{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18905/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18905","id":"gutenberg_18905","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18905","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christian sociology","Christian union","Social change","World War, 1914-1918 -- Religious aspects"],"text":"Produced by Irma Spehar, Martin Pettit and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE WAR AND UNITY\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\nC. F. CLAY, MANAGER\n\nLONDON: FETTER LANE, E.C. 4\n\nNEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS\nBOMBAY   }\nCALCUTTA } MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.\nMADRAS   }\nTORONTO: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.\nTOKYO: MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA\n\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n\nTHE WAR AND UNITY\n\nBEING LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE\nLOCAL LECTURES SUMMER MEETING OF\nTHE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 1918\n\nEDITED BY THE REV.\nD. H. S. CRANAGE, LITT.D.\nKING'S COLLEGE\n\nCAMBRIDGE\nAT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS\n1919\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nFor some time past the Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate have\narranged a Summer Meeting in Cambridge every other year in connexion\nwith the Local Lectures. The scheme of study has always included a\nnumber of theological lectures, and at the last two meetings an attempt\nhas been made to deal with some of the religious and moral problems\nsuggested by the War. In 1916 a course of lectures was delivered, and\nafterwards published by the University Press, on _The Elements of Pain\nand Conflict in Human Life_. In 1918 the Syndicate decided to arrange a\ncourse on Unity. It was at first suggested that the lectures should be\nconfined to the subject of Christian Reunion, but it was finally\narranged to deal not only with Unity between Christian Denominations,\nbut with Unity between Classes, Unity in the Empire, and Unity between\nNations.\n\nMany of those who attended expressed a strong wish that the lectures\nshould be published, and the Lecturers and the Syndicate have cordially\nagreed to their request. The central idea of the course is undeniably\nvital at the present time, and the book is now issued in the hope that\nit may be of some help in the period of \"reconstruction.\"\n\n                                        D. H. S. CRANAGE,\n                              Secretary of the Cambridge University\n                                         Local Lectures.\n_November 1918._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS\n\nI. A GENERAL VIEW                                 PAGE 1\n\nBy the Reverend V. H. Stanton, D.D.,\nFellow of Trinity College, Regius Professor\nof Divinity.\n\nII. THE CHURCH IN THE FURNACE                         25\n\nBy the Reverend Eric Milner-White, M.A.,\nD.S.O., Fellow and Dean of King's College,\nlate Chaplain to the Forces.\n\nIII. THE PROBLEM OF THE ENGLISH FREE CHURCHES         51\n\nBy the Reverend W. B. Selbie, M.A. (Oxford\nand Cambridge), Hon. D.D. (Glasgow), Principal\nof Mansfield College, Oxford.\n\nIV. THE SCOTTISH PROBLEM                              72\n\nBy the Very Reverend James Cooper, D.D.\n(Aberdeen), Hon. Litt.D. (Dublin), Hon.\nD.C.L. (Durham), V.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical\nHistory in the University of Glasgow,\nex-Moderator of the Church of Scotland.\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CLASSES\n\nI. By the Right Reverend F. T. Woods, D.D.,\nTrinity College, Lord Bishop of Peterborough          89\n\nII. By the Right Honourable J. R. Clynes, M.P.,\nMinister of Food                                     115\n\n\nUNITY IN THE EMPIRE\n\nBy F. J. Chamberlain, C.B.E., Assistant\nGeneral Secretary of the Young Men's Christian\nAssociation                                          137\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN NATIONS\n\nBy the Reverend J. H. B. Masterman, M.A.,\nSt John's College, Rector of St Mary-le-Bow\nChurch, Canon of Coventry, late Professor of\nHistory in the University of Birmingham              151\n\n\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS\n\n\n\n\nI. A GENERAL VIEW\n\nBy the Rev. V. H. STANTON, D.D.\n\n\nThe governing idea of this early morning course, which at the present as\nat former Summer Meetings is devoted to a subject connected with\nreligious belief, is this year the power that Christianity has, or is\nfitted to have, to unite Christian denominations with one another, and\nalso to unite races and nations, and different portions of that\ncommonwealth of nations which we call the British Empire, and different\nclasses within our own nation. A moment's reflection will shew that the\nquestion of unity between denominations of Christians derives special\nsignificance from being placed in connexion with all those other cases\nin regard to which the promotion of unity is to be considered. If it\nbelongs to the genius of Christianity to be a uniting power, it is above\nall in the sphere of professed and organised Christianity, where\nChristians are grouped together _as_ Christians, that its influence in\nproducing union should be shewn. If it fails in this here, what hope, it\nmay well be asked, can there be that it should be effective, when its\nprinciples and motives cannot be applied with the same directness and\nforce? In the very assumption, then, which underlies this whole course\nof lectures, that Christianity can unite men, we have a special reason\nfor considering our relations to one another as members of Christian\nbodies, with regard to this matter of unity.\n\nBut we are also all of us aware that the divisions among Christians are\noften severely commented on by those who refuse to make any definite\nprofession of the Christian Religion, and are given by them sometimes as\na ground of their own position of aloofness. It is true that strictures\npassed on the Christian Religion and its professors for failures in\nthis, as well as in other respects, frequently shew little discernment,\nand are more or less unjust. So far as they are made to reflect on\nChristianity itself, allowance is not made for the nature of the human\nmaterial upon which and with which the Christian Faith and Divine Grace\nhave to work. And when Christians of the present day are treated as if\nthey were to blame for them, sufficient account is not taken of the long\nand complex history, and the working of motives, partly good as well as\nbad, through which Christendom has been brought to its present divided\ncondition. Still we cannot afford to disregard the hindrance to the\nprogress of the Christian Faith and Christian Life among men created by\nthe existing divisions among Christians. Harm is caused by them in\nanother way of which we may be, perhaps, less conscious. They bring loss\nto ourselves individually within the denominations to which we severally\nbelong. We should gain incalculably from the strengthening of our faith\nthrough a wider fellowship with those who share it, the greater volume\nof evidence for the reality of spiritual things which would thus be\nbrought before us; and from the enrichment of our spiritual knowledge\nand life through closer acquaintance with a variety of types of\nChristian character and experience; and not least from that moral\ntraining which is to be obtained through common action, in proportion to\nthe effort that has to be made in order to understand the point of view\nof others, and the suppression of mere egoism that is involved.\n\nThese are strong reasons for aiming at Christian unity. But further\nthere comes to all of us at this time a powerful incentive to reflection\non the subject, and to such endeavours to further it as we can make, in\nthe signs of a movement towards it, the greater prominence which the\nsubject has assumed in the thought of Christians, the evidence of more\nfervent aspirations after it, the clearer recognition of the injury\ncaused by divisions. I remember that some 40 or more years ago, one of\nthe most eminent and justly esteemed preachers of the day defended the\nexistence of many denominations among Christians on the ground that\nthrough their competition a larger amount of work for the advance of the\nkingdom of God is accomplished. We are not so much in love with\ncompetition and its effects in any sphere now. And it should always have\nbeen perceived that, whatever its rightful place in the economic sphere\nmight be, it had none in the promotion of purely moral and spiritual\nends. The preacher to whom I have alluded did not stand alone in his\nview, though perhaps it was not often so frankly expressed. But at least\nacquiescence in the existence of separated bodies of Christians, as a\nthing inevitable, was commoner than it is now.\n\nIn the new attitude to this question of the duty of unity that has\nappeared amongst us there lies an opportunity which we must beware of\nneglecting. It is a movement of the Spirit to which it behoves us to\nrespond energetically, or it will subside. Shakespeare had no doubt a\ndifferent kind of human enterprises mainly in view when he wrote:\n\n\n     There is a tide in the affairs of men,\n     Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;\n     Omitted, all the voyage of their life\n     Is bound in shallows and in miseries.\n\n\nBut this observation is broadly true of all human progress. An advance\nof some kind in the relations of men to one another, or the remedying of\nsome abuse, begins to be urged here and there, and for a time those who\nurge it are but little listened to. Then almost suddenly (as it seems)\nthe minds of many, one hardly knows why, become occupied with it. If in\nthe generation when that happens desire leads to concentrated effort,\nthe good of which men have been granted the vision in their minds and\nsouls will be attained. Otherwise interest in it will pass away, and the\nhope of securing it, at least for a long time, will be lost.\n\nBefore we attempt to consider any of the problems presented by the\nactual state of Christendom in connexion with the subject now before us,\nlet us go back in thought to the position of believers in Jesus Christ\nof the first generation, when His own brief earthly life had ended. They\nform a fellowship bound together by faith in their common Lord, by the\nconfident hopes with which that faith has inspired them, and the new\nview of life and its duties which they have acquired. Soon indeed\ninstances occur in which the bonds between different members of the body\nbecome strained, owing especially to differences of origin and character\nin the elements of which it was composed. We have an example at a very\nearly point in the narrative of the book of _Acts_ in the\ndissatisfaction felt by believers from among Hellenistic Jews, who were\nvisiting, or had again taken up their abode at, Jerusalem, because a\nfair share of the alms was not assigned to their poor by the Palestinian\nbelievers, who had the advantage of being more permanently established\nin the city, and were probably the majority. But the chiefs among the\nbrethren, the Apostles, take wise measures to remove the grievance and\nprevent a breach.\n\nA few years later a far more serious difference arises. Jewish believers\nin Jesus had continued to observe the Mosaic Law. When converts from\namong the Gentiles began to come in the question presented itself, \"Is\nobservance of that Law to be required of them?\" Only on condition that\nit was would many among the Jewish believers associate with them. In\ntheir eyes still all men who did not conform to the chief precepts of\nthis Law were unclean. It is possible that there were Jews of liberal\ntendencies, men who had long lived among Gentiles, to whom this\ndifficulty may have seemed capable of settlement by some compromise. But\nin the case of most Jews, not merely in Palestine, but probably also in\nthe Jewish settlements scattered through the Graeco-Roman world,\nreligious scruples, ingrained through the instruction they had received\nand the habits they had formed from child-hood, were deeply offended by\nthe very notion of joining in common meals with Gentiles, unless they\nhad fulfilled the same conditions as full proselytes to Judaism, the\nso-called \"proselytes of righteousness.\" On behalf, however, of Gentiles\nwho had adopted the Faith of Christ, it was felt that the demand for the\nfulfilment of this condition of fellowship must be resisted at once and\nto the uttermost. So St Paul held. To concede it would have caused\nintolerable interference with Gentile liberty, and hindrance to the\nprogress of the preaching of the Gospel and its acceptance in the world.\nAnd further--upon this consideration St Paul insisted above all--the\nrequirement that Gentiles should keep the Jewish Law might be taken to\nimply, and would certainly encourage, an entirely mistaken view of what\nwas morally and spiritually of chief importance; it would put the\nemphasis wrongly in regard to that which was essential in order that man\nmight be in a right relation to God and in the way of salvation.\n\nBut the point in the history of this early controversy to which I desire\nin connexion with our present subject to draw attention is the fact that\nit is not suggested from any side that Jewish Christians and Gentile\nChristians should form two separate bodies that would exist side by side\nin the many cities where both classes were to be found, keeping to their\nrespective spheres, endeavouring to behave amicably to one another,\n\"agreeing to differ\" as the saying is. This would have been the plan, we\nmay (I think) suppose, which would have seemed the best to that worldly\nwisdom, which is so often seen to be folly when long and broad views of\nhistory are taken. And we can imagine that not a few of the\necclesiastical leaders of recent centuries might have proposed it, if\nthey had been there to do so. For never, perhaps, have there been more\nnatural reasons for separation than might have been found in those\nnational and racial differences, and in those incompatibilities due to\nprevious training and associations between Christians of Jewish and\nGentile origin. Yet it is assumed all through that they _must_ combine.\nAnd St Paul is not only sure himself that to this end Jewish prejudices\nmust be overcome, but he is able to persuade the elder Apostles of this,\nas also James who presided over the believers at Jerusalem, though they\nhad been slower than he to perceive what vital principles were at stake.\nBelievers of both classes must join in the Christian Agapae, or\nlove-feasts, and must partake of the same Eucharist, because the many\nare one loaf[1], one body. They must grasp, and give practical effect\nto, the principle that \"there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor\nfree, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus[2].\"\n\nFor that society, or organism, into which Jewish and Gentile believers\nwere alike brought, a name was found; it was that of _Ecclesia,_\ntranslated _Church_. It will be worth our while to spend a few moments\non the use of this name and its significance. We find mention in the New\nTestament of \"the Church\" and of \"Churches.\" What is the relation\nbetween the singular term and the plural historically, and what did the\ndistinction import? The sublime passages concerning the Church as the\nBody of Christ and the Bride of Christ occur in the Epp. to the\nColossians and Ephesians[3], which are not among the early Pauline\nEpistles. Nevertheless in comparatively early Epistles, the authorship\nof which by St Paul himself is rarely disputed, there are expressions\nwhich seem plainly to shew that he thought of the Church as a single\nbody to which all who had been baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ\nbelonged. In the Epp. to the Galatians and 1 Corinthians[4] he refers\nto the fact that he persecuted the \"Church of God,\" and his persecution\nwas not confined to believers in Jerusalem or even in Judaea, but\nextended to adjacent regions. He might have spoken of \"the Churches of\nSyria,\" as he does elsewhere (using the plural) of those of Judaea,\nGalatia, Asia, Macedonia[5]. But he prefers to speak of the Church, and\nhe describes it as \"the Church of God.\" The impiety of his action thus\nappeared in its true light. He had not merely attacked certain local\nassociations, but that sacred body--\"the Church of God.\" Again, it is\nevident that he is thinking of a society embracing believers everywhere\nwhen he writes to the Corinthians concerning different forms of\nministry, \"God placed some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily\nprophets\" and so forth[6]. Again, when he bids the Corinthians, \"Give no\noccasion of stumbling, either to Jews or to Greeks, or to the Church of\nGod[7],\" or asks them whether they \"despise the Church of God[8],\"\nalthough it was their conduct to brethren among whom they lived that was\nespecially in question, it is evident that, as in the case of his own\naction as a persecutor, the gravity of the fault can in his view only be\ntruly measured when it is realised that each individual Church is a\nrepresentative of the Church Universal. This representative character of\nlocal Churches also appears in the expression common in his Epistles,\nthe \"Church in\" such and such a place.\n\nThe usage of St Paul's Epistles does not, therefore, encourage the idea\nthat the application of the term _ecclesia_ to particular associations\npreceded its application to the whole body, but the contrary, and\nplainly it expressed for him from the first a most sublime conception. I\nmay add that there is no reason to suppose that the use of the term\noriginated with him. We find it in the Gospel according to St Matthew,\nthe Epistle of St James and the Apocalypse of St John, writings which\nshew no trace of his influence.\n\nThere is no passage of the New Testament from which it is possible to\ninfer clearly the idea which underlay its application to believers in\nJesus Christ. But when it is considered how full of the Old Testament\nthe minds of the first generation of Christians were, it must appear to\nbe in every way most probable that the word _ecclesia_ suggested itself\nbecause it is the one most frequently employed in the Greek translation\nof the Old Testament (the Septuagint) to render the Hebrew word\nk[macron a]h[macron a]l, the chief term used for the assembly of Israel\nin the presence of God, gathered together in such a manner and for such\npurposes as forced them to realise their distinctive existence as a\npeople, and their peculiar relation to God. The believers in Jesus now\nformed the _ecclesia_ of God, the true Israel, which in one sense was a\ncontinuation of the old and yet had taken its place. This was the view\nput forward by Dr Hort in his lectures on the Christian Ecclesia[9], and\nit is at the present time widely, I believe I may say generally, held. I\nmay mention that the eminent German Church historians, A. Harnack[10]\nand Sohm[11], give it without hesitation as the true one.\n\nAmong the Jews the thought of the people in its relation to God was\nassociated with great assemblies in the courts and precincts of the\ntemple at Jerusalem, which altogether overshadowed any expression of\ntheir covenant relation to God as a people which they could find in\ntheir synagogue-worship, however greatly they valued the bonds with one\nanother which were strengthened, and the spiritual help which they\nobtained, through their synagogues. But Christians had no single,\ncentral meeting-place for their common worship at which their ideal\nunity was embodied. It was, therefore, all the more natural that the\nexalted name which described that unity should be transferred to the\ncommunities in different places which shared the life, the privileges,\nand the responsibilities of the whole, and in many ways stood to those\nwho composed them severally for the whole. The divisions between these\ncommunities were local only. They arose from the limitations to\nintercourse and common action which distance imposed. Or, in cases where\nthe Church in some Christian's house is referred to, they were due to\nthe necessity, or the great convenience, of meeting in small numbers,\nowing to the want of buildings for Christian worship, or the hostility\nof the surrounding population. Moreover these local bodies were not\nsuffered to forget the ties which bound them all together. Those in the\nGreek-speaking world were required to send alms to the Churches in\nJudaea. Again an individual Church was not free to disregard the judgment\nof the rest. After St Paul has reasoned with the Corinthians on the\nsubject of a practice which he deemed inexpedient, he clinches the\nmatter by declaring, \"we have no such custom neither the Churches of\nGod[12].\" Lastly, the Apostles, and preeminently St Paul, through their\nmission which, if not world-wide, at least extended over large\ndistricts, and the care of the Churches which they exercised, and the\nauthority which they claimed in the name of Christ, and which was\nconceded to them, were a unifying power.\n\nThus the plural \"the Churches\" has in important respects a different\nconnotation in the New Testament from that which it has in modern times.\nIn the Apostolic Age the distinction between the Church and the Churches\nis connected only with the different degrees to which a common life\ncould be realised according to geographical proximity. By a division of\nthis nature the idea of One Universal Church was not compromised. The\nlocal body of Christians in point of fact rightly regarded itself as\nrepresentative of the whole body. The Christians in that place were the\nChurch so far as it extended there.\n\nThe preservation of unity within the Church of each place where it was\nimperilled by rivalries and jealousies and misunderstandings, such as\nare too apt to shew themselves when men are in close contact with one\nanother, and of unity between the Churches of regions remote from one\nanother, in which case the sense of it is likely to be weak through want\nof knowledge and consequently of sympathy--these appear as twin-aims\nseverally pursued in the manner that each required. Not indeed that it\nis implied that everything is to be sacrificed to unity. But it is\ndemanded that the most strenuous endeavours shall be made to maintain\nit, and it appears to be assumed that without any breach of it, loyalty\nto every other great principle, room for the rightful exercise of every\nindividual gift, recognition of every aspect of Divine truth the\nperception of which may be granted to one or other member of the body,\ncan be secured, if Christians cultivate right dispositions of mutual\naffection and respect.\n\nThere is one more point in regard to the idea of the Church in the New\nTestament as to which we must not suffer ourselves to be misled, or\nconfused, by later conceptions and our modern habits of thought. We have\nbecome accustomed to a distinction between the Church Visible and the\nChurch Invisible which makes of them two different entities. According\nto this, one man who is a member of the Church Visible may at the same\ntime, if he is a truly spiritual person, even while here on earth belong\nto the Church Invisible; but another who has a place in the Church\nVisible has none and it may be never will have one in the Church\nInvisible. This conception, though it had appeared here and there before\nthe 16th century, first obtained wide vogue then under the influence of\nthe Protestant Reformation.\n\nIt arose through a very natural reaction from the mechanical view of\nmembership in the Church, its conditions and privileges, which had grown\nup in the Middle Ages. But it does not correspond to the ideas of the\nApostolic Age. According to these there is but one Church, the same as\nto its true being on earth as it is in heaven, one Body of Christ,\ncomposed of believers in Him who had been taken to their rest and of\nthose still in this world. In the earlier part of the Apostolic Age the\ngreat majority were in fact still in this world. The Body was chiefly a\nVisible Body. It had many imperfections. Some of its members might even\nhave no true part in it at all and require removal. But Christ Himself\n\"sanctifies and cleanses it that He may present it\"--that very same\nChurch--\"to Himself a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or any\nsuch thing, but holy and without blemish[13].\"\n\nNow while one can understand the point of view from which in later times\nso deep a line of demarcation has been drawn between the Visible and the\nInvisible Church as to make of them two entirely separate things, and\nalthough to many it may still seem hard to do without this distinction,\nor in the existing condition of the nominally Christian world to employ\nthat primitive conception of the Church even as, so to speak, a working\nhypothesis, I would ask whether the primitive conception is not a nobler\nand sounder one. Surely it places the ideal in its right relation to the\nactual. The full realisation of the ideal no doubt belongs only to\nanother world; yet if we believe in it as an ideal we must seek to\nactualise it here. There is something unwholesome in acknowledging any\nideal which we do not strive so far as we can to actualise. And plainly\nparticipation in the same grace, and the spiritual ties arising\ntherefrom, ought to find expression in an outer life of fellowship, of\nintercourse and common action, and such common organisation as for human\nbeings in this world these require. No doubt it is always too possible\nthat the outward may hinder the perception of the inward. But if we can\nguard successfully against this danger, the inward and spiritual will\nbecome all the more potent by having the external form through which to\nwork; while the outward, if it is too sharply dissevered in thought from\nthe inward, loses its value and even becomes injurious.\n\nAgain, a view of the Church is more wholesome which does not encourage\nus to classify its members in a manner only possible to the Allseeing\nGod; to draw a line between true believers and others, and to determine\n(it may be) on which side of the line different ones are by their having\nhad spiritual experiences similar to our own, and having learned to use\nthe same religious language that we do; but which on the contrary leads\nus to think of all as under the Heavenly Father's care, and subject to\nthe influences of the Holy Spirit, and placed in that Body of Christ\nwhere, although the spiritual life in them is as yet of very various\ndegrees of strength, and their knowledge of things Divine in many cases\nsmall, all may and are intended to advance to maturity in Christ.\n\nIt is necessary that the relation of the idea of the Church upon which I\nhave been dwelling to her subsequent history for centuries should be\nclearly apprehended. Its hold on the minds of Christians preceded the\nvery beginnings of organisation in the Christian communities, and it\nwould probably be no exaggeration to say that it governed the whole\nevolution of that organisation for many centuries. Particular offices\nwere doubtless instituted and men appointed to them with specific\nreference to needs which were making themselves felt. But all the while\nthat idea of the Church's unity and of her holiness was present in their\nthoughts. And certainly as soon as it becomes necessary to insist upon\nthe duty of loyalty to those who had been duly appointed to office, and\ndirectly or indirectly to defend the institutions themselves, appeal is\nmade to the idea, as notably by the two chief Christians in the\nSub-Apostolic Age, Clement of Rome and Ignatius.\n\nIt is in itself evidence of a common spirit and common tendencies that\nbroadly speaking the same form of constitution in the local Christian\ncommunities, though not introduced everywhere with quite equal rapidity,\nwas so nearly everywhere almost on the confines of the Apostolic Age,\nand that soon it was everywhere. Ere long, with this form of government\nas a basis, plans were adopted expressly for the purpose of uniting the\nlocal Churches on terms of equality among themselves, especially in\ncombating error. And at length in the name still of the Church's unity\nthere came, however much we may regret it, the centralisation of Western\nChristendom in the See of Rome.\n\nAll these measures of organisation, from the earliest to the latest of\nthem, were means to an end; and we shall regard them differently. But we\nought not any of us to regard means, however they may commend themselves\nto us, and however sacred and dear their associations may be, in the\nsame way as we do the end. There must always be the question, which will\npresent itself in a different light to different minds, whether\nparticular means, even though men may have been led by the Holy Spirit\nto employ them, were intended for all time. Moreover there are points in\nregard to the earliest history of Church organisation which remain\nobscure, in spite of all the labour that has been expended in\ninvestigating them: for instance the exact relation of different\nministries, of the functions of different officers, to one another, the\nexact moment when the orders of ministers which proved to be permanent\nappeared in this or that important Church, the part which any of the\nimmediate disciples of Christ had in their establishment, the ideas\nwhich at first were held as to the dependence of the rites of the Church\nfor their validity upon being performed by a lawful ministry. Upon\nthese matters, or some of them, it is possible for honest and competent\ninquirers to hold different opinions. But no such doubt hangs over that\nEnd which was also the Beginning, of the Church's life, that conception\nof what she is, or ought to be, as the society of those who confess the\nName of Jesus Christ, and who are His Body. I insist upon this because I\nthink that amid discussions on the origin of the Christian Ministry, the\nsignificance of that more fundamental question, namely, the right\nconception of the Christian Church, is apt to be too much lost sight of.\nAbout this, though men still do not, they ought to be able to agree, and\nit should be our common inspiration, both impelling us and guiding us in\nseeking our goal.\n\nWe need it to impel us. The obstacles to the reunion of Christendom at\nthe present day are such that a motive which can be found is required to\ninduce and sustain action in seeking it, whenever and wherever the\nopportunity for doing so presents itself; such a motive is to be found\nin a deep conviction of the sacredness of this object, so that our eyes\nmaybe kept fixed upon it even when there appears to be no opening\nthrough which an advance toward it can be made, and there is nothing to\nbe done save to wait and watch and pray. But in order also that the\nresult of any efforts that are made may be satisfactory, it is necessary\nthat our minds should be under the guidance of a great and true idea,\nand that we should not simply be animated with the desire of meeting\nimmediate needs. These are the reasons which I think justify me for\nhaving detained you so long over the consideration of the fundamental\nconception of the Church which is rooted in the Christian Faith itself\nas it first appeared and spread in the world.\n\nI will now, however, before concluding make a few remarks on one part of\nthe complicated problem of reunion facing us to-day. The part of it on\nwhich I desire to speak is the relations between the Church of England,\nand the Churches in communion with her in various parts of the British\nEmpire and in the United States, on the one hand, and on the other\nEnglish Nonconformists, the Presbyterians of Scotland, and all\nEnglish-speaking Christians allied to or resembling these. It will, I\nthink, be generally felt that this is a part of the subject which for\nmore than one reason specially invites our attention. There are, indeed,\nsome, both clergy and laity, of the Church of England, though they are\nbut a very small number in comparison with its members as a whole, whose\ninterest in the subject of the reunion of Christendom is mainly shewn in\nthe desire to obtain recognition for the Church of England, as a portion\nof the Church Catholic, from the great Church of the West. But in view\nof the attitude maintained by that Church there appears to be no\nprospect of this and nothing to be gained by attempts at negotiation.\nEndeavours to establish intercommunion with the Churches of Eastern\nChristendom may be made with more hope of success. Indeed there is\nreason to think that in the years to come the Church of England may be\nin a specially favourable position for getting into touch with these\nChurches and assisting them to recover from the effects of the War, and\nto make progress; and Englishmen generally would, I am sure, rejoice\nthat she should undertake such work. But the question of the duty to one\nanother of all those bodies of English Christians which I have\nspecified comes nearer home and should press upon our minds and hearts\nmore strongly. It is a practical one in every English town and every\ncountry parish, and almost everywhere throughout the world where the\nEnglish language is spoken. Moreover, even the most loyal members of the\nChurch of England, in spite of the points of principle on which they are\ndivided from those other English Christians, resemble them more closely\nin many respects in their modes of thought, even on religion, than they\ndo the members of other portions of the ancient Catholic Church from\nwhich they have become separated. And in addition to the distinctly\nreligious reasons for considering the possibility of drawing more\nclosely together and even ultimately uniting in one communion these\ndifferent denominations of British Christians, there is a patriotic\nmotive for doing so. Fuller religious sympathy, more cooperation,\nbetween the members of these different denominations could not fail to\nstrengthen greatly the bonds between different classes amongst us, and\nto increase the coherency of the whole nation and empire.\n\nIt would be unwise, if in proposing steps towards reunion, difficulties\nand dangers connected with them were ignored; and I believe it to be my\nduty frankly to refer to some which suggest themselves to one looking\nfrom a Churchman's point of view. There are two chief barriers to the\nunion of members of the Church of England and English Nonconformists\nthat must be mentioned.\n\n(1) That which I will refer to first is the connexion of the Church of\nEngland with the State.\n\nThis connexion is not, I think, such a hindrance to religious sympathy\nas it was, but it would be untrue to say that it is none. And there is\nof course the danger that if disestablishment became a political\nquestion, and especially if it involved the deflection of endowments\nwhich have long been used, and on the whole well-used, for the\nmaintenance and furtherance of religion to secular objects, feeling\nbetween the majority of Churchmen and those who in consequence of their\nviews in the matter became opposed to them might be seriously\nembittered. Yet there is good ground for hoping that the question of the\nrelations of Church and State and all matters connected therewith will\nin the years that are coming be faced in a calmer spirit, and with truer\ninsight into important principles, than too often they have been in the\npast. It should certainly be easier for those who approach them from\ndifferent sides to understand one another. Particular grievances\nconnected with inequality of treatment by the State have been removed;\nwhile a broad principle for which Nonconformists stand in common has\ncome to be more clearly asserted, through their attaching increasingly\nless significance to the grounds on which different bodies amongst them\nwere formed, as indicated in the names by which they have been severally\nknown, and banding themselves together as the \"Free Churches.