*^3 9 ^ 
 
 Flci 
 
 e "T-a 
 
 1 , 
 
 
 THE WORLD CONFERENCE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF 
 QUESTIONS TOUCHING FAITH AND ORDER 
 
 A WORLD MOVEMENT FOR 
 CHRISTIAN UNITY 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. LEFFERD M. A. HAUGHWOUT 
 
 I 
 
 ' Iva irdvres Kadihs <ti, irdrep, kv kiwi K&yii kv aoL, iva Kal 
 
 airrol kv rj/uv kv &aiv, tva 6 Kka/Mi TTLO'Tekia'rj 6 ti ai /xe dir^tTreiXas. 
 
 Ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu Pater in me, et ego in te, ut et 
 ipsi in nobis unum sint, ut credat mundus, quia tu me misisti. 
 
 That they all may be one ; as thou. Father, art in me, and I in 
 thee, that they also may he one in us; that the world may believe 
 that thou hast sent me. 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE COMMISSION OF 
 THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 A.D. 1914 
 
 [ 26 ] 
 
Copies of this and of any other pubhcations by the 
 Commission may be had free on application to the 
 Secretary, Robert H. Gardiner, Gardiner, Maine, 
 U. S. A. 
 
 Names are not entered on the permanent mailing 
 list to which all publications are sent, unless the 
 Secretary receives a personal request; but the Com- 
 mission is glad to enter on that list all who will write 
 to the Secretary that they desire to receive future 
 publications. 
 
 Please give name and address legibly, with any 
 proper prefix or title, such as Reverend, Mrs., or 
 Miss. 
 
A WORLD MOVEMENT FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY 
 By the Rev. Lefferd M. A. Haughwout 
 
 RECTOR OF CHRIST CHURCH (pROTESTANT EPISCOPAL), MEADVILLE, PA. 
 
 [This paper is deemed worthy of publication by the Commission of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church on a World Conference on Faith and Order, which, however, 
 does not hold itself responsible for any statement or opinion therein expressed. ] 
 
 I. Conditions and Motives 
 
 O N the nineteenth day of October, 1910, at the General Con- 
 vention of the Episcopal Church, assembled at Cincinnati, 
 the Rev. William T. Manning, D.D., Rector of Trinity Church, 
 New York City, introduced the following momentous resolution : 
 
 “Whereas, There is to-day among all Christian people a grow- 
 ing desire for the fulfilment of our Lord’s prayer that all His dis- 
 ciples may be one ; that the world may believe that God has sent 
 Him: 
 
 “Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring. That a Joint Com- 
 mission be appointed to bring about a Conference for the con- 
 sideration of questions touching Faith and Order, and that all 
 Christian Communions throughout the world which confess our 
 Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour be asked to unite with us 
 in arranging for and conducting such a Conference.” 
 
 This resolution was unanimously adopted by both the House 
 of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and the 
 Commission was appointed, with the Rt. Rev. Charles P. Ander- 
 son, D.D., Bishop of Chicago, as its president. Immediately upon 
 its passage, a prominent layman of New York pledged the sum 
 of S100,000 to enable the Commission to carry on its work. 
 
 The significance of the action will be recognized when it is 
 considered that this is the first time since the break-up of the 
 sixteenth century that a definite proposal has been made for all 
 Christian bodies throughout the world to come together for the 
 discussion of their differences, with no other prescribed limitation 
 than that of unswerving loyalty to their Divine Lord and Master. 
 Proposals of unity have indeed been made heretofore, notably by 
 His Holiness Leo XHI, by the Lambeth Conference of the Bishops 
 
 [.3 ] 
 
 Origin of the 
 Movement 
 
 Its Signifi- 
 cance 
 
of the Anglican Communion, by the Presbyterians and the Con- 
 gregationalists of our own country ; but such proposals have never 
 been more than expressions of willingness to discuss the subject of 
 unity with any who so desire, and generally they have been accom- 
 panied by platforms of limitations. Pope Leo let it be known that 
 the only unity to be considered was unity under the Papacy; the 
 Anglican bishops prescribed the quadrilateral programme of the 
 Bible, the' Creeds, the Sacraments, and the Historic Episcopate; 
 while the Presbyterians, upon one occasion at least, excluded any 
 discussion of the question of the ministry. The proposal which 
 is now made, however, and for the first time, is that we come to- 
 gether to discuss the questions of Faith and Order which divide 
 us with no other condition than that of faith in the Person of 
 Jesus Christ. This does not mean that everything else is waived 
 as of no importance, or that any ecclesiastical body will be com- 
 mitted upon any point by the action of the Conference; but that 
 representatives of different bodies may meet together, as the lan- 
 guage of a later resolution of the Commission states, “for the 
 definite purpose of considering those things in which we differ, in 
 the hope that a better understanding of divergent views of Faith 
 and Order will result in a deepened desire for reunion, and in offi- 
 cial action on the part of the separate Communions themselves.” 
 
