unity he 
names four notes: (a) numerical — Christ established only one Church; 
(b) organic — Christ is the head of the organism, which is vitalized by 
the perpetual and lifegiving indwelling of the Holy Spirit; (e) indi- 
visibility — whatever external disharmony develops, either the organism 
maintains life or sinks to the level of a man-made ecolesia; (d) and 
generic likeness — the true portions of the Church necessarily possess its 
faith, ministry, sacraments, manner of worship, fundamental precepts 
and spiritual atmosphere. 

He enumerates the following specific reasons for unity: (a) the will 
of Christ as expressed in His prayer in John XVII; (b) open disunity 
gives an uncertain tone and significance to the Church's voice; (c) re- 
duction in external efficiency by rival and overlapping; (d) internal 
efficiency weakened; (e) and development of mutual love among Chris- 
tians depends upon relations in the Body of Christ. How this unity is 
to be restored is expressed by (a) enlistment and direction of the con- 
victions, attitudes, purposes and tempers which must control Christian 
leadership everywhere, (b) agreement in matters of faith and order, (c) 
reformation of unspiritual developments and removal of evil from the 
Church, (d) entire abandonment of denominational independence and 
diverse ministerial polities, (e) readiness to submit to such world-wide 
conformity in fundamental ritual and practice as will enable all Chris- 
tians to practice their religion in its corporate aspects intelligently and 
without scruple, (f) and the acceptance of some constitutional polity 
that will visibly unify Christian forces throughout the world. Closing 
he says, "It ought to be clear to thoughtful workers in this great cause 
that the end in view will require much time as well as patient wisdom 
for its attainment. Such is the condition of every large achievement, 
and no achievement is larger than this. In particular, it is needful to 
avoid all forcing methods, and to be content with the more deliberate 
campaign of mutual education that has first to be carried through. It is 
not the prerogative of one generation to complete the work. On the 
other hand, relaxation of effort because of the remoteness of its fruition, 


and by reason of disillusionment as to immediate results, is quite un- 
warranted, and is contrary to the divine will. To be led by the for- 
midableness of the undertaking to deny the utility of our own seemingly 
insignificant contributions to its progress is to show lack of faith in 
the power and will of God to answer the prayer of His beloved Son. 
If God wills it, He will bring it to pass. But He never hurries.' ' 

The Old Testament stories, particularly those of Genesis, will never 
lose their charm to the mind of childhood; likewise to those of mature 
years they bear that same fascination. Dr. Alexander R. Gordon, of 
the Presbyterian College, Montreal, has both related and interpreted the 
stories of Genesis for young people in a beautiful little volume well 
named The Enchanted Garden (Doran). The forty-two chapters are 
short, interesting and beautiful, spiritual and poetic in interpretation, 
and usually appropriately closed with a poem. They are a storehouse 
of good things for young people and old. 

One of the most fascinating books in autobiography is entitled 
Finding a Way Out (Dougleday, Page & Company), by Robert Russa. 
Moton, successor to Booker T. Washington as the head of Tuskegee In- 
stitute. It abounds in interest from the first chapter to the close, 
written in a free, unaffected style and so racy that one does not want to 
lay down the book until the last chapter is finished. It is a fine answer 
to the possibilities of the Negro. With a background of slavery, al- 
though he himself was born after the Civil War, Major Moton tells his 
story with remarkable spirit of approach both to the uplift of his race 
and to the adjustment with the white race. To read books which tell 
of men rising from poverty to wealth is not to be compared with this 
story of a Negro finding his way out of ignorance and cramped thought 
to a place of such service as to make himself not only the leader of his 
race but the tactful intermediary to the white race in removing mis- 
understandings and establishing relations of confidence between the races. 
This book ought to be in every white Sunday-school library that boys 
and girls growing up in the atmosphere of the Church may have the 
proper attitude toward the Negro. Major Moton has made a worth 
while contribution to interracial adjustment that puts him by the side 
of his great predecessor Booker T. Washington. Both will live as 
prophets of interracial betterment. 

Taking as his text "God is spirit: and they that worship Him must 
worship in spirit and truth," Rev. John B. Cowden has written a book 
of nearly 400 pages on Christian Worship (Standard Publishing Press). 
He discusses at length the subjective and objective sides of Christian 
worship. The chapters on the meaning, standard, origin, nature, emo- 
tion, character, object, progress and liberty of Christian worship are 
particularly helpful; likewise the chapter on Christian worship for the 


Temission of sins. In the chapter on the unity of Christian worship he 
presents what he calls the heptagon basis for unity, it being an analyti- 
cal study of Ephesians 2:14-22. In verses 14 and 15 he finds the common 
standard of authority and the removal of differences; in verse 16, re- 
conciliation; in verse 18 a common access unto the Father; in verse 19 
a democratic brotherhood; in verse 20 the foundation of unity; and 
in verse 22 the units of union. Concluding this chapter he says, "He 
who said * Christian unity will proceed from the circumference to the 
center* 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 Christendom, if only Paul's plan of unity is 
accepted and followed." The whole book is written in a fine spirit and 
will help anyone desiring a larger experience in the worshipful ele- 
ment of Christianity, from which all study of Christ and His religion 
should be approached. 

One of the most interesting books against war is The God of War 
(Revell), by Dr. Joseph Judson Taylor. Its nine chapters stand out 
uncompromisingly against war and its methods of adjusting differences. 
The quotations from more than three hundred authors give convincing 
strength to its arguments, which would have been made even stronger 
had the wars of the Old Testament been associated with the inquisition 
before which Galileo was tried rather than the Lord's commanding their 
brutalities because of the sins of the people. Jesus is the revealer of 
God and the greatest argument against war rests in Him. Dr. Taylor 
has rendered a valuable service and his book will help to strengthen the 
conviction of those who are trying to find their way out of present day 

As a national plague smallpox has been abolished. Tuberculosis is 
being driven out by better methods of living. Roger W. Babson in his 
last little book entitled Making Good in Business (Revell) goes vigorously 
for the permanent elimination of panics and depressions by better meth- 
ods of doing business. He finds the guide-posts to a successful career in 
six "IV — industry, integrity, intelligence, initiative, intensity and in- 
spiration. He contends that back of all business, whether good or bad, is 
the character of the people and that spiritual forces are the true fun- 
damentals of prosperity. There is no better book that parents can put in 
the hands of their sons and daughters than this book. It is a strong, 
sane plea from an angle that will challenge the best in oneself. 

Love, faith and life are presented as the Christian fundamentals in 
a clear, strong, logical book of the conservative type by Judge Andrew 
Jackson Bowen under the title Each One His, Own Priest or Knowing 
God (Revell). He argues forcefully for the high priesthood of Jesus 
and the common priesthood of all believers. He names natural evolu- 


tion, modern spiritualism, Christian science and pantheism as the chief 
obstacles. There is an earnestness throughout the book that holds one's 
attention and commends the spiritual passion of the author. 

Talking to children is a happy gift. George McPherson Hunter in 
Morning Faces (Dor an) has given us a beautiful book of fifty-two chap- 
ters covering 219 pages, with each chapter brimful of stories and les- 
sons that could be none other than profitable to children of any class or 
community. The author has blended his art of story-telling with healthy 
moral lessons. 

The Sword of the Spirit, by Joseph Fort Newton, Litt.D., D.D. 
(Doran), is the title of a volume of sermons delivered at the City Temple, 
London. These sermons interpret the international fellowship of Chris- 
tianity, and the everywhereness of God, emphasizing the growth of the 
spiritual life as the key to the history of the world and of the meaning 
of life. 

Dr. R. A. Torrey delivered a series of sermons on the great truths 
of the Christian religion in his own Church, which attracted large 
audiences, and afterwards put them in a book called The Fundamental 
Doctrines of the Christian Faith (Doran). They cover fifteen chapters 
and are strong utterances, abounding in lengthy quotations of Scripture 
and stirring appeals to conscience. 

The Gospel of Matthew is the title of an exposition on that portion 
of Scripture by Professor Charles R. Erdman of Princeton Theological 
Seminary (Westminster Press), covering 224 pages. It is one of the most 
valuable commentaries on a brief study of Matthew to be found any- 

Dr. Walter Scott, Berkeley, California, tells in a beautiful volume 
of the home and school life of his son Joseph Freeman Scott (Privately 
printed), who died while a midshipman at the Annapolis Naval Acad- 
emy. It is a loving tribute of a Christian father and may be read with 
profit by parents. 

The Beport of the Preliminary Meeting at Geneva, Switzerland, 
August 12-20, 1920, by Robert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Maine, is a most 
interesting account of the preliminary meeting of the World Conference 
on Faith and Order and indicates the opening of the door to a united 

Crime in America and the Police, by Raymond B. Fosdick (Century Co.) 
presents some startling conditions which only a united Church can face. 

A Vital Problem of American Protestantism, by Rev. J. H. Horstmann 
(Evangelical Herald) is an interesting study of the relationship between 
Lutheranism and Calvinism. 

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. Mae- 
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. O, 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. XI NO. 4 

ff God gave unto us the ministry of reconciliation. 9 ' 




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, 1922 





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 I 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 Be conciliation in the Divided Church 
of Christ. Interdenominational and International. Each Com- 
munion may speak with Freedom for itself in these Pages as to 
what Offering it has to bring to the Altar of Eeconciliation. 

Vol. XL APRIL, 1922 No. 4 



By Eev. Claudius B. Spencer, D.D., Editor The Central Chris- 
tian Advocate, Kansas City, Mo. 


By Eev. Francis Shunk Downs, Minister Market Square Pres- 
byterian Church, Philadelphia, Pa. 


By Rt. Rev. Edward L. Parsons, D.D., Bishop of San Fran- 
cisco, Calif. 


By Rev. Francis Edward Clark, D.D., LL.D., Founder of the 
Christian Endeavor Movement. 

By Eev. Newman Smyth, D.D., Congregational Church, New 
Haven, Conn. 




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 CJhurch 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. 





By Eev. J. J. Castleberry, Minister Walnut Hills 
Christian Church, Cincinnati, Ohio. 


By Et. Eev. G. H. Kinsolving, D.D., Bishop of 


By Nikolaos Evangelides (Metropolitan) of 


By Eev. C. H. Shawe, Minister Moravian Church, 
Swindon, England. 

THE LOST IDEAL. The Communion Table, as Ob- 
served by the Primitive Christians, a Basis for 

Church Unity 223 

By Mason A. Green, Boston, Mass. 





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 


President Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church, Lancaster, Pa. 


Bishop of Manchester, 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. 


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. 

Meeting of the World Conference on Faith and Order. Washington, 
D. C, 1925. Robert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Me., secretary. 

Meeting of the Universal Conference of the Chureh of Christ on Life and 
Work, perhaps in 1923 or 1924. Archbishop of Uppsala, president; Rev. 
Henry A. Atkinson, 70 Fifth Ave., New York City, secretary. 


(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.) 


Saviour divine, 

Who dost ordain unto us, who would be free, 
Both inalienable rights and inalienable duties, 
Reveal fully unto us that our lives are not our own. 

Show us that freedom and equality demand from, us 
Tolerance, humility, self-sacrifice, 
Willingness to share in onerous public burdens 

And to subordinate our own opinions and interests to those of a 

Teach us to suffer fools gladly, 

To be willing to see our own standards lowered, 

That those of the masses may be raised. 

Teach us thy divine patience, 

Thy divine enthusiasm in self-denying service, 

That so we may become worthy of thy liberty. 

— From "A Boole of Prayers." Published by The Challenge, London. 


ALMIGHTY Father, in whom we 
live and have our being, teach us 
how to find our way to each other, 
for thy integrity is not established on 
the earth until thy children are bound 
together in love. Help us that we may 
find the truth and live the truth as it is 
in Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom be 
glory forever. Amen. 


By our divisions we Christians are a hindrance to the 
Saviour in His work of salvation. "We prevent men from 
believing in Him. Christian unity is imperatively needed 
that the world may see and acknowledge the Lord. Our di- 
visions crucify Him anew. They expose Him to derision 
and contempt. Our divisions are not merely a drawback; 
they are a crime. Union is not only a beautiful, idea; it is 
Christ's plain commandment and our unconditional duty. 
"When you once perceive this your conscience can never more 
be reconciled to division. The lack of unity will burn you 
like fire. The desire for unity is not a fashion, a phenom- 
enon of the time, nor a pious wish whereby men seek to 
conceal from themselves and others the hard reality, the 
cleft which history and the world crisis of our time have 
driven between men. No. Unity is a sacred obligation. 
The way to it is long and steep and stony. It leads through 
many hardships, great and small. Each one of these by 
itself seems impossible to overcome. But faith overcomes 
all hindrances, if only we are genuinely penitent, if we are 
aware of our guilt and ask forgiveness for our omissions 
which the Saviour judges with still greater severity than 
our offenses. 

— Nathan Soderblom, Archbishop of Uppsala. 

weimw nw^i^KwwiiFWf 



^HE pride of denomination is as 
strong in this day among Christians 
as it was among the Jews in the 
time of Jesus. 

The shame of our schism is unobserved 
by most Christians and they walk with 
the pride of a peacock because they are 
members of this Church, that Church, or 
some other Church in the multitude of 
divisions in the Church of God, giving an 
unspiritual attitude to a world which 
is hungering for God. 


Is it not somewhat of a reproach that the voices against 
war have come so faintly from Christian authority % 
Christianity is at its base a matter of brotherhood, of co- 
operation, of peace and good-will. It is an imperative of 
internationalism. If Christianity insists upon the peace- 
ful adjudication of difficulties between neighbors, can it 
do no less to difficulties between neighboring sovereign 
States ! Because Christianity is not a tribal religion 
under a tribal god, and not a religion bounded by clan, 
it is both in essence and in authority cosmopolitan and 
universal. Accordingly it would seem not only unseemly 
but an abdication of her very charter that Christianity 
should speak with a double voice, one in imperatives to 
the individual, and the other mumbling or silent to the 
State. The Church as the collective and corporate voice 
of Christianity should have stood against human 
slaughter as between States as it stood against it as be- 
tween individuals. Once it did so. And should the State, as 
in Machiavelli — who "Has in practice become a teacher 
again" — and Treitschke, despise the authority of the 
Church, "pursuing its power as its only objective," the 
Church in our time should at least have made its voice 
heard and dared to go on record with all the Sinaitic ful- 
mination of "Thou shalt not kill" against bloodshed be- 
tween States as it spoke against bloodshed between 
neighbors; it should have at least tried to impose upon 
the collective conscience that restraint it did impose upon 
the individual. For a thousand years the Church did not 
do it. Before the spectacle of war the Church was an 
aspen leaf when it should have been thunders. It left 
the denunciation of war to philosophers and unbelievers. 
Of this Voltaire did not fail to remind the Church, and in 
doing so he had history on his side. The organized 
Church did not to any appreciable degree lift its hand 


to ward off the world catastrophe that befell in 1914 ; but 
one consequence of that catastrophe is that the Church 
did discover her conscience in the matter, and with it its 
right, its duty, and its coming, insistent purpose. 

What we wish to inquire in this brief paper is how this 
anomalous and debasing situation came to be and what 
are the grounds of the new discovery — which, as we shall 
see, is simply a rediscovery — that gives the Church the 
assurance to speak and be heard against the continuance 
of war. 

Speaking in the large, and having in mind the course 
of the Church for some fifteen centuries, Christians, for 
one thing, looked at war from the standpoint of the Old 
Testament ; and, for another, regarded war as a function 
belonging to the State and therefore little of the Church's 
business unless it was to bless the banners and share in 
the booty of conquest. But the Old Testament record did 
not express the attitude of the New Testament Church. 
The Old Testament mirrors the life of the world 's youth, 
and its development out of the clan and its boundaries 
of interest and conduct into a cosmopolitanism and inter- 
nationalism in which we seem quite at home to-day. In 
the early Semitic times the prevailing idea of gods as 
tribal deities was shared by the Chosen People. The 
deities of Egypt, Assyria, Moab, were tribal. What 
kings did, whether planning a temple or a war, they did 
under the direction and sanction of their deity. All vic- 
tories were victories of the tribal god. The people sac- 
rificed to him as they went out to war, looked upon the 
booty as his, and upon their victories as his. Hence the 
long praises to their gods in the inscriptions which be- 
come to us so tiresome. Fighting was first of all normal 
to tribal gods, then to the tribes themselves. Indeed fight- 
ing seems to have been rather the normal occupation of 


the Egyptian and Assyrian deities, and the atrocities of 
the latter were beyond words. 