\" But in\nthe Church of England also in recent years there has been a growing\nsense of the need of freedom. It is better realised than at one time\nthat in no circumstances could the Church rightly be regarded as a mere\ndepartment of the State, or even as the most important aspect of the\nlife of the State. However complete the harmony between Church and State\nmight be, the Church ought to have a corporate life of her own. She\nrequires such independence as may enable her to be herself, to do her\nown work, to act according to the laws of her own being. This is\nnecessary even that she may discharge adequately her own function in the\nnation.\n\nIt is not part of my duty now to inquire in what respects the Church of\nEngland lacks this freedom, or whether such readjustments in her\nconnexion with the State can be expected as would secure it to her,\nimplying as the making of them would that, although she does not now\ninclude among her members more than half the nation, she is still for an\nindefinitely long time to continue to be the official representative of\nreligion in the nation. But I would urge that when these points are\ndiscussed the question should also be considered whether, in a nation\nthe great majority in which profess to be Christian, the State ought not\nto make profession of the Christian religion, which involves its\nestablishment in some form, and whether there are not substantial\nbenefits especially of an educative kind to be derived therefrom for the\nnation at large; and if so how this can in existing circumstances be\nsuitably done. It should be remembered that in many cases the\nforefathers of those who are now separated from the National Church did\nnot hold that a connexion between Church and State under any form was\nwrong; but on the contrary their idea of a true and complete national\nlife included one. I think it is well to recall the view in this matter\nof men of another time. It is desirable that we should make our\nconsideration of the whole subject of Church and State as broad as we\ncan, and that we should strive not to be carried away into accepting\nsome solution which at the moment seems the easiest, when with a little\npatience some better and truer one might be found possible.\n\n(2) The other barrier to which I have referred is the claim of the\nChurch of England to a continuity of faith and life with the faith and\nlife of the Church Universal from the beginning, maintained in the first\nplace through a Ministry the members of which have in due succession\nreceived their commission by means of the Historic Episcopate, and,\nsecondly, through the acknowledgment of certain early and widely\naccepted creeds. This continuity was reasserted when the Church of\nEngland started on her new career at the Reformation, though at the same\ntime the necessity was then strongly insisted on of testing the purity\nand soundness of the Church's faith and forms of worship by Holy\nScripture. These guarantees and means of continuity are valued in very\ndifferent degrees by different sections of opinion in the Church of\nEngland, and some who attach comparatively little importance to matters\nof organisation would attach great importance to the formularies of\nbelief. But there can be no doubt that any steps which appeared\nseriously to compromise the preservation of the great features of the\nChurch of England in either of these respects would cause deep\ndisturbance among her members. On the other hand, it will be readily\nunderstood by all who can appreciate the changes that in our own and\nrecent generations have come in men's view of Nature and of Mind, and in\nthe interpretation of historical evidence, that definitions of belief\nframed in the past may not in every point express accurately the beliefs\nof all who nevertheless with full conviction own Jesus Christ as Lord.\nIt is obvious, I think, that, if the Christian Church is to endure,\nthere must be on the part of her members essential loyalty to the faith\nout of which she sprang, and which has inspired her throughout the ages\nto this day. But it is an anxious problem for the Church of England at\nthe present time--and it is likely to become so likewise, if it is not\nyet, for all portions of the Church in which ancient standards of\nbelief, or those framed in the 16th century, or later, hold an\nauthoritative place--to decide wherein essential loyalty to \"the faith\nonce delivered\" consists.\n\nIt may seem at first sight that when the Church of England has serious\nquestions to grapple with affecting her internal unity, and especially\naffecting that unity in variety which to some considerable degree she\nrepresents and which is the most valuable kind of unity, attempts to\njoin with other Christians outside her borders in considering a basis of\nunion with them are unwise at least at the moment, as tending to\nincrease the complexity and the difficulties of the position within, and\nas therefore to be deprecated in the interests of unity itself. I do not\nthink so, but believe that assistance may thus be obtained in reaching a\nsatisfactory settlement even of internal difficulties.\n\nFor, in the first place, there has of late been among members of the\nChurch of England a change of temper which should be a preparation for\nconsidering her relations with those separated from her in a wiser and\nmore liberal spirit than has before been possible. Those Churchmen who\nwould insist most strongly on the necessity of preserving the Church's\nancient order do not usually maintain the attitude to dissent of the\nAnglican High and Dry School, which was still common in the middle of\nthe 19th century. The work which Nonconformist bodies have done for the\nspiritual and moral life of England, and the immense debt which we all\nowe to them on that account, are thankfully admitted. No one indeed can\ndo otherwise than admit it thankfully who has eyes to see, and the sense\nof justice and generosity of mind to acknowledge what he sees. And the\ninference must be that, although the belief may be held as firmly as\never that the Spirit of God inspired that Order which so early took\nshape in the Church, and that He worked through it and continues to do\nso, yet that also, when men have failed rightly to use the appointed\nmeans, He has found other ways of working. This view, when it has had\nits due influence upon thought, can hardly fail to affect profoundly the\nmeasures proposed for healing the divisions which have arisen.\n\nThen, again, on the other side--the side of those separated from the\nChurch of England--there is more appreciation of the point of view of\nChurchmen in respect to their links with the past and their idea of\nCatholicity. This is due partly to a broader interest in the life of the\nChurch in former ages and the heroic and saintly characters which they\nproduced than since the Reformation has been common among those English\nChristians, who are, in a special sense, children of the Reformation;\npartly, perhaps, to a growing doubt, as views of Christian truth have\nbecome larger, whether after all a single doctrine or opinion, or\nreverence for the teaching of one man, can make a satisfactory basis for\nthe permanent grouping of Christians. At the same time in regard to\nfundamental Christian belief, the meaning which the revelation of God in\nChrist has for them, they are and are conscious of being at one with the\nChurch.\n\nStriking evidence of these new tendencies of thought on both sides is to\nbe seen in the movement originated by the Protestant Episcopal Church of\nthe United States for a World-Conference on Faith and Order, and in the\nmanner in which the proposal for such a Conference has been received in\nEngland, and the steps already taken in preparation for it. A body of\nrepresentatives of the Church of England and of the Free Churches has\nbeen appointed, and a Committee of this body has already published\nsuggestions for a basis of union. These have still, I understand, to\ncome before the general body of English representatives, and it is\nintended (I believe) that the proposals of the Committee, after being\nexamined and possibly amended and supplemented by the larger body,\nshould, with any proposals that may be made from similar joint-bodies in\nthe United States and in the British Dominions, be considered by a body\nof representatives from the whole of this vast area. Any conclusions\nwhich are thus reached must then lie, so to speak, before all the\ndenominations concerned. Opportunity must be given for their being\nwidely studied and explained and reflected upon, and if need be\ncriticized. For the Church of Christ is, or ought to be, in a true sense\na democratic society, a society in which, subject to its governing\nprinciples, the spiritual consciousness of all the faithful should make\nitself felt.\n\nFor the end of such a process as this we must wait a considerable time.\nMeanwhile there are obvious ways in which the cause of unity may be\npromoted; viz. through seeking for a larger amount of intercourse with\nthe members of other denominations than our own; for more joint study of\nreligious questions and frank interchange of views, and more cooperation\nin various forms of moral and social endeavour. The way would thus be,\nwe may hope, prepared for fuller intercommunion, and it may be for\ncorporate reunion.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] 1 Cor. x. 17, R.V. mg.\n\n[2] Gal. iii. 28\n\n[3] Col. i. 18, 24; Eph. i. 22, v. 23 ff.\n\n[4] Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 9.\n\n[5] 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 19; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Gal. i. 2, 22.\n\n[6] 1 Cor. xii. 28.\n\n[7] 1 Cor. x. 32.\n\n[8] 1 Cor. xi. 22.\n\n[9] _The Christian Ecclesia_, pp. 3 ff.\n\n[10] _Die Mission u. Ausbreitung d. Christentums_, p. 292.\n\n[11] _Kirchenrecht_, 1. pp. 16 ff.\n\n[12] 1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n[13] Ephes. v. 26, 27.\n\n\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS\n\n\n\n\nII. THE CHURCH IN THE FURNACE\n\nBy the Rev. E. MILNER-WHITE, M.A., D.S.O.\n\n\nAt last we have begun to see the absolute necessity of Unity in Christ,\nof religious reunion, for the sake of both Christianity and the world.\n\nFor several years devout Christians in England have been growing more\nand more uneasy about their acquiescence in religious division. The\nreading of the Gospels, and especially the eighteenth chapter of St\nJohn, where He prays on the threshold of His agony that His disciples\nmay be one, even as He and the Father are one, has become nothing less\nthan a torment to those who have any real passion for the doing of God's\nwill, or who are humbled by the tremendous love of our Lord Jesus\nChrist, for each and for all. Thus far have we gone from the clear mind\nof Christ; thus far have we ruined His plans for the health and\nhappiness of the world; thus far have we failed to imitate or display\nthe love, the humility, the self-sacrifice, that walked to Calvary: He\nbade us be _one_, and to _love_; we, the disciples, have chosen to hate\nand be many.\n\nEnglish Christianity alone is split into hundreds of denominations. The\nfact is its own grim condemnation. We had lost even the sense that\ndivision mattered. It is quite ridiculous to pretend that nothing is\nwrong with the religious ideas or state of a race, which produces\nhundreds of bodies, big and small, to worship Him who only asked that\nHis worshippers should be ONE. Denomination itself has become a word of\nshame which we shall not be able to use much longer. It brings up at\nonce the thought of something partial, little, far less than the Body\nfor which Christ died; and a host of yet more horrid pictures of old\nsquabbles and present rivalries, of contempt and bitterness and\ncontroversy. It does not suggest one _Christian_ idea at all.\n\nThese uneasy thoughts even before the war were brought home by the\npractical results of disunion as worked out inevitably in the colonies\nand mission field. The language is not too strong that labels them\nmonstrous. Here was the flower of our Christian devotion going forth to\nheathen wilds, meeting by God's grace with wide success; and\nestablishing our little local denominations firmly in the nations,\ntribes, and islands of Asia, Africa, and Australasia; rendering it hard\nfor a native Christian who moves from his home to get elsewhere the\naccustomed ministries and means of grace vital to his young faith;\nplanting seeds of future quarrel at the very birth of new tribes into\nthe Prince of Peace. In the Dominions, with their thin and widely\nscattered populations, other phenomena, equally deplorable, are\nmanifest--five churches in places where one suffices, appalling waste of\neffort and money, and even ugly competition for adherents.\n\nIn England we hardly saw these things. The population was large enough\nand indifferent enough to God to provide room for the activities of all.\nThe indifference indeed seemed to be growing. We did not stop to think\nwhether disgust at continuous controversy had not done much to cause\nthat indifference--how far our divisions simply manufactured scepticism\nas to there being any religious truth--whether the obvious lovelessness\nof such conditions was likely to recommend the religion of Love--whether\nthis disparate chaos was likely to be a field in which the Lord, who\ndesigned and founded one brotherhood of believers, could work or give\nHis grace to the uttermost. No, the Christianity of our Christians has\ntended to be a thin individual thing, with interests scarcely extended\nbeyond its own local congregation, which is bad enough; or still worse,\nin our towns, content to wander from congregation to congregation,\nowning no discipline or loyalty at all.\n\nAnd yet in the same breath as we say, \"I believe in God,\" we also say,\nmost of us, \"I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church.\" It is a\ncrowning mercy that we do say it; that we do bear witness so outright to\nthe state of sin in which we dwell; the clause does keep the mind of\nChrist and our own duty before us, of establishing as the first, perhaps\nthe only hope of this sin-stained, war-stained earth, the brotherhood of\nbelievers which shall be one.\n\nThen came the war, and in many ways the war, which has in every\ndirection cleared vision, and both deepened and simplified thought, has\nbrought home to every Christian both the disaster of disunion, and the\nimperative need of attempting unity.\n\nYou will expect me to give some account of the reaction of the chaplains\nand the Church in France to this conviction. Perhaps I should make clear\nmy own position. Folk probably term me an \"advanced High Churchman.\" I\nshould call myself \"a Catholic\"--an English Catholic, if you like--, at\nany rate, one who cannot fairly be accused of ignorance of the details\nand depths of our divisions; nor of underestimating their real\nimportance.\n\nThe priests who went out as Chaplains to the Forces had an experience\nsomewhat similar to that of colonial or missionary priests--they\nexercised their ministry under totally new conditions, and in a new\natmosphere. So did the Roman Catholics, Nonconformists, and\nPresbyterians, but of course I do not speak for them in what follows.\nBut all the Church of England padres--high, low, broad--tell exactly the\nsame tale of their experience; between them there has been no division;\nthey have worked together in perfect harmony and keenness, largely\nappropriating each other's methods. In a word, they have discovered how\nfalse and artificial is the partisan atmosphere of home religion; and\nwhen they return, will find it hard to tolerate any continuance of it.\n\nThe Church of England is as a matter of fact divided roughly into three\nsections, by no means corresponding to the \"high, low, and broad,\" of\nthe church journals. Most Church of England men scarcely know what these\nterms mean. No, it consists of a devoted inmost section, regular\nchurchgoers and communicants--and you will pardon me for thinking them\nthe best instructed, the freest, and the sturdiest Christians in the\nworld. They are of course in a minority, but they are actually numerous\nenough to occupy the time and care of our whole ministry, which is far\nbelow reasonable strength. Then comes a large fringe, who come to Church\noccasionally, or even regularly, in the evening; who make little or no\nuse of the Sacraments, or of the more intimate devotions and\ninstructions provided: they are well disposed; but are not consciously\nprepared to make _sacrifices_ for their faith; and indeed are somewhat\nignorant of its contents and demands. Then thirdly, there is a yet\nvaster multitude, baptised, married, and buried, perhaps by the Church,\nand therefore counting themselves Church of England, but who come but\nrarely within the orbit of Church life and teaching; and who, not to\nmince words, are semi-pagan. Only _semi_-pagan because the ethics,\nmorals and traditions of England are Christian; and these people,\nknowing little of Jesus Christ, and understanding less, and not\nconsciously moved by Him, yet not infrequently rise to heights of love\nand sacrifice which would adorn the life of a saint.\n\nThe mass of our parishioners in France, then, was not made up of the\ninner circle--we were lucky if we found three or four in a unit--but of\nthe ill-instructed fringe, and the totally ignorant multitudes. The\nhorror and boredom of war, the personal insecurity, the difficulty of\nunderstanding the ways of God, made all friendly to the parson with whom\nhitherto they had never come into contact; and caused large numbers to\nthink things out, and to hunger for an understanding of God. Religion\nbecame a common topic of discussion. The padres found themselves in a\nlarger world, where old labels and divisions simply had no meaning; and\nwhere the first necessity and work was to preach Christ and teach the\nmeaning of the Faith. They felt also, very quickly, that this interest\nin ultimate things did not mean that men became friendly to organised\nreligion in any form. On the contrary, their hostility and distrust\ntoward all religious bodies were marked. The chaplains had that common\nand dreadful experience of foreign missionaries, of feeling themselves\nalone, closed round by thick dark walls of unsympathy and worse. They\nlonged for the help and support of any genuine friend of Christ,\nwhatever body he belonged to. I was called upon to preach the National\nMission in a peculiarly hostile and irresponsive camp of motor lorry\ndrivers, who much resented the use of \"their\" Y.M.C.A. hut for such\nreligious purposes. A Wesleyan minister had charge of it, and got far\nmore of their blunt language than I the visitor did; but he worked\nundismayed and unreservedly for all he was worth, for the National\nMission and for me. The alliance was natural, real, inevitable. He and\nI, and some five or six men of that camp, were clearly on one side, and\nthe rest of it on the other, of an exceeding broad gulf. With this as a\ndaily experience, a man's values changed rapidly; and it became quite\nobvious that, even to begin to fight the battle of Christianity in the\nmodern world, Christians must be united.\n\nThis assurance was reinforced by the quite extraordinary scandal that\nthe mere fact of religious disunion caused both to officers and men. It\nwas the big, obvious \"damper\" on the very threshold of\nChristianity--\"see how these Christians hate one another.\" Officers\nwould throw the taunt up again and again in the Mess, and the men lying\ndown to talk themselves to sleep in their comfortless barns would begin\nto talk about religion with at heart a wistful longing to understand it\nand know its help and power. At once, someone would bring up the picture\nof squabbling denominations, and the wistfulness and hope would be slain\nby scorn. Next day and every day, the glaring scandal would be laid\nbefore the chaplain; who had little enough to answer. Of course, it is\nquite false to suppose that the existence and continuance of division\nare due to the clergy. Our English schisms have been caused at least as\nmuch by over-eager laymen as by over-eager clergy; and I think if it\nwere left to the clergy alone the process of reuniting would be very\nrapid. In our Division, for instance, the three Nonconformist Chaplains\nto the Forces and I used to talk over the whole question; one was an\northodox Wesleyan, another a Primitive, and the other a United\nMethodist; and they did not hesitate to say that Methodist reunion had\ntaken place more than ten years ago if it had been left to the ministers\nalone. But the average Englishman naturally blames the official\nrepresentatives of religion, their ministries, for the obvious and open\ndisgrace of division in the religion of love; he is ignorant of the\nexcuses that history, and the real importance of the matters in dispute,\nafford; he only sees the evil fact; and it is quite enough by itself to\nexcuse his closer association with so harsh a contradiction of the first\nprinciple of Christ and Christianity.\n\nThen again in France, one came up violently against the sheer nuisance\nand waste of division. Imagine upon a Friday every C.O. and adjutant\n(and adjutants are always over-worked) of every unit approached by three\nChaplains--Church of England, Roman Catholic, and Nonconformist; and\nrequested to make different arrangements at different times for\ndifferent fractions of his command to attend divine service on the\nSunday. This in the midst of modern war, where organisation for war\npurposes is complex and laborious enough. The mere typing and\ncirculating of these arrangements at Brigade and Divisional H.Q. mean in\nsum total a vast expenditure of paper and labour. The chaplains, who, I\nhope, are at least gentlemen, feel considerable shame at being the\nguiltless authors of these confusions. And the effect is so deplorable.\nJust when the nation is one, just when each military unit seeks to\npromote, for mere military efficiency, the _esprit de corps_ of its\noneness, the religion of the one Christ enters as a thing which almost\nflaunts fissure. Or again, think of the mere waste of pastoral\nefficiency involved in this fact. Each infantry brigade consists roughly\nof four battalions, and three or four somewhat smaller units (R.A.M.C,\nM.G.C., etc.). For these there are four chaplains, normally two Church\nof England (who have 80 per cent. of the men under their care), one\nRoman Catholic and one Presbyterian or Nonconformist. The two latter\nhave to do the best they can each to get round all these scattered units\nto provide for small handfuls of men in each. Each of the Church of\nEngland chaplains has to arrange for a whole half brigade. How much more\nefficiently and thoroughly, with how much less needless labour, had the\nwork been done, if an one Church could have set one chaplain to live\neach with one battalion, and be responsible as well for one smaller\nunit. That had made it easy for a chaplain to know his flock intimately;\nnow it is next to impossible.\n\nBut above and beyond these misfortunes, which after all are details,\nmust be ranked the big thoughts and truths which have swum into the\nsight and experience of everybody. The first is this. Granted that the\nChurch like the world was surprised by the sudden outbreak of war, and\ntherefore could not stop it; yet that she should have no voice at all\neven to denounce the unrighteousness and barbarities into which the\nworld plunges deeper every day does strike men as wrong. The Church\ncannot speak because she is not one; even suppose all England be\nactually one national Church, if it is only national, it will go the way\nof the nation, and certainly cannot speak to other nations. For the\nChurch ever to acquire a world-voice in the cause of love and right\nmeans that reunion and our desires for it must not stop short at home\nreunion. Here the witness of Roman Catholicism to the necessity of\ninternational Christianity is vital to the ideal of a reunited\nChristendom. Men, far removed from his obedience, did look wistfully to\nthe Pope, conceding that he alone could speak such a word to the world\nin the name of Christ; wide and deep has been the disappointment that it\nwas not spoken. Here again it is not the Pope, nor Roman Catholicism,\nthat is to blame, but the whole divided state of Christendom which\nparalyses the action of each communion, even the strongest and most\nwidespread.\n\nI will mention only one other of these big truths--there are many of\nthem--that have come home to every man; where again Christian division\nis the first and fatal obstacle in the way. This time it affects all the\nlooking forward to the end of the war, and the new world of peace. It is\nunthinkable but that the new world must be one of brotherhood, not of\nenmity; of love, not of hatred. Otherwise every drop of blood that has\nbeen shed, every tear that has fallen, every death that has been died,\nwill be so much utter waste. That is the one most intolerably dark\nthought in the days of darkness. There is a new policy open to the world\nwhich it has never yet tried, to work toward _the Dominance of Love_.\nEvery conceivable form of selfishness has in turn dominated the affairs\nof nations and men; never yet has love been seriously tried. But there\nwill be no chance of International Friendship, Brotherhood, Love, if the\nChurch, the fellowship of Christians, who are after all set in the world\nby their own confession, to live by love, to be the exemplars and hot\ncentre of love, cannot conspicuously shew forth love. How can the\nnations be friends before Christians be brothers? We have only to act\naccording to our creed; and our creed does not only believe in\nbrotherhood, but in the continual help of God Himself in our efforts to\nrealise it. The influence upon the world even of a persevering _attempt_\nto achieve a united Christendom would surely be decisive. Therefore the\nreunion of Christendom becomes now the imperious vocation of every\nChristian, the one preventive of our agony and loss going to waste, the\none hope of a loveless world, the clear next objective of the Church of\nthe living God.\n\nBefore returning to the idea of the Dominance of Love, and a\nconsideration of first steps towards it, let us go back to France, and\nwatch the relations of the various communions there one to another after\nfour years of war.\n\nIt is new and rather hard to describe. The first few months, when the\nChaplains to the Forces of the various denominations arrived with their\ninherited home suspicions one of another, presented many difficulties\nthat might have increased ill-feeling. An army regulation which allows\nthe Church of England chaplain only to minister to Church of England\nmen, and the Roman Catholic to Roman Catholic men, etc., reduced the\nchances of such conflict; and at the same time, the vastness and\nurgency of the work the chaplains had to do swallowed up all other\nthoughts. As a writer in _The Church in the Furnace_ said, \"We have\nheard with mingled irritation and amusement that good folk at home have\nbeen exercised because an undue proportion of men of this party or that\nhave been sent out; the question out here is not 'To what party does he\nbelong?' but 'Is he capable by character and life of influencing men for\ngood, and winning them for God and His Church?'\" Again, the extremely\nfree use of the Prayer Book and of any and every sort of devotion, at\nany and every hour of day and night, has broken up all prejudiced\nrigidity of use. Methods that did not help were dropped; methods that\nhelped men were welcome, from whatever source they came.\n\nSo arose a great harmony, a harmony of energy and experiment; and\nalthough in religious matters the Roman Catholics retained their\naloofness, the drawing together of other denominations, as represented\nby their clergy, has been constant and perfectly natural and\nunsuspicious. United services have not been common; each denomination\nhas confined itself loyally to its own men; what the statements in the\nLower House of Convocation meant to the effect that the amount of\nintercommunion going on at the Front would shock members of that house,\nno chaplain has any idea. But the new, fresh, and delightful thing is,\nthe absolute lack of feeling between, say, the Catholic Anglican and the\nCongregationalist. There are numerous occasions on which they must or\ncan work together; on which they must or can do jobs for one another;\nand it has been decisively proved that the existing demarcation and\nrivalry in England is a false and needless thing; and that working\ntogether can be a real, unselfconscious and wholly profitable matter.\nOur English airs are poisoned by past history and old social cleavage:\nin France, the past is forgotten, and social barriers do not exist. It\nis a matter of atmosphere, and there it is clear and bracing. Nobody\nsacrifices conviction or principle, but they love one another.\n\nI do not say there may not be individual misunderstandings and frictions\nnow and then, but they are miraculously few. The normal temper is shewn\nby the numerous meetings for conference and devotion by the various\nchaplains. These are more easy to effect at the bases than in the line;\nbut they take place everywhere. Typical is the conduct of a small base\non the sea, where the eight chaplains or so meet regularly for devotion,\nand each is entrusted with a section of the proceedings each time. For\ninstance, the American Episcopalian takes the Thanksgiving, the\nPresbyterian the Confession, the Wesleyan the Intercession, each of the\nothers has found from the same chapter of, say, St Mark's Gospel, some\n\"seed-thought\" upon which he is allowed to dilate for four minutes.\nThere is no constraint or self-consciousness in this gathering. Each is\nperfectly happy, and so is the whole.\n\nIt is not surprising that out of such an atmosphere and among such\npractices a powerful passion for unity has arisen, based on something\nfar stronger than sentiment, and having in it some of the fire of\nrevelation. It has not been sought; it has come; it has grown: nobody\nexpected it. It came, naturally and delightfully. The fifth year of war\nwill assuredly see some definite policy or action towards greater unity\nproceeding from France. The quiet, unhasty, resolved manner in which\nthe Chaplains to the Forces in France are moving is in striking contrast\nto the hasty proposals and hasty actions threatening on the less\nprepared soil at home. Indeed in this last sentence I have touched upon\nthe two actual terrors which the Church in France feels. FIRST, that\nhasty and purely _sectional_ action on unimaginative and traditional\nlines by the home-clergy will give the old party-feeling a new bitter\nlease of life, and by ruining unnecessarily the unity of the Church of\nEngland will destroy the hopes that are so fair of yet wider reunion.\nAnd SECOND, that the local outlook of the lay-folk--in our villages\nespecially perhaps--and local lines of cleavage, not having been\nsubjected to the experience and discipline of France, will have the\nopposite effect, prevent things moving as fast as they ought, and throw\naway the fairest chance of buying up opportunity that ever was given to\nthe Church of Christ. To these opposite dangers, I shall recur.\n\nThe Dominance of Love in the world! Let us see and absorb that big\nvision first, and its pathetic urgency: its summons to each body of\nChristians, and to every individual member of Christ. Acknowledge its\nNECESSITY for the world, and therefore its _immediate_ necessity for the\nChurch of the God of Love.\n\nAnd next, before considering practical steps, let us recall certain\npostulates and axioms, which in any attempt to realise so magnificent a\nvision must always be borne in mind, lest, in our human frailty and\nselfwill, we head straight for new misunderstandings and disasters[14].\n\n1. The importance of unity is so great, and division has been found so\ncalamitous, and the words of Christ are so definite on the subject, that\nI think all would admit now that _Division is only to be prolonged for\ncauses that are backed by divine command_. The larger Christian bodies\nare separated by convictions of great importance; but a severe and\nhonest self-examination will probably lessen the number of differences\nwhich can justify the responsibility of so disastrous a thing as\nseparation, and then we can set afoot conferences to deal with what\nremain. Human temperament, upbringing, tradition, human haste and pride\nhave much to do with the birth, stabilising and continuance of division.\nA rare self-abnegation in our ecclesiastical history was the partial\nsuicide of the Non-juring schism, and it has never been repeated; there\nwere many great saints among the Nonjurors. If they could not take the\noath of allegiance to William III, and therefore could not remain in the\nChurch of England, the best of them recognised that their individual\ndifficulty would not excuse them if they perpetuated themselves as a\nChurch. In any junction of existing divisions, differing customs and\nmethods of worship and organisation can be and should be safeguarded.\nThat would only make the more for the health of the one Body. But,\ndivision itself is only to be prolonged for causes that are, or seem to\nbe by conscience, backed by divine command, and the first step in all\nwork for reunion will be the isolating of these causes from lesser\nthings, and their careful and prayerful reconsideration.\n\nA grand example of such process, of course, has been the Conference of\nthe leaders of our English denominations, at the inspiration of the\nAmerican Committee of Faith and Order, which during 1917 faced the\nquestion of Episcopacy. The findings of its \"second interim report\" are\nnothing less than a landmark in Church History. You remember that\nroughly it was this: that any corporate reunion can only come in the\nacceptance of the historical Episcopate; but that the conception and use\nof Episcopacy in the Church has been a limited one: there are many ways\nof regarding and using bishops besides the monarchical or \"prelatical\"\nway exemplified by the Church of England. This is a first proof that\nwhen truths, keenly felt and seemingly rival, are discussed in\nConference spirit, the angularities that offend disappear; and wider,\nbigger truth comes into the possession of all. It will be so more and\nmore. By faith we can already see that the labour of understanding unto\nreunion is bound to be an immense _creative_ period in the Church of\nGod.