 Breadth of The extreme breadth of this proposal is evident. It is a plat- 
 
 Proposal form so constructed, both in principle and in its careful choice of 
 language, that it includes all orthodox Christian bodies, both Cath- 
 olic and Protestant. All may participate without any sacrifice of 
 cherished principle. The Ambassadors of the Papacy, the Bishops 
 of the Anglican Communion and of the great Eastern Churches, 
 and the representative ministers of the Protestant denomina- 
 tions, can freely participate without fear of misunderstanding. 
 So sincerely desirous was the Convention of maintaining this 
 principle, that it expressly stipulated in its resolution that other 
 representative Commissions should be asked to unite in the work 
 of arranging for and conducting the Conference. So that when the 
 great Conference finally meets it will not meet under the auspices 
 of the Episcopal Church, or of any other church. Having once 
 initiated the movement, the Episcopal Church withdraws any 
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
claim for leadership, and merges her Commission with the greater 
 central Commission which will equally represent all participating 
 Communions. 
 
 In view of this significant movement for a World Conference Attention 
 of Christendom to consider the questions of Faith and Order challenged 
 which now divide us, it is well that all Christian people should ac- 
 quaint themselves with the great facts and principles which are 
 involved. For though all of us may not participate as individuals 
 in the deliberations of this great Conference, whenever and wher- 
 ever it may be held, yet the question must ultimately come back to 
 us, both as individuals and as organized Chi’istian Communions: 
 
 “Are you ready for the fulfilment of the Master’s prayer, that all 
 His disciples may be one, that the world may believe that God has 
 sent Him.'’” 
 
 To the end of inviting attention to some of the more important 
 facts and principles concerned, let us consider, first of all, the pres- 
 ent condition of Christendom, and the motives which are impell- 
 ing the world movement for unity; secondly, the many difficulties 
 and dangers which obstruct the way; and thirdly, let us endeavor 
 to point out some of the broad general principles which must be 
 taken into consideration in arriving at an effective and permanent 
 condition of unity. (The writer has no ready-made solution of the 
 great problem to offer. That can come only after it has been stud- 
 ied and prayed over from the many standpoints of those who are 
 to participate in the Conference. But he believes that out of that 
 common study and common prayer the hand of Divine guidance 
 will point a way which will ultimately lead to a healing of our 
 unhappy divisions.) 
 
 Before undertaking to cure a patient, the physician must first The First Re- 
 diagnose the disease and know something of the causes which quirement 
 induced it. The healing of the wounds of Christendom, likewise, 
 must first be preceded by a dispassionate, and at the same time 
 sympathetic, knowledge of the conditions out of which they came 
 into being. Fortunately, the “scientific temper,” which distin- 
 guishes the present generation, has so cast its influence over the 
 study of history that this is more possible to-day than ever before. 
 
 We have come to realize the inviolable sanctity of a fact, and our 
 
The Original 
 Unity 
 
 The First 
 Great Schism 
 
 modern “venture of faith” is to dare to adjust our theories to 
 our facts. It is because of this newly acquired boldness for truth 
 that we have made the somewhat disconcerting discovery that the 
 heroes of the past were not always heroic, nor the villains always 
 so villainous as sometimes pictured. And so, too, the holy wars of 
 faith which our ancestors waged so freely were not always unmixed 
 with the baser elements of ambition and politics. 
 
 Let us first sketch briefly the sad story of Chi'istendom’s divi- 
 sions. For the first thousand years of the Church’s history, with 
 only occasional intermissions, it could be truthfully said that Cath- 
 olic, i.e.. Orthodox, Christianity was substantially one. It was not 
 so, indeed, from the standpoint of administration, or in the sense 
 of uniformity of custom and ritual. Christendom bore, rather, 
 the appearance of a vast but loose federation of national or racial 
 churches grouped about the ancient patriarchal sees, but with 
 several notable exceptions. Its unity consisted in the confes- 
 sion of a common Catholic Faith, a common historically derived 
 ministry, and a substantial agreement in the use of Sacraments. 
 This unity was practically exhibited in the free intercommunion 
 of clergy and laity, and a carefully observed comity between the 
 geographical units of the Church Catholic. 
 
 The first great division was that which separated the East and 
 the West. The dissensions which prepared the way for it were of 
 long standing, but the climax of actual and permanent schism 
 was not reached until the 16th of July, 1054, when the papal 
 legates placed a writ of excommunication upon the high altar 
 of St. Sophia. The causes had been long accumulating. The fore- 
 most reason commonly assigned was a theological distinction with 
 regard to the Holy Spirit ; a distinction, however, which presents 
 no insuperable difficulty at the present time either to Eastern or 
 Western theologians. But behind this and other alleged reasons 
 for the schism lay wide divergences of temperament and intel- 
 lectual bias, and the old leaven of unholy ambition, envy, and 
 jealousy. These were the real causes, upon one hand and the other, 
 and the causes assigned were for the most part nothing more than 
 concealing masks. 
 
 The next great schism, or series of schisms, were those which 
 
 [ 6 ] 
 
took place in the sixteenth century. Abuses had crept into the Schisms of the 
 Western Churches, all of which now acknowledged both the spir- Sixteenth Cen- 
 itual and the administrative headship of the Papacy. Some of these 
 abuses concerned the popular theology of the day, some the wor- 
 ship of the Church; but those most keenly resented were abuses 
 of ecclesiastical administration. The Middle Ages had also wit- 
 nessed great political developments. The old feudal system, in 
 which the king and his barons kept each other in mutual check, 
 was transformed into an aU but absolute monarchy, a kingly 
 tyranny over nobility and commons alike. It was this combined 
 condition of ecclesiastical and political disorder which character- 
 ized the latter part of the Middle Ages. 
 