It is not too much to say that the politics of Israel was 
tinged with this universal creed. In early Hebrew times 
the chief was accompanied by the soothsayer with his 
ephod, sometimes even by the sacred ark. Nevertheless 
the early wars of Israel no more tell against the morality 
of the high Old Testament ideal than the tortures 
sponsored by Philip of Spain or Cromwell tell against 
the ideal of the Gospel, and if some things that were early 
associated with the name of Jehovah are now repugnant 
to a generation living three thousand years later, those 
things should not be counted a reproach to Him or to His 
people. It would scarcely be becoming to expect them to 
be freer from prevailing ideas, the blood feuds, the clan 
hatreds and envies all around them than were those who 
fought in the Crusades or in the world war in 1914. The 
ancients walked in the light of their time. Perhaps we 
have done the same. At the same time a time came when 
there arose before the prophets a vision of a universal 
Fatherhood, a fatherhood based on ethical and spiritual 
principles rather than political retaliations and ambi- 
tions. Jehovah was seen to be larger than a favorite of 
one political community. He was seen to have in fact a 
kingdom without frontiers, and there arose in the vision 
of the prophets the " nearest approach the world has yet 
seen to a religion of humanity. ' ' What is our vision after 
the dreadful world war has spent the first chapters of its 
fury ? We are the inheritors rather of the New Testament 
standard than of the Old Testament. What unique obliga- 
tion does this entail? What, in other words, is the New 
Testament attitude towards war? And first, what seems 
to have been the attitude of Christ ? 

It is true that Jesus gave us no line-upon-line teaching 
as to war. But why should He? Did He on slavery? 
Moreover, the Holy Land was at that time a province of 


the Eoman Empire, and was governed by Boman officials 
with a Eoman army. In that army Jews were not ex- 
pected to enlist, and were not compelled to serve. But 
there stands the Sermon on the Mount, and there stands 
the intensified quotation of Jesus, "Thou shalt not kill." 
It is the first of the series of Mosaic mandates Jesus calls 
up in the Sermon on the Mount. And whilst there have 
been ever since the age of Constantine those who have 
put the Sermon on the Mount in one compartment and 
the relations of man to society, particularly as to force, 
in another, there have been those who have understood 
the Sermon on the Mount to mean what it said, that it, 
and not the evasion which explained it away, was the 
magna charta of a Christian society. 

The Sermon on the Mount contains these basic words : 
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, tooth 
for tooth.' But I tell you not to resist a wicked man, but 
if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other 
to him as well. If any one wishes to go to law with you 
and to deprive you of your under garment, let him take 
your outer one also. And whoever shall compel you to 
convey his goods one mile, go with him two. To him 
who asks, give; from him who would borrow, turn not 
away. You have heard that it was said, ' Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.' But I command 
you all, love your enemies, and pray for your persecu- 
tors ; that so you may become true sons of your Father 
in Heaven ; for He causes His sun to rise on the wicked 
as well as the good, and sends rain upon those who do 
right and those who do wrong. For if you love only those 
who love you, what reward have you earned? Do not 
even the tax-gatherers do that? And if you salute only 
your near relatives, what praise is due to you? Do not 
even the Gentiles do the same ! You, however, are to be 
complete in goodness, as your Heavenly Father is com- 
plete. ' ' 


We do not care to enter the somewhat noisy contro- 
versy as to how far the applications of these words go. 
Tolstoi believed they meant what they said. It does not 
seem improper or unreasonable, however, to understand 
them to distinguish between the enduring of suffering 
and inflicting it. To show to what extremes men can go 
when they set up the claim of obeying the spirit of the 
passage whilst throwing aside its literal observance, it 
is only necessary to note that the Inquisition which took 
by torture its tens of thousands of lives was understood 
as within the Sermon on the Mount because the physi- 
cal sufferings conduced to spiritual welfare. 

We observe that Admiral Mahan uses the example of 
Jesus in driving the traders from the temple as an off- 
set to the Sermon on the Mount. If we read the narra- 
tive in St. John, where alone the "whip" is mentioned, 
we will find it thus recorded: "He found in the Temple 
the dealers in cattle and sheep and pigeons, and the 
money-changers sitting there. So he plaited a whip of 
rushes, and drove all — both sheep and bullocks — out of 
the Temple. The small coin of the brokers He upset on 
the ground and overturned their tables. And to the 
pigeon-dealers He said, 'Take these things away. Do 
not turn my Father's house into a market' " (Wey- 
mouth's translation). We do not find that in this Jesus 
used the whip of rushes on any except the cattle — if we 
want to get down to the fine point of exegesis. It is not 
likely that one person could drive all the crowd out by 
physical force if physical force was all He relied upon. 
The fact is the force was moral. It was the grandeur 
and power of personality, the same that caused the Eo- 
man soldiers sent to arrest Him to go backward and fall 
to the ground when He declared to them, * i I am He. ' ' In 
illustrating His teaching concerning the Kingdom of 
Heaven, and the cost of discipleship, Jesus used allusions 


to war, as did the Apostle Paul allusions to the Olympic 
games, the gladiatorial contests and the soldier. 

The limits of this paper would be strained if it at- 
tempted to include an examination of all the inferences as 
to the doctrine of war, for and against, founded on pas- 
sages in the New Testament relevant more or less. There 
is an appeal, however, which strikes this writer as being 
apt and conclusive, and that is the appeal to the under- 
standing of the new religion which prevailed amongst 
those who at the first experienced it and expressed its life, 
and amongst those also who from them immediately in- 
herited its traditions, its "early uncorrupted instincts", 
and passed them on from life to life to the ends of the 
Eoman world. What was the attitude of the early Chris- 
tians towards war? 


If we pass from the reading of the words of Jesus to 
the living interpretation of them by the early Christians, 
we shall find what those who were at the fountain head 
understood Jesus to mean as to war, and we shall see 
what understanding they lived out and died for during 
more than two centuries. This seems to us a commentary 
surpassing in weight any amount of subtle lexicography. 
The "witness" of the early Church to the meaning of 
Jesus explains what the word witness (martyr) means. 
With their blood thev defined the attitude of the New 
Testament towards war. Evidently the basic doctrine 
of Jesus was love, the love of God to man, the love of 
man to God, and the love of man to his brother, and 
brother in this new order of the world was limited only 
by the human race. We read "We love because God 
first loved us." "If any man says that he loves God, 
while he hates his brother man, he is a liar, for he who 
does not love his brother man whom he has seen, how can 
he (Weymouth "he cannot") love God whom he has not 


seen? And the command which we have from Him is 
that He who loves God must love his brother man also." 
This was the new lexicon of Christianity. Jesus had 
said, ' ' A new commandment give I unto you that ye love 
one another." The greatest, strongest, deepest thing St. 
Paul ever wrote, declares Harnack, is the hymn com- 
mencing with the words, " Though I speak with the 
tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am be- 
come sounding brass or a clanging cymbal." Harnack 
adds, "The new language on the lips of Christians was 
the language of love; but it was more than a language, 
it was a thing of power and action." 

On this point we have two unexceptionable testimonies 
from very ancient writers. Lucian said of the Chris- 
tians irrespective of their domicile, ' ' Their law giver had 
taught them that they were all brethren, one to another. ' ' 
Tertullian stated, " It is our # * * practice of loving 
kindness that brands us in the eyes of many of our op- 
ponents. 'Only look' they say, 'look how they love one 
another'." Thus had the saying been really fulfilled, 
' ' Hereby shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if 
ve have love one for another." Harnack observes that 
"the gospel thus became a social message", and Gibbon 
and Lecky have pointed out how this spirit passed over 
all barriers of race and caste and like leaven in the meal 
pervaded the Empire with a new ideal, with new hope, 
and with a new salvation from the despair that had fallen 
upon the glitter and games, the "vanity fair" and phi- 
losophy of the Eoman world. 

The writings of the ' ' Fathers ' ' show nothing more dis- 
tinctly than that unbewildered by any fact the early 
Christians had a revulsion against bloodshed; rather 
they had a passion for brotherhood, for internationalism, 
heretofore unknown. So true is this that the early writ- 
ings show that the Christians even looked upon them- 
selves as a new, special order of people. They were in a 


sense a third race. The expression ." Greeks (Gentiles), 
Jews and Christians" appearing again and again in the 
large collection of the ancient writings assembled by 
Harnack indicates the young Church's basic conception 
of itself. So prevalent did it become that Hadrian who 
reigned perhaps fifteen years after the death of the 
Apostle John makes that division. "It is agreed," wrote 
Eusebius in his history, "that when the appearance of 
our Saviour Jesus Christ recently broke upon all men, 
there appeared a new nation * * * honored by all 
men with the title of Christ." This idea of Christians 
was perhaps expressed by St. Paul in the Epistle to the 
Philippians, "Our citizenship * * * is in heaven." 
In Hebrews there occurs the exhortation, ' ' Let us go out- 
side the camp * for here we have no permanent 
city * we seek one which is to come." This 
gave them the idea of a state detached. Tertullian wrote, 
"We acknowledge but one universal state, the world." 
This does not mean that Christians were not good citi- 
zens, but it does mean that in matters of good-will, of 
"seeking peace," of "righteousness," from the very first 
they looked upon humanity rather than upon clan or race 
as the basis of their ethics. Aristides writing to the Em- 
peror said of them that they did not "esteem the Greek 
gods, nor the superstition of the Jews," that they were 
persecuted by both Greek and Jews, and that they de- 
rived not only their ethics but even their genealogy from 
Jesus Christ. 

The ethics of Christ as to brotherhood, as to charity, 
and particularly as to the shedding of blood, as they had 
received it, they carried beyond racial frontiers. Ter- 
tullian called Christians "gens totius orbis" that is, "the 
people of the whole world." But was this — is it now — 
consistent with good citizenship f We know from St. 
Paul that the civil authority was distinctly recognized as 
a "minister of God," and as "appointed by God." St. 


Peter follows up the fear of God with honor due the Em- 
peror. St. Luke begins his Gospel with what Harnack 
considers a ' ' complimentary ' ' allusion to the Emperor 
Augustus, whose reign had inaugurated a new epoch — 
the new epoch of " peace' ' — which Christianity with its 
moral standards and purity, was dedicated to help the 
Empire to realize. In a letter to Marcus Aurelius a 
Christian writer elaborated this, showing how that 
"springing up in the provinces under the Emperor's 
rule, during the great reign of thy predecessor, Augustus, 
it brought rich blessings to thine (Marcus Aurelius) Em- 
pire in particular." In the mind of the Christians the 
Empire and the Christian religion together had consti- 
tuted a new level of human history. Christianity in the 
world empire was sustaining inward force, a spiritual 
force supporting the states, as Harnack summarizes the 
rather lengthy letter, which he quotes in full. 

Origen dwelt upon the high moral life of the Christian 
leaders in Athens, in Alexandria, and in other places; 
upon the standards of moral conduct they insisted upon ; 
and upon what these meant to the public tranquillity, and 
even went so far as to compare the local "Christian as- 
sembly" with the local "assembly of the people." The 
Christians did with a succession of Emperors make a 
convenient outlet to befuddle the popular uprising. ' ' The 
Christians to the lions" was all too frequently heard, but 
their lives did not justify the persecution. From the very 
first the admonition of Jesus, "Pray for them that per- 
secute you, ' ' was literally obeyed. The ' ' Teaching of the 
Twelve ' ' written at least in the edge of the apostolic age 
commands, "Bless those who curse you and pray for your 
enemies, and fast on behalf of those who persecute you." 
Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John, enjoined on the 
Christians, "Pray also for kings and authorities and 
rulers and for those who persecute and hate you * * * 
that ye may be perfect in Him." Ignatius writes in the 


same spirit to the Ephesians, where but lately the aged 
St. John had entered the Church leaning on two, and had 
given as his discourse the five words, "Little children, 
love one another." The early Christians taught for- 
giveness, and put away evil speaking. They inculcated 
the command to love and pray for their enemies. They 
were quiet, and pure, and industrious. They paid their 
taxes and prayed for the Emperor. They diffused their 
faith — that faith — all along the Mediterranean basin, in 
Caesar's household, among the aristocracy, and among 
the masses until when Constantine, for whatever political 
reason, brought down the imperial ensign from his palace 
and put in its place the once hated Cross of the Nazarene, 
he had only to take as it were a short step. 

This bears directly upon our question. The Christians 
were men of peace. Every book in the New Testament 
speaks of ' ' peace. ' ' Jesus said, ' ' Blessed are the peace- 
makers." At his birth the angelic host sang, "On earth 
peace." Clement of Eome included in his epistle the 
prayer, ' ' Give concord and peace to us and to all who in- 
habit the earth. ' ' And so on for many instances. 

The early Christians appropriated the prophetic words 
of Isaiah and Micah, "And many peoples shall go 
and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of 
the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and He will 
teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths ; for 
out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the 
Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the 
nations, and convict many peoples; and they shall beat 
their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into 
pruning-knives. Nation shall not lift sword against na- 
tion, neither shall they learn war any more." This was 
the basic expectation of the Early Church. 

Justin Martyr exclaimed, ' * We who had been filled with 
war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness, have 
each one, all the world over, changed the instruments of 


war, the swords into ploughs, and the spears into farm- 
ing instruments." Irenaeus says that "the apostles who 
went out from Jerusalem, effected a change to such an 
extent that the nations themselves wrought their swords 
and lances of war into ploughs and changed them into 
sickles * * * into instruments of peace." Tertullian 
quotes the passage and asks, "Who else therefore are 
understood than ourselves, who, taught by the new law, 
observe those things, the old law — the abolition of which 
the very actions (of changing swords into ploughs, etc.) 
proves was to come — being obliterated? For the old law 
vindicated itself by the vengeance of the sword, and 
plucked out eye for eye, and requited injury with punish- 
ment, but the new laAV pointed to clemency, and changed 
the former savagery of swords and lances into tranquil- 
lity, and refashioned the former infliction of war upon 
rivals and foes into the peaceful arts of ploughing and 
cultivating the earth." 

"We have come," Origen says, "in accordance with 
the counsels of Jesus, to cut down our warlike and arro- 
gant swords of argument into ploughshares, and we con- 
vert into sickles the spears we formerly used in fighting. 
For we no longer take ' sword against a nation ', nor do 
we learn 'any more to make war,' having become sons 
of peace for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead 
of (following) the ancestral (customs)." Eusebius 
quoted the passage and concludes his homily on how it 
would cure the evils of mankind by saying, "Which 
(fact) I regard as a very great proof of our Saviour's 
divine and irresistible power." 

The reaction of this sentiment on bloodshed seems to 
have been universal. Harnack declares that Christianity 
prohibited on principle both war and bloodshed, and that 
the Christian ethic forbade war absolutely to the Chris- 
tians. A Christian might not of his free will become a 
soldier. Athenagoras declared that Christians could not 


endure to see a man put to death and for this reason they 
could not attend the gladiatorial games. Christians did 
not go into the army, and a soldier who embraced Chris- 
tianity was supposed to leave the army. And it will not 
do to say that he did it through fear ; the records are too 
full of those who having to make the choice between the 
sword in their hands and the sword on their necks chose 
martyrdom. The shedding of another's blood was more 
to be feared in the sight of God than the shedding of their 

Any persistence of the idea, universal in antiquity, that 
wars were ordained by the national deities, whether 
Greek, Assyrian, Eoman, or Semitic, did not affect the 
primitive Christians, and when in the course of time this 
discrepancy between the Old Testament and the ethic of 
Jesus did come to the surface, the ancient fact was used 
as an illustration — as St. Paul used the gladiatorial show 
or the Marathon races — rather than as the statement of 
a creed of life. It is pointed out that when in the theo- 
logical disputes this sanction of war in the Old Testa- 
ment came to a head not long after the death of the 
Apostle John, Marcion to be consistent held that wars 
were ordered by inferior deities and not by the God who 
was the Father of the Lord Jesus. This dualism, as Ca- 
doux, to whose patient studies we are much indebted in 
these paragraphs, points out was rejected by the Chris- 
tians, but Marcion held his ground. Neither side was 
right. The idea of a progressive revelation had not been 
reached by either side. The literalists sought to find 
"warlike features in the God of the New Testament," 
and thereby, says Cadoux, "imperiled one of the most es- 
sential features of the Christian Gospel. ' ' A schism re- 
sulted. There was no alternative. But Harnack observes 
that "it will always remain a credit to the Marcionite 
Church which long maintained itself, that it preferred to 


reject the Old Testament rather than to tarnish the pic- 
ture of the Father of Jesns Christ by the intermixture of 
traces of a warlike God. For a long time the ' ' Fathers ' ' 
exhibit a painful perplexity as to reconciling the common 
understanding with their individual duty. An interesting 
illustration is seen in the case of St. Gregory Nazianzen, 
who records the shrinking with which he took the hand 
of the Emperor, when invited to his palace, because that 
hand had shed so much human blood. 

Analyze it as we may, the basic fact is that the early 
Christians condemned war, and not until the reign of the 
Emperor Marcus Aurelius is there any clear evidence of 
the presence of any number of Christians in the army 
of the Empire. Harnack notes individual cases, but the 
normal fact was that the one excluded the other. As late 
as the Council of Nice those Christians who, after 
abandoning the army returned to it, "as a dog to its 
vomit, ' ? were to occupy for years in the Church the place 
of penitents. Acting on this from the very outset the 
Church lessened the very horrors of war and tendencies 
to go to war. Athanasius, we are told, looked upon it as 
in reality a credential of the divine origin and power of 
Christianity that the Goths who were so warlike when 
they embraced Christianity abandoned their lust of con- 
stant war and settled down to the pursuits of peace, or 
agriculture and trade. 

We cannot, then, rise from our studies of the early 
Church with any conviction other than of its repugnance 
to and condemnation of war, and we shall miss completely 
the spirit of the New Testament, as the early Christians 
incarnated it in their lives, if we take an attitude of re- 
pugnance and hostility any less keen and outspoken. 
There must be another way out. There must be an inter- 
nationalism, a juridical process which makes war as dead 
as it is sinful. 