\n\n2. Our second axiom sounds discouraging. Just this--that unity is,\nhumanly speaking, impossible. Reunion means great changes of heart in\ngreat communions of men, and we all know how hard it is to effect change\nof heart even in the individual. We must not think that no price will\nhave to be paid for so good a result, both by whole communions, and by\nthe members composing them; and that the whole force of inherited\nprejudice, past history, and present wilfulness, ignorance, and sincere\nconviction will not arise in opposition. The difficulty even of\napproaching Rome illustrates vividly our task. The Unity of Christendom\nis a meaningless expression without that vast international Church,\nwithout her rich stores of devotion and experience, without her\nunbending witness to the first things of faith, worship and\nself-sacrifice. Here the \"impossibility\" is open and honest, but I do\nnot know that the difficulties will be greater than those, less obvious\nas yet, between other denominations. Yet with God all things are\npossible. This is only the MIRACLE which He has set the faith of modern\nChristians to perform.\n\n3. Thirdly then, our rule must be, to hasten slowly. We are not dealing\nwith matters susceptible of mere arrangement, but with _convictions_,\nwhich have deep roots in history, and cling passionately round the\nindividual. Convictions can only be modified or changed gradually, by\nlove and deeper spiritual learning. Bully or outrage a conviction, and\nyou double its strength. That is why argument seldom does aught but\nharm. Argument is an attack upon another man's convictions, or\nsemi-convictions, and inevitably fails to do anything but stiffen them.\nInevitably therefore will hasty action by individuals or sections, for\ninstance in the Church of England, for which other sections are not\nready, throw these into suspicion and opposition. I speak of my own\nCommunion and say deliberately, that if at the moment, either an\nindividual, or a section--any section--of it goes galloping off, be its\nzeal and hope never so pure and splendid, on private roads, the whole\ndesire for unity, and therefore the cause of unity, will be gravely\ndamaged.\n\nFor the whole Church of England--I think that can be truly said--has now\nan unutterable desire for the joy of Unity; it is, further, convinced\nthat action must be taken; but it is by no means convinced that certain\nactions--to take a concrete example, free interchange of pulpits with\nNonconformists--are as yet either helpful or right. If one part adopt\nsuch a policy, hostilely and sectionally, it will simply throw others\ninto convinced opposition and retard the whole desire for decades.\nQuestions of deepest implication cannot be settled in haste. Before\napproaching at all, we must find the right methods of approach. Quite\nrightly, the American \"World Conference for the consideration of\nquestions touching Faith and Order,\" paid, from the start, the utmost,\nan uniquely scientific, attention to right method; their patience has\nbeen lightning-swift in result. It did not even go so far as to say, \"We\nwill confer, that is the right method\"; it said, \"We will learn how to\nconfer.\" It was a new and by no means easy exercise, but it has been\nlearned, and the English Conference mentioned above, \"the landmark,\"\narose by its inspiration and worked by its methods.\n\nA wrong method of approach is equally well illustrated by the gathering\nof Evangelical clergy at Cheltenham[15] early in the Spring. They\ndiscussed to some purpose, and at the end of a few days had drawn out a\nseries of some dozen articles of principle and action. Some were\nunexceptionable, others went beyond what either the Bishops or other\nsections of the Church are yet ready to do. Such sectional action simply\nheads for disaster and vexation. And it is so foolish, so great and\ndifficult an end being in view. Why should any _sections_ of the Church\nmeet or deal at all on this matter, except to put their views humbly at\nthe disposal of their brethren in the Church? This matter concerns the\n_whole_ Church; any action is futile which does not carry the whole\nChurch with it, and the whole Church is keen and anxious enough over the\nproblem to be able to agree upon methods and policies which combine\ndepth, wisdom, patience, and order. We have seen how titanic the labour\nis; impatience will help nothing; here if anywhere is needed the love\nthat is patient, and ready for the travail of waiting and praying.\n\nThe cry of generous souls of course is \"Something must be _done_.\" Of\ncourse it must; but let anybody consider what sheer miracles of changed\nconvictions on Unity have been \"done\" within ten, and even five years.\nBetter than any such immediate action which would certainly cause\ndivision, is the enlarging of the scope and sphere of this miracle, so\nthat the friendly conditions of France are naturally reproduced in\nEngland.\n\nWith these precautions, then, let us see what can be done with universal\nconsent.\n\n(_a_) The first thing is to turn the intellectual opinion that Christian\ndivision is wrong, and unity necessary, into a general passion. That is\nto say, we want to develop among us the _motive of love_. We all talk\nabout love glibly, and about brotherhood and a new world, with very\nlittle sense of what these terms involve in the individual life. I am\nsure that we hardly know yet what love means nor what it exacts, nor\nguess into how many provinces of ordinary life it can and ought to\noperate; how many heritages of past history it must be allowed to wipe\nout, how many preconceived notions it must dissipate; into how many\nsocial, commercial, municipal, political relations it must begin to\npermeate. It was for this reason that an article which I wrote when in\nbillets near Arras for the _Church Quarterly Review_ suggested a new\nNational Mission of Love in the Church of England. For the space of a\nmonth or more the one subject dealt with by preachers and teachers\nthroughout the Communion would be Love, in all its bearings, and with\nspecial reference to religious differences and their healing. I believe\nthat this would be a splendid way of making the passion for new love and\nwider brotherhood general, an act of pure religion of highest importance\nboth to our Christianity and national life, and sure of blessing by God.\nIt would assure our Nonconformist brothers that we mean business, and\nmean it deeply. Perhaps they would follow suit in their own\ncongregations.\n\nIt is the more important, because there is a danger of the leaders and\nclergy of communions rushing ahead of the rank and file. Naturally they\nsee the vast issues most clearly; the congregation sees more easily its\nown needs and habits of worship, and inclines to shut out of mind the\nneeds and interests of the Church as a whole. A National Mission of\nLove, dealing with all history, the larger duties of the present, and\nfuture hopes, would help to correct this, and give a single mind to the\nwhole body.\n\n(_b_) Then, in order that the Church of England may go forward as one\nwhole, without the risk of sectional exasperation, it does seem to me an\nurgent necessity that--I do hope it is not a presumptuous\nsuggestion--the Archbishops appoint a Council of Unity; to thrash out\nthe whole subject, and decide on definite steps of action, both within\nand without the Church.\n\nMy vision sees it thus. A small Council of, say, five Bishops, and a\ndozen other members. These dozen to be nominated, not elected, and to\nconsist of the leading and trusted men of each \"party\" with at least\ntwo of our greatest scholars. It must be small, so that it may truly\n\"confer\"--not drop into controversy--and meet regularly. It should issue\ndefinite advice and suggestion, all of which would be unanimous, upon\nwhich the whole Church could act, and act immediately. I am sure that\nthe amount of unanimity would be surprising, and the advice bold.\nPerhaps the Archbishops and Bishops in accepting and issuing such\nreports would require them to be read in every pulpit in the land, so\nthat the whole Communion understand what is going on, and each\ncongregation be spurred to do its part in its own locality.\n\nThe mere appointment of such a Council would be a notable step towards\nunity and place the whole matter on, so to speak, a scientific footing.\nThe Church of England would then be wisely and consistently ordered to\nthe one end, and be thinking and acting as itself an unity; the danger\nof sectional action would be reduced to a minimum, and the mutual\nconfidence of the sections be assured. Indeed it would be a hard blow to\nthe bad party licence too common hitherto amongst us. Further, the\nNonconformist communions would have a definite organ to approach on all\nsubjects making for friendliness, cooperation, and conference, and\nsufficient certainty that the Church of England desired the peace of\nJerusalem very earnestly indeed.\n\n(_c_) There are a number of issues on which all communions could begin\nat once to work together. There is a real chance of abolishing war, and\nestablishing a more or less universal peace. The idea of the League of\nNations gains ground. Bishop Gore is already summoning the support and\nlabour of the Church to it. Here serious united effort of all Christian\nbodies, of Europe and America, is obviously fitting and might be\ndecisive.\n\nThere are the hundred social problems confronting us. The very working\ntogether upon these would be as valuable as the large amount of work\nthat so easily might be done.\n\nEducation! Word of lamentable memories. The present Bill, which all\nChristian bodies have urged on, left in despair the vital question of\nreligious teaching until the Churches can agree upon it among\nthemselves. With all the lessons of the war, both to the appalling need\nof such teaching, and of the necessity of bigger thinking, can they not\ndo it now? Here is a critical field for cooperation and\nself-suppression. Only let the younger men be put to the task. The elder\nwill be the first to admit that long controversy and deepening\nopposition have unfitted them for sincere agreement. The younger men are\nfresh, and start with an eagerness to find the way out.\n\n(_d_) Cooperation in these great matters will not only promote unity,\nbut display already the men of Christ as one before the world. But it is\nnot enough. How about cooperation in directly religious work and\nworship? \"The visible unity of the Body of Christ is not adequately\nexpressed in the cooperation for moral influence and social service,\nthough such cooperation might with advantage be carried much further\nthan it is at present; it could only be fully realised through community\nof worship, faith and order, including common participation in the\nLord's Supper[16].\"\n\nHere let us once more and finally insist that the all-important thing is\nthe development of the desire for Unity even in the most local, or\nuneducated, or out-of-the-way congregations. Most of the clergy now are\nrevolutionaries for better, bigger things; but, frankly, we fear the lay\npeople who hate change, and desire things to remain as they are--in\nchurch and out of it. That is why I should so like my imagined Council\nto set going my imagined National Mission of Love. But much can be done\nbesides. Those who seek unity will be labouring fruitfully for it, if\nthey simply devote themselves to developing social and Christian\nfriendship between Churchmen and Nonconformists in town and village.\nThere might well be an enormous growth of meetings, both of clergy and\nlaity of different denominations, for conference, devotion, even\nretreat. We want more than one \"Swanwick.\" Can we not go further, and\ndraw together by experimenting with each other's devotions or\norganisations of proved value? For instance, I wonder if it is\nsuggesting too much, to suggest that if Nonconformists appropriated with\nvigour our Christian year, they would be sharers with us of a devotional\njoy and help, which would certainly promote spiritual sympathy. In the\nsame way, the Church of England has been crying out for some method of\nusing the spiritual gifts of her laymen in church. Why not borrow\nnotions from those who know how to do it?\n\nThese are but scrappy examples of ways by which right spirit can be\ndeveloped within the single communion, or between separated bodies. The\n_right spirit_ won, the whole battle is won.\n\nNaturally there are many who desire already to go much further and\nfaster. Intercommunion, our goal, is of course impossible at this stage\nowing to seriously differing convictions on faith and order; and the\nplain fact that it would cause more cleavage than it healed. But how\nabout interchange of pulpits? The Evangelicals at Cheltenham demanded\nthis as a regular practice. The rest of the Church feels strongly that\nthe time for this has not arrived yet; that haphazard invitations by\nindividual vicars to ministers of convictions widely different are\nundesirable. The time has come for conference, but not yet for any\nfacile overpassing of the facts and reasons for historical separations.\nNor do we want to run the risks of indiscipline and disorderliness\nresulting from such individual action. The Church of England can only be\nof help to the cause of unity where she acts as a whole. Matters such as\ninterchange of pulpits should be tackled by our suggested Council of\nUnity. A suggestion in the _Challenge_ of July 19 might well be\nfavourably considered by it. There are Nonconformists of acknowledged\neminence, learning, and inspiration, from whose books the Church of\nEngland already has received much. We should all be glad to receive\nlikewise from their lips. If a selected number were officially invited\nby the Church to prophesy in our midst, an immense and religiously\nfruitful step would have been taken, in perfect order. The plan might\nwell be reciprocal.\n\nThe same leading article proposed that ministers of other denominations\nshould be asked by such congregations as wished, to come and explain to\nthem frankly their standpoints of doctrine and order. I am sure that all\ncommunions might be, and now should be, more brave in explaining\nthemselves to each other. The gain in preventing misunderstanding and\ndestroying suspicion and unfriendliness would be great, and I can see no\nloss anywhere about such a proceeding.\n\nHave you read the story of the Woolwich Crusade, published by the\nS.P.C.K. (1_s._ 3_d._)? The Crusade movement and method is a new thing.\nIts idea is not that of a mission--to increase or improve the membership\nof a particular denomination, but to bring God and the meaning of Christ\ninto the life and problems of to-day. It is doing the same sort of work\nwhich chaplains in France do, among the munitioners, artisans, and\nlabour world at home. Perhaps our Nonconformist brethren could join us\nhere. The difficulties would, I think, merely be those of organisation.\n\nThanks to the College system, and to the Student Christian movement,\nChurchmen and Nonconformists are as friendly in this University as they\nare in France; and joint devotion is usual. We have a great\nresponsibility here amid the young and the enthusiastic, and good\nfeeling is both easier to achieve, and more widespread in result, at a\nUniversity than anywhere else. Well, we are awake to our chances, and\nwill do our best.\n\n(_e_) This leaves but one more subject to touch on: the old, hard,\nquestion of Church order, and the orders of ministry. But all looks in\nthe best sense hopeful here, very hopeful, since the striking report\nsigned by the thirteen members of the sub-committee appointed by the\nArchbishops' Committee, and by representatives of the English Free\nChurches' Commissions. Let me quote it.\n\n\n     Looking as frankly and as widely as possible at the whole\n     situation, we desire with a due sense of responsibility to submit\n     for the serious consideration of all the parts of a divided\n     Christendom what seem to us the necessary conditions of any\n     possibility of reunion: That continuity with the historic\n     Episcopate should be effectively preserved. That, in order that the\n     rights and responsibilities of the whole Christian community in the\n     government of the Church may be adequately recognised, the\n     Episcopate should reassume a constitutional form both as regards\n     the method of the election of the Bishop as by clergy and people,\n     and the method of government after election.... The acceptance of\n     the fact of Episcopacy and not any theory as to its character\n     should be all that is asked for.... It would no doubt be necessary\n     before any arrangement for corporate reunion could be made to\n     discuss the exact functions which it may be agreed to recognise as\n     belonging to the Episcopate, but we think this can be left to the\n     future.\n\n     The acceptance of Episcopacy on these terms should not involve any\n     Christian community in the necessity of disowning its past, but\n     should enable all to maintain the continuity of their witness and\n     influence as heirs and trustees of types of Christian thought,\n     life, and order, not only of value to themselves, but of value to\n     the Church as a whole....\n\n\nIt would be difficult to imagine a wiser, braver, or happier statement\nthan this in the whole history of the Church. A landmark indeed! The\nChaplains to the Forces in France almost shouted for joy. At one stroke,\nthe first and greatest incompatibility of conviction has been cleared\nout of the way. Perhaps that is too strong--or prophetic--a way of\nputting it. Let us say rather, that at least the question of Episcopacy\nand Church order has been raised to a new plane, where all can discuss\nit, and think it out, not only peaceably, but with good hope of new\nwealth of conception and polity pouring into the old, rigid, bitter,\nrival views of church government. In France I corresponded with a\nWesleyan chaplain on the subject of orders and ordination. He wrote a\ncareful letter affirming the historic Nonconformist position about\nministry. But, he ended, it would all be changed, if re-ordination could\nbe presented and accepted as a great outward \"Sacrament of Love\" which\nreunited us. That is more than the Church of England has ever asked, for\nshe regards ordination as a Sacrament of Order merely, not of Spiritual\nLove. But let us gladly put the higher value upon it. And the day will\nsurely come, unless goodhearted Christians settle down to accept the\nintolerable burden of permanent separation in communion and worship,\nwhen this Sacrament of Love be celebrated, and the Church of England\nordains the Free Church ministry, and the Free Churches commission us,\nto work each and all in the flocks that have been made one Fold.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[14] In the paragraphs which follow, I owe much to the Bishop of\nZanzibar's _The Fulness of Christ_, perhaps the deepest and ablest of\nall the numerous Anglican books on Reunion.\n\n[15] It is fair to state that after this lecture was delivered, I\nreceived a note from one who had been at Cheltenham, saying that my\nreferences to it gave an inaccurate impression; and that the findings\nwere only \"an expression of opinion.\" To those, however, who read the\npublished account of the meeting, whether in the _Record_ or _Guardian_,\nmuch more seemed to be intended.\n\n[16] Quoted from the Second Interim Report of the Archbishops' Committee\nand the representatives of the Free Church Commissions.\n\n\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE PROBLEM OF THE ENGLISH FREE CHURCHES\n\nBy the Rev. W. B. SELBIE, M.A., D.D.\n\n\nWhile I think that what I say may be fairly taken to represent the\ngeneral mind of these churches it must be understood that I do not in\nany way commit them but speak only for myself. I propose first to recall\nthe circumstances which gave rise to these churches and the conditions\nwhich still operate in maintaining them as separate Christian bodies,\nand then to give some account of the various movements towards reunion\nin which they have taken part. The Baptists and Congregationalists you\nwill remember arose at a time when membership in the Anglican Church was\na formal and perfunctory thing. It was open to every parishioner and\nmeant very little in the way of Christian life or witness. The first\nNonconformists stood for the principle that membership in Christian\nchurches should be confined to genuinely Christian people, and in order\nto secure this they formed separated churches, on the New Testament\nmodel, of those who were able to give effective witness of their\nChristian calling. That such churches should be self-governed followed\nalmost as a matter of course. Their meeting in the name of Christ\nsecured His presence among them and the guidance of His spirit in their\ndoings. But it is always important to remember that their essential\ncharacteristic is not either democracy in church government or dissent\nfrom the Establishment, but the positive witness to purity of membership\nand to the sole headship of Jesus Christ just described. The Wesleyan\nChurch, the parent of the whole great Methodist movement, arose at the\nend of the 18th century from somewhat similar reasons. There was never\nanything schismatic in the spirit of John Wesley, but when he found that\nthe rigour and stiffness of Anglicanism made a free spiritual witness\nalmost impossible, he was driven, like the Nonconformists of the\nElizabethan times, to set up separate churches. While it is quite true\nthat the great principle for which English Nonconformity has stood is\nnow almost universally accepted, and that what may be called the\nnegative witness of the Free Churches is much less necessary than it\nused to be, there is still room for their positive contribution to the\nreligious life of the country, for their witness to freedom,\nspirituality, and the rights of the people in the Church. For a long\ntime, no doubt, they did rejoice in the dissidence of their dissent, and\nthey suffered, and still suffer, to some degree, from a Pharisaic\nfeeling of superiority to those whom they regard as bound by tradition\nand State rule. The great majority among them, however, have long since\ncome to feel that they have more in common with one another and with\nmany in the Anglican Church than they have been hitherto prepared to\nadmit, and that existence in isolation from the rest of Christendom is\nneither good for them nor helpful to the cause of Christ and His\nKingdom. This feeling first took definite shape about the year 1890 in\nconnexion with what are now known as the Grindelwald Conferences. For\nthree successive years informal parties of clergy and ministers were\narranged by Sir Henry Lunn, at Grindelwald and Lucerne, with the object\nof getting representatives of the different churches together in order\nto exchange views on the subject of union, and to create an atmosphere\nof mutual knowledge, sympathy, and friendliness. Although no practical\nsteps directly followed them, these conferences undoubtedly did good by\nremoving misunderstandings and paving a way for further intercourse. To\nmany of the Free Churchmen who attended them they seem to have suggested\nfor the first time the evils of our unhappy divisions, and they\ncertainly created a desire for better relations. It became obvious that\none of the necessary first steps in this direction would be the setting\nup of a closer cooperation among the Free Churches themselves, and of\nbreaking down the denominational isolation in which they too often\nlived. Further conferences were held in England at Manchester, Bradford,\nLondon and other centres, the ultimate issue of which was the foundation\nof the National Federation of the Evangelical Free Churches under the\nguidance of the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, Dr Berry of Wolverhampton, Dr\nMackennal of Bowdon, and Dr Munro Gibson of London, along with laymen\nlike Sir Percy Bunting and Mr George Cadbury. The aim of the Federation\nwas to bring all the evangelical Nonconformist churches into closer\nassociation in order that they might in various localities take\nconcerted action on questions affecting their common faith and interests\nand the social, moral, and religious welfare of the community. Since\nthat time the work of the Federation has gradually covered the whole\ncountry through local councils working on a Free Church parish system,\nand engaging in various forms of social and evangelistic effort. The\nrepresentative central council has become a powerful instrument for\nfurthering the cause of the Free Churches and for bringing their\ninfluence to bear on social and political matters. It must be freely\nadmitted that this council has sometimes gone further in political\naction than some of the churches have been altogether prepared for. From\nthe first, so representative a Nonconformist as the late Dr Dale of\nBirmingham stood aloof from it, on the ground that it tended to divert\nthe energy of the churches from the proper channels and to involve them\ntoo deeply in political controversy. In this action he was supported by\nmany of the more conservative elements in the churches themselves,\nparticularly as the circumstances of the time compelled the council to\nengage in a good deal of political agitation. In spite of this, however,\nthere is no doubt that the Free Church Council movement as a whole has\nhad the effect its first promoters intended and desired, and has brought\nall the Free Churches into much closer relations with one another, and\nhas established them in a position of mutual understanding and sympathy.\nIts chief weakness has been that it has depended for support on\nindividual churches rather than on the denominations they represented.\nIt is the consciousness of this which has led the way to a later\nmovement in the direction of still closer federation. The lead has been\ntaken by the Rev. J. H. Shakespeare, who, as President of the Free\nChurch Council in 1916, propounded an elaborate scheme for the\nfederation of the Free Church denominations. In his first presidential\naddress under the title \"The Free Churches at the Cross-roads\" he put\nforward an unanswerable case for the union of the whole of the Free\nChurches of England. He pointed to the fact that for many years past\nthese churches have suffered a serious decline in the number of their\nmembers and of their Sunday school scholars and teachers; and he found\none of the chief causes of this in their excessive denominationalism,\nwhich led to over-lapping and rivalry. He pleaded that the old sectarian\ndistinctions had now ceased to represent vital issues, and to appeal to\nthe best elements both in the churches and in the nation outside; and he\nurged that the maintenance of these distinctions now tended to destroy\nthe collective witness of the Free Churches and involved an immense\nwaste of men, money and energy. For the sake of efficiency, as well as\nin order to maintain a proper Christian comity, he argued that it was\nabsolutely necessary to put an end to this condition of things. As long\nas the Free Churches were thus divided, they could not expect either to\ndo their own work well or to exercise their proper influence in the life\nof the nation. There is no doubt that this estimate of the situation\nrepresented a growing feeling among those who were best acquainted with\nthe facts. But it is probable that Mr Shakespeare under-estimated the\nstrength of the conservative spirit in many of the Free Churches. And\nthere is no doubt that a considerable educational process will have to\nbe gone through before his proposals take practical shape. This process,\nhowever, has already begun and has made considerable way. Mr\nShakespeare's challenge led almost immediately to the formation of a\nlarge conference of representatives appointed by the Free Church\nCouncil along with the Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, Primitive\nMethodist, Independent Methodist, Wesleyan Methodist, Wesleyan Reform,\nUnited Methodist, Moravian, Countess of Huntingdon, and Disciples of\nChrist Churches. This Conference first met at Mansfield College, Oxford,\nin September, 1916, and later at the Leys School, Cambridge, in 1917,\nand again in London in the early part of this year. It appointed\nCommittees on Faith, Constitution, Evangelization and the Ministry, all\nof which have held many meetings in addition to those of the whole\nConference. The Committee on Faith was able to frame a declaratory\nstatement on doctrine which was afterwards unanimously adopted as\nfollows:\n\n\n                                     I\n\n     There is One Living and True God, Who is revealed to us as Father,\n     Son and Holy Spirit; Him alone we worship and adore.\n\n\n                                    II\n\n     We believe that God so loved the world as to give His Son to be the\n     Revealer of the Father and the Redeemer of mankind; that the Son of\n     God, for us men and for our salvation, became man in Jesus Christ,\n     Who, having lived on earth the perfect human life, died for our\n     sins, rose again from the dead, and now is exalted Lord over all;\n     and that the Holy Spirit, Who witnesses to us of Christ, makes the\n     salvation which is in Him to be effective in our hearts and lives.\n\n\n                                    III\n\n     We acknowledge that all men are sinful, and unable to deliver\n     themselves from either the guilt or power of their sin; but we have\n     received and rejoice in the Gospel of the grace of the Holy God,\n     wherein all who truly turn from sin are freely forgiven through\n     faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and are called and enabled, through\n     the Spirit dwelling and working within them, to live in fellowship\n     with God and for His service; and in this new life, which is to be\n     nurtured by the right use of the means of grace, we are to grow,\n     daily dying unto sin and living unto Him Who in His mercy has\n     redeemed us.\n\n\n                                   IV\n\n     We believe that the Catholic or Universal Church is the whole\n     company of the redeemed in heaven and on earth, and we recognise as\n     belonging to this holy fellowship all who are united to God through\n     faith in Christ.\n\n     The Church on earth--which is One through the Apostolic Gospel and\n     through the living union of all its true members with its one Head,\n     even Christ, and which is Holy through the indwelling Holy Spirit\n     Who sanctifies the Body and its members--is ordained to be the\n     visible Body of Christ, to worship God through Him, to promote the\n     fellowship of His people and the ends of His Kingdom, and to go\n     into all the world and proclaim His Gospel for the salvation of men\n     and the brotherhood of all mankind. Of this visible Church, and\n     every branch thereof, the only Head is the Lord Jesus Christ; and\n     in its faith, order, discipline and duty, it must be free to obey\n     Him alone as it interprets His holy will.\n\n\n                                    V\n\n     We receive, as given by the Lord to His Church on earth, the Holy\n     Scriptures, the Sacraments of the Gospel, and the Christian\n     Ministry.\n\n     The Scriptures, delivered through men moved by the Holy Ghost,\n     record and interpret the revelation of redemption, and contain the\n     sure Word of God concerning our salvation and all things necessary\n     thereto. Of this we are convinced by the witness of the Holy Spirit\n     in the hearts of men to and with the Word; and this Spirit, thus\n     speaking from the Scriptures to believers and to the Church, is the\n     supreme Authority by which all opinions in religion are finally to\n     be judged.\n\n     The Sacraments--Baptism and the Lord's Supper--are instituted by\n     Christ, Who is Himself certainly and really present in His own\n     ordinances (though not bodily in the elements thereof), and are\n     signs and seals of His Gospel not to be separated therefrom. They\n     confirm the promises and gifts of salvation, and, when rightly used\n     by believers with faith and prayer, are, through the operation of\n     the Holy Spirit, true means of grace.\n\n     The Ministry is an office within the Church--not a sacerdotal\n     order--instituted for the preaching of the Word, the ministration\n     of the Sacraments and the care of souls. It is a vocation from God,\n     upon which therefore no one is qualified to enter save through the\n     call of the Holy Spirit in the heart; and this inward call is to be\n     authenticated by the call of the Church, which is followed by\n     ordination to the work of the Ministry in the name of the Church.\n     While thus maintaining the Ministry as an office, we do not limit\n     the ministries of the New Testament to those who are thus ordained,\n     but affirm the priesthood of all believers and the obligation\n     resting upon them to fulfil their vocation according to the gift\n     bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit.\n\n\n                                   VI\n\n     We affirm the sovereign authority of our Lord Jesus Christ over\n     every department of human life, and we hold that individuals and\n     peoples are responsible to Him in their several spheres and are\n     bound to render Him obedience and to seek always the furtherance of\n     His Kingdom upon earth, not, however, in any way constraining\n     belief, imposing religious disabilities, or denying the rights of\n     conscience.\n\n\n                                  VII\n\n     In the assurance, given us in the Gospel, of the love of God our\n     Father to each of us and to all men, and in the faith that Jesus\n     Christ, Who died, overcame death and has passed into the heavens,\n     the first-fruits of them that sleep, we are made confident of the\n     hope of Immortality, and trust to God our souls and the souls of\n     the departed. We believe that the whole world must stand before the\n     final Judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, with glad and solemn\n     hearts, we look for the consummation and bliss of the life\n     everlasting, wherein the people of God, freed for ever from sorrow\n     and from sin, shall serve Him and see His face in the perfected\n     communion of all saints in the Church triumphant.\n\n\nThe Committee on Constitution recommended a definite union of the Free\nChurch denominations on the basis of a federation which should express\ntheir essential unity, promote evangelization, maintain their liberties\nand take action where authorised in all matters affecting the interests,\nduties, rights, and privileges of the federating churches, and to enter\ninto communion and united action where possible with other branches of\nthe church of Christ throughout the world. It is proposed that the\nfederation shall work through a council consisting of about 200\nrepresentatives of the denominations in order to carry out their will.\nThe Committee on Evangelization and the Ministry also suggested certain\npractical measures necessary for cooperation in these important branches\nof service. The scheme has been carefully thought out and elaborated,\nbut at the same time is not too cumbrous for action, and if it can be\ncarried out there is no doubt that it would secure the ends aimed at. In\nmany ways the doctrinal declaration is the most important part of it,\nand shews a sufficient general agreement on essentials to ensure\nharmonious working. The fate of it lies of course with the different\ndenominations concerned. By this time most of them have had an\nopportunity of considering it and, generally speaking, it has met with a\nfavourable reception. The Baptists, Congregationalists, and United\nMethodists have declared their willingness to proceed to closer union on\nthis basis. But the Presbyterians and Wesleyan Methodists have referred\nit back for further consideration. Rightly and naturally both of these\ndenominations are more concerned for the moment with measures for union\nwithin their own borders. The Presbyterians are looking to a reunion of\nthe Established and Free Churches in Scotland, while a great scheme for\nthe reunion of all the Methodist bodies is before the Wesleyan\nConference. If this can be carried out it should not prejudice but\nrather be in favour of any scheme for wider Free Church Union.