 It was at this juncture that the revival of classical learning, 
 partially due to the fall of Constantinople, inaugurated through- 
 out Europe an intellectual renaissance. It would be too much to 
 attempt a definition of this movement; but we may say, at least, 
 that it started men to thinking in a new fashion, untrammelled by 
 the customary channels and conventions of thought. The scholars 
 of Europe were intoxicated with the discovery, and immediately 
 proceeded to reexamine everything mundane and supermundane 
 in the light of the “new learning.” Nature, revelation, ecclesiasti- 
 cal and political constitution alike were all subjected to the pro- 
 cess ; and out of it came three notable revolutionary movements : 
 modern science, an ecclesiastical convulsion commonly called the 
 Reformation, and the rise of a new spirit of nationalism, which in 
 some cases resulted in the birth of democracy. 
 
 It is the second of these movements with which we have to Mingled 
 do ; but the point must be carefully borne in mind that it cannot ^lotives 
 be isolated from the other movements and dealt with alone. The 
 ecclesiastical and the political disturbances were inextricably com- 
 mingled, and it is frequently impossible to determine where the 
 religion ended and the politics began. And for the very reason that 
 politics played so prominent a part in the Reformation, both 
 in the anti-papal and in the counter-reformation within the Ro- 
 man Communion, it followed inevitably that the baser elements 
 of greed and personal ambition also entered into the combina- 
 tion. And so it is that we must scrutinize our Reformation heroes, 
 
 [ 7 ] 
 
The Resultant 
 Disunity 
 
 A Reaction 
 
 on one side and the other, with more than ordinary discrimina- 
 tion. 
 
 Western Christendom came out of the storm broken and dis- 
 united. Much good resulted; but the one great obvious fact with 
 which we are concerned at present is that the venerable unity of 
 the Church was destroyed. And more than this, the very terms 
 and conditions of that traditional unity were in many cases wiped 
 out. Newly formed standards of Faith came largely to take the 
 place of the ancient Creeds ; in many quarters the historic Min- 
 istry, which had hitherto served as the witness and guardian of 
 unity, was abandoned, and new conceptions of the Sacraments and 
 of the nature of religious authority completed the breach. Since 
 the Reformation the tendency to separation has produced an in- 
 describable array of rival sects and churches, differing from one 
 another in innumerable points of Faith and Order. For when the 
 old principle of unity as a divine ideal was abandoned, there was 
 nothing left to check the centrifugal forces of private judgment 
 and extreme individualism. Any one, according to the modern 
 theory, has the moral as well as the external right to withdraw 
 himself from the company of the faithful, and establish a rival 
 sect of his own devising. 
 
 Such is the present condition of Western Christendom. But pre- 
 cisely as the political and ecclesiastical degeneracy of the latter 
 part of the Middle Ages provoked a double revolution, so to-day, 
 the disgrace of Christian disunity is awakening in our minds a 
 sense of shame ; and who knows but that it will provoke a new 
 and better reformation, — a reformation which will retain all the 
 positive gains of the sixteenth century movement, and add to 
 them those priceless portions of the Christian heritage which were 
 lost or forgotten ? Preeminent among such restorations must be, 
 of course, the recovery of the Church’s ancient unity. 
 
 For the past two decades the great thought of the reunion of 
 Christendom has been germinating in the hearts and minds of 
 the leading thinkers of all Christian bodies ; but the present pro- 
 posal for a World Conference on the dividing questions of Faith 
 and Order is an evidence that the germinating stage is past. The 
 first green blade of a new period has appeared, a period of prac- 
 
 [ 8 ] 
 
tical efforts for discovering the clue which shall lead us back to 
 unity; and in God’s own time, no doubt, the blade will be suc- 
 ceeded by the ear, and then by the full corn in the ear. 
 
 The watchword of the present stage is repentance : a deep con- The Watch- 
 viction of the sin of dividing the Body of Christ, and a realization 
 that we who maintain the divisions must share in the guilt. The 
 candid historical investigations of recent years are throwing a new 
 and saner light upon the conditions and religious movements of 
 the past. Such notable scholars as Lord Acton, the Abbe Duchesne, 
 
 Gairdner, Hunt, Pollard, Gardiner, McGiffert, and others, repre- 
 senting all schools of thought, both Catholic and Protestant, are 
 dispassionately setting forth the truth that the great religious 
 problems of the sixteenth century might have been solved in a 
 different fashion. Without in any wise obscuring the sturdy faiths 
 and heroisms of that stormy period, they are showing that there 
 is no one religious body now existing which is not compelled 
 to read its story with feelings of sadness and shame. Our fathers 
 have sinned, and we have entered into their inheritance. 
 
 Notable as it was, the proposal for a World Conference upon Preparatory 
 the dividing questions of Faith and Order was by no means an Movements 
 isolated incident. The thought itself had been germinating for 
 many years, tentative suggestions had already been made in vari- 
 ous quarters, and the way had been prepared by the successful 
 launching of certain movements of a more or less kindred nature. 
 