The loss and recovery of the early ideal may be dealt 
with in a few words. The loss was incalculable. The 
force which had given mankind a new hope, which had 
attacked the old institutions of slavery, war, and even 
gladiatorial shows, and which had indeed preserved the 
Mediterranean world from despair, succumbed in turn to 
the blandishments of power. Eome offered the oppor- 
tunity for aggrandizement. Constantine coquetted with 
the Church ; but it was as a politician. When he opened 
the Council of Nice, which he intended should consolidate 
and standardize the new religion after the manner of the 
Empire, he appeared not as a humble Christian but as 
a barbaric hero and despot surpassing even the splendors 
of a modern papal parade. The hierarchy became rich ; 
the episcopacy an aristocracy. Barbarian chiefs over 
night embraced Christianity without embracing its ethics. 
The glitter of the miraculous blessing on their banners 
was later repaid with the booty they brought back from 
their wars. Incidentally the waves of the Mohammedan 
conquest rolling over eastern Europe as well as Spain 
was a call to arms. " Every pulpit in Christendom," 
says Lecky, ' ' for about two centuries proclaimed the duty 
of war with the unbeliever, and presented the battlefield 
as the sure path to heaven." "Many bishops and ab- 
bots," he continues, "partly from the turbulence of their 
times and characters, and partly, at a later period, from 
their position as great feudal lords, were accustomed to 
lead their followers in battle. This custom, though pro- 
hibited by Charlemagne, may be traced to so late a period 
as the battle of Agincourt." Within a given thirty years 
not less than eight bishops and two archbishops were 
killed fighting in battle. The wanderer about the great 
nave of St. Peters will see among the statues of popes one 
standing with a sword protruding beneath his vestments. 


It is interesting to note how an archbishop of Mainz in- 
terpreted the New Testament. He slew nine f oemen with 
his own hand, but did not use a sword for "that would 
have been contrary to Christ's word to St. Peter' ' — no, 
he used a club. The Old Testament wars were made use 
of when once the Church became the mistress of politi- 
cians and she herself in her aristocratic hierarchy en- 
tered the bloody shambles of will to power. It is true 
that by not a few ecclesiastics war was condoned rather 
than consecrated. There is the familiar story that when 
the Gothic Bishop Ulfilas reflected upon the fighting 
mood of the young Teutonic races of the North, truthful, 
chaste, courageous, but certainly men of blood — their 
gods a pantheon of warriors, their religion an apotheosis 
of battles — he refrained from translating for them the 
books of Samuel and Kings, explaining that those books 
were ' ' histories of wars and his people were already very 
fond of war and needed the bit rather than the spur." 
Doubtless, too, the horrors of war were mitigated by 
Christianity, and this should be emphasized. But, con- 
cludes Lecky, "when all qualifications have been fully ad- 
mitted the broad fact will remain that with the exception 
of Mohammedanism no other religion has done so much 
to produce war as was done by the religious teachers of 
Christendom during several centuries." 

This eclipse of the attitude of the early Church pro- 
ceeded to its logical results, even to our own times, even 
to the opening of this fateful century. Aside from cer- 
tain isolated voices, the modern Church with the single 
exception of the Quakers perhaps, has at least accepted 
war. And in consequence the Church has been treated 
not as a spokesman of Christ on the matter, but as a 
somewhat mumbling if not negligible servant of the 
State quite sure to pray, ' ' Eight or wrong, my country, ' ' 
when war drew on, instead of exerting the last reserve 


of her moral force to demand that difficulties be adjudi- 
cated instead of resorting to the duel of war as it now is. 

The subserviency and acquiescence of the Church is 
basic in the philosophy of Treitschke and of Machiavelli, 
the two prophets of militarism. Of the Florentine 
Treitschke declared, k ' He freed the State in its morality 
from the Church." It did not arouse the Berlin profes- 
sor to know that Machiavelli's book was called "The 
Devil's Catechism." "The essence of the State is 
power," declared Treitschke, and, "of all sins weakness 
is the most reprehensible, the most contemptible ; it is on 
politics the sin against the Holy Ghost." Beyond ques- 
tion this got in the veins of the Church. The classic pas- 
sage by which the war advocates silenced the Church was 
the sentence of Mozley's University Sermon wherein he 
denied the right of the Church to speak on the subject 
because the question of war is in the sphere of State and 
not of the Church. Thus except for a few names it has 
been left to the rationalists, Voltaire, Hume, Buckle, 
Comte, Spencer, and Tolstoi, and to the Socialists to 
make the protest against war that was made by the early 
Christian Church. 


There are signs of the Christian Church reasserting 
herself on war. This writer was one of the little group 
in Constance the day Germany declared war on France, 
when .representatives of the Churches from several na- 
tions met to promote international good-will. The group 
did its work. It lighted the torch. It is to-day busier 
than ever, and more hopeful of success. The Federal 
Council of the Churches of Christ in America is doing 
not a little to express the early Christian attitude. It 
has no power whatever to speak for its constituent bodies. 
The Churches must speak for themselves. The propa- 
ganda for the settlement of difficutlies between nations 


by international courts, backed by economic and other 
pressure, instead of war must go forward as in the first 
centuries, by man to man influence culminating in an om- 
nipotent Public Opinion. Nothing can carry forward the 
hope of a new order of the world but what did it through- 
out the Eoman Empire. It must be done by the Churches 
of Christ. 

Claudius B. Spencer. 

Editorial Office, 

Central Christian Advocate, 

Kansas City, Mo. 


King of the whole earth, 

Break down, we beseech thee, by thy great power, 

All those barriers which do now keep mankind asunder: 

Overcome the hindrances of race, of custom, and of prejudice: 

Drive out all those adverse influences, 

Which now mar our union. 

Foster throughout thy world 

Every movement of thought, of activity, of good-will, 

Which tends, for whatever motive and in whatever sphere, 

To break down isolation and exclusiveness, 

To unite men in common enterprise and service, 

To build up cooperation and interdependence. 

— A Boole of Prayers. 


Humanity is engaged in another world war. It is the 
greatest of all wars. It is the war against war. The hour 
has struck when all peoples everywhere are rising in their 
might to do away with this monster that would destroy 
the race. It is not the opinion of a few or the conviction 
of certain interested groups. A consciousness that is 
world-wide is moving slowly along the avenues of human 
activity and a public opinion that transcends national 
boundaries is beginning to make itself felt. John Cowper 
Powys was right when he declared that for the first time 
in human history humanity was expressing itself con- 
sciously in a new-born public opinion. 

" There is a world right that is greater than any na- 
tional right, and the cry of humanity is greater than the 
cry of the militarist and the diplomatist." 

At last we are coming to grips with the naked truth 
expressed so tersely by James Bryce, that "if we do not 
destroy war, war will destroy us." 

Our chemists tell us that future wars will be more 
dreadful and destructive than any in the past ; our econo- 
mists prophesy bankruptcy for the nations that engage in 
them ; our sociologists are not mere alarmists when they 
point to civilization itself decaying under the ruck and 
strain of war ; and our biologists fear for the breed itself 
if the best blood is to be led to the shambles. 

The instinct of self-preservation is arousing the race to 

But there are more tender and more personal influ- 
ences that are playing about the hearts of millions to-day. 
Fathers and mothers, sisters and sweethearts cannot for- 
get the boy who gave his all. And those who died for 
us will not let us forget. As we think on their sacrifice, 
the immortal words of Lincoln at Gettysburg come to us 
with fresh meaning : "The world will little note nor long 


remember what we say here, but it can never forget what 
they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedi- 
cated here to the unfinished work which they who fought 
so nobly advanced. ' ' 

Unless we enlist in this war against war, and find some 
remedy or substitute for it, will they not have died in 

They died, fighting for the right as God gave them to 
see the right. They gave, not counting their lives dear 
unto themselves. They call that we should follow in their 
train. They sleep in the confidence that Ave shall carry 

Is there a way out? Can we win in this war on war? 
Can we overcome this evil and neutralize the probabil- 
ities of it in the future? I declare unto you there is only 
one way under the present arrangement of things on the 

In the home of a friend to-night a lamp is burning 
brightly. The mellow light glows through a shade that 
is pictured with the battlefields of France. The body of 
the lamp is a centimetre shell, across whose base is etched 
these words : 

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and 
their spears into pruning-hooks. ' ' 

Whatever our view of the millennium, and the events 
that lead to it, the prophet has here revealed a secret that 
the world needs to know and to make use of to-day. 
"Don't scrap your swords and spears," he cries. "Trans- 
form them! Transfigure them! Substitute for imple- 
ments of warfare implements of usefulness! Convert 
your sword into a ploughshare !' ' 

Professor Hocking, of Harvard, has a very suggestive 
book, "The Ee-making of Human Nature." He shows 
how Christianity takes the great natural human forces of 
pugnacity, sex-love, and ambition, and transforms and 


utilizes them as dynamic forces for the kingdom of God. 
No energy, no vitality lost — only changed. 

William James, in 1910, wrote for the Association for 
International Conciliation a paper, which he gave the 
title "The Moral Equivalent of War." He has a word 
which we need to hear to-day. Patriotic pride and ambi- 
tion in their military form are, after all, only specifica- 
tions of a more general competitive passion. They are 
its first form, but that is no reason for believing them to 
be its last form. * * * The war-function has grasped 
us so far ; but constructive interests may some day seem 
no less imperative and impose on the individual a hardly 
lighter burden. * * * So far war has been the only 
force that can discipline a whole community, and until 
an equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war 
must have its way. But man will find a moral equivalent 
for war, for preserving manliness of type. It is but a 
question of time, of skillful propagandism, and of opin- 
ion-making men seizing historic opportunities." 

Can substitutes for war be found! Can great ends be 
placed before humanity which will take all the fighting 
stuff of the race to achieve them? Has the day not 
dawned when men are beginning to feel that it is worth 
a blood-tax to build up the life of man on the earth? Let 
us war against the forces that would destroy the physical 
life of man. The Son of God said to those who would 
have called fire down from heaven for the purpose of de- 
struction : " Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. 
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, 
but to save them. ' ' 

We must war against disease and the conditions that 
make for disease. H. G. Wells could say only a few years 
ago that "nothing is more striking than to compare the 
progress of civil conveniences to the progress in military 
apparatus in the last few decades. House-appliances (in 
England) are little better than they were fifty years ago. 


But the rifle or battleship of fifty years ago was beyond 
all comparison inferior to those we possess. No one has 
a use now for such superannuated things. ' ' 

The cost of one battleship would build 8,600 modern 
homes. We must war against the habits and indulgences 
that destroy the purity and the strength of the body. 
Proper recreation must be provided for all. Competitive 
sports afford an outlet for the fighting spirit of youth, 
and are a mighty force upon the side of world peace. 
Individuals and nations must let off steam. Let us har- 
ness these energies in our fight against all forces that 
break down the bodies of men. 

Let us war against the ignorance that holds men's 
minds in captivity. One-half of earth's millions to-day 
can neither read nor write. We heard Dr. Samuel S. 
Zwemer recently say that only three women in every 
thousand in Egypt can read. Not much hope for the 
Woman's Movement there. In our own land of oppor- 
tunity the draft of a few years ago revealed an illiteracy 
that astounded the nation. Think also of the other mil- 
lions who can do little more than read or write. The 
cost of one battleship would maintain nearly one thou- 
sand university-trained missionaries throughout the 
world for the next twenty-five years. And if you do not 
believe in missions, and want a, substitute for war nearer 
home, then remember that "he that ruleth his spirit is 
better than he that taketh a city." To conquer here will 
take all the fighting stuff you have. 

Think of the false ideas afloat on printed page and 
public platform to-day — more dangerous than the invis- 
ible germs that war on the flesh. Think of the inadequacy 
of the educational system of the world. It cries aloud 
for men and money and enlightened sympathy and sup- 
port. Darkness cannot be fought by merely fighting 
against it. Turn the light on! He who was more than 
Teacher of truth can lead us in this war, and the banner 


we can march under bears his own words : "ye shall know 
the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ' ' The cost 
of one battleship would endow four universities like 

Let us war against the forces that destroy the souls of 
men. There are such forces. Every man wrestles 
against those principalities and powers that are not flesh 
and blood. He is aware of that downward pull and 
lateral drift in his nature which every bridge-builder 
wisely takes into consideration. "The thief cometh not 
but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come 
that they might have life, and that they might have it 
more abundantly." It is Jesus Christ who can give the 
clean heart and the right spirit that can make our na- 
tional and international life what it ought to be. Former 
President Patton, of Princeton Seminary, was right when 
he said : ' i What the world needs is not an antiseptic, but 
an antitoxin." The blood must be purified, for war is 
not a biological necessity, but a spiritual disease. 

Large armaments have failed to preserve peace. The 
blood-soaked pages of history pronounce that method a 
lie. America and the world have leaped at the plan of 
Secretary Hughes to scrap the instruments of warfare 
and to curtail construction. But is not the time ripe 
when we need to go further? When some one speaks 
angrily to you, it is a fine thing to hold on to your temper ; 
it is a better and more constructive thing to give the soft 
answer that turns away wrath. 

It is a great thing for a man to hold his passions in the 
iron grip of an unyielding will. It is a greater thing for 
him to be fired with the expulsive power of a new affec- 
tion. It is one thing to scrap our battleships ; it is an- 
other thing to show good-will to a sister nation in a posi- 
tive and practical way. Jesus Christ points the way 
when he says: " Bless them that curse you, do good to 


them that hate you." "Be not overcome of evil, but 
overcome evil with good." 

The United States of America has an unparalleled op- 
portunity to demonstrate good will, and to go the second 
mile. Joseph Cook said, "The nineteenth century has 
made this world one great neighborhood; the twentieth 
century must make this neighborhood a brotherhood if 
the neighborhood is to be safe." 

This winter, under the auspices of the Germantown 
Forum, I heard an interesting lecture on present day con- 
ditions in Europe. In the course of his address the lec- 
turer referred to his visit to Serbia and spoke of the high 
estimation in which the United States was held by the 
people of that country. Then he made this significant 
statement: "It is not the armies or the navies or the 
wealth of America that arouses the enthusiasm of Ser- 
bians; it is America's relief work, her educational insti- 
tutions, and her missionaries that have aroused Serbia's 
gratitude and affection. ' ' Along these lines of construc- 
tive service and good-will shall wars be brought to 
nought, and instruments of human upbuilding be sub- 
stituted for implements of devilish destruction. 

On the boundary line of Argentina and Chile there 
stands a monument cast from cannon of the two republics 
into one colossal bronze statue twenty-six feet in height 
and thirteen thousand feet above the level of the sea. 
The "Prince of Peace" stands upon the granite base, 
and in the stone one may read these words: "Sooner 
shall these mountains crumble into dust than Argentines 
and Chileans break the peace which they have pledged 
themselves at the feet of Christ the Redeemer." 

There are more enduring and meaningful monuments 
than those of bronze, more practical and convincing evi- 
dences of a nation's good-will. I offer the following sug- 
gestion to the American people in the confidence that it 


will call to their hearts and appeal to their national sense 
as a nation of practical idealists : 

That a portion of the many millions to be saved by the 
limitation of armaments in the United States be given to 
the participating nations, to be used in the creation of 
foundations and institutions that will war against disease, 
ignorance and sin ; to stand forever in these countries as 
living monuments of the Conference at Washington and 
to the ultimate ideas of peace it represents ; and as in the 
case of China and the indemnity returned by the United 
States, to be a practical demonstration of the good-will 
of the American people, and thus cement the friendship 
of our sister nations and help to render wars highly im- 

In Washington's Farewell Address, he laid upon his 
countrymen the injunction i ' to give to mankind the mag- 
nanimous and novel example of a people always guided 
by an exalted justice and benevolence." Our task to-day 
is to practice his international faith and give to the world 
a practical demonstration of our disinterested good-will. 

Francis Shunk Downs. 

Minister's Office, 
Market Square Presbyterian Church, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 


The most pressing problems of the Churches of Christ 
to-day in relation to the world are, I believe, the creation 
of a Christian internationalism and the transformation 
of the present industrial system into one which squares 
with the principles of the Gospel. The most pressing 
problem for the Churches in their own life is the problem 
of reunion. The divisions in Christianity weaken im- 
measurably its appeal to the world. The Kingdom of 
God which is the business of the Churches to establish on 
earth must wait afar off, only a dream of faithful souls, 
until Christians, united themselves, can show to the world 
the glory of Christ. That was our Lord's own view as 
He uttered it in His great intercessory prayer. "That 
they may all be one, ' ' He prayed, * ' even as Thou Father 
in me and I in Thee that they also may be in Us that the 
world may believe that Thou didst send Me." The de- 
mand for unity in its deepest meaning is a demand of the 
heart. It is the irresistible hunger of souls who really 
know Christ to live in that fellowship of believers which 
the Lambeth Conference so eloquently portrayed. But 
this demand of the heart finds constant and insistent em- 
phasis in the work which lies before the Christian world. 
Everyone who labors with his eyes fixed upon the vision 
of the Kingdom and his heart burning to see Christ ex- 
alted, finds himself day after day conscious of the weak- 
ness of Christ's appeal because of the divisions of His 
followers. And day after day he finds himself facing 
questions growing out of those divisions. Sometimes they 
are great questions which touch the roots of division, 
questions concerning doctrine and order and the steps 
which may make for a better understanding of the issues. 
Sometimes they are lesser questions springing from the 

* Address delivered before the Diocesan Convention of the Protestant Episco- 
pal Church, San Francisco, California, Feb. 1, 1922. 


effects of our divisions in the attempt to Christianize the 
world order. They come week by week for judgment and 
decision. In education, in social service, and in mission- 
ary endeavor they come in the form of appeals for co- 
operation or of opportunities which no one communion 
can meet alone. Invitations to conferences, suggestions 
for exchange of pulpits, requests for addresses on unity 
follow one another in an endless series. We cannot if we 
would evade the issues. We must go forward and we 
must in loyalty to the Master go forward in the direction 
of unity. 