\n\nNothing that has been done so far among the Free Churches is likely in\nany way to hinder the fulfilment of the desire which is now widely felt\non all sides for better relations with the Anglican Church. It can\neasily be understood from the difficulties that have already emerged in\nthe way of closer union among the Free Churches how much more difficult\nis the prospect of union with Anglicanism. There is no doubt that\ndenominational feeling is still very strong among the rank and file of\nthe churches. In spite of the changes which have taken place in emphasis\nand conditions in modern church thought, each denomination realises that\nit stands for something positive and is anxious to give its positive\nwitness in the best possible way. It has therefore been an essential of\nreunion that any scheme proposed shall not interfere with the autonomy\nof any individual denomination and shall allow full scope for its\ngenius. It is equally necessary that this should be preserved in any\nscheme contemplated for reunion with Anglicanism. The Free Churches are\nnot disposed to bate anything of their freedom or to sink their identity\nin any national church. If, however, any scheme can be devised which\nwill preserve their individuality and give them scope for their special\nwitness and at the same time avoid the dissensions and divisions which\nhave so marred their relations with Anglicanism in the past it is likely\nto meet with a very warm welcome. The war has brought home to all\nthinking men in the churches the imperative need that there is for\ncloser union and for a more united testimony. And they are conscious\nthat if they are to face the increasing difficulties of the future all\nthe churches must be able to stand together, to cooperate in Christian\nservice, and to speak with one voice.\n\nIt is therefore regarded by them as a welcome sign of the times that\nthere should be a world-wide desire for Christian reunion, and that this\nshould have begun to take practical shape just before the outbreak of\nthe war. The movement was initiated by the Protestant Episcopal Church\nof America supported by practically all the churches in that country. It\nfirst took shape in proposals for a world-wide conference on Faith and\nOrder with a view of promoting the visible unity of the body of Christ.\nBut for the war this conference would have been held already, but under\nexisting circumstances the work has had to be confined to preparations\nfor it on both sides of the Atlantic. In this country the work has been\nmainly done by a joint Conference, consisting of representatives of the\nCommittee appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and of\ncommissions appointed by the various Free Churches, in order to promote\nthe Faith and Order movement. This Conference has held repeated meetings\nin the historic Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster and elsewhere, and has\npublished two interim reports \"Towards Christian Unity\" which are of the\nutmost importance. These reports represent the work of a sub-committee\nbut have received the general sanction of the whole Conference. The\nfirst report contains the following statement of agreement on matters of\nfaith, which is \"offered not as a creed for subscription, or as\ncommitting in any way the churches thus represented, but as indicating a\nlarge measure of substantial agreement and also as affording material\nfor further investigation and consideration\":\n\n\n                A STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT ON MATTERS OF FAITH\n\n\n     We, who belong to different Christian Communions and are engaged in\n     the discussion of questions of Faith and Order, desire to affirm\n     our agreement upon certain foundation truths as the basis of a\n     spiritual and rational creed and life for all mankind. We express\n     them as follows:\n\n     (1) As Christians we believe that, while there is some knowledge of\n     God to be found among all races of men and some measure of divine\n     grace and help is present to all, a unique, progressive and\n     redemptive revelation of Himself was given by God to the Hebrew\n     people through the agency of inspired prophets, \"in many parts and\n     in many manners,\" and that this revelation reaches its culmination\n     and completeness in One Who is more than a prophet, Who is the\n     Incarnate Son of God, our Saviour and our Lord, Jesus Christ.\n\n     (2) This distinctive revelation, accepted as the word of God, is\n     the basis of the life of the Christian Church and is intended to be\n     the formative influence upon the mind and character of the\n     individual believer.\n\n     (3) This word of God is contained in the Old and New Testaments and\n     constitutes the permanent spiritual value of the Bible.\n\n     (4) The root and centre of this revelation, as intellectually\n     interpreted, consists in a positive and highly distinctive doctrine\n     of God--His nature, character and will. From this doctrine of God\n     follows a certain sequence of doctrines concerning creation, human\n     nature and destiny, sin, individual and racial, redemption through\n     the incarnation of the Son of God and His atoning death and\n     resurrection, the mission and operation of the Holy Spirit, the\n     Holy Trinity, the Church, the last things, and Christian life and\n     duty, individual and social: all these cohere with and follow from\n     this doctrine of God.\n\n     (5) Since Christianity offers an historical revelation of God, the\n     coherence and sequence of Christian doctrine involve a necessary\n     synthesis of idea and fact such as is presented to us in the New\n     Testament and in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds: and these Creeds\n     both in their statements of historical fact and in their statements\n     of doctrine affirm essential elements of the Christian faith as\n     contained in Scripture, which the Church could never abandon\n     without abandoning its basis in the word of God.\n\n     (6) We hold that there is no contradiction between the acceptance\n     of the miracles recited in the Creeds and the acceptance of the\n     principle of order in nature as assumed in scientific enquiry, and\n     we hold equally that the acceptance of miracles is not forbidden by\n     the historical evidence candidly and impartially investigated by\n     critical methods.\n\n\nThis was followed by a statement of agreement on matters relating to\norder as follows:\n\n\n     With thankfulness to the Head of the Church for the spirit of unity\n     He has shed abroad in our hearts we go on to express our common\n     conviction on the following matters:\n\n     (1) That it is the purpose of our Lord that believers in Him should\n     be, as in the beginning they were, one visible society--His body\n     with many members--which in every age and place should maintain the\n     communion of saints in the unity of the Spirit and should be\n     capable of a common witness and a common activity.\n\n     (2) That our Lord ordained, in addition to the preaching of His\n     Gospel, the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper, as not\n     only declaratory symbols, but also effective channels of His grace\n     and gifts for the salvation and sanctification of men, and that\n     these Sacraments being essentially social ordinances were intended\n     to affirm the obligation of corporate fellowship as well as\n     individual confession of Him.\n\n     (3) That our Lord, in addition to the bestowal of the Holy Spirit\n     in a variety of gifts and graces upon the whole Church, also\n     conferred upon it by the self-same Spirit a Ministry of manifold\n     gifts and functions, to maintain the unity and continuity of its\n     witness and work.\n\n\nIn subsequent discussions a very considerable advance was made on the\npositions here laid down. It was felt that if ever reunion was to become\na reality the question of order must be frankly faced, and the following\nstatements were put forth for the consideration of the churches\nconcerned, not as a final solution, but as the necessary basis for\ndiscussion in framing a practical scheme:\n\n\n     1. That continuity with the historic Episcopate should be\n     effectively preserved.\n\n     2. That in order that the rights and responsibilities of the whole\n     Christian community in the government of the Church may be\n     adequately recognised, the Episcopate should re-assume a\n     constitutional form, both as regards the method of the election of\n     the bishop as by clergy and people, and the method of government\n     after election. It is perhaps necessary that we should call to mind\n     that such was the primitive ideal and practice of Episcopacy and it\n     so remains in many Episcopal communions to-day.\n\n     3. That acceptance of the fact of Episcopacy and not any theory as\n     to its character should be all that is asked for. We think that\n     this may be the more easily taken for granted as the acceptance of\n     any such theory is not now required of ministers of the Church of\n     England. It would no doubt be necessary before any arrangement for\n     corporate reunion could be made to discuss the exact functions\n     which it may be agreed to recognise as belonging to the Episcopate,\n     but we think this can be left to the future.\n\n\nThe first point to note in regard to the work of this Conference is the\nremarkable unanimity achieved in regard to Christian doctrine. While\nthere is no intention of binding any of the parties to the _ipsissima\nverba_ of any doctrinal declaration, but rather every desire to allow\nfor varieties of expression, it is now perfectly clear that there is\namong all the churches concerned a substantial agreement on the main and\nessential matters of the Christian faith. This supplies the most real\nand hopeful basis for the vital union of churches thus minded, and makes\ntheir continued separation and antagonism intolerable. The more closely\nthis aspect of the situation is explored the more clearly does it lead\nto the conclusion that those who are so largely one in aim, intention,\nand desire should find some genuine and practical expression of their\nunity. The question of church order is more difficult; but here again\nmuch has happened of late to justify a reconsideration of the position\non both sides. On the one hand recent investigations into early church\nhistory have shewn that no one form of church government can claim\nexclusive scriptural or Apostolic authority. Under the guidance of the\nSpirit of God the Church has in the past adapted herself and her\norganization to the needs of the times in order the better to do the\nwork of the Kingdom. Men are coming now to see that the test of a true\nChurch is not conformity to type but effectiveness in fulfilling the\nwill of her Lord, and that therefore organization need not be of a\nsingle uniform type. So we find denominations like the Baptists and\nCongregationalists setting up superintendents (overseers, Bishops) over\ntheir churches because the needs of the time demand such supervision.\nAnd on the other hand we find Anglicans inclining to exchange prelacy\nfor a more modest and elective form of episcopacy. In this respect the\ntwo extremes are drawing together to an extent which would have been\nincredible twenty years ago, and, given good will, it should be possible\nto find even here a real _modus vivendi_.\n\nThe same may be said with regard to other movements which have been\nrecently set on foot in the direction of a better common understanding\nbetween Anglicans and Free Churchmen. It is recognised that one of the\ngreatest obstacles is still the so-called religious education\ncontroversy. Both sides are becoming a little ashamed of their attitude\nto this question in the past. They realise that the true interests of\neducation have been gravely imperilled by making it a bone of contention\namong the churches, and they are beginning to look at the whole matter\nafresh from the point of view of the good of the child rather than from\nthat of their denominational interests. Some important conferences have\nbeen held at Lambeth in the course of which the Bishop of Oxford has put\nforth a scheme for relegating the conduct of religious teaching in the\nelementary schools to interdenominational committees elected _ad hoc_.\nThis scheme is still under discussion and at the moment is not regarded\nvery favourably by extremists on either side, but it is all to the good\nthat the matter should have been raised in so friendly and conciliatory\na spirit and, whenever the time is ripe, it may be hoped that the way\nto agreement will be more open than it has ever been yet.\n\nFurther the rise and rapid growth of the Life and Liberty movement\nwithin the Established Church is something like a portent and one that\nNonconformists cannot but regard with the deepest interest and sympathy.\nThey may perhaps be forgiven if they see in it an attempt to win from\nwithin the Church just those privileges and liberties for the sake of\nwhich their ancestors came out many years ago. With a great price they\nbought this freedom and they rejoice in this new movement as a real\nvindication of the cause for which they have so long contended and as\nrepresenting a body of opinion within the establishment the existence of\nwhich, whatever may be its immediate result, is sure to make a common\nunderstanding in the future more attainable. They may have serious\ndoubts whether the aims of the movement are ever to be obtained without\nthe Disestablishment of the Church, but for all that they wish it well\nand rejoice in the spirit to which it points.\n\nOne more sign of the times may be mentioned. During the last 18 months\nyet another Conference has been set on foot, this time between\nNonconformists and Evangelical Anglicans, and has come very near to a\ncommon understanding on such vital matters as intercommunion and\ninterchange of pulpits. It is recognised that there can be no real\nChristian unity without such interchange, and the fact that a growing\nnumber of Anglican clergy are prepared to discuss the question and that\nthere is no real difficulty on the Nonconformist side is again a ground\nof hope. It should be understood however that on the Nonconformist side\nthere is no desire for universal and indiscriminate facilities in the\ndirections indicated. They do not want a kind of general post among the\npulpits of the land, nor do they ask that their people should desert\ntheir own ordinances for those of the Established Church. Their people\nindeed have no such desire. They love the simplicity and homeliness of\ntheir own communion services and would not exchange them if they could.\nBut they do feel that to be debarred from communicating when there is no\nchurch of their own order available is a real hardship, and they know\nthat nothing would make for comity among the churches so surely as an\noccasional interchange of pulpits. They recognise that it would all have\nto be carried out in due order and under conditions, and as long as the\nconditions cast no reflexion on their orders, or on the Christian\nstanding of their members, they would loyally accept them. Under\nexceptional circumstances and given due authorization on both sides, it\nmight be possible to do openly what is often now done in a more or less\nclandestine way. There is a growing body of opinion on both sides which\nwould be favourable to such a course and it is certain that more will be\nheard of it after the war.\n\nThis leads up to another consideration which our ecclesiastical\nauthorities would do well to bear in mind. For a long time past younger\nmen and women in all the churches have been accustomed to meet together\nin the various Fellowships and the Student movement. They have learnt to\nwork and pray together, to know one another's mind and to realise their\nfundamental oneness of spirit and aim. It must be remembered that these\nare the men and women in whose hands the future of the churches, humanly\nspeaking, lies, and they will not tolerate an indefinite prospect of\nsectarian division and strife. While loyal to their own denominations\nthey have seen a wider and more glorious vision, and they are already\nprepared for very definite steps in the direction of closer relations.\nThe new and better spirit which they represent is spreading rapidly\namong the rank and file in the churches, and has been strongly\nreinforced by experiences at the front. There, under the rude stress of\nwar, denominational exclusiveness has frankly broken down and attempts\nto maintain it have excited universal resentment and disgust. There is\nno doubt that after the war there will be a strong public opinion in\nfavour of better relations among the churches, and no church or section\nof a church that clings to the old exclusiveness will be able to retain\nany hold upon the people. In this case at least it may be assumed that\nfor once _vox populi_ is _vox dei_.\n\nThere is indeed every reason to believe that opinion outside the\nchurches is more ripe for action than within them. On both sides there\nis need for something like an educational campaign on the subject of\nreunion and of the duty of Christians in regard to it. Difficulties have\nto be faced of a very serious kind. On the Nonconformist side there are\nstill many who feel very keenly the burden of the disabilities from\nwhich they have suffered, and to some extent still suffer. They know\nthat in some country districts Nonconformists are subjected to petty\nsocial persecutions, and that their boys or girls who wish to become\nelementary school teachers are handicapped from the outset. Many of them\nhave been brought up on bitter memories, and their inherited hostility\nto the State establishment of religion does not incline them to any\n_rapprochement_ with its representatives. It is well that these facts\nshould be faced, for they shew the need there is for the Free Churches\nto educate their own people.\n\nTo all this we have to add the _vis inertiae_ which operates in all the\nchurches alike. Many of them are entirely satisfied with things as they\nare, and are only anxious that we should let well alone. There is too\namong certain of the denominations a self-satisfaction amounting almost\nto Pharisaism. They are very busy with their own work and devoted to\ntheir denominational interests, and, so long as these can be maintained,\nthey do not see the use of agitations for reunion. They do not believe\nthat they have anything to gain from it and therefore they let it alone.\n\nThe same spirit shews itself too on the Anglican side and there becomes\na serious obstacle to any advance. There are those who regard the Church\nof England, as by law established, as the only possible Church for\nEngland, and they cannot imagine why any people should want to change\nits present position. Dissenters they say are outsiders and schismatics,\nand must be left to go their own way. They should be thankful for the\ntoleration which has been extended to them and not abuse it by asking\nfor more. For all this kind of thing there is only one remedy, and that\nis a wider vision, and for this all Christians of good will should\nstrenuously work and pray. It should surely be obvious that we can no\nlonger treat any church or denomination as an end in itself. All alike\nexist for the great end of the Kingdom of God and are to be judged by\ntheir efficiency in promoting that end among men. So no system of church\norder can be regarded as of divine right in itself but only so far as\nit becomes a channel of the Spirit of God and mediates His gifts to\nmen. All the churches as we know them to-day have grown up in\ncontroversy and represent a long process of development and adaptation.\nIf we are to test them it should not be by the more or less artificial\nstandards of any one age in their history, but rather by the spirit, and\ntemper, and intentions of their Lord and Master Jesus Christ. When this\nis done, the differences between them fall into their proper proportions\nin view of the failure which is common to them all. On these terms too\nwill the old antagonisms become a generous rivalry in good works and\neach church be ready to seek the welfare of others in the common\ninterests of the Kingdom which they all serve.\n\nSo far we have dealt largely with the past and with the various\nmovements in the direction of unity which have been set on foot. It now\nremains to say something of the motives which inspire and the principles\nwhich underlie them. First and foremost is the fact that it is the will\nof our Lord that His people should be one. This does not mean surely any\nmere uniformity of organization but unity of spirit, heart, and will. We\nseek this chiefly because it is a right thing. Anything short of it is\nevil. The Christian faith rests ultimately on the Fatherhood of God and\nthe brotherhood of man, and these can only be made real when all\nChristians accept them and make them the ground and basis of their\nrelations with one another. Here we need to appeal to the conscience of\nthe churches and challenge them to put the first things first and learn\nin the love of the brethren the love and service of God and His Church.\nThen we are bound to recognise in the next place that this unity is the\nprime condition of successful work and witness. The tasks awaiting the\nchurches in the immediate future are gigantic and only as they stand\ntogether and learn to speak and act as one have they any chance of\naccomplishing them. They have to evangelize the world, and for this they\nwill need above all things a common faith, a common witness, and a\ncommon sacrifice. They have to leaven society with the aims and\nprinciples of Jesus Christ, to bring His spirit to bear on all social,\npolitical, commercial, and industrial undertakings, and for this too\nthey will need the united weight of all their influence and the passion\nof a great common crusade. The devil is a great master of strategy and\nknows that if he can keep our forces divided there is nothing in them\nthat need be feared. We must therefore close up our ranks and present a\nunited front, not merely as a measure of self-preservation but in order\nto do well the work that has been committed to us. This will involve\nsome real self-sacrifice on the part of us all, but it is the way the\nMaster went and His followers must not shrink from it. If we but keep\nour eyes fixed on the great vision of the Kingdom which He opened before\nus, we shall not faint but go forward steadfastly and together until the\nkingdoms of this world have become the Kingdom of God and of His Christ.\n\n\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE SCOTTISH PROBLEM\n\nBy the Very Rev. JAMES COOPER, D.D., Litt.D., D.C.L., V.D.\n\n\nThe very appearance of this subject on the programme of the CAMBRIDGE\nSUMMER MEETING, and still more the fact that it has been entrusted to\nministers of different Christian denominations--one of them, too, from\nacross the Border--are signs of a remarkable change that has come\nover--we may say--the _whole Christian people_ of Great Britain.\n\nOur island was, till not so long ago, emphatically a land of different,\nand diverging \"churches\" and \"denominations,\" unashamed of their\nseparation; nay, boasting their exclusiveness, or their dissidence,\ncommemorating with pride their secessions and disruptions. And even when\nthey began to see something of the evils such tempers and such acts had\nbrought in their train--the wastefulness of them, in regard alike to\nmoney, to men's toil, and gifts given by God for the use of the whole\nChurch but confined in their exercise to some small section;--the injury\nto character, the multiform self-righteousness engendered by our\nschisms, the breaches of Christian justice and charity;--the treatment\nof that whole Mediaeval Period to which we owe so much, as if it had\nbeen one dark age of heathen blindness;--and, again, the hindrances to\nChristian work at home and especially abroad,--when uneasiness over\nthese results began to shew itself, the recognition of the evil\nexpressed itself at first in ways hardly indicative of any depth of\npenitence, or conducive to any practical measures for the healing of the\nwrong. We had in one quarter \"Evangelical Alliances,\" which put a new\nstigma on huge portions of the Church of God, yet left those who took\npart in their meetings contented in their own divisions. In other\nquarters--probably in both the established Churches of our island--there\nwas a tendency (and more) to look down on Dissenters as such, to ignore\neven their reasonable grievances, to ask more from them than either Holy\nScripture or early tradition could warrant, and to disparage unions that\nwere possible and urgent as likely to put new difficulties in the way of\nthat further and perfect union of all who believe in Christ which alone\nHe has promised, and for which alone He tells us that He prays.\n\nI should be the very last to deprecate either prayer or effort to\nadvance this perfect end. It ought to be the ultimate aim of all of us,\nsince it is Christ's. We must do nothing to hinder it: we must do all\nthat may be lawful for us to promote it. But it should be pointed out to\nsuch as look exclusively towards the East and Rome, first, that a juster\nview of those great Churches--great gain as it is--affords little excuse\nfor ignoring the Churches of the Reformation, and for leaving the large\nnumbers of devout Christians in the lesser sects without either the hope\nor the means of supplying defects which are now, for the most part,\nrather inherited than chosen; second, that the divisions and\n\"variations\" among all who in East or West, in England or in Scotland,\nin the 11th or the 16th century, felt themselves bound to repudiate the\nPapal Supremacy, have supplied, and still supply, the Papacy with a\nchief weapon against all of us alike, and in favour of those extreme\npretensions which have been a chief cause of, and remain a chief\nobstacle to reunion; and third, that nothing is more likely to bring\nabout that kinder attitude toward the East and us which we desiderate on\nthe part of Rome than a large and generous measure here and in America\nof \"Home Reunion\"--effected, of course (as it can only be effected), on\nthe basis of the Catholic Creeds, a worship in the beauty of holiness,\nand the Apostolic Ministry.\n\nAnyhow, this is what we are finding in Scotland. Scotland, I know, is\nbut a little bit of the world: its largest churches small in comparison\nwith those of England and the United States, not to speak of the vast\ncommunions of Rome and of the East. But the experience even of a small\npart may intimate what may be looked for in much larger sections of what\nafter all is essentially the same body. For the Church, the Body of\nChrist, in all lands and in all ages is one in spite of its divisions.\nChrist is not divided. It is \"subjective unity\" not \"objective\" which in\nthe Church on earth is at present, through our sins, \"suspended.\" Well,\nin Scotland; where, let me remind you, the confession of Christ alike as\n\"King of the Nations\" and \"King in Zion,\" and of the visible Church as\nHis Kingdom on earth, was never laid aside, either in the National\nChurch or in the churches which separated from it (we laid aside much\nthat we should have done well to keep, but we stuck manfully to this);\nwe have had within recent times quite a number of incorporating unions;\nincluding two of considerable note--the union in 1847 which brought\ntogether in the \"United Presbyterian Church\" the two main sections of\nour 18th century \"Seceders,\" and the union of 1900 of the United\nPresbyterians with the great mass of the \"Free Church\" of 1843--the\nunion that has given us the \"United Free Church.\" I doubt if to either\nof these unions the hope of a future Catholic Reunion contributed, at\nthe time, much or anything. I know there were some in the Church of\nScotland who fancied, and alleged, that the union of 1900 was\n\"engineered\" with no friendly purpose towards us. But what has been the\noutcome? Both of these unions:--partial in themselves--have tended, in\nthe result, very materially to de-Calvinize (if I may coin the word) the\ngeneral Presbyterianism of Scotland, and break down narrow prejudices,\nto widen the outlook and enlarge the sympathies of those who took part\nin them. The second, and greater of these unions, that of 1900\n(suspected then, as I have said), proved, within eight short years, to\nbe the very thing to pave the way for the opening, between the Church of\nScotland and the United Free Church, of those official negotiations for\nan incorporating union which promise now to give us ere long a Church of\nScotland, not complete, indeed--not embracing even all the Presbyterians\nof Scotland, and greatly needing the Scottish Episcopalians--but still a\nChurch which will include an immense preponderance of the Scottish\npeople; which will be able to cover the whole country with not\ninadequate organizations; which will be freer also than it is at present\nto enter into further unions; which will remain--what it has ever\nbeen--both national and orthodox; and will continue, I believe, to go on\nrapidly resuming many of those touching, reverent, and churchly usages\nwhich in the heats of the 16th and 17th centuries it unwisely threw away\nor, less excusably, gave up in the coldness of the 18th. We have still\nsome beautiful old usages, as well as enviable liberties and powers. And\neven in the 18th century we kept the Faith against Arian and Socinian\nheresy: even then, our sacramental teaching could be high: even then,\nthe doctrine and the practice alike of the Established Church and the\nSeceders were clear and strong on the derivation of the Ministry from\nChrist, and the Apostolical succession of our ministers, and yours,\nthrough presbyters.\n\nFor myself, I suggested in 1907, when it was proposed in our General\nAssembly to open these negotiations, that we should attempt a larger\nduty, and approach all the reformed Churches in Scotland. I was\nover-ruled. It was held wiser \"in the meantime\" (they gave me this much)\nto \"confine our invitation\" to the United Free Church.\n\nThe Scottish Episcopal Church appeared to be of this mind also; and\nthose in her and among us who have long looked wistfully towards our\nunion with her and with the Church of England are already finding that\nour present effort (limited as it is) is proving not an obstacle, as\nsome of us feared, but a powerful impetus towards the larger effort. The\nunion seems likely to clear away hindrances to an extent we never\ndreamed of. It is opening up the wider prospect among an increasing\nnumber not in the Church of Scotland only, but emphatically also in the\nUnited Free Church. On all hands it is \"recognised\" in Scotland that the\nofficial \"limitation of the Union horizon is only temporary\":--I quote\nfrom the _Annual Report_ for this year of the Scottish Church Society:\n\n\n     No one is content to accept the contemplated union, should it be\n     accomplished, as exhaustive. We all wait for a fuller manifestation\n     of the Grace of God. At this season of Pentecost we dream our\n     dreams and see our visions of that great and notable day when all\n     who name the One Name shall be one.\n\n\nThe witness of the Scottish Church Society may seem to some one-sided:\nhere is a witness from the other side, of a date more recent than last\nMay; from a pamphlet just issued by the venerable Dr William Mair, the\nfirst and most persevering of the advocates of our present enterprise.\nHis words impress me as very touching in their transparent honesty:\n\n\n     It is thirteen years (he writes) since I first spoke out in the\n     form of a pamphlet. No man stood with me. Hard things were said of\n     me. I believed it to be the will of the HEAD of the Church, the\n     LORD JESUS CHRIST, that there should be union of His Church in\n     Scotland, and primarily that its two great Churches should be one.\n     I have never for a single moment doubted that His will would be\n     fulfilled, or that it was the duty of these Churches to set\n     themselves, under His guidance, with resolute purpose to work out\n     its fulfilment.\n\n\nObserve his \"primarily\": he quite recognises (I have his authority for\nsaying so) the further obligation. And no wonder: he is clear as to the\none great and supreme motive that should inspire all efforts for Church\nReunion--faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and the obedience of faith\nwhich the true confession of His Deity involves.\n\nThe will of the Lord in regard to the visible unity of His whole Church\nis plain: \"Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I\nmust lead; and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock,\none Shepherd.\" No doubt there is a difference between a fold ([Greek:\nanle]) and a flock ([Greek: poimne]), between the racial unity of the\nJewish Dispensation and the Catholic and international character\nimpressed from the beginning on the Christian Church. But a flock is as\nvisible as a fold is. We can see the one moving along the road under the\nshepherd's guidance just as distinctly as we see the other gleaming\nwhite on the hillside, or raising its turf-capped walls above the level\nof the moor. We can see, of course, if the walls of a fold are broken\ndown; but we can see also whether a flock is united, whether it is\nmoving forward as one mass, or is broken up and scattered. Such\nseparations might be well enough if the different little companies were\nall going quietly on in one way; though even then their breaking up\nwould argue on the one hand a portentous failure in that recognition of\nthe shepherd's voice and the obedience to him which is due to his loving\ncare, and on the other hand a strange lack of that gregariousness which\nis an instinct in the healthy sheep. But what if the sheep are seen\nrunning hither and thither in different directions: if they are found\nlabouring to explain the inadvisability--nay, the impossibility--of\ntheir ever coming into line; if we see them instead crossing each\nother's path, starting from each other, jostling and butting one\nanother, continually getting into situations provocative of fights and\ninjuries?\n\nIs this the kind of picture which the Lord Jesus has drawn of His Flock,\nHis Church as He wishes, and intends, that it should be: is this what He\npromises that it shall be?\n\nChrist made His Church one at the beginning: the rulers He set over it\n\"were all with one accord in one place\"; \"the multitude of them that\nbelieved were of one heart and of one soul.\" And when the Gentiles had\nbeen brought in, what care did the Apostles take lest the new departure\nshould cause a separation along a line made obsolete by the Cross of\nChrist; and with what adoring admiration does St Paul gaze at the\ndelightful spectacle of Jew and Gentile made one new man in Christ\nJesus--\"where,\" he cries, \"there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision\nand uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman, but Christ is\nall, and in all.