 The old Evangelical Alliance, though not including the Roman 
 Catholic, Eastern, or Episcopal Churches, did much to bring to- 
 gether the divergent bodies of Protestantism. Within a smaller 
 sphere, the Pan-Presbyterian Alliance instilled a conception of 
 unity into the separated branches of Presbyterianism throughout 
 the world. Within our own country, the Federal Council of the 
 Churches of Christ in America has familiarized many religious 
 bodies with the idea of Christian Unity. Its most fruitful work has 
 been that of achieving a considerable measure of cooperation in 
 the solution of social problems in the larger cities ; so that it is now 
 a common thing for the leaders of all religious faiths to work 
 together in perfect harmony for the betterment of the public 
 welfare. (A recent example of this was seen in the Chicago Vice 
 
 [ 9 ] 
 
The Edin- 
 burgh Confer- 
 ence 
 
 Commission, including, as it did, priests of the Roman Catholic 
 and the Episcopal Churches, leading ministers of the Protestant 
 denominations, and Jewish rabbis.) 
 
 Both in Canada and the U nited States there have been signifi- 
 cant movements to combine certain hitherto separated bodies of 
 Protestantism ; and although the differences between those bodies 
 are comparatively small, and do not involve any of the greater 
 principles which must enter into a world unity, these combinations 
 are important indications of the general trend of the times. 
 
 But the movement most intimately related to the one which we 
 are now considering, and which may be reckoned as its logical 
 antecedent, was the “World Missionary Conference,” which met 
 in Edinburgh. In the strictest sense of the word, it was not a true 
 ecumenical conference, for although invited, the Roman Catholic 
 and Eastern Churches did not see their way clear to participate. It 
 came nearer the ideal, however, than any other assembly of modem 
 times; for it included not only representatives of Protestantism, 
 but of the Anglican Communion as well, which, after the Roman 
 and the Eastern Communions, is the third largest ecclesiastical 
 body in the world. This was made possible, however, only by a care- 
 ful delimitation of the subjects to be discussed, and by the specific 
 provision that no question of faith or order should be raised; the 
 practical problems of missionary extension constituting the sole 
 programme. It was projected, in other words, as a purely technical 
 congress. But the spirit of unity was abroad, and the artificiality 
 of the restrictions was quickly realized. They were not violated, in- 
 deed ; but more than one eloquent voice protested that the problem 
 of missions was the problem of unity; that as Christ Himself fore- 
 told, the belief that God had sent Him was dependent upon the 
 absolute unity of His disciples. It was this conviction, this stone 
 which the builders of the Conference rejected, which became the 
 head-stone of the corner, the deepest and most lasting impression 
 of the great assembly. And, appropriately enough, the very body 
 which then insisted on the exclusion of questions of Faith and 
 Order is the one which is now proposing another and greater 
 world conference for the avowed purpose of discussing them. 
 
 What are the motives which lie behind this world movement 
 
 [ 10 ] 
 
for the reunion of Christendom ? Is it simply a product of senti- The Motives 
 ment? or is it, perhaps, nothing more than a reflection of the spirit towards Unity 
 of combination which characterizes the modern commercial world ? 
 
 If the movement were explainable in either or both of these ways, 
 
 it would justly merit our suspicion ; but it is not. It has its 
 
 economic and sentimental aspects, indeed; but deeper and vastly 
 
 more potent than these is the overwhelming conviction of the will 
 
 of Christ, the Divine Founder and Head of the Church. “Neither 
 
 pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me The Will of 
 
 through their word; that they may all be one; as thou. Father, (Christ 
 
 art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that 
 
 the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (St. John xvii, 
 
 20, 21.) And it has remained for the crusade of modern missions 
 to sweep away the ingenious misinterpretations of these and other 
 like utterances of our Blessed Lord, which for the last three cen- 
 turies or more have blinded men’s minds to the truth of His 
 meaning. The missionaries of the Cross have come back from the The Influence 
 front, fi’om the advance line of the great Christian crusade, and Missions 
 have told us that the one supreme obstacle to the conversion of 
 the world is the disunity of Christian forces. This is the unanswer- 
 able argument which is flung like a challenge into their faces: 
 
 “ When Christians are themselves agreed as to what Christianity 
 is, then we will hear you.” The fundamental problem of Christian 
 missions is the problem of Christian Unity. 
 
 And as we look about us upon the conditions here in the home- Evils of Dis- 
 land, the conviction is forced upon us that here also the supreme 
 obstacle to the increase of Christ’s religion is the disunity of 
 Christian people. It is the explanation of the anomalous fact that 
 even in this so-called Christian nation the majority of the people 
 profess, or at least practise, no religion whatever. Great numbers 
 are alienated by the sad spectacle of our unhappy divisions ; and 
 the necessity of maintaining so large a number of organizations 
 has so weakened the resources of the Christian body that its 
 activities are seriously impaired. The poorly equipped churches 
 and ill-paid ministries which characterize American Christianity 
 can never hofje to cope efficiently with the problems confronting 
 us. It is because of our divisions, moreover, that we, as a Christian 
 
 [ 11 ] 
 
nation, present the amazing spectacle of attempting to educate 
 our children upon a purely secular basis. Granted an enforced 
 system of public instruction, which monopolizes all the time and 
 energies of our children and from which all moral and religious 
 instruction are rigidly excluded, what likelihood is there that the 
 rising generation will be adequately trained in these most essential 
 elements of education ? The answer is obvious upon every hand ; 
 but the Christian forces of the land have not yet seemed to real- 
 ize what a deadly blow this strange system is dealing to the cause 
 of the Christian religion. And the only assignable reason for it is 
 that we cannot agree among ourselves. 
 