It is imperative that we think clearly on this matter. 
I wish, therefore, to lay before you the principles which 
it seems to me must guide us in our practical everyday 
work and the application of those principles so far as 
they concern our work in this diocese. I need not say 
that the resolutions and reports of the last Lambeth Con- 
ference have been throughout a guide and an inspiration. 

First of all we have to recognize that all baptized 
Christians are members of the Catholic Church of Christ. 
All these Christians of whatever name hold in common 
the one great fundamental faith in Christ as their divine 
Saviour. That is the thing which marks them off from the 
rest of the world. To this fact and its bearings we give 
far too little weight. Our differences have through con- 
troversy and the exigencies of social and political condi- 
tions loomed so big that we have come to think of them 
as fundamental in character. They go very deep it is 
true; but the Christian faith itself goes deeper. Those 
who have found Christ have become new creatures 
in Him. The spring of life is different. In the non- 
Christian world the true Christian knows his brothers. 
We, in what we call a Christian world, often forget our 
fundamental unity with them. But we must not forget. 
We must put first things first. We must see that the 


order of importance is first Christian, then Catholic or 
Protestant, Koman, Greek or Anglican. 

In the task of Christianizing the world, therefore, onr 
first concern is in making Christians, not in making a 
particular kind of Christians. I mean by that that we 
must deal with all onr work in relation to the work of 
other Christians ; we can never go it alone ; we must al- 
ways act with a view to the supreme task of making men 
followers of Christ. We must deliver our attacks where 
so far as we can see they will count most towards a Chris- 
tian world. We aim to make Episcopalians or Church- 
men or Catholics (we know ourselves by all these names) 
not as an end in itself but as our contribution to a co- 
operative task. 

The cooperative character of the task laid upon us finds 
illustration in the next principle of action, the principle 
of what I call Catholic responsibility. The tradition of 
Catholic order which we claim to cherish is the very an- 
tithesis of a careful attention to our own alone. It com- 
pels us to be more than Episcopalians. In its essential 
character it breaks all the narrow sectarian bonds for to 
be Catholic is precisely not to be sectarian. The Catholic 
tradition to which I refer is that which regards all the 
Christians in any one district or area as belonging in One 
Body and therefore constituting the charge of those who 
hold responsibility for the Church. In an old English 
parish the priest looked upon all the people as his people. 
The more definitely a bishop believes his charge com- 
mitted to him by God as representative of the ancient and 
undivided Church the more surely must he be convinced 
that he must answer to God for the way in which he has 
discharged the task of strengthening the Christian life 
of all who call themselves Christians; and of reaching 
those who are not. Nothing Christian, nothing human can 
be alien to him. It is his business to know how Christians 


of other names feel ; to be in touch with their life, to be 
behind every movement which helps to Christianize the 
world. But nowhere in the world to-day can the bishop 
of any communion attempt to lord it over those who owe 
another allegiance. If then a bishop will exercise his 
Catholic responsibility aright and be a bishop in the 
Church of God and not primarily a bishop of a particular 
communion there is only one path open — that is the path 
of fellowship. He has to further the great common cause 
of the Kingdom of God, the task of making Christians and 
a Christian world order : and he has to commend by their 
fruits in charity and breadth and consecrated devotion 
the special values and significances, the special interpre- 
tations and emphases of truth which are our own her- 
itage. As for bishop so for priest and so likewise for 

But fellowship means trust in those with whom we rec- 
ognize this tie. It means humility and teachableness. 
We do believe that we have a great contribution to the 
common life of Christians; but we have forgotten alto- 
gether the meaning of that essential Christian virtue, 
humility, if we think that our work is completed by de- 
claring our own incomparable inheritance and assuming 
that none other has any contribution. The worst form 
of heresy and schism which I know is that which ar- 
rogantly classifies some hundreds of millions of other 
Christians as heretics and schismatics and forgets that 
the blessings of God go to the poor in spirit and the meek. 
In that attitude except indeed where it is purely conven- 
tional there is nothing of the spirit of the little child. 
With the humility and trust of real fellowship we enter 
therefore as far as we can and wherever welcome into the 
life of other Christians whether they be Protestant or 
Roman or Orthodox. Following the injunction of the 
Lambeth Conference we join with them in social and edu- 


cational work in the Church Federations, in conferences 
and the like. We cultivate every step which makes for 
mutual understanding, for cooperative strength and for 
the spread of the Kingdom of God. We interpret our 
Catholic responsibility as everywhere concerned with the 
interests of all Christ's people, — yes, of all God's chil- 

But in this emphasis upon the fundamental unity of all 
Christians and the Catholic attitude towards the various 
phases of Christian life and doctrine we must not forget 
that our practical aim is not to get an efficient machine 
but to discover God's way to the creation of a Church 
which is Catholic in fact as well as in name. We are seek- 
ing not to get Christians to work together on practical 
tasks. That is only a means or a beginning. We are 
seeking to bring them to worship together, to partake of 
the same Eucharist, to live together in God, to knit them- 
selves together in one organic life and to fight the war- 
fare of Christ as one army. We are concerned with what 
is called organic unity; and therefore all projects for 
practical cooperation must be viewed in the light of that 
great end. The more clearly others see that, the more 
intimately are we sure to work with them and the more 
readily can we take risks in the great adventure for 
Christ. But many things which to the man in the street 
seem ways of unity we must regard as valueless or worse. 
The opening of our pulpits to other ministers and the 
availing ourselves of opportunities to preach in theirs, 
when each goes with a sense of bringing some message 
which contributes to better understanding, has its definite 
value. But exchange of pulpits in a perfectly haphazard 
way merely for the purpose of exchange cannot take us 
far. We must not imagine that any of these things are 
specifics. There is no specific for the healing of Christ's 
wounds save the spirit of humble, teachable love. So 
likewise as I shall point out in a moment there are definite 


ends to be attained by the affiliation, formal or informal, 
of the great commnnions in the so-called Commnnity 
Church plan ; bnt the union or undenominational Church 
which so easily captures the imagination of that same 
man in the street is a perfectly irrelevant thing. What- 
ever its immediate and local success the net result of its 
activity is to cut its members off from those great bodies 
of Christians which alone to-day represent the universal 
Church. It has no significance for the reunion of Chris- 
tians because that reunion can be accomplished only by 
the gradual merging of the great communions into one 
another. All plans and proposals for cooperation must 
be viewed in the light of their relation to organic unity. 
Finally we have in all this matter to cherish the special 
trust which God has committed to us. We have the great 
glory in this Church of much diversity of doctrine. We 
differ as to the doctrinal meaning of much in our Church 
and Christian life but we differ little as to the religious 
and spiritual values enshrined. We differ greatly, e. g., 
about the ministry ; but no one of us would feel that this 
particular heritage which has come to us from the past 
could be lightly put aside. We believe that we have defi- 
nite values of many kinds committed to us too precious 
to be depreciated or disregarded. They are a trust. The 
Catholic Church of the future can never be built other 
than with the recognition within it of all those phenomena 
— those rites and customs and habits and methods — 
which have given genuine spiritual aid to devout souls. 
But neither can it be built with the recognition that no 
one type of Christian can impose upon all the rest the 
acceptance of his particular way of knowing the grace of 
God. The importance of the Nicene Creed which exists 
to bring out just one fundamental faith about Christ, as 
a basis for unity or of our own Church's appeal to the 
Bible as the final test of what is necessary to salvation 


lies precisely in this disengaging of the essential from 
the personal and transient. Our types of Churchman- 
ship, our parties, our schools of thought are all valuable 
until the moment when any one of them attempts to take 
possession of the field and measure the Catholic Church 
of Christ by its own foot rule. To be good Churchmen 
we do not have to surrender any convictions or values but 
we do have to keep them in the background many times. 
That is the only way men live in families. That is the 
only way we can live in the Church. That to come to my 
point is the only path along which unity can be found. 
And thus in all our cooperation we must often put in the 
background the things we value. But that does not mean 
surrendering them, treating them as of no worth or giv- 
ing the impression that they count little for us. Further- 
more, we have our own people to provide for. We cannot 
desert them. We cannot leave them without those min- 
istrations which they have learned to value and above all 
without the Holy Communion administered according to 
the use of this Church. 

The membership of all Christians in the Catholic 
Church with its recognition that the first and most im- 
portant step for the world is that men be Christians 
rather than special kinds of Christians ; the sense of our 
own responsibility, as inheritors of the Catholic tradition 
for furthering the work of Christ wherever it may be 
found together with the fellowship with other Christians 
which grows out of that ; the clear understanding that our 
goal is real unity and not mere casual and temporary co- 
operation and the constant regard for the sacred trust 
which we believe is ours — those are the principles which 
it seems to me must guide our daily work in our relations 
with other Christians. What they sum up to is that our 
work is cooperative, not competitive. We are not in the 
field to drive others out ; but to contribute to the common 
life those things which give us our profound convictions 


concerning our own interpretation of Christianity. We 
are in the field to further the interests of the Episcopal 
Church but only as those interests serve to further the 
efforts of the "blessed company of all faithful people' ' 
to transform the community, America and the world into 
the Kingdom of God. 

In addition therefore to the care of the work which is 
our own, we have taken part in the work of the Federa- 
tions of Churches, both State and local. We have given 
constant and fine service through both the Superintend- 
ent of Education and the Executive Secretary of the 
Council to the movements for week-day religious schools 
and the training of teachers for them. Indeed, there is 
no point where the " go it alone ' • principle is so obviously 
inadequate as in this movement which involves the most 
comprehensive and representative approach to the edu- 
cational world. Denominational week-day schools of reli- 
gion may in many cases turn out to be the wisest course ; 
but independent denominational approach dooms the 
movement to failure. We have endeavored with the most 
careful attention to the needs of our own people to fur- 
ther the work which the Council of Comity, an advisory 
body representing all the chief Christian communions 
of this part of the world with the exception of the Church 
of Rome is trying to do in economizing Christian effort. 
The Congregational Church in the Potrero is closing its 
doors and its people are asked to worship at the Good 
Samaritan, maintaining whatever denominational status 
they desire. In the district south of Twin Peaks a large 
community Church has been built at Westwood Park. 
By keeping in touch with these plans through the various 
denominational representatives we shall be able to place 
our new Church in a far more advantageous position than 
at first planned and know that in the great responsibility 
of reaching the unchurched people it will have a neigh- 
borhood into which no other orthodox Christian body will 


come. When one thinks of the larger issues one sees how 
futile it is to put three or four churches within a few 
blocks and leave great areas unchurched where the popu- 
lation is still sparse and the districts purely residential. 
On the Ocean Shore and at Ocean View further plans are 
in progress. At North Beach we have acted as represent- 
atives of the P. B. and C. and through the Eev. Mr. 
Moore have cooperated in the Italian work in that dis- 
trict. It is a most important field and I trust that the 
diocese may soon be able to add something to the small 
appropriation made by the National Council. In the 
Salinas Valley field our Church is in several communities 
the only Church and the vicar is working with fine vision 
to make it fill the need. 

At Atascadero the situation has not developed clearly. 
We are maintaining services for our own people but up 
to the present time the way has not opened for any affilia- 
tion with the Federated Church. In order to have such 
affiliation it is absolutely necessary that the entity of our 
own group of Church people be preserved and recognized 
and full opportunity given for such religious privileges 
as we are able to give them. 

Last but by no means least in importance are our rela- 
tions of growing fellowship with the Orthodox Eastern 
Churches of this region. We have now had two united 
services in the Cathedral in which both Greek and Rus- 
sian priests have taken part. With the elevation of Arch- 
bishop Meletios to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Con- 
stantinople we may hope for further steps towards that 
inter-communion for which so many of us long and pray 
and which if it can be consummated ought besides its 
world values to help greatly in our American life. To- 
wards that consummation, we of this diocese will try to 
do our part with open mind and Christian affection. 

Thus I have tried to put before you the situation in 
this diocese in relation to this supreme problem of unity. 


It is only on a microscopic scale, the kind of thing which 
is going on everywhere under the compelling guidance 
of the Holy Spirit. Here as elsewhere the situation has 
many difficulties. There are perils and dangers. Of that 
there can be no doubt. But how can we hesitate? The 
Lambeth Conference urges Christian people to face the 
task. "This means," says the Appeal to All Christian 
People, "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. ' ' 

There can be no doubt of the obstacles in the path. It 
is easy to see the dangers. It is easy to picture the peril 
in which a false step may place things we have counted 
most dear. It is easy to draw back, to stand still, appalled 
by the magnitude of the task. But thus are battles lost. 
We dare not do other than be daring for indeed God is 
calling the members of His Church. He calls through the 
longings of Christian love unsatisfied by the scanty and 
partial fellowship of to-day. He calls through the needs 
of America and the world. Better labor conditions, bet- 
ter living conditions, more adequate safeguarding of our 
children and our youth, finer homes and a higher view of 
the meaning of marriage, an industrial system freed from 
the bondage of paganized competition and seeking in 
democratic cooperation to build up a commonwealth of 
character, — one fills out the lines of the picture of the 
future as the Christian's heart draws it for America, the 
lines which faintly suggest the glory of the Kingdom of 
God ; and as one 's heart burns within him at its beauty 
there comes the sound of God's voice again calling 
Christ's followers to unity that the power of Christ may 
be known among us. 

From across the seas comes this same divine appeal. 
The starving children of Russia dying because men hate, 
the mourning mothers, the helpless fathers, the bank- 


rupt governments, the greed and lust-controlled peoples 
of the world call — and snrely it is God's voice that we 
hear in the call to Christ's followers to heal the wonnds 
of His Body that the wonnds of war and hatred and 
greed may be healed. Thank God for the steps forward, 
groping though they are; for the Conference on Arma- 
ments and its positive contributions, for the League of 
Nations, herald of a new world order; but let the slight 
achievements never dull our ears to the call of God to all 
His children to live together as His great family. And 
that consummation ! Does it not wait for the reunion of 
Christ's followers! When with the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit we have created that great Catholic Church — the 
dream of the creeds and the hope of the prophets of all 
ages — in which all men are gathered as in one family and 
men know themselves as Christians first and only then 
as Americans or French or Chinese, when that great 
Church has come into being nation can no longer be set 
against nation nor shall they learn war any more. The 
hope of the world is Christ ; and the Master stands baffled 
and helpless while His followers are divided, His army 
broken, His Body bleeding with the wounds inflicted by 
our selfishness and littleness. To pray, to work, to sacri- 
fice for that unity, what greater adventure, what more 
worthy task can any Christian undertake 1 Day by day it 
is my earnest prayer that in this diocese we may have a 
work done big with meaning for the Kingdom of God, a 
great strong on-moving work; but even more earnestly 
do I pray that we may have a great vision, a vision 
bounded only by the multitude of the children of God and 
satisfied only by the beauty of His Kingdom, a vision so 
great that littleness and prejudice and ignorance fade in 
its glory and our whole Church life becomes splendid 
with the splendor of God. 

Edward L. Parsons. 

Bishop's House, 

San Francisco, Calif. 




My good friend, the editor, has asked me to write on this 
subject which perhaps could have been treated more mod- 
estly and impartially by some other writer. Yet it is an 
interesting subject, and the providential features are so 
conspicuous that it can be treated without reflecting any 
glory upon any individual. 

There was certainly no intention of forming an inter- 
denominational and international movement when the 
first Christian Endeavor Society was formed. It was a 
very modest affair, just a humble experiment of one pas- 
tor to help his young people to a larger religious life and 
experience, and to greater activity in the work of the 

There was no thought, when the first little society of 
fifty-eight members was formed in the Williston Church, 
of Portland, Maine, on February 2, 1881, that there would 
ever be another Endeavor society. But God had a use 
for the idea far more comprehensive than any one at the 
beginning conceived. It was eight months before an- 
other society was formed, and for years it was considered 
a doubtful experiment even by its friends, and was openly 
scoffed at by its opponents and by the indifferent. Yet 
it steadily won its way in spite of considerable ecclesiasti- 
cal opposition lest it trench upon denominational pre- 
rogatives, and in spite of the latent distrust of young 
people on the part of many pastors and church leaders. 

I would not say, however, by any means, that this dis- 
trust or opposition was universal. Tens of thousands of 
pastors were thinking along the same lines, and the sur- 
prising thing was, not that there was opposition and in- 
difference, but that such a multitude of pastors and lay- 


men very soon recognized the Society's possibilities and 
heartily adopted its plans. 