\"\n\nIn matters of rank and race and colour all our denominations retain this\nApostolic Catholicity. How inconsistent to maintain it there, and\nrepudiate it when we come to such differences as mostly separate us!\nThese are differences far more of temper than of creed, or even of\nworship or government. We say, sometimes, that we are \"one in spirit\":\nnot so; it is just in spirit that we have been divided. In creed and\norganisation both, and in temper as well, the Church of Apostolic times\nwas visibly one. \"See how these Christians love one another\" was the\ncomment of the heathen onlooker. This state of things continued for a\nlong time. Gibbon enumerates the Church's \"unity and discipline,\" which\ngo together, as among the \"secondary causes\" of that wonderful spread of\nthe Gospel in the first three centuries.\n\nThe revived, broadened, and more candid study, alike of the New\nTestament and of Church History throughout its entire course, is one of\nthe ways in which the Good Shepherd has been leading us to see alike the\ndisobedience of our divisions, and the small foundation there is for\nmany of the points over which we have been fighting.\n\nHappily too, we do not now need to argue in favour of visible and\norganic unity. \"The once popular apologies for separation which asserted\nthe sufficiency of 'spiritual' union, and the stimulating virtues of\nrivalry and competition, have become obsolete.\"\n\nMore happily still, we have learned practically to appreciate the\ndifference between our Saviour's gentle I must lead ([Greek: dei me\nagagein]) and our forefathers' various attempts to produce \"uniformity\"\nby driving. The reproach of that sinful blunder is one that none of our\ngreater Churches--Roman, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Puritan--can cast in\nanother's teeth. Each of us committed it in our day of triumph. \"What\nfruit had we then in those things whereof we are now ashamed?\" The\nmemory--one-sided, and carefully cultivated--of what each suffered in\nits turn of adversity has hitherto been a potent agency for keeping us\napart. To-day those memories are fading. I was much struck by a remark I\nheard last spring from the Bishop of Southwark, that one reason why we\nare more ready nowadays to contemplate reunion is just that we belong to\na generation to whom those miserable doings are far-off things outside\nalike our experience and our expectation.\n\nIn other ways also we discern leadings of Our Saviour to the same end.\n\nThrough Whitefield and the Wesleys, and the Evangelical Revival, He\nre-awakened the peoples of England and America to a keen sense of the\nneed for personal religion. Where these powerful agencies had the\ndefects of their qualities, in their failure to appreciate aright His\ngracious ordinances of Church and Ministry and Sacrament, He rectified\nthe balance by giving us in due course the Oxford Movement, whose force\nis not \"spent,\" but diffused through all our \"denominations.\" Let us be\njust to the Oxford Movement: without it, humanly speaking, we should not\nhave been here to-day. If it had its own narrownesses, it revived the\nvery studies which, while they have revealed the inadequacy of certain\nof its postulates, have also brought clear into the view of all of us\nthe Divine goal which now gleams glorious in front of us--the goal of\nthe great Apostle--\"the building up of the Body of Christ: till we all\nattain unto the unity of the Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of\nGod, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the\nfulness of Christ.\"\n\nA Scotsman may be excused for referring to the debt which the leaders of\nthe Oxford Movement--Dr Pusey in particular was always ready to admit\nit--owed to Sir Walter Scott, particularly in re-awakening a more\nsympathetic interest in the Mediaeval Church. If Sir Walter's countrymen\nwere slower to follow him in this matter, they are doing so now in\nunexpected quarters. We are full to-day of the American alliance: may I\nremind you that Sir Walter Scott was the first British man of letters to\nhail the early promise of American literature by his cordial welcome to\nits representative, Washington Irving? Scott was a devoted subject of\nthe British Monarchy; but he saw, and he insisted on, the duty of Great\nBritain to cultivate a warm friendship with the United States.\n\nIn the same direction we have been led in days more recent by the large\ndevelopment, in all our denominations, of two main branches of Christian\nwork. I refer to Missionary enterprise abroad and Social service at\nhome. Our ecclesiastical divisions are a serious handicap to both. In a\nmatter more vital still, that of the Religious--the Christian--Education\nin our Schools and Colleges, our divisions have sometimes proved\nwell-nigh fatal. The one remedy is that we make up our differences and\ncome together.\n\nAnd now this War, so dreadful in itself, is helping powerfully, and in\nmany ways, to the same end. It is bringing us together at home, and\nmaking us acquainted with, and appreciative of, each other in a thousand\nforms of united service. It has spread before our eyes the magnificent\nand inspiring spectacles of Colonial loyalty, of one military command\nover the Allied Forces, of the cordial and enthusiastic support of a\nfully-reconciled America. Shall \"the children of this world be wiser\nthan the children of light\"? Shall the Church neglect the lesson read to\nher by the statesmen and the warriors? Then, again, the cause for which\nwe are in arms is--most happily--not denominational. The present War is\nnot in the least like those hateful, if necessary, struggles which\nhistorians have entitled \"The Wars of Religion\": but it is, on the part\nof the Entente, essentially and fundamentally Christian--more profoundly\nso than the Crusades themselves. That is why it is bringing us so\nmarkedly together. And, if this is its effect at home and in America,\nmuch more is it producing the same result among our chaplains and our\nChristian workers at the Front. They are finding, on the one hand, the\nlimitations, or faults, of every one of our stereotyped methods of work\nand forms of worship; they are seeing on the other hand among each other\nexcellencies where they only saw defects. They are brought together in\nadmiring comradeship, which resents the shackles restrictive of its\nplay. Let me read to you a passage from a letter I received a fortnight\nsince from an eminent Anglican chaplain now serving with our troops in\nFrance:\n\n\n     I see (he says) in this great war all the excrescences--the\n     non-essentials which up till now have masqueraded and misled so\n     many religious and non-religious men--drop off in the light of\n     great realities; and I have seen in the eyes of all true lovers of\n     our LORD, chaplains and laity, a wistful longing to unite, and\n     mobilize our spiritual forces now dissipated and ineffective\n     through disunion. What we look for more and more is a man, so\n     filled with the SPIRIT of GOD--so free from ambition, covetousness,\n     denominationalism, with a big heart and deep love, to make a plunge\n     and start. We may be able to start out here, if we have the\n     good-will of our leaders at home.\n\n\nI think I may safely assure my correspondent that he has the good-will\nof all the living leaders of all our denominations? May I write and tell\nhim so from this present meeting? [Yes....] I think I shall remind him\nfurther of those words of the Angel of the Lord to Gideon when he\nthreshed his wheat in the wine-press with a vigour suggestive of his\nwish to have the Midianites beneath his flail--\"Go in this thy might,\nand thou shalt save Israel\" from their marauding hands.\n\nAt home, then, as well as at the Front, the will is present with us; and\nwhere there is \"the will\" there is pretty sure to be \"the way.\"\n\n\"The way\" (I believe for my part) is substantially that laid down by the\nPan-Anglican Conference of 1866, in the \"Lambeth Quadrilateral.\" Its\nfour points were:\n\nI. The Holy Scriptures.\n\nII. The Nicene Creed.\n\nIII. The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper ministered with the\nunfailing use of the Words of Institution.\n\nIV. The Historic Episcopate.\n\nIt is fifty-two years since these terms were put forth. Have they ever\nbeen formally brought before the \"denominations\" for whom presumably\nthey were intended? Were they even once commended to the nearest of\nthese Churches by a deputation urging their consideration? I doubt it.\n\nYet the first three of these four conditions are already accepted by\nnearly all the English Nonconformists; and certainly by all the\nPresbyterian Churches, as fully as they are in the Church of England.\nThe Presbyterian Church of England has set the Nicene Creed on the\nfore-front of its new Confession. Every word of the Nicene Creed (as the\nlate Principal Denney pointed out) is in the Confession of Faith of all\nthe Scottish Presbyterians. The Church of Scotland repeats it at its\nsolemn \"Assembly Communion\" in St Giles'. Its crucial term, the\nHomoousion, is in the Articles now sent down to Presbyteries with the\nview of their transmission next May to the United Free Church.\n\nIn regard to the Sacramental services our _Directory_ is quite express\nin ordering the use in Baptism and the Eucharist of the Words of\nInstitution. I never heard of a case in Scotland where they were not\nused: we should condemn their omission should it anywhere occur.\n\nUndoubtedly the Fourth Article would have, till lately, presented\ndifficulties; but, then, those difficulties were in great measure\ncleared away by the admission of the Lambeth Conference of 1908 that in\nthe case of proposals for union, say of the Church of Scotland with the\nAnglican Church, reaching the stage of official action, an approach\nmight be made along the line of the \"Precedents of 1610.\" I had a recent\nopportunity of stating, in an Address[17] I gave at King's College,\nLondon, what these Precedents of 1610 were; how they included the\nunanimous vote of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in\nfavour of the restoration of diocesan bishops acting in conjunction with\nher graduated series of Church Courts; how we thereupon received from\nthe Church of England an Episcopate which then, and ever since, she has\naccounted valid, though neither the Scots bishops she then consecrated,\nnor the clergy of Scotland as a body, were required to be re-ordained;\nand how the combined system thus introduced among us gave us by far the\nmost brilliant and fruitful period in our ecclesiastical annals; and how\nLearning, Piety, Art and Church extension flourished among us, as they\nhave never done since. The system would in all probability have endured\nto the present day but for the arbitrary interferences--often with very\ngood intentions, and for ends in themselves desirable--of our Stuart\nkings. A later restoration of Episcopal Church government under Charles\nII lacked the ecclesiastical authority which that of 1610 possessed, and\nwas still more hopelessly discredited by its association with the\npersecution of the Covenanting remnant; but even under these\ndisadvantages it was yielding not inconsiderable benefits to the\nreligious life of Scotland. Under it our Gaelic-speaking highlanders\nfirst received the entire Bible in their native tongue; the Episcopate\nwas adorned by the piety of Leighton and the wisdom of Patrick Scougal;\nwhile Henry Scougal in his _Life of God in the Soul of Man_ produced a\nreligious classic of enduring value.\n\nThe reference by the Lambeth Conference of 1908 was meant as the opening\nof a door, and I understand there was some soreness among its supporters\nthat more notice of it was not taken in Scotland. But it was never sent\nto Scotland: it was never communicated to the General Assembly. Our\nScottish newspapers tell us very little of what goes on in England; and\nit must be admitted that too often, on both sides of the Tweed, things\nhave appeared in the press not calculated to heal differences or make\nfor peace. Sarcasm may be very clever: it is sometimes useful: it is\nrarely helpful to good feeling, or to the amendment either of him who\nutters it or of him against whom it is directed. The putting forth of\nthe finger and speaking vanity are among the things which Isaiah\ndeclares they must put away who desire to be called the restorers of the\nbreach, the repairers of paths to dwell in.\n\nNow you have taken in England a further step. The _Second Interim\nReport_ of the Archbishops' Sub-Committee in \"Connexion with the\nproposed World Conference on Faith and Order\" is not, I presume, a\ndocument of the \"official\" character of a Resolution of a Lambeth\nConference. It is nevertheless a paper of enormous significance and\nhopefulness, not alone as attested by the signatures it bears, but also\non account of the exposition which it gives of the fourth point in the\nLambeth Quadrilateral--its own condition \"that continuity with the\nHistoric Episcopate should be effectively preserved.\"\n\nThis _Report_ is, however, exclusively for England; while my concern\nto-day is with the kindred question of union between the Anglican Church\nand the Scottish Presbyterian Churches. The day I trust is not far\ndistant when we shall see a similar document issued over signatures from\nboth sides of the Tweed. Need I say that when this comes to be drawn up,\nwe of the North (like Bailie Nicol Jarvie with his business\ncorrespondents in London) \"will hold no communications with you but on\na footing of absolute equality.\" In none of the branches into which it\nis now divided--Presbyterian or Episcopalian--does the Church of\nScotland forget that it is an ancient national Church which never\nadmitted subjection to its greater sister of the South. We may have too\ngood \"a conceit of ourselves,\" but we shall at least, like the worthy\nbailie, be true and friendly. And indeed we--or some of us--were already\nmoving towards something of the kind. The _Second Interim Report_--it\nbears the title \"Towards Christian Unity\"--is dated, I observe, March\n1918. In Scotland, so early as the 29th of January, there was held at\nAberdeen (historically the most natural place for such a purpose, for it\nwas the city of the \"Aberdeen Doctors\" and their eirenic efforts) a\nconference--modest, unofficial, tentative--yet truly representative of\nthe Church of Scotland, of the United Free Church, and of the Scottish\nEpiscopal Church, which drew up, and has issued, a _Memorandum_[18]\nsuggesting a basis for reunion in Scotland, very much on the lines of\nthe Precedents of 1610, but suggesting such arrangements during a period\nof transition as shall secure that respect is paid to the conscientious\nconvictions to be found on both sides. We shall not repeat the blunders\nof 1637 which ruined the happy settlement of 1610.\n\nWe have in view a method which shall neither deprive Scottish Episcopal\ncongregations of the services they love, nor attempt to force a\nPrayer-Book on Presbyterian congregations till they wish it for\nthemselves. We shall do nothing either to discredit or disparage our\nexisting Presbyterian orders; we shall be no less careful not to obtrude\non the Episcopal minority the services of a ministry they deem\ndefective; which shall arrange that in the course of a generation the\nministry of both communions shall be acceptable to all, while in the\nmeanwhile it will be possible for both to work together. Alike in\nEngland and in Ireland this Memorandum, where it has been seen, has been\nfavourably received. In Scotland it--and doubtless other plans--will\nprobably be discussed in the coming winter by many a gathering similar\nto that which drew it up; and thus we shall be ready, by the time our\nunion with the United Free Church is completed, to go on together to\nthis further task.\n\nBy that time you in England will have made some progress towards the\nhealing of your divisions. The wider settlement of ours would be greatly\nfacilitated by an overt encouragement from you. England is \"the\npredominant partner\" in our happily united Empire: it is the Church of\nEngland that should take the initiative in a scheme for a United Church\nfor the United Empire. She should take that initiative in Scotland.\n\nCould there be a more appropriate occasion for proposing conference with\na view to it at Edinburgh, than the day which sees the happy\naccomplishment of our present Scottish effort? Might not the Church of\nEngland, the Church of Ireland, and the Scottish Episcopal Church (all\nof which have given tokens of a sympathetic interest in our union\nnegotiations) unite to send deputations for the purpose to our first\nreunited General Assembly? Such deputations would not go away empty. And\nthey would carry with them what would help not only the Cause of Christ\nthroughout the ever-widening Empire He has given to our hands, but the\nfulfilment of His blessed will that all His people should be one.\nAuspice Spiritu Sancto. Amen.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[17] This Address, along with another delivered in St Paul's, has been\npublished by Mr Robert Scott, of Paternoster Row, under the title\n_Reunion, a Voice from Scotland_.\n\n[18] Printed in _Reunion, a Voice from Scotland_, pp. 101-107.\n\n\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CLASSES\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nBy the Right Rev. F. T. WOODS, D.D.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nHe would be a dull man who did not respond to such a theme as the one\nwith which I have been entrusted.\n\nBefore the war, in spite of much enlightenment of the social conscience,\nunity between classes was still far to seek. Indeed, the contemplation\nof the state of English society in those early months of 1914 was\nperhaps more calculated to drive the social reformer into pessimism than\nanything which has happened since. The rich were hunting for fresh\npleasures, the poor were hunting for better conditions. The tendencies\nwhich were dragging these classes apart seemed stronger than those which\nwere bringing them together. Then came the war, and it has done much to\nconvert a forlorn hope into a bright prospect. This has happened not\nmerely, or even mainly, owing to the fact that men of all classes are\nfighting side by side in the trenches, but rather owing to the fact that\nthe war has cleared our minds, has exposed the real dangers of\ncivilisation, and has placarded before the world, in terms which cannot\nbe mistaken, the things which are most worth living for.\n\nI propose to ask your attention to my subject under three heads. First I\nshall say something of the basis of class distinction, then I shall put\nbefore you some attempts which have been made at social unity, and in\nclosing I shall try to estimate the hope of the present situation.\n\n\nI\n\nTHE BASIS OF CLASS DISTINCTION\n\nBirth and Property have been during most of human history the chief\npoints on which class distinction has turned. Behind them both, I fear\nit must be confessed, there is that which lies at the root of all\ncivilisation, namely force. I presume that the first class distinction\nwas between the group of people who could command and the group who had\nto obey. The second group no doubt consisted in most cases of conquered\nenemies who were turned into slaves. They were outsiders, the men of a\nlower level.\n\nBut the master group, if I may so call it, would have its descendants,\nwho by virtue of family relationships would seek to keep their position.\nThis, I conclude, is the fountain head of that stream of blue blood\nwhich has played so large a part in class distinction. It is not\ndifficult to make out a strong case for it from the point of view of\nhuman evolution. The processes of primitive warfare may have led to the\nsurvival of the fittest or the selection of the best. At a time when the\nsense of social responsibility was limited in the extreme, it may have\nbeen a good thing that the management of men should have rested mainly\nin the hands of those who by natural endowments and force of character\ncame to the top. It is unnecessary to dwell at length on the immense\ninfluence both in our own country and elsewhere which this blood\ndistinction of class has exercised. It is writ large in the history of\nthe word \"gentleman,\" both in the English word and its Latin ancestor.\nThe Latin word \"generosus,\" always the equivalent of \"gentleman\" in\nEnglish-Latin documents, signifies a person of good family. It was used\nno doubt in this sense by the Rev. John Ball, the strike leader, as we\nshould call him in modern terms, of the 14th century, in the lines which\nformed a kind of battlecry of the rebels:\n\n\n     When Adam delved and Eve span,\n     Who was then the gentleman?\n\n\nA writer of a century later, William Harrison, says: \"Gentlemen be those\nwhom their race and blood or at least their virtues do make noble and\nknown.\"\n\nBut the distinction is older than this. According to Professor Freeman\nit goes back well nigh to the Conquest. Not indeed the distinction of\nblood, for that is much older, but the formation of a separate class of\ngentlemen. It has been maintained however by some writers that this is\nrather antedating the process, and that the real distinction in English\nlife up to the 14th century was between the nobiles, the tenants in\nchivalry, a very large class which included all between Earls and\nFranklins; and the ignobiles, i.e. the villeins, the ordinary citizens\nand burgesses. The widely prevalent notion that a gentleman was a person\nwho had a right to wear coat armour is apparently of recent growth, and\nis possibly not unconnected with the not unnatural desire of the\nherald's office to magnify its work.\n\nIt is evident that noble blood in those days was no more a guarantee of\ngood character than it is in this, for, according to one of the writers\non the subject, the premier gentleman of England in the early days of\nthe 15th century was one who had served at Agincourt, but whose\nsubsequent exploits were not perhaps the best advertisement for gentle\nbirth. According to the public records he was charged at the\nStaffordshire Assizes with house-breaking, wounding with intent to kill,\nand procuring the murder of one Thomas Page, who was cut to pieces while\non his knees begging for his life[19].\n\nThe first gentleman, commemorated by that name on an existing monument,\nis John Daundelion who died in 1445.\n\nIn the 14th and 15th centuries the chief occupation of gentlemen was\nfighting; but later on, when law and order were more firmly established,\nthe younger sons of good families began to enter industrial life as\napprentices in the towns, and there began to grow up a new aristocracy\nof trade. To William Harrison, the writer to whom I have already\nreferred, merchants are still citizens, but he adds: \"They often change\nestate with gentlemen as gentlemen do with them by mutual conversion of\nthe one into the other.\"\n\nSince those days the name has very properly come to be connected less\nwith blue blood than--if I may coin the phrase--with blue behaviour. In\n1714, Steele lays it down in the _Tatler_ that the appellation of\ngentleman is never to be fixed to a man's circumstances but to his\nbehaviour in them. And in this connexion we may recall the old story of\nthe Monarch, said by some to be James II, who replied to a lady\npetitioning him to make her son a gentleman: \"I could make him a noble,\nbut God Almighty could not make him a gentleman.\"\n\nBefore we leave the class distinctions based mainly on birth and blood,\nit is well to remark that in England they have never counted for so much\nas elsewhere. It is true of course that the nobility and gentry have\nbeen a separate class, but they have been constantly recruited from\nbelow. Distinction in war or capability in peace was the qualification\nof scores of men upon whom the highest social rank was bestowed in reign\nafter reign in our English history. Moreover, birth distinction has\nnever been recognised in law, in spite of the fact that the manipulation\nof laws has not always been free from bias. The well known words of\nMacaulay are worth quoting in this connexion:\n\n\n     There was a strong hereditary aristocracy: but it was of all\n     hereditary aristocracies the least insolent and exclusive. It had\n     none of the invidious character of a caste. It was constantly\n     receiving members from the people, and constantly sending down\n     members to mingle with the people. Any gentleman might become a\n     peer, the younger son of a peer was but a gentleman. Grandsons of\n     peers yielded precedence to newly made knights.\n\n\nThe dignity of knighthood was not beyond the reach of any man who could\nby diligence and thrift realise a good estate, or who could attract\nnotice by his valour in battle.\n\n\n     ... Good blood was indeed held in high respect: but between good\n     blood and the privileges of peerage there was, most fortunately for\n     our country, no necessary connection.... There was therefore here\n     no line like that which in some other countries divides the\n     patrician from the plebeian. The yeoman was not inclined to murmur\n     at dignities to which his own children might rise. The grandee was\n     not inclined to insult a class into which his own children must\n     descend.... Thus our democracy was, from an early period, the most\n     aristocratic, and our aristocracy the most democratic in the world;\n     a peculiarity which has lasted down to the present day, and which\n     has produced many important moral and political effects[20].\n\n\nIf blood counted for much in distinctions of class, property counted for\nmore. The original distinction between the \"haves\" and the \"have nots\"\nhas persisted throughout history and is with us to-day.\n\nIn the ancient village, no doubt, the distinction was of the simplest.\nOn the one hand was the man who by force or by his own energy became\npossessed of more cattle and more sheep than his fellows; on the other\nhand was the man who, in default of such property, was ready and willing\nto give his services to the bigger man, whether for wages, or as a\ncondition of living in the village and sharing in the rights of the\nvillage fields and pastures. Here presumably we have the origin of that\ninstitution of Landlordism which still looms so large in our social\nlife. In the early days it was probably more a matter of cattle than of\nland. The possessor of cattle in the village would hire out a certain\nnumber of them to a poorer neighbour, who would have the right to feed\nthem on the common land. Thus, even in primitive times, a class\ndistinction based on property began to grow up.\n\nEarly in history there was found in most villages a chief man who had\nthe largest share of the land. Below him there would be three or four\nlandowners of moderate importance and property. At the end of the scale\nwere the ordinary labourers and villagers, among whom the rest of the\nvillage lands were divided as a rule on fairly equal terms.\n\nClosely allied to this of course was the organisation of the village\nfrom the point of view of military service. Parallel to this more\npeaceful organisation of society was the elaborate Feudal System, by\nwhich, from the King downwards, lands were held in virtue of an\nobligation on the part of each class to the one above it to produce men\nfor the wars in due proportion of numbers and equipment.\n\nFrom this point of view property in land meant also property in men,\nlabourers in peace and soldiers in war.\n\nAs time went on the class distinctions of birth and property began more\nand more to coincide. It was Dr Johnson who made the remark that \"the\nEnglish merchant is a new species of gentleman.\"\n\nThe form of property which was always held to be in closest connexion\nwith gentle blood was land. This has been so in a pre-eminent degree\nsince our English Revolution at the end of the 17th century. From that\ntime onwards the smaller landowners, yeomen and squires with small\nholdings, begin to disappear and the landed gentry become practically\nsupreme. Political power in a large measure rested with them, and the\nresult was that numbers of men who had made money in trade were eager to\nuse it in the purchase of land, for this meant the purchase of social\nand political influence.\n\nIt was no doubt this craze for the possession of land which led to the\nprocess of enclosing the common lands of the village, a process on which\nno true Englishman can look back in these days without shame and sorrow.\nIt is no doubt arguable that from an economic point of view the\nproductive power of the land was increased, that agriculture was more\nefficiently and scientifically managed by the comparatively few big men\nthan it would have been by the many small men who were displaced. None\nthe less the price was too high, for it meant a still further\naccentuation of class distinction. It meant the further enrichment of\nthe big man, and the further impoverishment of the small man. And\nbetween the two there grew up a class of farmers, separate from the\nlabourers, whose outlook on the whole did not make for those relations\nof neighbourliness and even kinship which had been among the fine\ncharacteristics of the ancient village.\n\nNor is this the end of the story, for the distinction between the\n\"haves\" and the \"have nots\" was still further accentuated, and the two\nclasses driven still further apart, by the far-reaching Industrial\nRevolution of the late 18th and early 19th century.\n\nThe alienation between the farmer and the labourer was exactly\nparalleled by the alienation which gradually crept in between the\nmanufacturer and the workers. The growth of the factory system was\nindeed so rapid that only the keenest foresight could have provided\nagainst these evils. The same may be said of the amazing development of\nthe towns, particularly in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire,\nwhich quickly gathered round the new hives of industry. Unfortunately\nthat foresight was lacking. On the one hand the science of town-planning\nhad hardly been born, on the other hand a lightning accumulation of\nlarge fortunes turned the heads of the commercial magnates, dehumanised\nindustry, and broke up the fellowship which in older and simpler days\nhad obtained between the employer and his men.\n\nIt is a charge which we frequently bring against the enemy in these\ndays, a charge only too well founded, that they are expert in everything\nexcept understanding human nature. The same may be said of those who\nwere concerned in the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century. The\ngrowing wealth of the country which should have united masters and men\nin a truer comradeship, and a richer life, achieved results which were\nprecisely the opposite. It developed a greed of cash which we have not\nyet shaken off, and money was accumulated in the pockets of men who had\nhad neither aptitude nor training in the art of spending it. The workers\nwere reduced to a state not far removed from a salaried slavery, and the\ndifference between the \"haves\" and the \"have nots\" was perhaps more\nacute than at any other time in our history. The causes of this were\nmany and complex. Not the least of them was the fact that the masters of\nindustry were captured by a false theory of economics according to which\nthe fund which was available for the remuneration of labour could not at\nany given time be greater or less than it was. Human agency could not\nincrease its volume, it could only vary its distribution. And further,\nas every man has the right to sell his labour for what he can obtain for\nit, any interference between the recipients was held to be unjust.\n\n\"That theory,\" as Mr Hammond has told us, \"became supreme in economics,\nand the whole movement for trade-union organisation had to fight its way\nagainst this solid superstition[21].\"\n\nThe doctrine of free labour achieved a wonderful popularity; but then,\nas the writer I have just quoted reminds us: \"Free labour had not Adam\nSmith's meaning: it meant the freedom of the employer to take what\nlabour he wanted, at the price he chose and under the conditions he\nthought proper[22].\"\n\nMore and more therefore the employers and the workers drifted apart, and\nthe supreme misfortune was that the one power which might have drawn\nthem together was itself in a state of semi-paralysis in regard to the\ncorporate responsibility of the community. That power was religion.\nThere were times, as I shall endeavour to point out later, when\nChristianity was able to produce an atmosphere of comradeship stronger\nthan the differences of class. But to the very great loss of both\ncountry and Church this was not one of them.\n\nAt the moment when the corporate message of the Church was needed, it\nwas looking the other way, and concentrating its thought on the\nindividual. The Reformation was in large measure a revolt from the\nimperial to the personal conception of religion. I do not deny that this\nrevolt was necessary and beneficial. But the reaction from the corporate\naspect of Christianity went too far. When this reaction was further\nreinforced by the Puritan movement, which with all its strength and its\nfine austerity fastened its attention on the minutiae of personal\nconduct, and left the community as such almost out of sight, it is not\nsurprising to find that religion at the end of the 18th, and through a\nlarge part of the 19th century, failed to produce just that sense of\nbrotherhood which would have mitigated the whole situation and prevented\nmuch of the practical paganism which I have described.\n\nEven the great revival connected with the name of John Wesley brought\nall its fire to bear on the conversion of the _man_, when the social\nunit which was most in need of that conversion was the community. The\nresult of all this was that, partly owing to ignorance, partly owing to\nprejudice, partly owing to the misreading of the New Testament, the\nmessengers of religion had no message of corporate responsibility for\nnation or class. There was no one to lift aloft the torch of human\nbrotherhood over the dark and gloomy landscape of English life. So far\nfrom that, the people who figured large in religion were convinced quite\nhonestly that the division of classes was a heaven sent order, with\nwhich it would be impious to interfere, and further that the main\nmessage of religion to the people at large was an authoritative\ninjunction to good behaviour, and patient resignation to the\ncircumstances in which Providence had placed them. The notion that the\norganisation of Society, particularly on its industrial side, was wholly\ninconsistent with the ideals of the New Testament never so much as\nentered their heads, and any suggestion to this effect would have been\nregarded not merely as revolutionary but sacrilegious.\n\nI have ventured on this very rough description of class distinctions,\nbefore our modern days, because it is through the study of our\nforefathers' mistakes and a truer understanding of our forefathers'\ninspirations that we may hope to create a better world in the days that\nare coming.\n\n\nII\n\nATTEMPTS AT SOCIAL UNITY\n\nLet me ask your attention now to a few of the attempts which have been\nmade to create a deeper social unity.\n\nSome of these were naturally and inevitably developed in primitive days\nby the simple fact that \"birds of a feather flock together.