 These, then, are some of the motives and conditions which ex- 
 plain and justify the great movement which has been inaugurated. 
 But so much has already been said and written with regard to this 
 particular phase of the subject, that we may assume a more or 
 less general assent, and pass on to a consideration of some of the 
 concrete problems which remain to be solved. The period of mere 
 apology has long since ended, and we have entered upon a new 
 era of constructive effort. 
 
 II. Difficulties to be Overcome 
 The difficulties which confront the cause of Christian Unity are 
 legion, and nothing is gained by endeavoring to minimize their 
 obstructive force; but discouragement, on the other hand, must 
 be resisted as a species of treason. The chief dangers which the 
 cause encounters at the present time are the many popular mis- 
 conceptions of the object to be attained, — false visions of unity 
 which would lead us away from the true ideal. For a long time, 
 indeed, the conception itself was compelled to struggle with a 
 widely spread theory that competition among religious bodies 
 was stimulating, like competition in trade. Echoes of this belief 
 are still heard ; but no religious thinker of reputation would ven- 
 ture any more to defend it. A moment’s sane consideration of the 
 actual results of this sort of competition is enough effectually to 
 discredit it. 
 
 Unity vs. In- A more vigorous enemy of the cause is the assertion that 
 
 oryanicUnion Christian people may attain to the unity which the Master com- 
 
 [ 12 ] 
 
manded without affecting their present organic relations. This 
 inorganic sort of unity, which is frequently advocated, is con- 
 ceived of as “unity of heart and purpose,” a general working to- 
 gether for the same great end, mutual charity and recognition. 
 
 Its watchword is “ unity in Christ,” and its chief practical attain- 
 ment is the free interchange of pulpits, and the broad assertion 
 of interdenominational equality. But the theory is open to many 
 criticisms, both theological and practical. In the first place, it 
 may be urged that it does little or nothing to remedy the actual 
 evils of our divisions: the curse of competition and the sad im- 
 pairment of Christian resources. It glosses over the glaring fact 
 that, however mutually charitable in their intercourse, the dif- 
 ferent Christian bodies are actually presenting widely different 
 conceptions of the Christian religion, and are producing equally 
 different types of Christian character. And this, to the think- 
 ing non-Christian, whether in our own or in foreign lands, is a 
 most serious indictment of the whole Christian system. Within 
 the Christian body itself, its inevitable result is the breaking 
 down of all sound doctrine, the encouragement of religious indif- 
 ferentism, and a sweeping away of the few remaining vestiges 
 of Christian discipline. It is equally unsound from a theological 
 standpoint. It forgets that the whole point of our Lord’s injunc- 
 tion was that we might prove His Divine mission by our union 
 with one another, by the unanimity of our testimony. And it 
 overlooks the profound fact that a perfect “unity in Christ” must 
 inevitably produce unity among ourselves. “Things equal to the 
 same thing are equal to each other.” The Spirit of Christ can 
 never tolerate a division in the Body of Christ. 
 
 Church federation, so called, is an offshoot from this theory. It The Weakness 
 is a practical effort to minimize the outward effects of disunity, of Federation 
 without touching the source from which they spring. Instead of 
 healing the schisms, it actually tends to perpetuate them by cloth- 
 ing them with a theory analogous to the principle of the fed- 
 eration of states. Aside from the perpetual danger which must 
 always enshroud a union which is never free from the menac- 
 ing spectre of ^mfederated rights, this proposal is open to almost 
 all of the objections which we have just urged against the theory 
 
 [ 13 ] 
 
Narrowldeah 
 of Unity 
 
 Danger of 
 Haste 
 
 from which it springs. If the distinction may be allowed, it is 
 a somewhat precarious condition of union, but it is not unity. At 
 its best, it is nothing more than a substitute, and carries with it 
 no guarantee against its own speedy dissolution in case of a dif- 
 ference of opinion. 
 
 Another obstacle in the way is our tendency to narrowness of 
 vision. So different are the extremes of teaching and practice, 
 even among those who are thoroughly loyal to Jesus Christ and 
 acknowledge Him as God and Saviour, that we sometimes find it 
 difficult to conceive of their ever coming together in any sort 
 of unity. So it is that many would have the future unity of the 
 Church consist of a united and glorified Protestantism, with Ca- 
 tholicism left out. Others would have it the reverse. It may be, 
 indeed, that the great final unity will be preceded by some meas- 
 ure of local unification within the spheres of Catholicism and of 
 Protestantism; but it may be laid down as a primary principle 
 that any ultimate vision of unity which is not large enough to 
 embrace all, both Catholic and Protestant, who love and acknow- 
 ledge the Lord Christ, can never fulfil the Master’s injunction. 
 And more than that : there is a grave danger in such narrow con- 
 ceptions of unity, even in the preparatory stages ; for if Catholi- 
 cism and Protestantism solidify separately, without consideration 
 of the further necessity of uniting with one another, the out- 
 come will be simply a perpetuation of two extreme types of Chris- 
 tianity. Nothing could be more disastrous, or more insecure. 
 