"Within three years the first society outside the bounda- 
ries of the United States was formed in Honolulu, which 
was then under the dominion of Queen Liliuokalani. 
Within a few months after that a society was formed in 
China by a young missionary who was not afraid to try 
an experiment, and who had tested the value of its prin- 
ciples as a layman in his own home Church in Connecti- 
cut. India, too, at about the same time began to form 
Christian Endeavor Societies, and they now number 
there more than two thousand, while China has enrolled 
over twelve hundred such organizations. 

Progressive Australia soon fell in line, but it was some 
seven years after the first society was formed that more 
conservative England and the continental countries 
adopted in a multitude of their Churches the Christian 
Endeavor movement as a means of Christian nurture. 
The providential character of this growth has been still 
further shown by the inconspicuous means that God used 
for its introduction into these countries. A newspaper 
paragraph, a letter from a young mechanic in Williston 
Church Society to his old pastor in England, a call by an 
American sailor boy on a pastor in Australia, the visit 
of a philanthropic American to a shipwrecked sailor in a 
Jamaican port, to whom a good lady had sent a paper 
which contained something of the Christian Endeavor 
story — these were the instrumentalities used of God to 
spread the knowledge of the movement. 

In many countries the Society could not have had, at 
first, humbler exponents. We can account for its growth 
only by ascribing it to a good Providence. Within a few 
years the Society had become truly international. 

Within the same length of time it had become just as 
truly interdenominational. Every leading denomination 
in the United States had formed such societies on the 


lines of the "model constitution ' ' of the first society, and 
called them by the Christian Endeavor name. For eight 
years there was no break in the interdenominational 
ranks. As early as 1887 two thousand young people from 
all the leading denominations attended the convention at 
Saratoga Springs. The following year five thousand at- 
tended a similar meeting in Philadelphia, while the num- 
bers attending these meetings steadily increased, until 
more than fifty thousand registered delegates have been 
recorded at a single convention, where representatives of 
every denomination and almost every subdivision of the 
denominations, came together in a spirit of harmony and 

In 1889 the first break in this delightful comradeship 
occurred when the young people of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church were required by order of the bishops to 
change their nearly two thousand societies into Epworth 
Leagues, with a constitution and methods of work similar 
to the Endeavor Societies, though they were called by 
different names. This necessarily withdrew them from 
the fellowship of the Endeavorers, as it was meant to do, 
much to the distress of a multitude of Methodist young 
people and many of their pastors. 

At once several other denominations followed this ex- 
ample and formed strictly denominational organizations, 
built on much the same lines as those of the Christian 
Endeavor Society. It looked at first as though the fel- 
lowship of these eight years of common plans and meth- 
ods and of common service would be broken up entirely 
and as though the fond dreams of Christian unity 
through the common efforts of the young people of the 
Churches would be shattered. But gradually the other 
denominations gave up their exclusive young people's or- 
ganizations, or allowed the members to freely choose the 
interdenominational organization if they wished to do so. 
Then the break was only partial and temporary, and 


there has never been a year of all the forty-one which tell 
the story of Christian Endeavor when the movement has 
not been stronger and larger at the end of the year than 
at the beginning. 

There are still a few Christian Endeavor Societies in 
Methodist Churches, especially in Philadelphia and vicin- 
ity, while throughout the world there are more Methodist 
Endeavor Societies than in any other one denomination, 
for among the Primitive Methodists of Great Britain, the 
United Methodist Free Church of England, the Irish 
Methodists, and all the Methodists of Australia, where 
the followers of Wesley are the strongest of all the de- 
nominations, no other young people's society than Chris- 
tian Endeavor is found. This is also true of the vigorous 
Methodist Protestant Church of America, and of the 
African Methodists, and several of the smaller divisions 
of that prolific family. I write in no spirit of discourage- 
ment concerning the interdenominational future of the 
movement, and certainly not in any spirit of bitterness, 
realizing that every denomination has a right to control 
its own young people. This, indeed, is one of the cardinal 
principles of the Endeavor movement. 

Yet it does seem a pity that, especially in missionary 
lands, where Christians, at the best, are few and strug- 
gling, the young people should not be allowed to have a 
common denominator, uniting them as Christians instead 
of calling themselves by different names, holding differ- 
ent conventions, and perpetuating American shibboleths. 
Were it necessary or wise I could relate some unhappy 
incidents of the separation of young people into denomi- 
national camps on the mission fields which have caused 
not a little heart-burning. 

I need not explain to the readers of this magazine that 
the idea of loyalty to the local Church and to its own de- 
nomination is even more fundamental to the Christian 
Endeavor movement than the idea of fellowship with 


other Christians. No society can long exist that is not 
heart and soul faithful to its own Church, its pastor, its 
services, its doctrines and its missionary work. In all 
these forty years very few incidents have been brought to 
my attention when such fealty to Church and pastor has 
been disregarded. 

I need not dilate on the possibilities of service which 
a united company of young people can accomplish for 
Christ and the Church. There are, I suppose, some fif- 
teen hundred Christian Endeavor Unions in the United 
States — state, county, district and city unions. Every 
large city and almost every considerable community has 
such a union, bringing, two or three times a year, all the 
young people of the societies into meetings for praise and 
prayer and conference for inspiring addresses and for 
the planning of future work. Some of these union meet- 
ings are very large. In single cities or large local unions, 
as in Chicago, Los Angeles, and many other places I 
might mention, the audiences are often numbered by thou- 
sands, while single state conventions sometimes reach 
five thousand in the number of their delegates. 

I do not claim, of course, that the value of a convention 
can be gauged by the number in attendance, but it is cer- 
tainly of interest to know that in meetings for purely re- 
ligious ends, many thousands of young people, represent- 
ing nearly fifty different denominations, can come to- 
gether in enthusiastic fellowship and hearty good-will. 
In the Pennsylvania Union alone, I am told, forty-seven 
different denominations are represented, and in our na- 
tional union a still larger number. 

Naturally these great gatherings make it possible to 
secure leading pastors and laymen with eloquent tongues 
from all parts of the country, who thus have an unrivaled 
opportunity of influencing the lives of a multitude of the 
youth of America. The representatives of each section 
and denomination and, in the world's conventions every 


country, can thus bring their own special contribution 
and message to the youth of all these different sections 
and sects. 

It is no less evident that social service of many kinds 
can be undertaken by such groups and unions of young 
people that no one Church or denomination could pos- 
sibly do alone. Fresh Air Homes, for instance, which 
some unions, with the approbation and advice of their 
Churches and pastors, have established and supported 
for many years, have been productive of great good, not 
only to the beneficiaries, but also to the young people who 
perform the service. The Floating Christian Endeavor 
work in which Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Diego 
young people, and many living in other ports in America 
engage, has been of great value. Our British brethren 
have carried this work even further than we have in 
America, and the Endeavorers of Liverpool, London, and 
other cities visit hundreds of ships and write tens of 
thousands of letters to the sailors every year. 

Many unions make a specialty of visiting hospitals, 
prisons and reform schools, when they are welcomed by 
the authorities, for short services of song and prayer, 
and even life-saving stations and car barns have often 
felt the influence of the city local unions. Some unions 
carry on evangelistic meetings every summer in tents 
pitched on vacant lots, on the streets, or on the greens 
in front of their own Churches. It would be wearisome 
if I should attempt to tell of all the lines of work which 
these unions undertake, and which would be impossible 
for any but a large and vigorous band of united young 
Christians to accomplish. 

In great national reforms, like the prohibition move- 
ment, the effort for purer movies, for the suppression of 
prize fighting and other iniquities, these unions have of- 
ten made themselves felt, and always on the side of good 
morals and righteousness. When the recent Washington 


Conference was first proposed the efforts of our states- 
men for disarmament were heartily backed up by peti- 
tions representing some millions of American Endeavor- 
ers, and I have many letters from the leaders of Ameri- 
can life and in the high offices of the nation which express 
gratitude, and none of them resentment, at these efforts 
of the young people. 

Perhaps the influence of the Christian Endeavor move- 
ment in promoting International Fellowship may, in the 
end, be quite as important as its influence on matters of 
Christian unity and comity at home. I am writing this 
article from one of the large cities of Germany, and find 
that so far as the Endeavorers are concerned, the bitter- 
ness and wrath of the war years have disappeared. In 
the many visits I have made to this land during the last 
thirty years I have never had a more cordial welcome. 
The Endeavor Societies have far more than doubled 
since the war began, and, though recognized largely as an 
English-speaking organization, so far as the vast major- 
ity of its members are concerned, it was not hampered in 
its work even in the most strenuous days of the war, as I 
feared it would be. If a fellowship movement can stand 
such a terrible strain as the war put upon it, it can stand 
anything except ecclesiastical indifference or hostility. 

In the course of these thirty years I have visited every 
considerable country in the world, many of them several 
times, and have found that the common interests of the 
Endeavorers in all these lands have discouraged any- 
thing like racial or national enmity. In Japan they have 
withstood the nagging and the pin pricks of American 
racial superiority and dislike. In China the Society was 
not weakened but rather strengthened by the terrible 
episode of the Boxer Uprising. Even in Asia Minor, the 
"unspeakable Turk" has not been able to destroy enough 
Armenians to wipe out the societies altogether. 

In South Africa I had an unusual opportunity of see- 


ing how the fellowship of the Endeavorers could persist 
through a long and bitter war. I was in South Africa 
shortly before the Boer War, and attended meetings both 
of the Boers and British Endeavor Societies in Cape 
Colony, Natal, and the republics of the Transvaal and 
the Orange Free State. Even then the seeds of war were 
being sown broadcast. President Kruger and the lead- 
ing Boers felt that Joseph Chamberlain, then in power in 
Britain, was constantly crowding them to the wall, and 
that they would have to fight for their liberty. The war 
dragged its slow length along for four years. Thousands 
of prisoners taken by the British, were sent to St. Helena, 
Ceylon and the Bermudas. In all these prison camps 
were many Christian Endeavorers, who found it a splen- 
did opportunity to propagate the principles of the So- 
ciety among their fellow prisoners. Scores of societies 
were formed in these camps, numbering in all some thou- 
sands of members. They had almost daily meetings and 
spirited conventions which the reasonable laws of the 
prison camps allowed them to attend. Some of my choic- 
est treasures are the little Christian Endeavor pins 
which the prisoners in their enforced leisure whittled out 
of bone or stone or wood. Best of all, two hundred and 
fifty of these young Dutchmen volunteered for mission- 
ary service in Africa, before they left their prison camp. 
They have since gone into the heart of the black country, 
not always as evangelists or teachers, though many of 
them were trained for this service under the sainted An- 
drew Murray, but also as Christian farmers, blacksmiths 
and mechanics, and all carrying the genuine gospel of 
Jesus Christ. 

Shortly after the war I was in Capetown again, and 
was privileged to attend the very first meeting after the 
war of any kind between the Boers and the British. This 
was a union meeting of the Dutch and English Endeavor 
Societies of Capetown. In the audience were many 


former Boer prisoners who had just been released from 
St. Helena. There were also British Endeavorers who 
still wore the khaki, a most unlikely occasion, one would 
think, for a genuine fellowship meeting. But the love of 
Christ transcends all racial animosities. At the instance 
of the president of the Dutch C. E. Union of South Af- 
rica, seconded by the president of the British Union, 
before the meeting closed we all stood and repeated to- 
gether the twenty-third psalm, each speaking in his own 
language. Then later, we stood again, and, in the same 
way, joined in the Lord's Prayer, and then, most wonder- 
ful of all, as it seemed to me, Boers and British stood 
once more and sang in the different tongues to the old 
tune of Dennis the choicest fellowship hymn in any 
language : 

' ' Blest be the tie that binds 
Our hearts in Christian love. ' ' 

Often during the late war, this remarkable scene has 
come to my mind. Even in its darkest days I did not 
give up the hope that the love of Christ and the desire 
for Christian fellowship and a common service would 
heal the deeper wounds of the greatest conflict of the 

Perhaps I may be permitted to relate another incident 
which illustrates the same truth. This occurred in India 
and under very different circumstances. I enjoyed the 
delightful guidance of Eev. William Carey, III, the 
great-grandson of the noble pioneer missionary of that 
name, for I was visiting his field of labor in Eastern Ben- 
gal, the same field which his great-grandfather had 
cultivated a hundred years ago. He invited me to go to 
a Christian Endeavor convention in the rice country of 
Bengal, some two hundred miles from Calcutta. 

In this region were some sixty Christian Endeavor So- 
cieties, belonging to this mission, and they were to have 


a one day's convention in one of the Baptist chapels, far 
away from any white settlement. We journeyed one day 
and two nights to get there, by steamer on the Ganges, by 
a mission house boat, by canoe, and lastly on foot. Noth- 
ing could be more typical of Indian life, or further from 
the conditions under which most young people's societies 
flourish. But after all the spirit and purpose and even 
the plans discussed at this convention were little differ- 
ent from those I have known in thousands of similar 
meetings in all parts of the world. 

The great subjects involved in "the pledge," of loyalty 
to Jesus Christ and His Church, outspoken confession of 
Him, Bible study and prayer and the joy and value of 
united effort, were discussed much as they would be in 
any similar gathering at home. I soon forgot the brown 
skins and scant costumes (more modest however, than 
many that we now see in America) and the strange lan- 
guage, for the spirit and purpose of the meetings were 
very familiar. 

Before the meeting adjourned Dr. Carey proposed to 
the young people assembled that they make a "Chain 
of Love" for their friend from America. They seemed 
to enter heartily into the idea, and I was very curious to 
learn what a chain of love might be. First Dr. Carey 
called for Bible verses bearing upon the subject of love, 
from the young people in the audience, and the responses 
came thick and fast, "Walk in love," "God is love," 
"Love one another," "God so loved the world," etc. 
These verses were written down by some of the Bengali 
girls on different pieces of tissue paper, and were pasted 
together, until they made a long chain. Then a good 
deacon of the Church, taking off his outer garment, as a 
sign of respect, came forward with much grace and dig- 
nity and threw the chain over my neck, saying that he 
wished me to take it home with me to America, and tell 
the Endeavorers there that we are all one in Christ 


Jesus, that each is a link in the chain of Christian fellow- 
ship, and that we must work together for our common 

Before this pleasant ceremony they had decked me 
with half a dozen garlands of flowers, according to their 
beautiful custom, had given me three little limes to hold 
in my hand, whose significance I did not understand, had 
sprinkled me with rose water, and rubbed the back of 
my hands with attar of roses, and had placed before me 
a dish of bananas, and some pieces of betel nut wrapped 
up with a little lime in some kind of an astringent leaf 
with which I was expected to assuage the fatigue of the 
meeting and of several addresses. But as can be imag- 
ined, of all the little treasured mementoes that I took 
from India that " Chain of Love," worthless as it was 
from a commercial standpoint, was the most precious of 
all. In imagination I have often placed it around the 
necks of a multitude of Endeavorers in America and 
other lands as a beautiful symbol of the union that binds 
us together one with another and with the Master of us 

I have another association of the same sort with this 
noble missionary, who gave a thrilling address at the 
great World's Christian Endeavor Convention in Agra, 
India, in 1909. I quote from a report of the convention 
by Mrs. Clark published in Life and Light. 

On the morning after the convention closed, at the sun- 
rise prayer meeting on the hill, Dr. William Carey gave 
an eloquent and inspiring address. In the course of this 
address he read a part of a letter written by William 
Carey the First, in which he described a vision he had had 
of a possible gathering of missionaries of all denomina- 
tions which should meet to plan together for the uplift of 
India. He read also an extract from a letter written by 
quaint old Andrew Fuller, in which the latter spoke of Dr. 


Carey's "wild vision " as an impossible dream of some- 
thing that could never happen, and which would not real- 
ly be desirable, for, if such a company of missionaries of 
many denominations could ever come together in one 
meeting, they would be sure to disagree, and no good 
could result from it. Yet here we were, Methodists and 
Baptists, Congregationalists and Presbyterians, Luther- 
ans, Disciples of Christ and Church of England mission- 
aries and of many other denominations, all met together 
in joyful convocation, singing the Lord's songs in a 
strange land in many tongues, and planning together for 
the upbuilding of God's kingdom in all the world, and es- 
pecially in India. As we sang together in the great con- 
gregation, "All hail the power of Jesus' name," we were 
filled with new joy and courage, and to ourselves we said, 

' ' Like a mighty army 
Moves the Church of God." 

The whole convention, indeed, was an object lesson in 
international Christian fellowship. Four hundred mis- 
sionaries had come together from all the different boards, 
and four thousand native Christians from India, Bur- 
mah, Ceylon, all the way from the edge of Thibet, to 
Tuticorin. In all the delegates spoke thirty-three differ- 
ent tongues. When the consecration meeting came the 
responses were given by languages and not by societies 
or unions, since there were too many of them thus to 
reply, but each group in its own language told what 
the love of Christ and the fellowship of Christians meant 
to them. 