\"\n\nMen engaged in pastoral pursuits gathered themselves into the tribe with\nits strong blood bond. The tillage of the fields led to the existence of\nthe clan, with its family system and its elaborate organisation of the\nland. In the same way industrial activity produced the Guild, that is\nthe grouping of men by crafts, a grouping which might well be revived\nand encouraged on a larger scale in the rearrangements of the future.\n\nI need not remind you how large a place was occupied by the Guilds in\nEnglish life. They were not Trade Unions in the modern sense, for they\nincluded both masters and men in one organisation. Nor must we attribute\na modern meaning to those two phrases, masters and men, when we speak of\nthe ancient Guild. For in a large measure every man was his own\nemployer. He was a member of the league; he kept the rules; but he was\nhis own master. The master did not mean the manager of the workmen, but\nthe expert in the work. He was the master of the art in question, and\nthough his fellows might be journeymen or apprentices, they all belonged\nto the same social class, and throughout the Guild there was a spirit of\ncomradeship which was consecrated by the sanctions of religion.\n\nFor it was the Guilds which were the prime movers in organising those\nMiracle Plays which were the delight of the Middle Ages, and which\nformed the main outlet for that dramatic instinct which used to be so\nstrong in England, and which paved the way for Shakespeare and the\nmodern stage.\n\nThe Guild was not concerned mainly with money but with work, and still\nmore with the skill and happiness of the worker, and its aim was to\nresist inequality. It was, in the pointed words of Mr Chesterton,\n\n\n     to ensure, not only that bricklaying should survive and succeed,\n     but that every bricklayer should survive and succeed. It sought to\n     rebuild the ruins of any bricklayer, and to give any faded\n     whitewasher a new white coat. It was the whole aim of the Guilds to\n     cobble their cobblers like their shoes and clout their clothiers\n     with their clothes; to strengthen the weakest link, or go after the\n     hundredth sheep; in short to keep the row of little shops unbroken\n     like a line of battle[23].\n\n\nThe Guild in fact aimed at keeping each man free and happy in the\npossession of his little property, whereas the Trade Union aims at\nassembling into one company a large number of men who have little or no\nproperty at all, and who seek to redress the balance by collective\naction. The mediaeval Guild therefore will certainly go down to history\nas one of the most gallant attempts, and for the time being one of the\nmost successful, to create a true comradeship among all who work, and to\nkeep at a distance those mere class distinctions which, though their\nfoundations are often so flimsy, tend to grip men as in an iron vice.\n\nBut I must not pass by another social organisation which looms very\nlarge in the old days, and which approached social unity from a side\nwholly different from those I have mentioned, namely from the military\nside: I mean the Feudal System. Here there has been much\nmisunderstanding. Its very name seems to breathe class distinction. We\nhave come casually and rather carelessly to identify it with the tyranny\nand oppression which exalted the few at the expense of the many. This\npoint of view is however a good deal less than just. It is quite true\nthat as worked by William the Norman and several of his successors the\nsystem became only too often an instrument of gross injustice and crass\ndespotism; but at its best, and in its origin, it was based on the twin\nfoundations of protection on the one hand and duty on the other. I will\nventure to quote a high authority in this connexion, namely Bishop\nStubbs.\n\n\n     The Feudal System, with all its tyranny and all its faults and\n     shortcomings, was based on the requirements of mutual help and\n     service, and was maintained by the obligations of honour and\n     fealty. Regular subordination, mutual obligation, social unity,\n     were the pillars of the fabric. The whole state was one: the king\n     represented the unity of the nation. The great barons held their\n     estates from him, the minor nobles of the great barons, the gentry\n     of these vassals, the poorer freemen of the gentry, the serfs\n     themselves were not without rights and protectors as well as duties\n     and service. Each gradation, and every man in each, owed service,\n     fixed definite service, to the next above him, and expected and\n     received protection and security in return. Each was bound by\n     fealty to his immediate superior, and the oath of the one implies\n     the pledged honour and troth of the other[24].\n\n\nThis system indeed was very far from perfect, but it certainly was an\nattempt to bind the nation together in one social unit, to provide a\nmeasure of protection for all, and to demand duties from all. It sought\nto lay equal stress on rights and duties. In this respect--and I am\nstill thinking of the system at its best--it was far ahead of modern\n19th century Industrialism, a system which might be described with but\nlittle exaggeration as laying sole emphasis on rights for one class and\nduties for the other.\n\nBut the supreme attempt which so far has been made to promote unity\nbetween classes has approached the problem from a far loftier\nstandpoint; not industrial, nor military, but religious. And this\nattempt has been on a larger scale and on firmer foundations than any of\nthe others, for it has sought to unite men in spite of their\ndifferences. It has tried, that is, to get below the varieties of race\nor family or occupation, and create a unity which, because it transcends\nthem all, may hope to last. As a fact this attempt has so far surpassed\nall others, and has met with the greatest measure of success. And lest I\nshould be suspected of prejudice I will quote an outside witness:\n\n\n     A very pregnant saying of T. H. Green was that during the whole\n     development of man the command, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as\n     thyself\" has never varied, what has varied is the answer to the\n     question--Who is my neighbour?... The influence upon the\n     development of civilisation of the wider conception of duty and\n     responsibility to one's fellow-men which was introduced into the\n     world with the spread of Christianity can hardly be overestimated.\n     The extended conception of the answer to the question Who is my\n     neighbour? which has resulted from the characteristic doctrines of\n     the Christian religion--a conception transcending all the claims of\n     family, group, state, nation, people or race and even all the\n     interests comprised in any existing order of society--has been the\n     most powerful evolutionary force which has ever acted on society.\n     It has tended gradually to break up the absolutisms inherited from\n     an older civilization and to bring into being an entirely new type\n     of social efficiency[25].\n\n\nOr to take another witness equally unprejudiced, who puts the same truth\nmore tersely still, the late Professor Lecky. \"The brief record of those\nthree short years,\" referring to Christ's life, \"has done more to soften\nand regenerate mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and\nexhortations of moralists.\" For a third witness we will call Mazzini.\n\"We owe to the Church,\" he declared, \"the idea of the unity of the human\nfamily and of the equality and emancipation of souls.\" That this is\namply borne out by the history of the Church in early days is not\ndifficult to prove. The unexceptionable evidence of a Pagan writer is\nhere very much to the point. Says Lucian of the Christians:\n\n\"Their original lawgiver had taught them that they were all brethren,\none of another.... They become incredibly alert when anything ...\naffects their common interests[26].\"\n\nIn the same way the ancient Christian writer Tertullian observes with\ncharacteristic irony: \"It is our care for the helpless, our practice of\nlovingkindness, that brands us in the eyes of many of our opponents.\nOnly look, they say, 'look how they love one another[27]!'\" It is not\nsurprising that this was so when you look into the writings which form\nthe New Testament. Apart from the words and example of the Founder of\nChristianity, few men have ever lived who were more alive to existing\nsocial distinctions, and also to the splendour of that scheme which\ntranscends them all, than St Paul. In proof of this it is sufficient to\npoint to that immortal treatise on social unity which is commonly called\nthe Epistle to the Ephesians. In this the fundamental secret is seen to\nconsist, not in a rigid system but in a transforming spirit working\nthrough a divine Society in which all worldly distinctions are of no\naccount. Slavery, for instance, was, in his view, and was actually in\nprocess of time, to be abolished not by a stroke of the pen but by a\nchange of ideal. Nor is the witness lacking in writings subsequent to\nthe New Testament. To instance one of the earliest. In an official\nletter sent by the Roman Church to the Christians in Corinth towards the\nend of the first century, in a passage eulogising the latter community\nthis suggestive sentence occurs: \"You did everything without respect of\npersons.\"\n\nNeedless to say however, this point of view, this new spirit, only\ngradually permeated the Christian Church itself, let alone the great\nworld outside. We are not surprised to learn that it was a point of\ncriticism among the opponents of the religion that among its adherents\nwere still found masters and slaves. An ancient writer in reply to\ncritics who cry out \"You too have masters and slaves. Where then is your\nso-called equality?\" thus makes answer:\n\n\n     Our sole reason for giving one another the name of brother is\n     because we believe we are equals. For since all human objects are\n     measured by us after the spirit and not after the body, although\n     there is a diversity of condition among human bodies, yet slaves\n     are not slaves to us; we deem and term them brothers after the\n     spirit, and fellow-servants in religion[28].\n\n\nPointing in the same direction is the fact that the title \"slave\" never\noccurs on a Christian tombstone.\n\nIt is plain from this, and from similar quotations which might be\nmultiplied, that the policy of Christianity in face of the first social\nproblem of the day, namely slavery, was not violently to undo the\nexisting bonds by which Society was held together, in the hope that some\nnew machinery would at once be forthcoming--a plan which has since been\nadopted with dire consequences in Russia--but to evacuate the old system\nof the spirit which sustained it; and to replace it with a new spirit, a\nnew outlook on life, which would slowly but inevitably lead to an entire\nreconstruction of the social framework.\n\nAlready too, within the Church this sense of brotherhood was making\nitself felt on the industrial side as well as where more directly\nspiritual duties were concerned. It seems to have been recognised in\nthe Christian Society that every brother could claim the right of being\nmaintained if he were unable to work. Equally it was emphasised that the\nduty of work was paramount on all who were capable of it. \"For those\nable to work, provide work; to those incapable of work be charitable.\"\nThis aspect of the matter finds a singular emphasis in a second century\ndocument known as \"The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,\" in which this\nsense of industrial brotherhood finds very significant expression.\nSpeaking of visitors from other Churches it is directed that \"if any\nbrother has a trade let him follow that trade and earn the bread he\neats. If he has no trade, exercise your discretion in arranging for him\nto live among you as a Christian, but not in idleness. If he will not do\nthis, that is to say, to undertake the work which you provide for him,\nhe is trafficking with Christ. Beware of men like that.\"\n\nOn this side of its life therefore, the Church came very near to being a\nvast Guild where with the highest sanction rights and duties were\nintermingled in due proportion, and that true social unity established,\nwhich while it refuses privileges bestows protection. On these\nfoundations the organisation was reared, which like some great Cathedral\ndominated that stretch of centuries usually known as the Middle Ages. We\ncould all of us hold forth on its drawbacks and evils, yet its benefits\nwere tremendous. For one thing it created an aristocracy wholly\nindependent of any distinction of blood or property. Anyone might become\nan Archbishop if only he had the necessary gifts. Still more anyone\nmight become a Saint. The charmed circle of the Church's nobility was\nconstantly recruited from every class, and was therefore a standing and\neffectual protest against the flimsier measurements of Society and the\nmore ephemeral gradations of rank. Obviously this process found as great\na scope in England as elsewhere. It was the Church which was the most\npotent instrument in bringing together Norman and Saxon as well as\nmaster and slave. For, as Macaulay has said with perfect truth, it\n\n\n     creates an aristocracy altogether independent of race, inverts the\n     relation between the oppressor and the oppressed, and compels the\n     hereditary master to kneel before the spiritual tribunal of the\n     hereditary bondman.... So successfully had the Church used her\n     formidable machinery that, before the Reformation came, she had\n     enfranchised almost all the bondmen in the kingdom except her own,\n     who, to do her justice, seem to have been very tenderly\n     treated[29].\n\n\nThis makes it particularly deplorable that in consequence of the great\nreaction in religion from the corporate to the personal, to which I have\nalluded, the Church's power, as far as Britain was concerned, though so\nsplendidly exercised in the preceding centuries, should have been almost\nnon-existent just at the moment when it was most required, in the\nAgricultural and Industrial Revolution of comparatively modern times.\n\n\nIII\n\nTHE HOPE OF THE PRESENT SITUATION\n\nI fear that a large portion of this lecture has been taken up with the\npast. But even so rough and brief a review as I have attempted is a\nnecessary prelude to a just estimate, both of our present position and\nof our future prospects. It is often supposed, indeed, that the study of\nhistory predisposes a man's mind to a conservative view. He studies the\nslow development of institutions, or the gradual influence of movements,\nand the trend of his thought works round to the very antipodes of\nanything that is revolutionary or catastrophic. But there is another\nside to the matter. The study of history may so expose the injustices of\nthe past and their intrenchments that the student reaches the conclusion\nthat nothing but an earthquake--an earthquake in men's ideas at the very\nleast--can avail to set things right; that the best thing that could\nhappen would be an explosion so terrible as to make it possible to break\ncompletely with the past, and start anew on firmer principles and better\nways. After all, as a great Cambridge scholar once said, \"History is the\nbest cordial for drooping spirits.\" For if on the one hand it exposes\nthe selfishnesses of men, on the other it displays an exhibition of\nthose Divine-human forces of justice and sacrifice and good will which\nin the long run cannot be denied, and which encourage the brightest\nhopes for the age which is upon us.\n\nThe fact is, we are in the midst of precisely such an explosion as I\nhave indicated. The immeasurable privilege has been given to us of being\nalive at a time when, most literally, an epoch is being made.\nContemporary observers of events are not always the best judges of their\nsignificance, yet we shall hardly be mistaken if we assert that without\ndoubt we stand at one of the turning points of the world's long story,\nthat the phrase used of another epoch-making moment is true of this one,\n\"Old things are passing away, all things are becoming new.\" For history\nis presenting us in these days with a clean slate, and to the men of\nthis generation is given the opportunity for making a fresh start such\nas in the centuries gone by has often been sought, but seldom found. We\nare called to the serious and strenuous task of freeing our minds from\nold preconceptions--and the hold they have over us, even at a moment\nlike this when the world is being shaken, is amazing--the task of\nreaching a new point of view from which to see our social problems, and\nof not being disobedient to the heavenly vision wheresoever it may lead\nus.\n\nThat vision is Fellowship, and it is not new. Though the war is, in the\nsense which I have suggested, a terrific explosion which in the midst of\nruin and chaos brings with it supreme opportunities, it is equally true\nto say that it forms no more than a ghastly parenthesis in the process\nof fellowship both between nations and classes which had already begun\nto make great strides.\n\n\"The sense of social responsibility has been so deepened in our\ncivilisation that it is almost impossible that one nation should attempt\nto conquer and subdue another after the manner of the ancient world.\"\n\nThese words sound rather ironical. They come from the last edition of\nthe _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. They were written about seven years ago\nin perfect good faith, as a sober estimate of the forces of fellowship\nwhich could be then discerned. Save for the ideals and ambitions of the\ncentral Empires of Europe they were perfectly true. What the war has\ndone in regard to this fellowship is to expose in their hideous\nnakedness the dangers which threaten it, and to which in pre-war days we\nwere far too blind, but also to unveil that strong passion for\nneighbourliness which lies deep in the hearts of men, and an almost\nfierce determination to give it truer expression in the age which is\nahead.\n\nYou will naturally ask what effect the war is likely to have on this\nproblem of class distinction. How far will it hinder or enhance the\nsocial unity for which we seek?\n\nWe must of course beware of being unduly optimistic. The fact that\nmillions of our men are seeing with their own eyes the results which can\nbe achieved by naked force will not be without its effect on their\nattitude when they return to their homes. If force is so necessary and\nso successful on the field of battle why not equally so in the\nindustrial field? If nations find it necessary to face each other with\ndaggers drawn, it may be that classes will have to do the same.\n\nPersonally I doubt whether this argument is likely to carry much weight.\nIt is much more likely in my view that our men will be filled with so\ndeep a hatred of everything that even remotely savours of battle, that a\ngreat tide of reaction against mere force will set in, and a great\nimpetus be given to those higher and more spiritual motor-powers which\nduring the war we have put out of court.\n\nOn the other hand it is easy to cherish a rather shallow hope as to the\ncontinuation in the future of that unity of classes which obtains in the\ntrenches. Surely, it is argued, men who have stood together at the\ndanger point and gone over the top together at the moment of assault\nwill never be other than brothers in the more peaceful pursuits which\nwill follow. Yet it is not easy to foretell what will happen when the\ntremendous restraint of military service is withdrawn, when Britain no\nlonger has her back to the wall, and when the overwhelming loyalty which\nleaps forth at the hour of crisis falls back into its normal quiescence,\nlike the New Zealand geyser when its momentary eruption is over. Any\nhopefulness which we may cherish for the future must rest on firmer\nfoundations than these.\n\nSuch a foundation, I believe, has come to light, and I must say a few\nwords about it as I close.\n\nBroadly speaking it is this. The war has taught us that it is possible\nto live a national family life, in which private interests are\nsubordinated in the main to the service of the State; and further that\nthis new social organisation of the nation has called forth an\nunprecedented capacity in tens of thousands both of men and women, not\nmerely for self-denying service, but for the utmost heights of heroism\neven unto death.\n\nMen have vaguely cherished this ideal of national life before the war,\nbut now it has been translated into concrete fact, and the nation can\nnever forget the deep sense of corporate efficiency, even of corporate\njoy, which has ensued from this obliteration of the old class\ndistinctions, this amalgamation of all and sundry in a common service.\nThe fact is that a new class distinction has in a measure taken the\nplace of the old, a distinction which has nothing to do with blood or\nwith money, but solely with service. The nation is graded, not in\ndegrees of social importance but in degrees of capacity for service. The\nonly superiority is one of sacrifice. And each grade takes its hat off\nto the other on the equal standing ground of an all pervading\npatriotism. The only social competition is not in getting but in giving.\nNational advantage takes the place of personal profit, and there is a\nsense of neighbourliness such as Britain has not experienced for many a\nlong day, possibly for many a long century.\n\nThe supreme problem before us, I take it, is how to conserve this\nrelationship and carry it over from the day of war to the day of peace.\nTo do it will call for just that same spirit of sacrifice and service\nwhich is its own most predominant characteristic.\n\nFor one thing we must be quite definitely prepared in every section of\nsociety for a new way of life. From the economic point of view this will\nmean that the rich will be less rich, and the poor will be enabled to\nlead a larger life. Already the wealthy classes have been learning to\nlive a simple life, and to substitute the service of the country for\ntheir own personal enjoyment. A serious call will come to them to\ncontinue in that state of life when the war is over. In some degree at\nleast the pressure of the financial burden which the nation will have to\nbear will compel them to do so.\n\nTo the workers too in the same way the call will come to a new and more\nworthy way of life. I am thinking now of the workers at home who have\nbeen earning unprecedented wages, and thereby in many cases are already\nassaying a larger life. They will be reluctant to give this up, but only\na gradual redistribution of wealth can make it permanent. It is not of\ncourse merely or mainly a matter of wages. The only real enlargement of\nlife is spiritual. It is an affair of the mind and the soul.\n\nThe more we bring a true education within reach of the workers the more\nwill there arise that sense of real kinship which only equality of\neducation can adequately guarantee.\n\nAnd speaking at Cambridge one cannot refrain from remarking that the\nUniversity itself will have to submit to a considerable re-adjustment of\nits life if it is to be a pioneer in this intellectual comradeship of\nwhich I speak. A University may be a nursery of class distinction. In\nsome measure it certainly has been so in the past. The opportunity is\nnow before it to lead the way in establishing the only kind of equality\nwhich is really worth having.\n\nThen too there are obvious steps which can be taken without delay in a\nnew organisation of industry.\n\nI am not one of those who think that the industrial problem can be\nsolved in five minutes or even in five years. None the less it should\nnot be impossible in wise ways to give the workers a true share of\nresponsibility, particularly in matters which concern the conditions of\ntheir work and the remuneration of their labour.\n\nIf the sense of being driven by a taskmaster, whether it be the foreman\nof the shop, or the manager of the works, could give place to a truer\nco-operation in the management, and a larger measure of responsibility\nfor the worker, we should be well on the road to eliminating one of the\nmost persistent causes of just that kind of class distinction which we\nwant to abolish. The more men work together in a real comradeship, the\nmore mere social distinctions fade into the background. Is this not\nwritten on every page of the chronicles of this war?\n\nBut the supreme factor in the situation, without which no mere\nadjustment of organisation will prevail, is that new outlook on life\nwhich can only be described as a subordination of private advantage to\nthe service of the country.\n\nIt is this alone which can really abolish the almost eternal class\ndistinctions which we have traced throughout our survey, the distinction\nbetween the \"haves\" and the \"have nots.\" For, as this spirit grows, the\n\"have nots\" tend to disappear, and the \"haves\" look upon what they have\nnot as a selfish possession for their own enjoyment, but as a means of\nservice for the common weal. Property, that which is most proper to a\nman, is seen to be precisely that contribution which he is capable of\nmaking to the welfare of his fellows.\n\nThe crux, the very core of the whole problem, is to find some means by\nwhich this new outlook can be produced, and a new motive by which men\ncan be constrained to turn the vision into fact.\n\nHere will come in that power which, as I pointed out, has sometimes been\nso potent and sometimes so impotent, but which, if it is allowed its\nproper scope, can never fail. I mean of course religion.\n\nIf men can be brought to see that this new outlook with its\ncorresponding re-adjustment of social life is not merely a project of\nreformers but the plan of the Most High God, the deliberate intention of\nthe supreme Spirit-force of the universe, the Scheme that was taught by\nthe Prince of men, then indeed we may hope that the class distinction of\nwhich He spoke will at last be adopted: \"Whosoever will be great among\nyou, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest,\nshall be servant of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be\nministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for\nmany[30].\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[19] _Encycl. Brit._ xi. 604.\n\n[20] Macaulay's _History of England_ (Longman's, 1885), pp. 38, 39, 40.\n\n[21] _The Town Labourer_, p. 205.\n\n[22] _Ibid._, p. 212.\n\n[23] G. K. Chesterton, _Short History of England_, p. 98.\n\n[24] Stubbs' _Lectures on Early English History_, pp. 18, 19.\n\n[25] Benjamin Kidd, _Encycl. Brit._ vol. xxv. p. 329.\n\n[26] Lucian quoted by Harnack, _Mission and expansion of Christianity_,\nvol. I. p. 149.\n\n[27] _Ibid._\n\n[28] Lactantius quoted by Harnack, _Ibid._ p. 168.\n\n[29] _History of England_ (Longman's, 1885), vol. I. p. 25.\n\n[30] St Mark x. 43-45.\n\n\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN CLASSES\n\n\n\n\nII\n\nBy the Right Hon. J. R. CLYNES, M.P.\n\n\nI have not the advantage of knowing anything of the treatment of any\npart of this subject by any preceding speaker. I myself intend to deal\nwith it from the industrial and social standpoint, for I think if we are\nto seek unity amongst classes it is most important in the national\ninterest that unity should first be sought and secured in the industries\nof the country. That there is disunity is suggested and admitted in the\nterms of the subject. This disunity has grown out of conditions which\nrange over a few generations. I believe that these conditions grew\nlargely out of our ignoring the human side of industry and the general\nlife conditions of the masses of our workers. Our economic doctrine\nignored the human factor, and measured what was termed national progress\nin terms merely of material wealth without due regard to who owned the\nwealth, made mainly by the energy of the industrial population.\nReligious doctrines and religious institutions were not the cause of\nthat unhappy situation, but they had suffered from it, until now we find\na very considerable number of the population engaged in a struggle for\nlife, in a struggle for the material means of existence, handicapped by\nbelief that their own unaided effort alone can assist them, that they\nmust not look for help to any other class, or to any other quarter.\nMoral precepts have not the influence which they ought to have upon our\nindustrial relations. Workers are thrown back upon their own resources;\nand in the use of those resources, during the past fifteen years\nparticularly, much has been revealed to us of what is now in the working\nclass mind. I am not suggesting that to seek a settlement of conditions\nof disunity, or the trouble arising from those conditions, you must\ncoddle the working classes, praise them and pay them highly, and try to\nkeep them contented with conditions which in themselves cannot be\ndefended. I do not mean that at all. What I mean is that if unity\nbetween classes in industrial and economic life is to be sought and\nsecured, it can be got only at a price, paid in a two-fold form; that of\ngiving a larger yield of the wealth of the nation to those who mainly by\ntheir energies make that wealth, and of placing the producing classes\nupon a level where they will receive a higher measure of respect, of\nthanks, and regard than they previously have received from the nation as\na whole. I was asked among others some twelve months ago to share in the\ninvestigations then made by representatives of the Government to\ndiscover the immediate cause of the very serious unrest then displayed\nin the country, and we went for a period of many weeks into the main\ncentres of the kingdom and brought a varied collection of witnesses\nbefore us in order that the most reliable evidence should be obtained,\nand one who favoured us with his views was the Rev. Canon Green, whom I\nam going to quote because of his great experience among the working\nclass populations in various circumstances and over many years in\nManchester and elsewhere. This is what Canon Green writes:\n\n\n     They (the working classes) do not see why their hours should be so\n     long, and their wages so small, their lives so dull and colourless,\n     and their opportunities of reasonable rest and recreation so few.\n     Can we wonder that with growing education and intelligence the\n     workers of England are beginning to contrast their lot with that of\n     the rich and to ask whether so great inequalities are necessary?\n\n\nThere I believe you have put in the plainest and gentlest terms the\nworking of the working class mind as it is to-day. The country has given\nthem more opportunities of education. When they were less educated, or,\nif I may say so, more ignorant than they are now, they were naturally\nmore submissive and content with conditions the cause of which they so\nlittle understood. You cannot send the children of the poor to school,\nand improve your State agencies for education, and increase the millions\nannually which the country is ready to spend in teaching the masses of\nthe people more than they knew before, and expect those masses to remain\ncontent with the economic and social conditions which even disturbed\ntheir more ignorant fathers. In short, the more you educate and train\nthe working classes, the more naturally you bring them to the point of\nrevolt against conditions which are inhuman or unfair, or which cannot\nbe brought to square with the higher standard of education which they\nmay receive. I am sure when the community come to understand that it is\na natural and even a proper sense of revolt on the part of the masses of\nthe people they will not regret their education. Out of all this feeling\nof discontent in the minds of the industrial population there has in the\nlast thirty odd years grown very strong organisation. The Trade Union\nmovement, which I mention first as a very great factor in all these\nmatters, is a most powerful and important factor, and the country will\nhave to pay greater regard to the steps which Trade Unionism may take\nthan the country has been disposed previously to do. The Trade Union\nmovement was stimulated and developed by the conditions which it was\nbrought into being to remedy. The Trade Union was not the growth of mere\nagitation. The average Briton must be convinced that there is something\nreally wrong before he will try to remedy it at all, and you cannot by\nlectures, and by telling the people that they have been and are being\noppressed, stir the people of this country to any resistance.\nParticularly you cannot get them to pay a contribution for it. It was\nbecause of the experience of the mass of the workers, their low wages\nand long hours and the bad conditions of employment, that they organised\nand used the might that comes from numbers, and paid contributions which\nin the sum total now amount to many millions of pounds in the way of\nreserve funds. No apology was needed for the working classes and no\ndefence is required for this step taken by the workers to unite\nthemselves in Trade Unions, and thereby secure by the unity of numbers\nthe power which, acting singly, it was impossible for them to exercise.\nThis Trade Union movement is quite alive to the division which exists\namong our classes, and I am going to suggest that the movement might be\nused, might be properly employed, in obtaining that unity of classes\nwhich we are here to consider.\n\nWell, then, we may, whilst not overlooking other helpful activities of a\nlarge number of people in this country, seek this unity among three main\ndivisions of our people, viz. (_a_) in industries, (_b_) in agriculture,\nand (_c_) in businesses. Given unity of interest and oneness of purpose\nand aim in those three broad divisions of the nation, the rest must be\nattracted and brought into harmony by mere force of example, if nothing\nelse, with the unity which might be secured in the three broad divisions\nto which I have referred. One of the hopeful things, the significant\nthings, recently uttered in other quarters from which I am going to\nquote, is clearly seeking this tendency to unity instead of the\ndifferent interests and classes being driven by the waste and folly of\nthe disuniting lines upon which so far we have persisted. I observe that\nonly a few days ago Lord Selborne, who is one of our principal\nmouthpieces on agricultural matters, presided at a new body called into\nexistence within the past few weeks and to be known as the National\nAgricultural Council. Now, that is not a body which will consist of\nlandowners, or of farmers, or of farm workers; it is a body to consist\nof all three. The landowners, the farmers, and the agricultural workers\nhave come to recognise that they all have something in common touching\nagriculture, touching the trade or industry in which they are brought\ninto close touch day by day. I know as a matter of fact that only a very\nfew years ago the Farmers' Union would not tolerate the idea of the farm\nworkers having a union, and the land workers looked with real dread upon\nthe farmers having a union, and now all three have come to the stage\nwhen they agree to join in one Council, and, though it was admitted that\nthe interests of those three classes were primarily in conflict, it was\nrecognised that by holding meetings, by the representatives of all these\nquite distinct interests frequently coming together, much good might be\ndone. For what? As they say, for agriculture. So, though none of them\nwill forfeit any rightful interest anyone of them may have in the\npursuit of a special claim, they will all recognise a higher sense of\nduty, and feel there is an obligation upon them to make agriculture in\nthis country a greater thing not only for themselves as the three\npartners, but for the mass of the community at large. And if it is\nnecessary to do that in the farmers' interest or the landowners'\ninterest, it was at least as necessary to do it in the interest of the\nagricultural worker, and I put his claim first, not because he is the\nsole contributor to any yield that may come from the land, but because\nhe is the most numerous body, and numbers in this as in other respects\nmay well be the determining factor; and because if he withholds his\nlabour there will be none of the fruit of the soil for which we look\nyear after year. I follow up this statement by an authoritative one from\nanother quarter. Lord Lee, who as we know was the Director of the Food\nProduction Department at the Board of Agriculture, spoke some time ago\non this aspect of the case, and said: \"Take the agricultural labourer\nfor example. Does anyone suppose, or suggest, that he should return from\nthe trenches--where he has distinguished himself in a way unsurpassed by\nany other class in the community--to the old miserable conditions under\nwhich, in most parts of the country, he was under-paid, wretchedly\nhoused, and denied almost any pleasure in life, except such as the\npublic house could offer him? Those conditions were a disgrace to the\ncountry, and I shall never be content until they are swept away for\never. I do not say this only in the interest of the man himself; it is\nnecessary these conditions should go, in the best interests not merely\nof the labourer but of the farmer and of agriculture.