 Protestantism needs Catholicism, and Catholicism needs Pro- 
 testantism. We may differ in our estimate of their relative values; 
 but most of us, surely, would be willing to admit that neither 
 one nor the other has a supreme monopoly of all the elements 
 which make for the ideal of the Christian religion. And we may 
 assert, further, that no achievement of unity which is not en- 
 riched by all the manifold varieties of Christian truth and experi- 
 ence which are now held separately by different Christian bodies, 
 whatever their comparative value may be, can ever hope to main- 
 tain itself throughout the future ages. 
 
 There is but one other danger of which we may speak at the 
 present time ; and that is the danger of undue haste, of impatience. 
 
 [ 14 ] 
 
In the fire of our zeal and the largeness of our vision there is a 
 possibility of moving too rapidly, of forcing the process of unity 
 beyond the ability of the many elements concerned to adjust 
 themselves to the change. As in the healing of a broken bone, the 
 fractures of the Christian body must not be allowed to heal until 
 all the parts are properly disposed. Difficulties of ancient stand- 
 ing must not be glossed over without genuine solution. Inherited 
 prejudices must be fully satisfied, honest convictions must receive 
 all due regard. If upon one side or the other there is strong ad- 
 herence to some cherished faith, it must not be set down to nar- 
 rowness, but must be dealt with in the spirit of love. 
 
 Before unity can come, or even the first step towards unity, 
 there must be mutual understanding. The present duty, there- 
 fore, is for Christian people of various names to seek a better 
 knowledge of one another, and of their differing points of view. 
 Free interchange of thought upon the various aspects of the great 
 problem is a prime necessity. And this is precisely what the World 
 Conference upon the questions of Faith and Order is intended to 
 achieve. 
 
 III. Some Principles of Unity 
 
 Ready-made schemes of Church Unity are to be looked upon with 
 suspicion ; for whatever their plausibility, they underestimate the 
 magnitude of the pi’oblem. The work of bringing together into 
 one the scattered members of the great family of Christ is such 
 an undertaking as no one mind is capable of achieving; nor is 
 there any likelihood that it will be accomplished within a single 
 generation. Like the construction of some vast mediaeval cathedral, 
 it is a work of faith ; and many minds and many generations, per- 
 haps, must enter into its composition. But although we ourselves 
 may see nothing more than the laying of the foundations, yet the 
 vision of the final triumph of unity is always ours, to inspire and 
 strengthen us for the gi’eat task. 
 
 But this does not mean that we should hesitate to attempt a 
 solution of the problem. By all means let us do what we can. It is 
 to this end, therefore, that I venture to suggest some of the prin- 
 ciples which would seem to be involved in the future achievement 
 
 [ 15 ] 
 
 The Present 
 Duty 
 
 Oreatness of 
 the Problem 
 
Unity does not 
 involve Uni- 
 formity 
 
 How Uni- 
 formity came 
 in 
 
 Protestant 
 
 Uniformity 
 
 Anglican 
 
 Uniformity 
 
 of unity. From the very nature of the case, this is debatable ground, 
 and entire unanimity of opinion can hardly be expected. But 
 understanding must come before agreement. 
 
 The first principle to be suggested is that unity is not necessa- 
 rily bound up with uniformity. It is possible for Christian people 
 to achieve the very highest ideal of unity in Christ and unity 
 with one another, and still present a considerable measure of diver- 
 gence within certain broad spheres of Christian life and activity. 
 This does not concern, it may be said in advance, the funda- 
 mental unity of Faith in the Divine Founder and Head of the 
 Church, which has already been laid down as the basic principle 
 of the movement. It pertains rather to such matters as Christian 
 worship and ecclesiastical administration. 
 
 This principle, it may be asserted, is both old and new : that is 
 to say, it was abundantly recognized in the centuries prior to the 
 Reformation ; during the Reformation it was almost completely 
 lost, and it is only now, in recent years, being rediscovered. Dur- 
 ing the bitter conflict of the Reformation period, the contrary 
 principle of uniformity was seized upon by all parties as a weapon 
 of offence and. defence. Upon the Roman side, upon the Anglican 
 side, and upon the Protestant side, absolute uniformity was in- 
 sisted upon: uniformity, not only of fundamental beliefs, but of 
 modes of expression, modes of thought, and modes of worship. It 
 was because of this iron-clad insistence that the Protestant move- 
 ment broke up into so great a variety of rival denominations. 
 A difference of opinion upon some minor point of theological 
 speculation was a matter serious enough to create a permanent 
 division. The English Church likewise enforced its Acts of Uni- 
 formity; and also the Church of Rome. With regard to the forms 
 of Christian worship, the two latter communions accomplished a 
 measure of uniformity which Christendom had never before known. 
 Before the Reformation the Church of England recognized and 
 allowed several different liturgical uses, all of which differed from 
 the uses which were in vogue upon the Continent. And within 
 each diocese there was a considerable freedom in providing for 
 the changing needs of the people. After the Reformation all Eng- 
 land worshipped by the hard-and-fast rule of the Book of Com- 
 
 [ 16 ] 
 
mon Prayer; and in Scotland, by the Book of Common Order. 
 