I cannot better close this article than by quoting a let- 
ter which Eev. Thomas Phillips, B. A., the pastor of the 
Bloomsbury Baptist Church of London, has recently sent 
to all his fellow pastors in the Metropolis. As is well 
known, Mr. Phillips is the eloquent pastor of the great 


Baptist Church in Bloomsbury Square, the two towers of 
which have often proved a landmark for Americans vis- 
iting London. The word of no man carries more weight 
than his, and I am privileged to share his letter to Lon- 
don pastors with American friends. 

Bloomsbury Baptist Central Church, 

London, W. C. 
Jan. 20, 1922. 
Dear Sir, 

Pardon my impertinence in writing to you to advocate 
the institution of a Society of Christian Endeavor in con- 
nection with your Church. 

But the reason is I have been President of the London 
Federation during this year and have seen the rich possi- 
bilities of the movement. I am familiar with all the 
theoretical objections. I admit at once that the society 
is far from perfect. But for all practical purposes it is 
the best on the field. It has established itself by the law 
of the survival of the fittest. 

It is the only society that can band together the young 
people of all the Churches into one united army. It 
crowds the Metropolitan Tabernacle on Good Friday with 
representatives of three hundred London societies with 
seven thousand members — these societies belonging to all 
denominations, including the Church of England. The 
Christian Endeavor is the reunion of the Churches on the 
young people's side. 

It is a working society. If there is any spade work to 
be done, such as visiting, or open air work, the Christian 
Endeavorers are invariably the people that volunteer. 
They are the Church's engineers to prepare the way. 

Intellectually it can be made what the minister or 
leader desires. The constitution gives the greatest pos- 
sible liberty consistent with the practical purpose of the 
society. The leader can either form his own program, or 
work in unison with other societies along a well thought 
out plan. 


What I want to see is the mobilization of all the young 
people of London for the creation of a city of God, and 
I am sure that the Christian Endeavor Society is the only 
possible nucleus. 

Pardon me for trespassing in your vineyard. 

Yours sincerely, 
(Signed) Thomas Phillips. 

Francis Edward Clark. 

Editorial Office, 

The Christian Endeavor World, 

Boston, Mass. 


God of freedom, 

Who desirest for every man 

The power to rule his own life of his own will by thy laws, 

Break all chains, set free all captives, 

Release into newness of self-directed search for thy will 

All those who are now under bondage 

Whether to other men's wills, or to their own evil will. 

Reveal unto all men 

That only in the resolute determination 

Of a will devoted wholly to doing thy will, 

And to working thy work in the world, 

Is freedom to be found. 

Grant a new enthusiasm for thy work, 

For the upraising of the outcast, 

For the feeding of the hungry, the healing of the sick, 

For the deliverance of those who languish 

In sore captivity to their own baser self. 

Spread throughout our country 

The joyful and invincible spirit of this thy freedom, 
That barriers may be broken, ancient wrongs redressed, 
And men of all races and tongues, of all creeds and castes, 
Dwell together in mutual forbearance and cooperation, 
None hindering his fellow from the attainment of that full humanity 
Which is breathed upon and transfigured by the breath of the divine 

— A Book of Prayers. 



Lsr June, 1920, the bishops assembled in the Lambeth 
Conference took action which marks an epoch in the his- 
tory of Protestantism. They sent forth an " Appeal to 
all Christian people' ' declaring their belief that "the 
time has come for all separate groups of Christians to 
agree in forgetting the things which are behind and reach- 
ing out towards the goal of a reunited Catholic Church." 
They further declare that "this means an adventure of 
good-will and still more of faith. * * * * To this 
adventure we are convinced that God is now calling all 
the members of His Church." By a single affirmation 
they cast aside one chief cause of offense among us; — 
"No one of us could possibly be taken as repudiating his 
past ministry." They frankly acknowledge that other 
ministries have been "manifestly blessed and owned by 
the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace." By that 
significant word "effective" they pass by the controver- 
sial questions concerning the validity of other ordinations 
and Sacraments. They affirm, "We shall be publicly and 
formally seeking additional recognition of a new call to 
wider service in a reunited Church, and imploring for 
ourselves God's strength to fulfill the same." 

They go still further in this way of reconciliation, and 
offer to do what it is often harder for us to do, — to re- 
ceive as well as to give ; for they add, ' ' Terms of union 
having been otherwise satisfactorily adjusted, bishops 
and clergy of our communion would willingly accept from 
the authorities of others a form of commission or recog- 
nition which would commend our ministry to their con- 
gregations, as having its place in the same family life." 

If our traditional adversary would thus walk with us 
the first mile, shall we not go with him the second mile 
beyond our ecclesiastical separation? 


The issue cannot be evaded. The providence of God 
has now put this issue directly before all the Churches. 
The present times require action. "We cannot evade the 
necessity of meeting this crisis if we would. For better 
or for worse, we must all meet it; — forwards towards a 
higher unity, or else we fall backwards into a deeper 
schism. Which shall it be ? Again in this our day is ful- 
filled what the prophet Joel foresaw ; we are come to i ' the 
valley of decision.' ' — " Multitudes, multitudes'', he said, 
"in the valley of decision." 

The time for some determination of the Lambeth Ap- 
peal is short. Next September the General Convention of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church meets. In May the Gen- 
eral Assembly of the Presbyterian Church meets. In Oc- 
tober, 1923, the National Council of Congregational 
Churches meets. During this period most of the other de- 
nominations hold their general conventions. "We do not 
ask" — so the Lambeth Appeal leaves the issue before 
them all for their action — "that any one communion 
should consent to be absorbed in another. We do ask 
that all should unite in a new and great endeavor to re- 
cover and to manifest to the world the unity of the body 
of Christ for which He prayed." They ask for them- 
selves as well as for all others. 

Immediate practical efforts are needed. Publicity is 
necessary. No great movement in Church or State can 
succeed until it becomes a cause of the people. But as 
yet the Lambeth Appeal has received but little notice 
among the Christian Churches of this country. It has not 
been scattered broadcast among the people. Many of the 
clergy have not seen copies of it. The press has hardly 
taken passing notice of it. There has been little or no 
studious consideration of it in the local conventions of 
the Churches. 

In England and Scotland the archbishops and other 


bishops of the Church of England have personally laid it 
before Nonconformist bodies; moreover in accordance 
with a resolution passed by the Lambeth bishops, Non- 
conformist ministers, having the spirit of unity, have 
been in several instances invited to preach in the pulpits 
of the Church of England. Naturally we may look to the 
bishops of the Episcopal Church in this country to lay 
this Appeal before all their fellow-believers that it may 
have among us the utmost publicity ; and we may assure 
them that their voices will be gladly heard by our congre- 
gations. We are not unmindful of the daily pressure 
upon them of their diocesan cares ; but their own Eules 
of Order provide that the House of Bishops "may re- 
solve itself into a Council of bishops to act on matters of 
duty resting upon them as a portion of the universal epis- 
copate : ' ' and we may therefore be pardoned for suggest- 
ing our earnest desire for them, whether individually or 
collectively to set this matter before all Churches 
throughout the land, so that the people may hear and 
rightly understand it. 

While upon them may lie the initial duty of calling pub- 
lic attention to this Appeal, this does not relieve the rest 
of us, if we should suffer to go unheeded this opportu- 
nity for a ' ' new adventure of faith. ' ' For as the Anglican 
bishops remind us, "The spiritual leadership of the 
Church 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 for the world.' ' 

For the wider dissemination and further elucidation of 
these proposals there are not lacking practical means for 
men of good-will to use. In the regular meetings of 
different denominational organizations, in local confer- 
ences between representatives from different commun- 
ions, through public meetings and addresses, and reports 
in local papers, these new proposals of unity may be 


made known to the people. The Federal Council of 
Churches also, which has done invaluable service in 
cooperative work, has means of bringing people into help- 
ful conference together ; and these facilities would prove 
helpful in the urgency of this movement for the more or- 
ganic reunion of the whole Church, in which their work 
would not be dispensed with but rendered still more nec- 
essary and effective. 

One of our Pilgrim forefathers, in the earliest confes- 
sion of their faith, the Cambridge Platform, in Boston, 
1648, set forth in the preface to it such ringing words as 
these : "It will be far from us so to divide ourselves about 
Church union as to open a wide gap for a deluge of Anti- 
Christian and profane malignity to swallow up both 
Church and State. Is difference about Church order be- 
come an inlet for all discords in the kingdom? Has the 
Lord indeed left us in such hardness of heart that Church 
government shall become a snare to Zion ; that we cannot 
leave contesting and contending about it until the king- 
dom be destroyed? Did not the Lord Jesus, when He 
dedicated His sufferings to His Church, and also unto 
His Father, make it His earnest and only prayer for us 
in this world that we all might be one in Him? And is it 
possible that He should not have His last and solemn 
prayer answered ?" Is this possible among us today? 

Above all the discords of our history is it not the voice 
of the Spirit that speaketh, — "They may be one — They 
may be perfected into one." Is it impossible for the 
Churches in this day to obey the commandment of the 
Lord's last prayer that they may be one that our world 
may see its Christ? 

Under an overshadowing sense of our common re- 
sponsibility, the Congregational Commission on Unity 
have recently issued this ' * Call for a Covenant of Church 


At this time when the leading nations of the world are 
entering into a covenant of ten years for the readjust- 
ment of their military forces for the sake of keeping the 
peace of the world, shall not the Churches of Christ do 
likewise? Shall the diplomats of the world be wiser for 
their generation than the leaders of the Churches? At 
this historic hour the people throughout the Churches are 
waiting for some clear call to make common cause of 
their means and their sacrifices that we may live in a new 
Christian world. 

Surely this is no time for tarrying in theological con- 
sultations, or standing idly within ecclesiastical limita- 
tions. Now is the time for practical agreements and 
united action. Our spiritual unity needs to be made so 
visible that the man on the street may see it. 

"The way to resume is to resume." 

The last National Council of the Congregational 
Churches, in June, 1921, expressed their belief that "the 
evangelization of the world rests in a united Church." 
The Council gave its commission on unity ample authori- 
zation to confer with any other commissions to aid in 
effecting this unity. A joint commission of the Episcopal 
and our Congregational Churches has for some time had 
under favorable consideration a " concordat' ' for com- 
mon ministry in particular cases. The last Lambeth Con- 
ference of Anglican bishops, which was held in London 
in June, 1920, going still further in this direction, issued 
an Appeal to all Christian people, looking forward to a 
larger organic fellowship in a ministry of the whole 
Church. These proposals call for responsive action. 

As Congregationalists we can only speak for ourselves. 
But that nothing may be lacking on our part, we would 
declare our immediate readiness to confer with repre- 


sentatives of any other Churches concerning any realign- 
ments or unification of our respective forces and minis- 
tries that may be proposed. In particular, among the 
desirable objectives for combined action we would be 
willing to consider means for the following ends: 

1. The fellowship of the members of any particular 
Church in and with the members of all other Churches. 

2. The mutual recognition and utilization of the min- 
istry of the different Churches for common needs and 
service in all. 

3. The offering thereby of larger fields and greater in- 
centive to enter the ministry to our young men, as well 
as limiting the number of ministers required for effective 
home service when one may be better than two or more. 

4. More gradually, but possibly within the period of 
this ten years' covenant of peace, such consolidation or 
combinations of the educational institutions and their 
means of the different communions might be brought 
about as would prove advantageous for the best educa- 
tion and fellowship in their studies of the ministers of 
the different Churches. 

5. And for any philanthropic, social service, mission, 
or federated work of the different Churches. 

Newman Smyth. 

New Haven, Conn. 


Regarding the rise of the various Churches and their 
changed attitude toward each other, President George 
W. Richards, Reformed Theological Seminary, Lancaster, 
Pa., says : 

One needs only inquire with an unbiased mind into the origin of the 
Churches and the work they have done, to free himself from bigotry and 
intolerance. Most of them were born in sincerity, if not always in truth. 
Their founders believed that they had discovered a version of the gospel 
and of the Christian life superior to that of any of the existing Churches. 
With the spirit of the prophets and of the martyrs, at great cost to them- 
selves and their followers, they began a new Church. They not unfrequent- 
ly stressed new aspects of truth, showed men in the infinite variety latent 
in the Scriptures, and saved the individual from the bondage of vested 
authority. The world and the Church are richer for Luther, Calvin, Armin- 
ius, Hubmaier, Wesley, George Fox, Campbell, and Commander Booth. 
In the seventeenth century men failed to see this and they separated; in 
the beginning of the twentieth century they began to see it and they feder- 

As to faith and order, it was supposed that God had revealed a definite 
system of doctrine and ordained a form of government and discipline, not 
to speak of a mode of worship. That Church was the Church of the living 
God which had found the revealed doctrine and the divine order — All others 
must of necessity be either wilful or innocent heretics and schismatics. 

Now we see clearly that neither Christ nor the apostles came to give 
men a system of doctrine nor a form of government but to inspire a life 
— a life of faith, hope and love. This life lived in the freedom of the 
spirit and not in the bondage of ordinances, will express itself through 
diverse forms, and do the work of Christ in diverse ways. The forms of 
the Christian life will vary with times and places, kinds of civilization 
and culture, heredity and temperament of groups of men. Yet each of 
the Churches shares in the life in a measure ; none has it exclusively and ab- 
solutely. All Churches are true to Christ and themselves, to one another 
and to humanity, when they work together for what Christ lived and died — 
the Kingdom of God upon earth, which is the rule of holy love in the uni- 
verse of matter and of mind in the lives of individuals and nations. 

Concerning union in Scotland Sir W. Robertson Nicoll 

says in The British Weekly: 

Of the movement for union between the two great Presbyterian Churches, 
I found only one opinion. It is being cordially supported everywhere. A 


few think it too good to be true, and fear that the Scottish tendency to 
dispute and to split may assert itself again. But, on the whole, faith 
and hope are bravely at work. Those who know Scotland know what an 
infinite gain to religious and to social life this union will be. Unfortu- 
nately, it will be some considerable time before the change is carried 
through. The Churches have now to deal with pounds, shillings and pence. 
The old endowments have to be frankly dealt with. Some propose that 
the Established Church should make drastic changes. I hope, whatever 
happens, that life interests will be strictly preserved. If this is not done, 
controversies will renew themselves with the ancient bitterness. 

A conference of India Christians expresses their con- 
viction regarding the necessity of Christian unity ac- 
cording to The Christian Century, Chicago, as follows : 

The Bangalore Conference, held in India the last month, consid- 
ered the whole question of the unity of the native church and came to 
some interesting conclusions. The following resolution was passed: 
"That this Conference of Indian Christians consisting of members belong- 
ing to the Anglican, Wesleyan, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian and Syr- 
ian denominations, is of the opinion that the several denominations of the 
Christian church are in all essential respects within the one church catholic, 
and that, in the interests of true Christian fellowship and for the extension 
of the kingdom of Christ in this land, a recognition of the real status of 
the denominations within the one body of Christ and of their ministries 
as of equal validity is necessary. ' ' Plans were made for a formal recogni- 
tion of the ministries of the denominations, but it was explicitly stated 
that this should in no wise contemplate any such thing as reordination, or 
the repudiation of past ministries. It was agreed that all Christians 
should have equal access at all communion tables. The conference came 
to an understanding that this union should become complete and organic 
just as soon as the native church became independent financially. Only 
the denominational interests of the home churches prevent that complete 
union at the present moment. 

The Scotsman has this to say regarding the endowment 
problem : 

The solution suggested and approved of by both General Assemblies is 
that in future the endowments of the Church shall be vested in the Church 
under a tenure which is consistent with the liberty affirmed in the Articles, 
and infers no right of the State to control the exercise of this liberty in 
virtue of the Church's possession of these endowments. 

It is recognized that the necessary readjustment in regard to this mat- 
ter is a condition precedent to union, and this is the next step. 

Even after this matter is settled the adjustment of all the heads and 


particulars of the union of two such complicated organizations will re- 
quire a great deal of consideration, and cannot be rushed through. But 
it is surely not too much to hope that though complete organic union may 
be for some time delayed, once this difficulty is removed and the question 
becomes one of the perhaps slow but none the less inevitable adjustment 
of details, the way will be at once opened up for such a federation as will 
give to the two Churches and to the country some at least of the advan- 
tages which union promises, and will terminate competition and its 
attendant dissipation of energy. 

The Congregationalist, Boston, tells of Christian unity 
in New Zealand as follows : 

In New Zealand Church union is making deeided headway. Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists are carrying on negotiations for union. Episco- 
palians are more conciliatory since the Lambeth Conference and are join- 
ing in the Council of Christian Congregations in Christ Church, organized 
to deal with social and moral questions. Even the Roman Catholic Church 
has been invited to join, and is cooperating in certain ways. A New 
Zealand newspaper recommends a Federated Council for the whole of the 

Eev. Joseph Ernest McAfee, writing in The Christian 
Century, says: 

"The first obvious thing to do about sectarianism is to cry out against 
it and decline to condone or apologize for it in any terms. It violates 
all the sanctities of democracy and of the Christian religion, the two 
ideals which we are loudest to-day in proclaiming. 