\" So it may be that\nunity and oneness of purpose and of action will be driven upon us as one\nof the bye-products of war conditions. For your simple plain\nagricultural worker will come back feeling that as he has fought for the\nliberties of his country he will be entitled to enjoy a little more of\nit than ever before, that if the land is to be freed from designs of the\ntyrant abroad it must be freed also from any wrong at home, and that he\nmust have a larger share in the fruits of his labour than he has enjoyed\nbefore. My own view is that you will not on that account make the farm\nworker a less efficient harvestman, but you will make him a happier\nfather, you will be making him a more contented citizen, and may make\nhim a more profitable worker than he has ever been.\n\nVarious remedies have been tried or thought of to give effect to what\nare our common aspirations. One I have seen referred to frequently is\none I would like to see always avoided. It is the remedy of placing\nbefore workmen as a necessity a greatly increased output from their\nmanual labour in the future; not that I am opposed to an increased\noutput, but I am not going to demand it as part of the bargain which\nshould itself be arranged and carried out, even if it did not\nnecessarily secure for us any greater sum total of wealth than we now\nenjoy; for poor as we may have accounted ourselves we have seen in the\npast few years how vastly we can spend and lend in support of any high\npurpose to which the country may devote itself. Poverty can never again\nbe claimed by the nation as a whole whenever there is a proper and\nreasonable demand for any social change or reform which may be\nnecessary and proper. Men are asking for a greater yield, for a greater\noutput, for building up our wealth higher than ever before, so as to\nrepair the ravages of the war, if for no other purpose. With all those\nobjects I agree, but we must not make them as terms to the worker in\nexchange for those conditions of unity which we are asking our workers\nto arrange with us. Greater output, increased efficiency, a bigger and\nbetter return of wealth from industrial and agricultural energy, can\nwell come out of a better working system, a better rearrangement of\ncombined effort, a more extensive use of machinery, a more satisfactory\nsub-division of labour, a wider employment of the personal experience\nand technical skill of our industrial classes, a higher state of\nadministrative efficiency and management in the workshops, the creation\nof a better and more humane atmosphere in the workshops. Out of all of\nthese things a greater yield of wealth could be produced, and it is\nalong those lines we must go in order not merely to convert but to\nconvince the workman that he is not being used as a mere tool for some\nulterior end for the benefit of some smaller class in the country. It\nhas been said by some that Trade Union restrictions and limitations must\ngo. I candidly admit there have been Trade Union regulations and\nconditions which perhaps have stood in the way of some increased output,\nbut I am not here to apologise for Trade Union rules. Every class has\nits regulations and rules. The more powerful and the more wealthy the\nclass the more rigid and stringent those rules have been. However, the\nclass which was most in need of regulations and rules, the working\nclass, was the first to set the example of setting them aside as a\ngeneral war measure when the country called upon the workers to take\naction of that kind during 1915. We must, therefore, keep in mind the\nfact that workmen are naturally suspicious. That suspicion is the growth\nof the workshop system, into which I have not now the time to go, and we\nmust avoid causing the workman to suspect that our unity, the unity we\nare seeking among classes, is a mere device for getting him to work\nharder and produce greater wealth and perhaps labour even longer hours\nthan ever.\n\nThe first great step towards this unity is to secure the good will of\nthe Trade Unions. Having secured that, the next thing is to proceed upon\nlines which will bring at once home to the individual workman in the\nworkshop some sense of responsibility with regard to the response which\nhe must make to the appeal which we put before him. In short, better\nrelations must precede any first step that could effectively be taken to\nsecure this greater unity, and better relations are impossible in\nindustry until we have given the individual workman a greater sense of\nresponsibility of what he is in the workshop for. Let me briefly outline\nhow that might be secured. It was put, I think, quite eloquently if\nsimply in an address to the Trade Union Congress a short time ago by the\nPresident of the Congress, who said that the workman wanted a voice in\nthe daily management of the employment in which he spends his working\nlife, in the atmosphere and in the conditions under which he has to\nwork, in the hours of beginning and ending work, in the conditions of\nremuneration, and even in the manners and practices of the foremen with\nwhom he had to be in contact. \"In all these matters,\" said the\nPresident, \"workmen have a right to a voice--even to an equal\nvoice--with the management itself.\" I know that is a big, and to some an\nextravagant claim to make, but to set it aside or ignore it is to\nprovoke and invite further trouble. Industry can no longer be run for\nthe profit which it produces, or even because of the wealth which\ncollective energy can make. That, indeed, was the mistake out of which,\nas I said at the beginning, this disunion, and this suspicion, and this\nselfishness, have grown. We have had greatly to modify our doctrines of\npolitical economy during the course of the war, and all the things which\nmany teachers told us never could be done have come as natural to us\nunder war conditions which we could not resist, and of which we were the\ncreatures. Where now is the law of supply and demand? Indeed, if the law\nof supply and demand were operating at this moment, there are few\nworkmen in the country who would not be receiving many, many pounds more\na week than they are. The workman is not paid to-day according to the\ndemand for his labour. A very much higher obligation decides for him\nwhat his remuneration is to be. I have in mind, of course, the fact that\na considerable number of workers, who are employed upon munition\nservices and so on, are enjoying very high wages, but that is not at all\ntrue of the masses of the industrial population, and we ought not to be\ndeceived by these rare instances which are quoted of men coming out of\nthe workshop with _L_20 or _L_30. Speaking of the industrial population\nin the main, what was the outstanding economic doctrine?--the doctrine\nthat the demand for labour and the volume for supplying that demand\ndetermined the remuneration. That doctrine has had to go by the board\nlike so many other things that could not exist under war pressure.\n\nThen, how are we to give effect to this general workshop aspiration for\nbringing the workman into closer unity with the conditions which\ndetermine that part of his life which is the bread-winning part, for\nwhich he has to turn out in the morning early and often return home late\nin the evening? There was established some time ago what can be\ndescribed as a quite responsible committee to report upon how better\nrelations not only between employers and employed through their\nassociations, but in regard to employers and employed in the workshops,\nmight be established. That committee issued the report commonly known to\nus now as the Whitley Report, of which I am quite sure more will be\nheard in a few years. The men who had to frame that report were drawn\nfrom the two extremes of the employers and trade unions. We had men with\nvery advanced views, like Mr Smillie, on the one hand, and we had quite\npowerful employers of labour, like Sir Gilbert Claughton and Sir William\nCarter, on the other. I had the privilege of sitting on that committee,\nand for some months we laboured to frame some definite terms which might\nbe accepted by those who were concerned in our recommendations. I very\noften hear the suggestion that people will have little of it because it\nis not ideal, not grand or great enough, but we have to come down to the\nearth upon these matters, and we have to recommend only what we feel is\nlikely to be accepted lest our labour should be wasted. We must avoid,\ntherefore, throwing our aims too high, and we must suggest only what\npractical business men and workmen are likely seriously to consider.\nHaving decided to reach that conclusion, and feeling the sense of\nresponsibility which, opposed as so many of us were to each other, drove\nus to reach a conclusion, we expressed ourselves in these terms: \"We are\nconvinced that a permanent improvement in the relations between\nemployers and employed must be founded upon something other than a cash\nbasis. What is wanted is that the workpeople should have a greater\nopportunity of participating in the discussion upon an adjustment of\nthose parts of industry by which they are most affected. For securing\nimprovement in the relations between employers and employed, it is\nessential that any proposals put forward should offer to workpeople the\nmeans of attaining improved conditions of employment and a higher\nstandard of comfort generally, and involve the enlistment of their\nactive and continuous co-operation in the promotion of industry.\"\nPreviously, the view was that the workman had nothing whatever to do\nwith this phase of the management of business, and that is a phrase\nstill very much used. We make no claim in this report that workmen\nshould have the right to interfere in the higher realms of business\nmanagement, in, say, finance, in the general higher details of\norganisation, in the extension of works, in all those more important and\nurgent matters which must come before the board of managers or the\nmanager himself. These are things which belong properly and exclusively\nto those who have the responsibility of managing our great industries,\nbut in all the other things affecting the conditions of the workman, the\nmanner in which he is to be treated, hours, wages, conditions of\nemployment, relations between section and section, and working division\nand working division, all those things which were regarded previously\nas the private monopoly of the foreman or manager must in future become\nthe common concern of the workmen collectively, and they must have some\nvoice in how these things are to be settled. The country and its\nindustries, of course, may refuse to hear that voice, but really we have\nto choose between reconciling workmen to a given system of industry or\nfinding workmen in perpetual revolt against their conditions. And it\nwill pay the country to concede a great deal, not only for peace in the\nworkshop but for a higher standard of peace generally in the whole\ncommunity. The appeal that must be made to the workman must be followed\nup by asking him to receive it in a very different spirit from the\nspirit sometimes shewn in certain workshops. I am not here by any means\nto pour praise altogether upon the working classes, and I am conscious\nof the mistakes and wrongs which have sometimes been done in their\nnames, and I am therefore anxious that the spirit of the workshop should\nbe so tempered and altered as to be fit to receive and make the best use\nof the approaches which are to be made to it to participate in workshop\nmanagement upon the lines which I have indicated.\n\nSo this appeal which has been made by the Whitley committee, and which\nhas been followed up by some other departments of government, is put as\nan appeal to the common-sense and reason of the men in the workshop, and\ndoes not rest upon any of the many agencies which have been employed\npreviously in the pursuit of definite trade union ends. This spirit can\nbe fostered only when the masses of workmen are reached by the\nconsciousness that they themselves are being called upon to share in\nthe undertakings of which they are so important a part. The importance\nof workmen has been revealed in a most startling way during the period\nof the war, and the war has shewn in many trades that recurring\ndifferences between capital and labour can be adjusted without strikes\nand without lock-outs if methods are provided in the workshop which are\nacceptable to both sides, and are made to operate fairly and\nsatisfactorily between the different interests. Think how important the\nworkman has become because of the war. Consider how much the workman is\nnow pressed and drawn into all manner of services which previously he\ncould either remain in or leave at his will. The war has made such a\ndemand upon national industrial energy that there is no service now for\nwhich there is not a demand. Indeed, you have seen the effect in that\nservices in the workshop include men who previously would have been\nashamed to have had it known that they had ever soiled their hands at\nany toil at all, but who have been glad to get a place in the workshop\nbecause it was work of national importance. War experience has shewn us\nhow high manual service stands in the grades of service which can be\nrendered for community interest. This new spirit does not appeal to\nforce as a means of settling differences, nor to compulsory arbitration,\nnor to the authority of the State, nor to the power of organisation on\neither side. It is an appeal to reason, an approach to both sides to act\nin association on lines which will give freedom, self-respect, and\nsecurity to both sides, whilst enabling each of them to submit to the\nother what it feels is best for the joint advancement of the trade and\nthose engaged in it. In short, I would like to see inside the gates of\nevery workshop the cultivation of the same spirit in British industry\nas has been hinted at already as the first essential for the future\ndevelopment of agriculture in England. Those processes of calling in the\nindividual workman through committees, to which I will refer briefly in\na moment, are not intended to take the place of the great organisations.\nThey are to be supplementary to the Trade Unions, and are not intended\nto supplant them.\n\nTrades Union leadership has changed hands to a great extent during the\npast year or two, and the virtual leaders of the men are now men\nthemselves employed at the bench and in the mine. They are exercising\nvery great authority and influence over masses of their fellow workmen,\nand often the authority, and decisions, and advice of executives and\nleaders are set aside and the advice of the men employed in the\nworkshop, given to their fellow workmen as mates, is followed. So with\nthis change, due to conditions into which we have not time to go, there\nmust be recognised the need for applying new remedies in considering\nthis question of improving the relations between employer and employed.\nIt will not do now merely to have discussions between association and\nassociation. We might improve upon that and supplement it as I have said\nby having discussions direct in the workshop with the workmen\nthemselves, who would be brought into touch at once with persons who\nwere responsible for what action must be taken. So leadership having\nbeen to some extent transferred from the Trade Union to the workshop,\nthe workman must be followed there and must be shewn how essential it is\nto recruit his good will and his aid in improving workshop conditions,\nnot for the betterment of the management, but as much, if not more, for\nhis own betterment as a workman in the shop. This may not touch certain\nindustries in the country that are non-organised. Some of those trades,\nmuch to our shame, in former years were known as sweated industries, but\neven there it is found that the workers, men and women alike, are coming\ngradually into the trades unions, and should they not be in the trades\nunions to any great extent they are to be reached by other ways and\nmeans which this committee has developed. It is intended to apply to\nthem, so as to establish the necessary machinery for better relations,\nthe personnel of the Trades Boards Acts, those boards which, in the\nabsence of trades unions, deal with the sweated conditions of thousands\nof workers employed in those sweated trades. So I have no fear myself of\nthe non-organised trades being left altogether out of the range of the\nspirit to which I have referred. In addition to the committees there is\nto be in every district, it is proposed, a representative council, drawn\nfrom the employers and employed of the particular industry, and some\nscores of these councils are now being set up. In addition, there is to\nbe in relation to every principal industry a national council, and many\nof us are now engaged in the creation of those several bodies. The\npublic may not hear much about them, but they are the foundation upon\nwhich this structure of better relations is to rest, and, so far as we\ncan spare some small margin of our time for those duties, considerable\nheadway has been made in establishing these different organisations.\n\nBut I attach most importance to the workshop committees, and so I want\nto pursue this idea a little further. What are those committees to be?\nThey would have to be free representative bodies, chosen by the men\nthemselves. They could be empowered to meet the management, possessed of\na sense of responsibility, to discuss in their own homely way matters\nwhich would have to be settled between them. Indeed, we know from\nexperience that many of the big trade disputes in this country have\ngrown out of trifles, out of small nothings comparatively, which could\nwell have been settled inside the workshop gates by bringing master and\nman together, empowered to discuss matters which both understand as\nmatters of personal experience. The committees when created, in this\natmosphere and spirit to which I refer, would exist not in rebellion\nagainst the trade unions or against the trade union system, or exist as\nbeing in revolt against the management of the works, or the employer of\nlabour. The committees would be vested with responsibility for\nnegotiations. They would be able to use the personal knowledge derived\nfrom contact with the questions arising day by day. They would develop a\nsense of independence and a sense of just dealing, so that the doctrine\nof \"a fair day's wage for a fair day's work\" should apply not only to\nthe wages but to the work to be done, a thing which sometimes does not\noccur. These committees could check the driving methods of some persons\nin authority, and, whilst getting the best from those who are above\nthem, they could give the best, as I am sure they would provided the\nspirit is created, from the workmen in return for the fairer treatment\nthey would enjoy. These committees could deal not only with manual\nservice and ordinary work and wage questions; they could develop a\nbetter use of industrial capacity and technical knowledge in matters of\nworkshop life. But the spirit is everything, and the best desires of\nequitable workshop management could find expression through those\ncommittees if they were created. The committees would give a chance to\nthe many workmen who now talk a great deal about democracy to express\nthat democracy through the persons of the workmen themselves. I fear\nthere are many of our friends in the labour movement, as we term it, who\nare given freely to talking of democracy without clearly understanding\nall that is covered in that term. It is a term which, it is a pleasure\nto see, has recently found its way not merely into the phrases of\nstatesmen, but into the King's speech itself. We are now speaking\ncommonly of all the sacrifices that are being made, of all the blood and\ntreasure that is being spilt, in order to have a wholesome democratic\nsystem of world government. Well, we must begin in the workshops, for\nyou cannot have peace on a large scale the country over, or between\nnation and nation, unless you have peace in our places of employment.\nThey are the starting points and there it is that your contented\nmillions must first be found. If they are not happy and if they are not\nat ease in connexion with their national service, you cannot expect any\nof those larger results for which highminded statesmen are seeking the\nworld over.\n\nUpon two main lines, in my judgment, democracy will require the most\nsane guidance and most sagacious advice which its leaders are capable of\ngiving to it. It will not do for leaders merely to say that the future\nof the world must be decided, not by diplomats or thrones or Kaisers,\nbut by the will of peoples. The will of peoples can find enduring and\nbeneficial expression only when that will seeks social change by\nreasonable and calculated instalments, and not by any violent act of\nrevolution. Peaceful voters on their way to the ballot boxes and\nproperly formulated principles will in the end go further than fire and\nsword in the internal affairs of a nation. I say this because of the\nloose talk we have heard from many labour platforms recently of\nrevolution and its benefits. Revolution may well be in any country the\nbeginning and not the end of internal troubles, often expressed in a\nmore painful and more violent form than ever. We need only look at our\nformer great partner, Russia, to find full confirmation of all I have\nnow implied. The red flag marches with the machine gun and the black cap\nwhen a certain stage of physical revolt is reached. The theory of new\nmethods of life can only find rational application when democracy is\nwisely guided in taking slow but sure steps peacefully to turn its\ntheories into an applied system, wherein the people of a nation and not\nmerely a section or a class shall find their proper place and security\nfor service, and find an assured existence under conditions of comfort\nfor themselves and advantage to the State. Democratic leaders must tell\nthese things to the people time after time if need be. They must repeat\nthem so that the masses may understand them, because the tendency in\nlabour has been to narrow the meaning of democracy. Democracy is not,\nand ought not to be, limited to those who now constitute the industrial\npopulation. Democracy is not a sect or a trade union club. Democracy is\nwider than the confines of the manual worker. Democracy should strive to\nreach the highest level of morality in doctrine and aspiration. It is\nnot a class formula. It is a great and elevating faith which may be\nshared by all who believe in it. Democracy stands for the general\nprogress of mankind and means the uplifting of men, and the liberation\nand unifying of nations. It does not mean the dominion of one class over\nanother, nor the violent wresting of position or authority by some\ndramatic act of physical force, which if used would still leave a nation\nin a state of unreconciled and contending factions. Democracy, again, is\na spirit whereby vast social and economic change may be effected through\na medium approaching common consent or at least by the application of\nthe political power of the people acting through representative\ninstitutions and resting upon ideas which majorities accept and\nunderstand. The spirit which has already accepted vast political changes\ncan be made to apply to vast economic and industrial changes. This\nspirit must be cultivated by the leaders of democracy. They have now\nopportunities as great as their responsibilities. The success of\nparties, in the old sense of the term, is a trivial thing to the success\nof the great ends to be secured. These ends will justify the use of any\nconstitutional means for dethroning that form of power upon which\nprivilege and the mere possession of wealth have rested. But democracy\nmust not be duped by phrases, nor be swayed by any influence which does\nnot lead to a lasting advance for the nation as a whole. Nor should its\nleaders think that fundamental and enduring changes in our social system\ncan be reached by any short cut to which the great mass of the people\nhave not been converted. Progress will be faster in the future if\nimpatience and folly do not retard it.\n\nHaving said a little with regard to the position of the poorer people,\nlet me before I close respectfully address a few words to the richer and\nmore favoured in the country. Should all rich folk in the country work?\nThat is a very plain and I dare say it will be regarded in some places\nas quite an impudent question. But really, rich people who have never\nhad cause in any way to earn their living have always been a danger to\nthe State, just as they have been the greatest instance of wicked waste\nto be found in any country. There is nothing more melancholy, and even\ndegrading, to a country than the sight of educated people who have\nnothing to do. Wealth is the fruit of service and endeavour. Work is the\nonly medium by which the ravages of the war can be made good. Ignorance\nand idleness present a most pitiable spectacle, but the most criminal of\nall sights is education and idleness combined. Finally, let me say that\nwhilst I have addressed myself mainly in terms of appeal to the workers,\nI am not unmindful at all of the difficulties of the great employers of\nlabour and those covered by the phrase \"our Captains of Industry.\" I\nknow that many of them work very hard under the greatest and most trying\nmental pressure, and have duties and trials unknown even to the workmen,\nbut with those duties and trials come reliefs again unknown to the\nworkmen--holidays, change, and rest, and the meeting of men of their own\nclass whose very company is an intellectual joy, so that the worst off\nyour employer of labour as a human being may be he is far better off\nthan the average workman. Think of the housing conditions of so many\nthousands, hundreds of thousands, of workmen, and how intolerable it\nwould be for you to live under those conditions, how discontented you\nwould be, how discontented the rich would be were it their fate to drag\non an existence in some of those places which are commonly described by\nthe term \"houses.\" Why, the very waiting room of the employer's ordinary\noffice is a much more cosy and pleasant place than the homes of many of\nthe most industrious workers of England. I plead that the elements of\nthe human order should begin to pervade the relations of the workshop,\nthat the workman should be less of a drudge and more of a human asset\nthan he has been, that he should be brought into partnership in the\nundertaking and in the management; that incidentally he should have a\nmore secure remuneration and not have to bear the penalties and ordeals\nof employment as he has had alone to bear them during times of trade\ndepression and unemployment in previous years. The human side of the\nworkshop has, therefore, to be built up, and you cannot hope to build it\nup upon any foundation of drudgery such as the workmen in the main have\nhad to live under, and, as I have said, it will pay the country to\nconciliate the men on these terms. It is a high ideal, but it is\nattainable. I believe it is attainable because we have seen it in\nanother sphere of sacrifice where it has already been secured. The war\nhas brought all classes together. In the trenches, at sea, and in all\ntheatres of danger, men of all classes are now labouring shoulder to\nshoulder. There you have had a sinking of individual interests. There\nyou have had a common sacrifice, a common endeavour for a common cause.\nSurely, as all classes have been able to unite in their sacrifice and in\ntheir resistance of the aggression of a foreign foe, it is, I hope, not\nasking too much that when they come back and take their places in\npeaceful pursuits again, and become masters, workmen, managers, and\nforemen in our enterprises and businesses, when they return from danger\nand come back to take their places amongst us,--surely it is not too\nmuch to hope that those who are able to unite abroad will be able to\nunite for the ends of peace and joy here at home.\n\n\n\n\nUNITY IN THE EMPIRE\n\nBy F. J. CHAMBERLAIN, C.B.E.\n\n\nThe word \"unity\" in relation to the Empire has a deeper meaning to-day\nthan it had five years ago. Then it was a watchword, a theme for\nImperial conferences and for speakers at demonstrations. The sanguine\nwere sure, the pessimists and that great body of Britishers of moderate\nviews and moderate faith regarded it as one of the things hoped for.\n\nWith dramatic suddenness the event clarified the situation, England\nawoke at war. There was no time for preliminary councils. The supreme\ntest of the Empire had been reached. It is no exaggeration to say that\nthe whole world watched with eagerness for the result. It was in that\nmoment that the great discovery was made. The British Empire stood fast.\nFrom that day until now, from end to end of the world has been seen an\nobject lesson of unity that has justified the sanguine, and been an\ninspiration to the Allies. That revelation has been more inspiring\nbecause the world is aware that it is in spite of the most sinister and\nsubtle campaign against it, planned and brilliantly executed by an enemy\nunder the cloak of friendship. I do not forget the tragic circumstances\nof one small nation within the Empire. But Ireland has given more\nevidence of her faithfulness to Empire on the fields of France and\nFlanders than of her treachery at home, and to-day we have more reason\nto count her ours than has the enemy. Examine the position in cold\nblood, if you can, and you are still aware of a substantial, solid, and\neffective unity running round the Empire, binding it in one as with a\ngirdle of scarlet and gold.\n\nThe war is not responsible for the unity; it has only discovered or\nuncovered it. The storm does not establish foundations; it may reveal\nthem. A century of building has created the structure that the storm has\nfailed to destroy.\n\nThe British Empire is a successful experiment on the lines of the\nlonged-for League of Nations. The race contains no more diverse elements\nthan are found within its borders; one-third of the land surface of the\nworld, and one-fifth of the inhabitants, have been held together in a\nliving federation and have been kept until this day. Upon our generation\nrests the awful and splendid responsibility of proving to a questioning\nworld that this unity can be made permanent, and of illustrating how a\nstill larger unity may be achieved.\n\nYou will forgive one or two homely pictures of our unity that cannot\nfail to strike the imagination. It has been our privilege to meet\nthousands of men from the Overseas Dominions. How many times have boys,\nwhose forefathers emigrated from England or Scotland, who were\nthemselves born in Australia, or on the Western plains of Canada, said,\n\"I have been wanting to come _home_ all my life\"? These islands are the\n\"home\" of the Empire, and there is no more wonderful word in the\nlanguage.\n\nOr think of Botha and Smuts, within the memory almost of the youngest of\nus, fighting with all their heart and mind against the Empire, and,\nto-day, dominant personalities proclaiming their loyalty, and proving it\nin unrivalled service.\n\nOr picture, if you can, young India, pouring out her life-blood with\npride and ready sacrifice, in France, in Egypt, and in Mesopotamia, for\nthe \"British Raj.\" The most moving scene in the history of the British\nCommons was on that evening in 1915, when the princes of India stood\namidst the representatives of the people of the homelands and paid their\nhomage.\n\nHow much such things mean will depend on the vision of those who hear\nthem; but they have in them the stuff that holds the future.\n\nThis ghastly war, not of our choosing, has transferred the seats of\nlearning for young Britain from their peaceful sites to the battlefield.\nIf the object of education is the cultivation of the power of thought\nand observation, the kindling of imagination, and the extension of\nknowledge; then \"over there\" is a University set in full array, with\nghostly as well as human tutors, a curriculum without precedent, and\nsuch a body of undergraduates as Cambridge or Oxford might covet.\n\nIt is not for nothing, as regards the Empire, that your sons, the\nchildren of the East End, and the boys of Canada, Australasia, and South\nAfrica, are meeting and mingling with Gurkha and Sikh, and with each\nother. They are sharing a common discipline, a common adventure, making\nsacrifice together. They are seeing each other with eyes from which the\nscales are falling, and knowledge and understanding are growing out of\ntheir contact. The farthest reaches of Empire have been brought nearer\nto the Empire's heart by this brotherhood in arms, and the barriers\nbetween classes have been lowered until a man can step across them\nwithout climbing. The distance between East and West has been\nimmeasurably shortened, whether we are thinking in terms of London, or\nof the Empire.\n\nIn our consideration of this whole subject we are to take the Christian\nstandpoint. To us, the words \"Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in\nHeaven,\" on Divine lips were more than a pious wish. They were a great\nintention, the expression of age-long purpose. We believe that the gains\nof the centuries--the harvest of the past which is worth\nconserving--have been secured by moral and spiritual conquest, rather\nthan by military or political achievement. There may be elements in our\npresent forms of unity which we may well allow to go by the board. The\nthings that make for permanence will abide not only with an enlightened\nstatesmanship, but with a growing understanding, an ever broadening\ninterpretation of Christian teaching about\n\n\n     The Kingdom of God on earth,\n     The Universal Fatherhood of God, and\n     The brotherhood of man,\n\n\nleading the nation to see that the knowledge of God and of His Christ is\nthe rightful inheritance of every son of the Empire.