 Upon the Continent, likewise, the different national churches 
 had had their own national or racial liturgies : as the Ambrosian, 
 the Gallican, the Mozarabic, and the Roman. After the Reforma- Roman 
 tion the Roman liturgy was generally enforced upon the national Uniformity 
 churches which still remained within the Roman obedience. In 
 other words, the wide and safe flexibility which characterized the 
 Catholic Church in the West, in matters of ritual, and which in 
 no wise interfered with its unity, gave way to absolute uniform- 
 ity. And though expi-essed in different fashion, the same principle 
 was adopted in the Protestant denominations ; so that their types 
 of worship to-day are almost as unchanging and unchangeable as 
 in the case of the more liturgical bodies just mentioned. 
 
 It may be that there was something natural and inevitable in 
 this growth of uniformity within the separated sections of Chris- 
 tendom. At all events, let us not be hasty in condemning it. But 
 however appropriate uniformity may be under such conditions, 
 it never was, and we are safe in affirming that it never can be, 
 a characteristic of Christendom united. The leading thinkers of 
 the Anglican Communion, at any rate, of all parties, are agreed 
 upon this point. Esteeming their own liturgy no whit less highly 
 than in the past, they do not insist upon it as a condition of unity. 
 
 They believe that within the broad confines of a united Church New Anglican 
 there is room for the Roman Liturgy, for the Greek Liturgy, for -Attitude 
 the Anglican Liturgy, and for no liturgy at all — save enough 
 to guarantee the integrity of the Sacraments. The old difficult 
 question of the form of worship, in other words, which was at 
 one time a primary cause of disunity, they are willing to set aside 
 in the interest of a larger and more primitive liberty. 
 
 Another conception to be unlearned by the relearning of an Unity does not 
 older one is that which confuses unity with uniformity of ad- involve Um- 
 ministration. To many minds it is difficult to conceive of one Admin- 
 
 . . istration 
 
 united world-wide Church apart from a highly centralized systern 
 of administration. But here again we must rediscover the old fact 
 that in the ancient unity of Christendom uniformity of administra- 
 tion was unknown. Even in Europe, as late as the earlier part of 
 the Middle Ages, at a time when the theory of Papal headship was 
 
 [ 17 ] 
 
Question of a 
 Visible Head- 
 ship 
 
 Comprehend 
 
 siveness 
 
 accepted by all of the Western Churches, there was no such thing 
 as a uniform, centralized administration. Rome was recognized, in- 
 deed, as the spiritual head of Western Christendom, and in great 
 matters of common interest, whether in the defence or in the 
 propagation of the Faith, all churches accepted her guidance. But 
 in matters of local administration the various national churches 
 were practically independent, and jealously defended themselves 
 against any interference from without, even though it were from 
 the Pope himself. 
 
 And so, in the future reunion of Christendom, it will not be 
 necessary to secure a uniform, centralized administration. The 
 various national churches may well be left to administer their 
 own affairs, with the sole limitation that there shall be no local 
 interference with matters of common or universal concern, such 
 as the common Faith, the Sacraments, or the Ministry. These 
 things must be left to the united action of the whole Church. 
 How this united action should express itself is a problem still to 
 be solved, but it should not be insuperable. The ancient method 
 of great general councils would probably be the most feasible. 
 
 Will there be any place in this future unity for a visible head- 
 ship of any sort This is an interesting and by no means unim- 
 portant question ; and it is significant that more than one mod- 
 ern writer of distinctively Protestant principles has considered it 
 seriously. Theoretically, indeed, there is no valid objection to such 
 a headship, and there are some advantages in its favor. 
 
 In keeping with this attitude towards uniformity in the com- 
 munity life of the Church is the new conception of comprehen- 
 siveness, which is the most characteristic note of the present move- 
 ment. In all proposals of unity hitherto advanced, there has been 
 a conscious effort to discover a minimum platform of essentials 
 upon which all might stand together. For a long time this prin- 
 ciple of finding the irreducible minimum of the Christian Reli- 
 gion was unquestionably assumed by all who were interested in 
 Church Unity. 
 
 The Committee on Unity of the Lambeth Conference of 1908, 
 however, enunciated a new and radically different principle. This 
 principle was embodied in a striking address by the Bishop of 
 
 [ 18 ] 
 
Chicago (now Pi-esident of the Commission on a World Confer- 
 'ence), shortly before the Cincinnati Convention. He declared that 
 a religion of minimums could never truly pose as the religion of 
 Jesus Christ, nor could it hope to challenge the admiration and 
 allegiance of the world. For his part, he stood for a religion of 
 maximums : maximum beliefs, maximum achievements, and maxi- 
 mum manifestations of the Spirit. And unity, he said, is to be 
 won by giving rather than by giving up. It will never be reached 
 by slenderness, but by fullness. Instead of approaching the great 
 problem upon the basis of excluding everything from the future 
 united Church which does not seem to pertain to the inner essence 
 of Christianity, we must come together with the idea of mutually 
 contributing to the common faith and to the common life. Let 
 all of the separated parts of Christendom pour out the treasures 
 of their several inheritances and of their acquired experience; 
 and let them equally desire to receive from one another the gifts 
 which they do not already possess. Let Catholicism add to Pro- Catholicism 
 testantism its spirit of worship, its sacramental life, its unwaver- Protes- 
 
 ing faith, and its rich heritage of continuity with the historic 
 
 ° ^ '' . ‘plementary 
 
 past. And let Protestantism, on the other hand, add to Catholi- 
 cism its fearlessness of leai’ning, its stern conception of individual 
 responsibility, and its emphasis upon personal religion. So shall 
 we have in the great Church of the future, not an impoverished 
 and shadowy form of Christianity fenced about with barriers of 
 exclusion, but a Church which is enriched with all the wealth 
 of the Christian ages. 
 