"That is a peculiarly seductive fallacy which leads us to assume that 
our particular sect is better than the rest of them. When we appreciate 
the essentially social malignity of sectarianism we shall understand that 
there is no such thing as a good sect. The expression is a contradiction 
in terms, if our Christian democracy means anything. It may please 
some of us to believe that some sects, our own among them, are less bad 
than some others, but there is small comfort in that discovery if we are 
serious Christians and honest democrats. None can have part in our 
present religious organization and not be a sectary and his self -right- 
eousness should not beguile him into supposing that he does not share 
in the social guilt which sectarianism involves. 

"Into this snare many of us have fallen, are falling deeper all the 
time. We are so far from repentance and the fruits meet for it that we 
refuse to admit the malignity of sectarianism. We call it by a softer 
name, denominationalism, and then justify it, set forth its alleged vir- 
tues, show how naturally it grows out of human nature and even trace 
it to the divine ordination which makes men ' different' from one another. 

"Those of us who see no religious needs beyond the entirely satis- 


factory private clubs which many of our churches are, can, doubtless 
discover little amiss in our sectarian system. Those who observe with 
pride that the charitable activities of our Churches still outdo those 
of the secular benevolent orders both in lavish display and in compre- 
hensive reach will perhaps be little troubled by the patronistic, un- 
democratic character of each and all of their programmes. If religion 
does not mean to us something essentially democratic, altogether broth- 
erly, then, of course it means something else to do. Sectarianism is class- 
consciousness institutionalized. If that seems less than bad, then we 
may discover little to complain of in the sectarian order. " 

The London Times says editorially regarding the union 
movement in Scotland and among the Methodists in Eng- 

Of late years the Scottish Churches have had frequent occasion to de- 
plore the growth of what are termed lt lapsed masses,' ' especially in the 
great Scottish cities. The triumphant union, in 1900, of the United Pres- 
byterian Synod with the vast majority of the Free Church has been fol- 
lowed by nothing else so significant as a protracted litigation over the 
possession of buildings and endowmentsi, ending in legislation ad hoc by 
the civil authority, whose interference in spiritual matters both Churches 
had been built and endowed to resist. By the vigorous continuance of a 
remnant of the Free Church of Scotland, the number of religious bodies 
in that country is not reduced; while no such increase can be traced as 
was hopefully foretold in the membership of the United Free Church. It 
is greatly to be feared, therefore, that a precipitate union of the two 
Scottish Churches would result in further secessions, further litigations, 
while the injury thus caused to the reunited body would be enhanced by 
the separation from its councils of many fathers and brethren of apostolic 
zeal and patristic learning. These consequences, so localized as to be 
relatively innocuous in Scotland, would be vastly extended and magnified 
by premature advances towards reunion from the Church of England, in 
which threats of secession are now only subdued by the almost untraversed 
latitude of its present form of government. It is not by compression, but 
by expansion, that the Churches will finally unite. Their members must 
come to learn, of their own free will and free understanding, that man's 
relations with his Maker are not parti-coloured like the political divisions 
upon a map, but vary only in the intensity with which he apprehends them. 
The united Church must constitute not the highest common factor of its 
component sects, but a common, and that not the lowest common multiple. 

From the question of the Church of England and the Church of Scot- 
land let us turn for a moment to a consideration of the differences which 
divide the followers of John Wesley into three separate religious bodies 
— the Wesleyan Methodist, the Primitive Methodist, and the United Metho- 
dist communions. In an article which we published recently attention 


was drawn to the attempt which is being made to combine them in a 
united Methodism for England. Though their differences, as the writer 
of the article remarked, might seem small to an outsider, they are in 
reality serious enough to make the desired reunion a matter of great dif- 
ficulty. In principle, it has been substantially approved by the representa- 
tives of all three bodies; in practice, despite the efforts of the United 
Committee which has been studying the whole subject for the last five 
years, they are still unable to reconcile their divergences of opinion. The 
main points of difference are the respective rights, duties, and privileges 
of ministers and laymen, the question of the administration of the Sacra- 
ments by laymen, and the question of the body which should be respon- 
sible for the appointment, or " stationing, ' ' of ministers to Churches. 
Broadly speaking, most of the Wesleyan Methodist Synods appear to be 
opposed to the draft scheme prepared by the United Committee. They 
are in favour of the status quo, by which, in their own communion, ques- 
tions of doctrine, discipline, and stationing are reserved for the ministe- 
rial session of the conference, which consists only of ministers. The major- 
ity of the other two Methodist bodies are for leaving decisions in the hands 
of the representative session, a mixed body of ministers and laymen, 
and, generally speaking, for giving certain powers to laymen both in the 
administration of the Sacraments and the making of appointments. In 
view of these still existing differences of opinion there can be little ques- 
tion that those are in the right who deprecate hasty action of any kind. 
An earnest desire for union, in response to the Lambeth Appeal, undoubt- 
edly exists. But there is much to be said for the feeling that the time is 
not yet ripe for this final solution. Precipitate and premature action will 
not heal divisions, and might even make the last state worse than the 

Dr. John A. Hutton writing in The British Weekly 


Looking out broadly upon the world, the one thing which under God it 
seems to me can save us is that the Church herself shall at once get into 
a position in which she can speak as nearly as possible with one voice. 
There are those who, I repeat, think differently, who hold that there is 
safety in conflict of voices. They perhaps do not use the horrid phrase 
that <i competition is the life of trade," meaning that the world gets its 
utmost, the utmost work, the utmost insight, the utmost revelation from 
men who are competing with one another for popular favour. They do 
not say so, but that is what is in their minds. But, and this is the deep 
change that is coming over the Church of Christ, we are beginning to 
see that the function of the Church is not to win favour with men at all, 
but to withstand men if need be in the name of God, in the name of that 
final experience and report of human existence which we have in Holy 
Scripture and for the truth and full implication of which our Lord laid 
down His life. There is, I admit, something to be said for the view that 


with Churches of all kinds and creeds contending, and their public serv- 
ants struggling 1 in poverty and neglect, a certain desperate liveliness is 
secured. But it is not a point of view which any really kind man will take. 
It reminds one who knows his Carlyle of that story of a town whose streets 
were badly lit. In spite of complaints, the town council would do nothing. 
One day, however, some clever man discovered that there was a kind of 
moth which propagated itself abundantly in the marshes round about 
that town and the moth had this truly remarkable and admirable quality — 
when you drove a skewer through its little body that little body radiated 
light. The difficulty was solved. The solution seemed to be a pure prov- 
idence — it was so cheap. Posts were erected up and down every street 
and sidewalk, and on those posts the little creatures were impaled. 
And, true enough, they expressed their mortal agony in light. But, as 
Carlyle observes, there is no report from those moths as to what they 

thought of the arrangement. 


The live question to-day is not this Church or that Church. The ques- 
tion is Christianity or Paganism; God or Nature; the human body, the 
temple of the Holy Ghost, or a mere nexus of appetite and passion. 

The Guardian, London, makes this note on reordina- 

Under the heading * ' Reunion in Peril, ' ' the Times prints a short article 
from a correspondent who makes the following suggestion as a solution of 
the great reordination difficulty: — "The following proposal might meet 
both parties. Let them both submit publicly to reordination (if that un- 
happy term is retained) by a united act of prayer and reconsecration, 
and dispense on both sides with any other requirements. A most impres- 
sive united service of reconsecration could be held in Westminster Abbey 
and simultaneously in the Cathedrals and chief Churches throughout the 
whole land, which would demonstrate to the world that these great 
Churches and all their ministers had again been ordained by God for the 
work of saving the nation and mankind. All future candidates for the 
ministry would be ordained both by prayer and the laying-on of hands. " 

The Christian Century, Chicago, tells of the Eastern 
Orthodox Church adopting American ideals as follows : 

The Greek Orthodox Church is proving itself to be much more flexible 
in method and more modern in spirit than the Roman Catholic Church by 
its recent action of establishing services in America in the English lan- 
guage. The downfall of the Czarist government has left the Orthodox 
Church quite free in countries outside of Russia to carry out reforms which 
have in many cases long been favored by the clergy. Archbishop Alexander 
Nemolosky has given orders that English shall be the preferred language 


in the parochial schools in this country. In addition to this, he has given 
orders that civics shall be taught in these schools and every effort made 
to Americanize the children attending them. Such action meets much of 
the objection against parochial schools. If in addition to the features 
noted above, these schools can command teachers of a grade equal to those 
of the public schools, and work under a modern curriculum and method, 
the parochial school might even become popular. The effect of these re- 
visions of policy upon the problem of Christian union will be considerable. 
There is evidently no spirit of separation in the present attitude of the 
Orthodox Church leaders. It is inevitable that the immigrants who come 
to this country should seek the familiar rites and customs of ancestral 
religion. It is one tiling to wall off these immigrants, as the leaders of 
the Missouri Synod Lutherans do. It is another thing to be conscious of 
moving toward the goal of a catholic fellowship in the Church of Christ. 

The following clipping from the Southern Episcopa- 
lian, November, 1859 — sixty-three years ago — is inter- 
esting reading. We are moving slowly, but we are 
moving so that conferences and proposals in the interest 
of unity are multiplying. This is the clipping : 

The Rev. J. W. Cracraft offered the Epiphany P. E. Church for a 
meeting of ministers, at nine o 'clock. When we arrived at the Church, 
at perhaps twenty minutes after nine, we found it crowded in 
almost every part, with an audience of ladies and gentlemen. This, 
of itself, at so early an hour on a week day, was exciting. Looking 
around, we saw, everywhere, clergymen of all denominations, and we 
have been told that one hundred and fifty were present. Mr. Cracraft 
presided, ministers of the Churches crowding about him in and around 
the chancel. The Rev. Dr. Boardman, of the Presbyterian Church, 
(O. S.) opened the meeting with prayer; Mr. Cracraft read from the 
Scriptures. He then read a letter from Bishop Mcllvaine, of Ohio, cor- 
dially approving the object of the meeting. Dr. Nott, for half a century 
President of the Union College, Schenectady, N. Y., of the Presbyterian 
Church, (O. S.) then rose with some assistance from Dr. Jenkins and 
Dr. Duffield, of Detroit — an exceedingly venerable figure, with snow white 
hair — and leaning on his staff, for he feels the weight of four score 
years, addressed to the assemblage «a few words, breathing the spirit of 
Christian union. The chairman then called upon the venerable Dr. 
Humphrey, of the Congregational Church, late President of Amherst Col- 
lege, Mass., who responded in a similar strain, marked with much mod- 
esty as well as Christian fervor. 

The Rev. W. B. Stephens, D.D., of the Episcopal Church, who as we 
understand from his remarks, drafted the original paper, then addressed 


the meeting, stating that he had not imagined, when he wrote it in his 
study, that such consequences were to grow out of so simple and un- 
obtrusive a movement. He was followed by the Rev. Albert Barnes, 
one of the signers of the paper, who carried forward the meeting in the 
same spirit. Prayer and singing were interspersed at intervals. Dr. 
Jenkins of the Calvary Church, Presbyterian (N. S.) made a very ear- 
nest speech as to the necessity of the manifestation of the Unity which 
really exists among Christians, stating among other things that there 
is a cure for all existing divisions. 

The most interesting incident of the meeting occurred at this point, 
an incident, so far as we know unparalleled in the history of Protestant- 
ism. Dr. Nevin, of the Presbyterian Church, (O. S.) rose and stated 
that Mr. Cracraft should repeat it as the creed of the meeting, all stand- 
Church, and it might be of all the churches represented, and proposed 
that Mr. Cracraft shiuld repeat it as the creed of the meeting, all stand- 
ing and joining in it. Instantly every individual of the vast assemblage 
sprang to his feet. The Chairman began — "I believe in God the Father 
Almighty, maker of Heaven and earth." Every voice joined him. 
Nearly two thousand people — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, (Old and new 
School,) Seceders, Covenanters, Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, 
Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Moravians, Congregationalists, Inde- 
pendents — all repeated, with the simplicity of children, this grand old 
formula, which has come down to us on the stream of ages — "I believe 
in God, the Father Almighty!" Even a calm spectator, not easily ex- 
cited, and standing aloof from any enthusiasm of the moment, could 
not but be moved. As the il Apostles' Creed," so called, is the only 
uninspired summary of Christian doctrine in which all these churches 
believe, it seems like an Act of Union of the Church Universal. It 
brought startlingly, and, judging from the appearance of the congrega- 
tion, affectingly, to every individual the idea, so much lost sight of, 
that in all that is essential these Christians, cut up into what are 
called sects, are in fact one. 

Addresses and prayers followed from Rev. Dr. Newton, of the Epis- 
copal Church, the venerable Mr. Kennard, of the Baptist Church, Mr. 
Alfred Cookman, of the Methodist, and Mr. Taylor, of the Reformed 
Dutch. Mr. Cookman made the excellent remark that the points in 
which Evangelical Churches agree are facts, while those in which they 
differ are, for the most part, theories; and the latter made a touching 
allusion to the funeral of the Rev. Dudley A. Tyng, the former rector 
of Epiphany Church. The last speaker was Mr. Wilder, a missionary 
from India, who dwelt upon the interest which would be taken in this 
scene by the missionaries all over the world. The large assembly was 
then dismissed with the benediction pronounced by the Rev. John Cham- 
bers, the meeting instead of lasting an hour, having been prolonged to 
nearly two hours and a half. 


In The Moravian Messenger, London, A. H. Mumford 
discusses the Lambeth Appeal regarding episcopal ordi- 
nation and says: 

We agree with our Anglican Brethren in the practice of episcopal 
ordination. All our ministers have been ordained by bishops, our 

But the Anglicans, while admiring and respecting our efforts to 
maintain historic continuity through the episcopate, cannot convince 
themselves that our episcopate is perfectly guaranteed. They offer us 
their guarantees. Their biships will consecrate our bishops, and thus, 
beyond all Anglican question, our episcopate will be as sound as their 

Some of us feel a slight reluctance, or a reluctance that is more than 
slight, to agree to anything that may seem to reflect on our forefathers. 
We object to being made honest persons at the expense of their reputa- 

I do not think we need have misgivings on the matter. None of us 
will have the slightest suspicion of our forefathers' genuineness as min- 
isters of Christ, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments administered by 
them. If any such imputation were made, and I cannot imagine any 
"decent" Anglican suggesting it, we should definitely repudiate it. But 
perhaps it removes the possibility of the misgiving if we regard the 
consecration of our bishops by Anglican bishops as, so to speak, an act 
of blood brotherhood. I grant it should be reciprocal, our bishops partici- 
pating in the Consecration of Anglican bishops. 

This interchange would, to many temperaments, draw the Churches 
closer together, and I do not see why we should hesitate to take our 
part in it. 

On these matters I speak as a Moravian. I have never been taught 
to regard the episcopate as essential to the Church. The episcopate is 
not laid down as essential in Scripture, as transmitted grace possibly is; 
(but in the passage which supports this there is the explicit statement 
that the gift is in Timothy by the laying on of the hands of the pres- 
byters). The word bishop means just overseer. It was taken over from 
the secular world, and is a practical and not a metaphysical or spiritual 

What significance then has our episcopate? Just this: it is a bond 
between us and the Universal Church. When our Brethren at Lititz, 
after painful consideration and the drawing of lots, felt compelled to 
constitute themselves into a religious community, they instantly and in- 
stinctively sought to connect this community with the rest of Christen- 
dom. With this end in view they sought for episcopal ordination, and 
found it in the Waldensian Church. I speak as a Moravian when I say 
I do not consider the episcopate essential. I speak as a member of the 
Ohurch of the Brethren, of the TJmtas Fratrum, when I say that our 


ancestors sought it, and our Brethren continued it, as helpful towards the 
unity. Now has come the opportunity of utilizing the treasured heritage. 
We find ourselves a little Church between two great bodies of Chris- 
tians, the Anglican on the one side and the independent Churches on the 
other. We are freely recognized by the independent Churches, we find 
no difficulty there. We have an opportunity no other Church possesses 
of standing in the same relation to the Anglicans. 

The Congregationalist, Boston, says regarding the two 
schools of thought in all communions : 

Two schools of thought are represented in all our communions in re- 
gard to Church union and the ideal of uniting all Christian bodies in 
one great Church which should witness to the world the unity of the 
body of Christ. They found expression at the meeting of the Canadian 
Presbyterian General Assembly recently. A resolution was pending: 
"That this Assembly take such steps as may be deemed best to con- 
summate organic union with the Methodist and Congregational 
Churches. ' ' It was countered by a resolution asking the Assembly to 
refrain from any "disturbing" action. After debate the Assembly, by 
a large majority, voted to go on with the measures necessary for con- 
summation of the union of the three communions in Canada. 