\n\nAs these great ideals of social life have been interpreted in the life\nof either sovereign peoples or subject peoples, so, we believe, and only\nso, have bonds been forged that can be trusted to stand the strain which\ntime and changing condition and circumstances impose.\n\nUnity, even the Empire itself ultimately, depends, as we believe, on a\nbroad-based statesmanship, carrying up the main principles of our\nGovernment to their highest power in action, and, constantly throughout\nthe Empire, mediating those doctrines to the peoples concerned as they\nare able to bear them, with ever-extending inspiration and encouragement\nto growth and development.\n\nOur Imperial aims are neither antagonistic to nor inconsistent with our\nChristian programme. That should constitute a challenge to the Christian\nChurches, and is in itself a matter for high and solemn pride. The war\nhas cleared the air. As stated during this period, the ideal of a\nfederation of nations, free, independent, and at the same time\ninterdependent, each working out its national destiny, each\ncontributing, in terms of opportunity, to the well-being of the whole,\nbringing to bear on Imperial matters the heart, brain, will of the\nwhole, gives us a picture of a Commonwealth in advance of any\ncontemporary political programme, with the one conspicuous exception of\nthat of the United States of America, between whom and ourselves is\nbeing established a Unity which may well be more valuable to the world\nat large and to ourselves than any formal Union.\n\nHere, as we see it, is our opportunity. The Christian forces of the\nEmpire have the onus of maintaining the national outlook at this high\nlevel. Our faith, our audacity, our leadership will be needed if lesser\ncounsels are to have no chance of prevailing. There must be no swing of\nthe pendulum back to smaller views.\n\nWith the coming of Peace, the temptation to the Nation to take off its\narmour, to come down from the pedestal, to revert to pre-war conditions,\nto re-act in self-indulgence from the strain of war, or to let\nmaterialism defeat idealism, will be well-nigh overwhelming. To give\nway to that temptation will be to rob victory of any permanent values.\nIt will be a poor thing to have taught Germany her lesson, if we fail to\nlearn our own.\n\nWe see no hope of successful resistance of that temptation apart from\nthe mobilisation of the Christian forces within the Empire into an army\ncommitted to the sacred task of making the conscience of the Nation\neffectively Christian, leading the way in bringing about a closer\napproximation between the politics of the State and the programme of the\nKingdom of God, and proclaiming that Kingdom at hand.\n\nIf we are agreed so far it behoves us to look for the practical\nimplications of the position. These islands are still the heart and home\nof the Empire. This was the rock whence its younger peoples were hewn.\nOur nation has produced the men and the machinery that govern our\ncommonwealth. The lonely places, farthest removed from us, will be\npeopled largely by and through the work of children of the Old Country.\nThere, wherever her children go, is England.\n\nEngland is a treasure house, where the very stones are eloquent. Her\nhistory, her buildings, her national and civic life, her denominations\nand movements are all of them of vital interest to her children. It is a\nplace of pilgrimage and remembrance. It is more. They find here the\nmature growths from which their institutions have sprung. They love our\nhistoric places, they love our crowded cities, they love our seashores\nand our quiet country-side, for everywhere they go they find not only\nthe story of our past, but that of their own. This is their spiritual\nhome. Our art, our literature, our movements are parts of a common\ninheritance, and it is the pride of the Motherland that her children\nhave never outgrown their love of the old home, their veneration for its\nsanctions and restraints, and that on their own homesteads they have\nreproduced in new settings and often in fresh forms so much that is\nnative here.\n\nOne would like to see a larger share in this priceless inheritance\noffered to our peoples oversea. Think for one moment of our great\nCathedrals, unique and wonderful. They can never be reproduced. They\nmight be copied; but Canterbury and Westminster, Lincoln and Durham,\nYork and the rest would still remain all that they are to us and to\nthem. You cannot transplant history. In the homeland we are but trustees\nof these treasures, and we ought to make them the home and centre of our\nImperial Christianity. In every one of them the priests of the Church in\nthe Overseas lands should not only be seen but heard. Is there no room\nin Cathedral Chapters for Overseas representatives, so that in our daily\nservices in a new and living way we may be linked together in sacrament,\npraise and prayer, and in the proclamation of Christian truth? One\nCanonry for each historic building would mean more to Unity than many\nresolutions at Congress. Perhaps that is as far as one ought to go in\nsuggestion, but there are other splendid possibilities that one would\nlove to discuss. No one thinking of Unity in the Empire can fail to\nrejoice in the growing desire manifest among Christian Denominations for\nUnity. I will not trench on another's subject beyond saying that the way\nto Union is Unity, and that it would be tragic if in these momentous\ndays any stone was left unturned that would lead to better knowledge,\ndeeper understanding and sympathy between those who name the Name that\nis above every name. And our people overseas have much to teach us in\nthis matter. Over great areas of social opportunity and service the\nCatholic Church may act unitedly and must do so, if she is to enter on\noffensive warfare and not stand for another generation on the defensive.\nThe war has made a difference here. Men, who in the conventional days of\npeace rarely met, have joined hands in service. Catholic and Protestant,\nChurchman and Free Churchman, have found joy in fellowship. That does\nnot mean that differences have disappeared, it means that, recognising\nand estimating their differences, it has been possible to establish a\nbasis of co-operation, in knowledge, understanding, and sympathy, and to\nrecognise in one another the hall-mark of Christian faith and character.\nIs this to be a war measure only? or is it to be one of the great gains\nto be carried over into the days ahead?\n\nOne other question clamours for treatment: the problem of the\nevangelisation of the Empire. Christianity must be given its chance in\nevery corner of the Empire. There may be divergent opinions as to the\nmethods to be used, but if Christianity contains in its gospel the pearl\nof great price, there can be no two opinions as to the obligation that\nrests on us to bring to the nations federated with us this supreme gift.\nNothing can release us from that responsibility. To postpone the\npresentation of the Christian gospel for any of the time-honoured\nexcuses:\n\n(1) our pre-occupation in matters of more urgent importance elsewhere,\n\n(2) any fear of the effects of Christianity on our political or\ncommercial interests,\n\n(3) the desire to live down prejudice and establish confidence,\n\n(4) the preparation of a people's mind by education before introducing a\nnew religion,\n\n--any one of these is treachery to the All-Father and to the family of\nman, and a vital _praeparatio evangelica_ is being made. Let me\nillustrate.\n\nIt happened in a great marquee in France. On a summer evening in 1916\nthe place was crowded with Indians. There was a group playing Indian\ncard games, there was a crowd round a gramophone with Indian records, at\nthe writing tables with great torment of spirit men were writing to\ntheir homes. At the counter foods they loved were being provided.\nAgainst one of the poles of the marquee stood a stately Indian of some\nrank. He had been seen there often before. He rarely spoke but seemed\nintensely interested. On this particular night the time arrived for the\nclosing of the tent. The little groups gradually disappeared and the\ntent curtains were being replaced when the leader of the work found\nhimself addressed by the Indian:\n\n\n     Why do you serve us in this way? You are not here by Government\n     orders. You come when you like and you go when you like. There is\n     only one religion on earth that would lead its servants to serve in\n     this way, Christianity. I have been watching you men, and I have\n     come to the conclusion that Christianity will fit the East as it\n     can never fit the West. When the war is over I want you to send one\n     of your men to my village. We are all Hindus, but my people will do\n     what I tell them.\n\n\nOne of the ghastly tragedies of the war is that two great nations\nnominally Christian are at each other's throats. In the world's eyes\nChristian civilisation has broken down. We know better, but our\nexplanations will not carry far enough to correct the impression. Our\ndefence must be an offensive.\n\nIt is certainly within the truth to say that we have not yet seen what\nChristianity can do for a community or a nation where, as I put it\nbefore, \"it is given a chance.\" May it not be that in the Providence of\nGod the first great revelation of what Christianity can do for a nation\nwill be seen in one of the lands that have come under the Flag, and\namong a people living under less complex conditions than ourselves? If\nthat is a possibility we ought to see that wherever the Flag flies,\nthere comes, with the unfurling of the Flag, the Gospel of Christ.\n\nThis is directly in the interest of unity, and many problems that have\nso far remained insoluble to our statesmen might discover the solution\nin Christian leadership.\n\nI shall be pardoned I know for suggesting that the highest purposes of\nunity may be served by the extension and development throughout the\nEmpire of such international organisations as the Student Christian\nMovement, the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., and, used at its highest values,\nthe Boy Scout Movement. There are others, but these are typical. They\nare established movements built up on definite principles capable of\nuniversal application, and yet each of them able to develop its\norganisation on lines that recognise national psychology and character.\nEach of them may become and aims at becoming indigenous everywhere,\ngiving freedom of method and action and free play to the moral and\nintellectual activities of the people concerned, while they have certain\nessential elements that are universally characteristic of them. In\naddition, they give large numbers of Christian people an opportunity of\nexpressing their unity in service of the right kind.\n\nWhat was said about the Cathedrals is equally true of our two ancient\nUniversities. Mr Fisher's Education Bill may well mean more for Imperial\nunity than almost any other single factor. It will mean an ever\nincreasing number of men to whom \"Cambridge\" and \"Oxford\" will be magic\nwords. If our view of culture is broad enough we shall see to it that\nthese two Universities become increasingly places where the children of\nthe Empire who are fit to graduate in them shall not lack the\nopportunity of doing so. Because these ancient foundations link with the\npast, because of all they may mean to the present and to the future, the\nway to them should be made broad enough to admit the living stream of\nGreater Britain's children, who by dint of gifts and industry have\nproved their fitness to meet their peers in these delectable cities,\nwhere the very air breathes the romance of British culture. Their right\nof entry ought not to be won by the benefactions of private citizens,\nthough all who love knowledge are grateful enough for these, but should\nbe theirs by their citizenship in the Empire and their own tested\nfitness.\n\nNothing again is more hopeful in the present situation than the manifest\ndesire, widely felt and expressed, that the old class-antagonisms should\nnever be revived. Surely this is _the_ strategic moment in which we may\nmake the War once more contribute to a better state of things. Our\npoliticians are awake to the need and are inventing every kind of\nmachinery for bringing Capital and Labour together in Council Chambers\nas co-partners in the Commerce of the Empire. But there are sinister\nforces also at work, and this machinery can only run if it is\ncontrolled by men of resolute good will.\n\nThe War has been a great bridge-builder linking up in the fellowship of\ndiscipline and sacrifice people between whom chasms yawned before. There\nare knowledge and understanding and sympathy to-day amongst us. Yet many\nof us are convinced that no purely political machinery can be made\neffective in achieving so great a task as the making permanent of this\nnew and better condition. We need a new and abiding spirit of\nconciliation, a deeper determination than political action can produce,\nthat things shall not relapse, that the forces of re-action shall not\ntriumph. The one hope of carrying over into permanence this new\nunderstanding and appreciation lies in the nation becoming impregnated\nwith those spacious spiritual ideals that the Churches together\nrepresent. Nothing is impossible to faith, and faith in God and man will\nbe kept astretch in the discipline that will be demanded of us all, in\nthe breaking down of false barriers that have grown up through the years\nand the destruction of long-lived prejudices that will die hard.\n\nThe Empire itself is a unity. It is not easy for English people to\nrealise all that is implied here. My great name-sake urged us in this\ncountry to \"think Imperially.\" Another voice asks us \"What do they know\nof England who only England know?\" but it is hard for us to think except\nin terms of England. For example, I have referred to this country as the\ngreat treasure house of the Empire's history, and to the care and\ndevotion shewn by our kinsmen from Overseas in their study of our\ncountry and its institutions. All of us realise how right that is, but\nought we not to reciprocate their devotion and regard, by much more\nintense interest and study of their life and the developments of their\ninstitutions?\n\nOur unity demands this wider culture, this reciprocity. The Motherland\nmust not only teach, she must be prepared to learn. She may lead, but\nshe must be prepared to follow. We have much to contribute, but in\nReligion, in political and social ideals, and in commerce there is much\nwe need to receive.\n\nIf our land is the great treasure house, are not these other lands great\nlaboratories where we might see, if we would only look, how some of our\naccepted ideas, and notions, and watchwords are tested in a larger\narena?\n\nAre we so sure of ourselves that we are prepared to hold on to our own\nexperience as the final test of the truth and value of our theories? Or\nare we big enough in the light of Imperial experience to revise our\njudgment, to sift our theories, and to go forward carrying those which\nstand the test of the wider arena, and being prepared to surrender those\nwhich only seemed right and proper in the conventional setting of these\nsmall islands?\n\nIn conclusion, the Empire has come to power and unity on certain great\nprinciples. Our Imperial ideals have been evolved out of experience all\nover the world, and with all kinds of people, under the guidance of\ndistinguished leaders of many-sided gifts. In an Empire so diverse in\nits constituent parts, including peoples at varied stages of\ndevelopment, it is impossible that those ideals should be everywhere\nexpressed at their highest power. In many places our methods of\ngovernment must be tentative, but everywhere they must be progressive,\nplacing upon subject peoples the burden of government as rapidly as\nthey are able to bear it, providing every inspiration that can call them\nupwards and onwards. Our tentative methods must never be allowed to\nbecome permanent. We may be tutors, we must never become tyrants. We may\nlead, direct, even control, but we may never be content until our people\nare free, self-governing, rejoicing in the liberty that enables them to\nchoose whole-heartedly to remain in that Commonwealth of free peoples we\ncall the Empire. Along this path lie permanence and closer unity. In our\nImperial destiny it is the part of those who would be the greatest to\nbecome the servants of all.\n\nThank God for all who have laboured in this spirit to build our goodly\nheritage.\n\n\n\n\nUNITY BETWEEN NATIONS\n\nBy the Rev. J. H. B. MASTERMAN, M.A.\n\n\nIn the previous lectures of this course you have been considering the\nproblem of home reunion. My task to-day is to remind you of the fact\nthat beyond the reunion of the Churches at home there lies the larger\nproblem of the realisation of the Christian ideal of a universal\nbrotherhood. How can this ideal be realised in a world divided into\nnations? I am going to treat the subject historically; firstly because I\nfind myself incapable of treating it in any other way, and secondly\nbecause you can only build securely if you build on the foundation of\nthe historic past. The State may ignore the lessons of the past, the\nChurch can never do so.\n\nHow can we deal with the apparent antagonism between the centrifugal\nforce of nationality and the centripetal force of the Catholic ideal?\nThere are two possible answers that we cannot accept. It is possible for\nreligion to set itself against the development of national life, and\nclaim that a world-religion must find expression in a world-state. That\nis the mediaeval answer.\n\nOr it is possible for religion to become subordinate to nationality at\nthe cost of losing the note of Catholicity, so that the consecration of\nnational life may seem a nobler task than the gathering of humanity into\nconscious fellowship in one great society. This is the modern answer.\n\nWith neither of these solutions can we be satisfied. The existence of\nnations as units of political self-consciousness within the larger life\nof humanity does, we believe, minister to the fulfilment of the purpose\nof God. Whatever may be the case hereafter, the establishment of a\nworld-state, at the present stage in the evolution of human\ninstitutions, would mean the impoverishment of the life of humanity. Yet\na Church that is merely national or imperial has missed the true\nsignificance of its mission.\n\nAt the beginning of the Christian era, the greatest attempt ever made to\ngather all peoples into a universal society was actually in progress.\nThe Roman Empire was founded on the basis of a common administrative\nsystem, and a common law--the _jus gentium_. It needed a common\nreligion. The effort to supply this passes through three stages. The\nearliest of these is the stage of universal toleration which was made\npossible by polytheism. A second stage soon follows. The various\nreligions of the Empire overflow one another's frontier-lines and a\nsynthesis begins, leading to the Stoic idea of the universal truth\nexpressed in many forms. But the popular mind was unable to rise to this\nhigh conception, and the third stage begins towards the end of the first\ncentury in the formal adoption of the worship of the Emperor as the\nreligious expression of the unity of the Empire. It was the opposition\nof the Christian Church that did most to bring to naught this effort to\ngive a religious foundation to the unity of the Empire, and the attempt\nof Constantine and Theodosius to make Christianity an Imperial religion\ncame too late to save the Empire from disintegration.\n\nFor the unity of the Christian Church had been undermined. When\nChristianity shook itself free from the shackles of Jewish nationalism,\nit came under the influence of Greek thought. The theology and language\nof the early Church were Greek. Even in Rome the Church was for at least\ntwo centuries \"a Greek colony.\" Hence the growth of Christianity was\nslow in those western parts of the Empire that had not come under the\ninfluence of Greek culture--Gaul, Britain, Spain, North Africa. Latin\nChristianity found its centre in North Africa, where Roman culture had\nimposed itself on the hard, cruel Carthaginian world. It is Carthage,\nnot Athens, that gives to Tertullian his harsh intolerance and to St\nAugustine his stern determinism. So the way was prepared for what I\nregard as the supreme tragedy of history--the falling apart of Eastern\nand Western Christianity. Then, in the West, the unity of the Church is\nbroken by the conversion of the Teutonic peoples to Arianism, so that\nthe contest between the dying Empire in the West and the tribes pressing\non its frontiers is embittered by religious antagonism. The sword of\nClovis secured the victory of orthodoxy, but at what a cost!\n\nWhen the storm subsides, there emerges the august conception of the Holy\nRoman Empire. For the noblest expression of the ideal of a universal\nChristian Empire, read Dante's _De Monarchia_. The history of the Holy\nRoman Empire is too large a subject to enter upon. It is important to\nremember that the struggles between the Popes and the Emperors that fill\nso large a space of mediaeval history were not struggles between Church\nand State. Western Europe was conceived of as one Christian Society--an\nattempt to realise the City of God of St Augustine's great treatise--and\nthe question at issue was whether the Pope or the Emperor was to be\nregarded as the supreme head of this great society.\n\nThe unity of Western Christendom found a crude, but real, expression in\nthe Crusades, and it is significant that the decline of the crusading\nimpulse coincides in time with the rise of national feeling in the two\nwestern states, England and France. What was to be the attitude of the\nCatholic Church towards this new national instinct? In the 14th and 15th\ncenturies the question becomes increasingly urgent, and the Council of\nConstance may be regarded as the last sincere effort to find an answer.\nThe answer suggested there, to which the English Church still adheres,\nwas the recognition of a General Council of the Church as the supreme\nspiritual authority. Such a General Council might gather the glory and\nhonour of the nations into the City of God, and might even, it was\nhoped, restore the broken unity between East and West. How the Council\nfailed, how Constantinople was left to its fate, how a Papacy growing\nmore and more Italian in its interests brought to a head the\nlong-simmering revolt of the nations--all this you know. The Reformation\nwas, in part, a struggle of the nations to give religious expression to\ntheir national life. The threefold bond that had held together the\nChurch of the West--the bond of common language, law and ceremonial--was\nbroken.\n\nAt the threshold of the new order stand the figures of Luther and\nMachiavelli, as champions of the supremacy of the State. True, Luther\nthinks of the State as a Christian society, while Machiavelli is the\nfather of the modern German doctrine of the non-moral character of state\naction. But the Augsburg compromise, _cujus regio_, _ejus religio_, was\na frank subordination of the Church to secular authority. The Tudor\nsovereigns adopted the doctrine with alacrity, and imposed on the Church\nof England a subjection to secular authority from which it has not yet\nbeen able to disentangle itself.\n\nWhile Lutheranism tended to treat religion as a department of the State,\nCalvinism claimed for the Church an authority that threatened the very\nexistence of the State. Calvinism represents the second attempt to give\npractical expression to St Augustine's _Civitas Dei_, as the Holy Roman\nEmpire was the first. It failed, in part, because it lost its catholic\ncharacter, and became (as, for example, in Scotland) intensely national.\nThe disintegration of the Catholic Church in the West was helped by two\ninfluences. The first was the return to the standards and ideals of the\nOld Testament. The appeal of the reformers to Holy Scripture involved\nthe elevation of the Old Testament to the same level of authority as the\nNew. The crude nationalism of Judaism obscured the Christian idea of a\nuniversal brotherhood--St Paul's secret hidden from the foundation of\nthe world, to be revealed in the fulness of time in the Christian\ngospel. Even now we hardly realise how largely our ideas of religion are\nderived from the imperfect moral standards of the Old Testament. The\nother influence was the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist\nof the Book of Revelation--the Protestant answer to the Roman\nexcommunication of heretics. The idea of a common Christianity deeper\nthan all national antagonisms hardly existed in the Europe of the later\nhalf of the 16th century.\n\nNearly a century of wars of religion was followed by seventy years of\nwar in which the national idea played the leading part. The\ninternationalism of the 18th century was a reaction against both\nreligion and nationality. The Napoleonic struggle, and the Romantic\nrevival, with its appeal to the past, re-awakened the national instinct.\nIn France, Spain, Russia, Prussia, and Eastern Europe, national\nself-consciousness was stirred into life. In Russia and Spain, and among\nthe Balkan peoples, this national awakening took a definitely religious\ncharacter. But it was Italy that produced the one thinker to whom the\nreal significance of nationality was revealed. Mazzini recognised, more\nclearly than any other political teacher of the time, how Nationalism\nfounded on religion might lead to the brotherhood of nations in a world\n\"made safe for democracy.\" The last century has been an epoch of\nexaggerated national self-consciousness. Against the aggressive\ntendencies of the greater nations, the smaller nations strove to protect\nthemselves. Italy, Poland, Bohemia, Serbia, Greece, strove with varying\ndegrees of success to achieve national self-expression. Nation strove\nwith nation in a series of contests, of which the present war is the\nculmination.\n\nThe influence of Christianity was impotent to prevent war; though it was\nable to do something to restrain its worst excesses. Where the\ncentrifugal force of nationality comes into opposition to the\ncentripetal force of the Christian ideal, it is generally the former\nthat wins. How is this impotence to be accounted for? Four reasons at\nleast maybe noted. (1) The \"inwardness\" of Lutheranism, combined with\nthe cynicism of the Machiavellian doctrine of the non-moral character of\npublic policy led, especially in Germany, to an entire disregard of the\nprinciples of Christianity in the public policy of the State. Nations\ndid not even profess to be guided by Christian principles in their\ndealings with each other. The noble declaration of Alexander I remained\na piece of \"sublime nonsense\" to statesmen like Metternich and\nCastlereagh, and their successors. (2) The internal life of the nations\nwas, and is, only partially Christianised. Nations cannot regulate their\nexternal policy on Christian principles unless those principles are\naccepted as authoritative in their internal affairs. (3) The influence\nof Christianity has been hindered, to a degree difficult to exaggerate,\nby the unhappy divisions that, especially in England and in the United\nStates, have made it impossible for the Church to speak with a united\nvoice. (4) The idea of the Sovereignty of the State and its supreme\nclaim on the life of the individual, with which Dr Figgis has dealt with\nilluminating insight in his _Churches in the Modern State_, has\nprevented the idea of the Churches as local expressions of a universal\nsociety from exercising the corrective influence that it ought to\nexercise on the over-emphasis of State independence.\n\nThe State is only one of the various forms in which national life\nexpresses itself. It is the nation organised for self-protection. And\nwherever self-protection becomes the supreme need, the State, like\nAaron's rod, swallows all the rest. But in many directions, the world\nhas become, or is becoming, international. Science and philosophy, and,\nto a lesser degree, theology and art, have become the common possession\nof all civilised nations. The effort to make commerce the expression of\ninternational fellowship, with which the name of Cobden is associated,\nfailed, largely as the result of the German policy of high tariffs, but\nits defeat is only temporary, and the commercial interdependence of\nnations will reassert its influence when the present phase of\ninternational strife is over. The function of the Church is to express\nthe common life and interests of nations, as the State expresses the\ndistinctive character of each. So the Church holds to the four universal\nthings--the authority of Holy Scripture; the Creeds; the two Sacraments,\nand the historic episcopate. We believe that the retention of the\nhistoric Episcopate is essential to the maintenance of the Catholic\nideal of the Church. For the bishop is the link between the local and\nthe universal Church; the representative and guardian of the Catholic\nideal in the life of the local community; and the representative of the\nlocal community in the counsels of the Catholic Church. I have often\nwished that at least one bishop from some other Church than our own\ncould be associated with the consecration of all bishops of the Anglican\nChurch. For by such association we should bring into clearer prominence\nthe fact that the historic episcopate is more than a national\ninstitution.\n\nSo we reach the final question: What can the Churches do to promote the\nunity of the nations?\n\nAn invitation was recently issued by the Archbishop of Upsala for a\nconference of representatives of the Christian Churches, to reassert,\neven in this day of disunion, the essential unity of the Body of Christ.\nFor various reasons, such a conference at the present juncture seems\nimpracticable, but the time may come when, side by side with a Congress\nof the nations, a gathering of representatives of the Churches may be\ncalled together to reinforce, by its witness, the idea of international\nfellowship.\n\nFor a League of Churches might well prepare the way for a League of\nNations. Such a League of Churches would naturally find expression in a\npermanent Advisory Council--a kind of ecclesiastical Hague tribunal.\nHistorical antagonisms seem to preclude the selection of Rome or\nConstantinople as the place of meeting of this Council. Surely there is\nno other place so suited for the purpose as Jerusalem. Here the\nappointed representatives of all the Churches, living in constant\nintercourse with one another, might draw together the severed parts of\nthe One Body, till the glory and honour of the nations find, even in the\nearthly Jerusalem, their natural centre and home. Thus, and thus only,\ncan the spiritual foundation for a League of Nations be well and truly\nlaid.\n\nTwo things are involved in any such scheme for a League of Churches. No\none Church must claim a paramount position or demand submission as the\nprice of fellowship; and all excommunications of one Church by another\nmust be swept away.\n\nChrist did not come to destroy the local loyalties that lift human life\nout of selfish isolation. These loyalties only become anti-Christian\nwhen they become exclusive. The early loyalty of primitive man to his\nfamily or clan was deemed to involve a normal condition of antagonism to\nneighbouring families or clans. Turn a page of history, and tribal\nloyalty has become civic loyalty. But civic loyalty, as in the cities of\nGreece or Italy or Flanders, involves intermittent hostility with\nneighbouring cities. Then civic loyalty passes into national loyalty,\nand again patriotism expresses itself in distrust and antipathy to other\nnations. And this will also be so till we see that all these local\nloyalties rest on the foundation of a deeper loyalty to the Divine\nideal of universal fellowship that found its supreme expression in the\nIncarnation and its justification in the truth that God so loved the\nworld.\n\nTo the Christian man national life can never be an end in itself but\nalways a means to an end beyond itself. A nation exists to serve the\ncause of humanity; by what it gives, not by what it gets, will its worth\nbe estimated at the judgment-bar of God.\n\n\"Whoso loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me\" must\nhave seemed a hard saying to those to whom it was first spoken; and\n\"whoso loveth city or fatherland more than me is not worthy of me\" may\nseem a hard saying to us to-day; yet nothing less than this is involved\nin our pledge of loyalty to Christ. Christian patriotism never found\nmore passionate expression than in St Paul's wish that he might be\nanathema for the sake of his nation; yet passionately as he loved his\nown people, he loved with a deeper passion the Catholic Church within\nwhich there was neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor\nfree. It is because the idea of the Catholic Church has become to the\nmajority of Christian people a matter of intellectual assent rather than\nof passionate conviction that the Church seems impotent in international\naffairs.\n\nThe last four centuries of European history have had as their special\ncharacteristic the development of nations. It may be that after this war\nwe shall pass into a new era. The special feature of the period now\nclosing has been the insecurity of national life. Menaced with constant\ndanger, every nation has tended to develop an exaggerated\nself-consciousness that was liable to become inflamed and\nover-sensitive. If adequate security can be provided, by a League of\nNations, or in some other way, for the free development of the national\nlife of every nation, the senseless over-emphasis of nationality from\nwhich the past has suffered will no longer hinder the growth of a true\nInternationalism. I believe that the real alternative lies not between\nNationality and Internationalism but between an Internationalism\nfounded, like that of the 18th century, on non-Christian culture and\nmaterialism, and an Internationalism founded on the consecration of all\nthe local loyalties that bind a man to family, city and nation, lifting\nhim through local spheres of service to the service of the whole human\nrace for whom Christ died. The tree whose leaves are for the healing of\nthe nations grows only in the City of God. The Christian forces in the\nworld are impotent to guide the future, because they are entangled in\nthe present. Yet it is in the Holy Catholic Church that the one hope for\nhumanity lies. It may be that that hope will never be realised; that the\nHoly Catholic Church is destined to remain to the end an unachieved\nideal. But it is by unachieved ideals that men and nations live; and\nwhat matters most for every Christian man is that he should keep the\nCatholic mind and heart that reach out through home and city and country\nto all mankind, and rejoice that every man has an equal place in the\nimpartial love of God.\n\n\nCAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY\nJ. B. PEACE, M.A.,\nAT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS","title":"The War and Unity: Being Lectures Delivered At The Local Lectures Summer Meeting Of The University Of Cambridge, 1918","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":48221}