 This does not mean, it is needless to say, that it will be a Church 
 of contradictions, a reckless comprehension of faiths and anti- 
 faiths; for no mere negation will enter into its composition. Lieb- 
 nitz says somewhere, “Most scholars are right in what they affirm, 
 but wrong in what they deny.” Disregarding our denials, therefore, 
 we shall hope to find unity upon the basis of positive beliefs. 
 
 There is one other important principle which I would mention Continuity 
 in conclusion, not only because of its supreme theoretical impor- 
 tance, but because of its practical bearings. It is the principle of 
 continuity. We have already emphasized the truth that no scheme 
 of unity is worth considering unless it is broad enough to include 
 
 [ 19 ] 
 
all who are loyal to our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, both Pro- 
 testants and Catholics. But we may go a step further than this 
 and affirm that no scheme of unity is worth considering which is 
 not long enough to include the historic past, the living present, 
 and the prophetic future in the one pei’petual, organic Kingdom 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 The imperishable continuity of the original Christian body, 
 manifested in history and guaranteed by our Lord’s own promise, 
 is, for nine-tenths of Christendom, already a cherished article of 
 faith. Nor is it merely an object ^faith, for it is equally a stimu- 
 lus to faith. To those who conceive of the Church as not merely 
 an organization of the present, but as actually continuous and 
 identical with the Church of the Upper Room at Jerusalem, — 
 the Church which was founded by Christ and His apostles, — 
 there is a ground for confidence and an impulse to faith which 
 cannot lightly be estimated. It is in this sense that the Church is 
 conceived of as a living witness of the Resurrection ;ybr she was 
 in Jerusalem at the time, and conversed with her risen Lord, and 
 she is hi our midst to-day! Her faith is no mere matter of copied 
 and recopied documents, but of living experience. 
 
 The Will of The relation between unity and continuity, moreover, is close 
 Christ and vital. In the first place, continuity is essential to that complete 
 unanimity of the Christian witness which the Master asked for in 
 His prayer, that all His disciples may be one; that the world may 
 believe that God has sent Him. The unity which He desires is not 
 simply a unity of the first century, nor of the tenth, nor the twen- 
 tieth, but of all the Christian ages; the united and harmonious 
 witness of ten thousand generations. To this end, therefore, we 
 must bind the present to the past, and both of them to the future. 
 Essential to In the second place, the principle of continuity is essential 
 
 Permanent maintenance of unity when once achieved; and in this 
 
 Unity respect it involves both the outward order and the inward faith. 
 
 What superiority can any one generation claim over any other, 
 especially when it is a generation of the past? Obviously none. If 
 unity were accomplished, therefore, upon a basis of purely twen- 
 tieth century ideals, what assurance would there be that a self- 
 important twenty-first century would not completely overturn 
 
 [ 20 ] 
 
it? Quite as obviously, none. A unity, in other words, which ap- 
 peals simply and solely to the wisdom of a single generation must 
 always be a precarious unity. It is a case of one against an ever 
 increasing number. But the principle of continuity teaches us that 
 we should base our edifice not only upon the wisdom of the fleet- 
 ing present, but upon the united wisdom of all the Christian 
 centuries. Wherever we find the golden thread of continuity run- 
 ning down through the centuries, whether of order, or of faith, or 
 of worship, we may rest assured that it draws its life from causes 
 and demands which are in their nature universal. And if we 
 would build an enduring edifice, therefore, we must see to it that 
 these priceless threads of continuity are woven into the fabric 
 of its walls. This does not mean a craven submission to the 
 dead hand of the past, but a wise recognition of those religious 
 elements which are either universal in their nature or rest upon 
 universal causes. Of such a sort are the Faith and Order of the 
 Historic Church; and for this reason, if for no other, we must 
 stand for an outward and visible continuance with the mighty past. 
 
 If the future unity of the Church can have the unity of the ages 
 behind it, it can boldly await the oncoming centuries, however 
 self-important they may be. Instead of one against an ever increas- 
 ing number, it will be an ever increasing number against one. Con- 
 tinuity with the future can only come from continuity with the 
 past. “Continuity” is simply another word for continuous unity. 
 
 Such, then, in brief outline, are some of the conditions which Summary of 
 seem to define the great unity of the future, the ideal for which Condition 
 we are laboring. (1) Though based upon one Holy Faith, and 
 drawing its life from one Divine Head, it will not be charac- 
 terized by outward uniformity of worship, or by a centralized 
 uniformity of administration. (2) It will be a broad comprehen- 
 sion of every positive aspect of Christian faith and experience; 
 not an impoverished and shadowy form of Christianity, but a 
 Church which is enriched with all the wealth of the Christian ages. 
 
 (3) The unity for which we pray is not simply a unity of the pres- 
 ent generation, but of all generations; not merely of a cross-sec- 
 tion of Christendom, but of its whole length and breadth, from 
 the Day of Pentecost to the Day of Judgment.