Significantly enough this large Canadian majority in favor of union 
was provided by the "prairie" country — the sparsely settled regions of 
the West, where three Churches in a rural center mean what three 
potato plants mean in a single hill — starved life for all and only small 
Xiotatoes to show for any. The action of the Canadian Assembly means 
■that the union of effort and energy for these three communions, under a 
common supervision, will soon be consummated, and we shall have Chris- 
tians working together who have long been rivals and occasionally even 
enemies. So much the better for the scattered and weak churches of 

The Assembly's decisive vote indicates, we believe, the trend of 
Christian thinking everywhere. We have not been in a hurry to bring 
about specific unions which have been suggested, largely because we 
have felt and recognized this trend of thought that works toward union 
like a slowly rising tide. Some channels are not navigable until the tide 
is in. When Christians of different names work together at the outposts, 
as they do more and more to-day, it is difficult for them to maintain the 
full importance of the inherited distinctions, or to wonder why it is 
necessary for them to go home for sleep and worship in different camps. 
But we must recognize that to-day the movement for getting together is 
Being accelerated in different quarters. We must be alert to its conse- 
quences, both of hope and change. Congregational Churches in New 
Zealand, for example, have recently merged themselves wholly in Pres- 
by terianism. Proposals or attainments of unity are signs of the times 


on different mission fields. What will it mean for Methodists, for Pres- 
byterians, for Congregationalists in the Northern United States when 
there is one communion, made up of the three, just across the unfortified 
and open border? Is it not time already to press forward in all co- 
operative energies and to repress all rivalries, suspicions and jealousies? 
For a united and successful Church of Christ in Canada, built on the 
union of these three bodies, will show a light of witness that cannot 
be hid. 

The World Conference movement is making some 
progress. Mr. Gardiner, the secretary, sends the fol- 
lowing : 

In October, 1910, the American Episcopal Church appointed a com- 
mission to invite all the Christian communions throughout the world 
which confess our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour to unite in 
arranging for and conducting a world conference for the consideration of 
questions of the Faith and Order of the Church of Christ. This was 
done in the belief that all Christian communions are in accord in the 
desire to lay aside self-will and to put on the mind which is in Christ 
Jesus our Lord. We believe that such a conference, held in a spirit of 
love and humility, and in the desire to understand and appreciate the 
convictions of other communions, would remove many of the prejudices 
and much of the mutual ignorance engendered by centuries of division, 
and thus would prepare the way for directly constructive effort toward 
such a manifestation of the visible unity of Christians in the one Church, 
which is the Body of Christ, as will convince the world that God In- 
carnate in the Person of His Son offered Himself upon the Cross to re- 
deem the world. 

The commission has published and distributed all over the world 
nearly two million pamphlets explaining different aspects of the move- 
ment. These can be had free on application to the secretary of the Com- 
mission, Robert H. Gardiner, 174 Water Street, Gardiner, Maine, U. S. A. 
Seventy-five thousand letters, or more, have been received from Chris- 
tians of every name in every part of the world, most of them expressing 
deep interest and cordial sympathy. 

Before the outbreak of the war, the cooperation of practically all 
the English-speaking world had been secured. 

So far as possible each autonomous communion of importance, which 
comes within the scope of the invitation, has been asked to appoint a 
cooperating commission. This involves some duplication, as there are 
commissions for the Anglican communion appointed by each of its auton- 
omous branches, and for the Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Pres- 
byterian and other communions. There are now more than seventy com- 
missions. Greatly to our regret, the Pope has, so far, declined to take 


All Christendom has been asked each year to observe a season of 
special prayer for unity and for the guidance of the World Conference 
movement and very many reports of the observance have been received. 
It is recognized that the first need is for earnest and frequent prayer 
which shall enable us to lay aside self-will and pride of opinion and mere 
partisanship, so that Christians may, indeed, be able to surrender their 
wills entirely to God and seek the unity which He desires, and so the 
Christian world will be asked to continue the observance each year dur- 
ing the week ending with Whitsunday or Pentecost. 

The Conference will meet simply for the purpose of study and dis- 
cussion, without power to legislate or to adopt resolutions. Its ob- 
ject is that kind of conference which consists in an earnest attempt to 
understand one another, and every effort will be made to abandon the 
old spirit of controversy. It is not proposed to suggest or permit any 
surrender by any communion of any conviction which it holds vital. It 
is believed that every communion needs, for a fuller grasp of the whole 
truth, a thorough understanding of the convictions of other communions. 

A preliminary meeting of 120 representatives of about 70 commissions 
coming from about 40 countries was held at Geneva, Switzerland, Au- 
gust 12 to 20, 1920, to uncover the root differences and to carry on the 
movement if it was thought worth while. Serious differences were dis- 
closed, but all present felt that with patience and earnest prayer they 
could be overcome. A continuation committee was appointed, consisting 
of Anglicans, Armenians, Baptists, Congregationalists, Czech Brethren, 
Disciples of Christ, Eastern Orthodox, Friends, German Evangelical, 
Lutherans, Methodists, Old Catholics, Presbyterians and Reformed. 

It is hoped that local conferences will, be held in many places, 
as has lately been done in England and elsewhere with most encouraging 
results, for the purpose of developing that recognition of the need of 
prayer, that comprehension of the conference spirit and that thorough 
consideration of the questions discussed at Geneva which will be needed 
if permanent results are to be had. A report of that meeting can be had 
free on application to the secretary at the address given above. 

From time to time the committee issues bulletins for publication of 
the progress made. The secretary will send these bulletins to any news- 
paper or magazine, secular or religious, which will ask him for them. 

The Youth* 's Companion, Boston, asks a pertinent 
question : 

Has Christianity failed, as the pessimists assert? It has not abandoned 
the field. Whatever its shortcomings may be, they are in large part at- 
tributable to the divisions among its adherents, and those divisions may 
not be permanent. That there may be "one fold and one Shepherd' ' is 
an aspiration of the Founder that has not yet been realized, but may it 
not be realized some time in the future? 


Dr. Lhamon Eeplies to the Metropolitan of Nubia 

To the Editor of The Christian Union Quarterly, 

Dear Sir: 

I have been much interested in reading the admirable article by 
Nikolaos Evangelides, Metropolitan of Nubia, which appears in the last 
issue of The Christian Union Quarterly. The spirit of the essay warms 
one's heart to the writer. His yearning for union is deep and genuine, 
and he has abundant command of the history and doctrine of his own 
ancient church. 

But what most interests me in the essay is its efforts to harmonize 
ancient orthodoxy with modern requirements. The author is uncon- 
sciously naive in his insistence on the ancient and his concessions to 
the modern. He insists that union must come on the orthodox basis of the 
Ancient Eastern Church, the dogmas of the Nicene Fathers and of the 
Seven Ecumenical Synods, not realizing how foreign all this is to the 
modern mind, or even to his own definition of a Christian, which is as 
follows: "A Christian, according to the mind of the Church and of 
religion, has the name of a believer in Christ, and does believe in Christ 
as by nature the Son of God, and acknowledges Him as leader of his 
religious and moral life. A man is not a Christian who acts according 
to the law of the Gospel but who does not believe in the law-giver and 
in God, for the doctrine and work of Christ is indissolubly bound up 
with his Person." How readily the Chrisian of to-day, the man of 
Christ with a modern mind, assents to every word of this! But how he 
recoils when on another page he runs squarely up against the fourth 
and fifth centuries in the following; "The holy Nicene Church and the 
dogmatic decrees of the seven great Ecumenical Synods form, a divine 
basis, infallible and of indisputable validity. By those synods the Church 
of Christ, then one and united, spoke the final word on questions of 
faith. Any change of those doctrines constitutes not progress and com- 
pletion, but perversion of the substance of the faith, pernicious and 
perilous innovation." 

Adherence to that position bars all possible union with Christians who 
really live this side of Copernicus. We, who have been trained in the 
Baconian, or inductive method; who believe in the microscope and tele- 
scope and crucible; who have reverence for geology and botany and 
astronomy; whose minds have been freed from Greek speculation and 
Eoman dogmatism, cannot assent to the assertion that finality was found 
by the fathers of the Greek and Eoman centuries. They had their world- 
view; we have ours. They and their dogmas functioned for their times; 
our own teachings must function for our times. If the Holy Spirit 
wrought through them and their teachings to their good why should not 
the Holy Spirit work through our teachings to our good? 

One may believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without going 
the full length of Nicene definition. He may prefer to go three cen- 
turies further back and accept the simple, concrete presentation of the 
Synoptic Gospels, or the more poetic and mystical but not less concrete 
presentation of the Fourth Gospel. The really modern mind shrinks from 


definitions of the infinite. Definitions are limitations, and to limit 
the infinite is a contradiction in terms. As against the Nicene creed one 
may prefer the illimitable God who manifests His Fatherhood to us in 
the Brotherhood of Jesus. And besides one may wisely and humbly 
affirm that He attaches no definite concepts to the dogmatic categories 
of the Nicene creed, such as "eternal generation," and "eternal pro- 
cession. ' ' Because we are not as bold in defining and limiting the il- 
limitable God as the ancients were, are we therefore the less Christian? 
Are we necessarily heretical? May we not be even more "in tune with 
the Infinite" because we do not attempt to "tune the Infinite" down 
to our concepts by our inadequate phraseology? The real God may be 
greater than the Nicene Fathers dreamed, and if so should not the 
humble Christian have the liberty of believing in this greater God? 
May one not cry out with Robert Browning: 

"God is seen God 
In the star, in the stone, in the flesh, in the soul,, in the clod." 

I have used the Nicene creed only as an example. There is a world 
of ancient dogmatic delivery that does not appeal to the modern man. 
Indeed this modern man is very much inclined to go back on dogmatism 
entirely and to do his own thinking in his own way. And how could 
he be both intelligent and honest otherwise? And how could be be Chris- 
tian without being intelligent and honest? To-day the historian, the 
scientist, the man of the library and the laboratory, seeks facts; col- 
lates them; and draws his own conclusions. It is only very young birds 
that open wide their mouths and take without question what the mother 
bird drops there. Our age is growing up, and mother Church must al- 
low her adult children to use their own wings and seek their own food. 
If left in absolute freedom they will probably find pretty much the 
same food as the most ancient Church did, only they will assimilate it 
under different formulas. The apologist for "the old paths" may decry 
this as rationalism, but it is a condition that must be met wherever 
union is sought. 

I gladly quote again from the learned Metropolitan of Nubia. "The 
love of Christ is surely an all-powerful bond, which nothing is able to 
dissolve, not affliction, want, persecution, famine, danger, the sword; 
but it cannot develop save in hearts which are truly religious and which 
lean on the arm of faith. To declare the union of Churches on a moral 
basis only is itself incomplete, one-sided and unfruitful, and would more- 
over give grounds for many dangerous conceptions. ' ' To this we, an- 
cients and moderns, all agree. Only when we define "the arm of faith" 
the ancients want it in the exact and infallible form and wrappings of 
the Seven Synods. The moderns demand the liberty of going back of 
that form and those wrappings, and of seeking in the New Testament, 
in history, in science, their own faith and their own basis of it. The 
real man wants to see God with his own eyes, and feel Him with his 
own heart. 

Truly and sincerely, 

W. J. Lhamon. 
Liscomb, Iowa. 


Most of the prayers appearing on the pages of this number of The 
Christian Union Quarterly are taken from A Book of Prayers 
(Written for Use in An Indian College, Published by The Challenge, 
London). The prayers used illustrate well the spiritual beauty of the 
whole collection. A brief Foreword explains the purpose of the work. 
"The debts owed by the writer of these Prayers to Rabindranath 
Tagore, and to one or two other modern authors, will be clear to any- 
one reading this book. The Prayers were written to express the 
'searchings after God' of men belonging to several differing religious 
systems. " It is a remarkable book. It reminds us of the close kin- 
ship, so generally forgotten, between prayer and poetry. The prayers 
are strong, true and simple. More especially they are "inner" and 
" spiritual, 7 ' as well as practical. In many of them there is a mystical 
and semi-ascetic quality which is good for the soul. This is illustrated 
in the prayer entitled, 



We thank thee for thy loving-kindness, 

Which strippeth a man naked that he may be clothed anew in 

thy garment of joy. 
We thank thee for thy ministers, sorrow and pain, 
Which leave us no refuge but thyself. 
We thank thee for darkness and the horror of night, 
Which force us like little children to slip our hands into thine. 
Above all we thank thee for thyself 
In whom our souls live and move and have their being, 
Without whom they perish; 
For thou alone art our eternal life, 
Our never-failing treasury of love and joy, 
Our Solace, our stay, our friend in life and in death. 

Heralds of Passion (By Rev. Charles L. Goodell, D.D., New York, 
Geo. H. Doran Co.) is another moving message from the well-known pas- 
tor-evangelist, who is now the Secretary of the Commission on Evangel- 
ism and Life Service of the Federal Council of Churches in America. Dr. 
Goodell maintains that everything great in life is a passion, and re- 
ligion being a life must be impassioned. The book comes out of the 
author's own heart as a word of challenge to the present hour. "I 
am led," he tells us, "to the choice of the stirring theme which I pre- 
sent because it seems to me after wide travel throughout the country 


and intimate association with men in the churches and out of them, that 
the great need of the hour is a holy passion for the souls of men. . . 
I wish to bring the simple message of my Master. When He ordained 
Peter, He asked him no question in creed or church reform. There was 
only one question, so often repeated that it burned itself into Peter's 
soul, Lovest thou me? Among the dilettanti it is supposed be be bad 
form to be interested in anything. The spirit of wonder has died out. 
Nothing any more is grand, dominant, imperative. The glory of Words- 
worth's early morning has faded into the light of common day. In 
some way we must get back our old enthusiasm; in some way we must 
find once more that passion which changed the face of the ages and 
sent the Church with a Pentecostal flame to carry the good tidings 
everywhere. ' ' 

John Buskin, Preacher and other Essays (By Lewis H. Chrisman, Pro- 
fessor of English literature, West Virginia Wesleyan College, published 
by the Abingdon Press) is a book of interesting and illuminating essays 
on a number of men and things. The chapters on John Ruskin, Jon- 
athan Edwards, and Thomas Carlyle are especially worth while. The 
chapter on "The Spiritual Message and Whittier" also leaves one better 
for having read it. All in all this is a book that will be much enjoyed. 

A constructive word concerning the present situation in Christian 
unity is spoken in a little book entitled Impasse or Opportunity? by 
Malcolm Spencer, M. A., Secretary of the Student Christian Movement. 
The sub-title, The Situation After Lambeth, gives a clue to the author's 
purpose. He explains in the preface that, "What I have written, I 
have written under a sense of strong constraint. It has seemed to me 
that the Lambeth Appeal has opened to the Church a door of great 
opportunity; and no one is hastening to go through. If anything I can 
say can open that door a little wider, I am bound to say it. I am espe- 
cially debtor to the cause of Christian unity, for I have had, for a 
free Churchman, unique opportunities of entering intimately into the 
Catholic position." The book is a challenge to both sides and to all not 
to falter in the face of the difficulties which have come up in connec- 
tion with the "Appeal" and the "Responses" made to it by the bodies 
which have considered it, but to take hold of the problem of separation 
and reunion with greater courage and devotion. In one chapter after 
another the author gives a helpful kind of "mutual interpretation" 
of the values of the creeds, orders, sacraments, and experience of re- 

Another interesting and enlightening book which has come forth to 
speak a word in season by way of interpretation of the Lambeth Appeal 


is Lambeth and Eeunion, by the Bishops of Peterborough, Zanzibar, and 
Hereford. "We have endeavored," they write in the last chapter, "in 
the preceding chapters to fill in some of the outlines of the Lambeth 
Appeal, and also to re-create the atmosphere in which it was shaped. 
This last is all-important, for of necessity the Appeal must be read and 
criticized in an atmosphere and from a standpoint very different from 
those in which it came to birth. Moreover, we realize how lengthy an 
education will be required before our own people, not to speak of others, 
will see it in its true setting and understand its true import." The 
major interest and concern of these Bishops and of their book is of 
course for the great cause of Christian reunion itself. "Christianity," 
they affirm, "can supply both the ideal way of life and the spiritual mo- 
mentum by which man can attain it. But it can only be adequately sup- 
plied by the impact on the world of a united Church. Therefore the 
call of the world for the reunion of Christians is one whose solemnity 
and urgency cannot be put into words. We shall disregard it at our 

A book that is being eagerly looked for by Christian unity advocates is 
soon to appear from the press of Fleming H. Revell Company, New York, 
by his Grace, the Archbishop of Uppsala, Sweden. It is the second of the 
series under the title "Christian Unity Hand Book Series," the first volume 
having been "If Not a United Church — What?" which were the Reinecker 
Lectures at the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia. This 
volume has already passed into its second edition, which is rather unusual 
for Christian unity books. The forthcoming volume deals with the united 
life and work of Christendom. It is divided into five parts. 

The first part deals with the necessity, place and reason for unity, recog- 
nizing that we know in part and therefore the approach must be by the 
way of unity rather than by uniformity. The second part deals with the 
origins of divisions — those who were put out and those who went out, also 
the ideals of a national church and a free church, and the divisions and 
alliances made by the war. Divisions may sometimes be outlets for fresh 
spiritual power and the distribution of gifts. The third part deals with 
ways to unity, which are classified as those of absorbtion, creedal and love. 
The Word of God and the Spirit of God transcend all organization and diplo- 
macy. The fourth part is a short history of efforts already made toward 
unity and the closing section discusses the nearest aims. It is an admirable 
work and will take its place among the best contributions on this subject. 

To merely announce this as the work of Archbishop Soderblom is of itself 
sufficient to awaken interest on both sides of the Atlantic, for there is no 
mind on the continent of Europe so devoted to the ideals of a united church 
and whose interpretation of those ideals is so clear, courageous and cath- 
olic. The manuscript is now being translated into English in preparation 
for publication in New Tork. 

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. Ann- 
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 cooperatibn 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.