A GREAT patristic scholar who, though a lover of theology, is also a
lover of his fellow-men, has related how, journeying across the lonely
desert of Arabia the Rocky towards the holy monastery of Sinai, he came
upon a band of peasant pilgrims; he did not know their language nor they
his, but each made the sign of the Cross as they drew near one another,
and as they did so they seemed at once to be friends. He was greeted
with welcoming smiles, and the way through the wilderness was lightened
by the sense of Christian fellowship. It cheered him to feel how that
ancient sacred symbol had surmounted the barriers of race and speech,
making these strangers feel that they were comrades and fellow pilgrims
travelling to a common goal. And yet he could not but recall with a
sense of sorrowful irony the thought that, had he made the sign of the
Cross not in the Greek, but in the Latin way, he would have been met
with sullen indifference and distrust, if not with anger. These simple
Russian peasants were the spiritual descendants of the [p.146] brave men
who centuries ago went to death at the stake rather than place their
fingers and thumb in the new-fangled way, which, to their mind,
symbolised some error in the conception of the doctrine of the Trinity,
a departure from the one orthodox fashion by which the Church should be
guided in making the holy sign.
It is difficult for us to realise that so small a change should make so
great a difference to the welcome given to a stranger; and, yet, perhaps
some of the differences which separate Western Christians to-day may be
almost as foolish in the sight of the angels.
An English parson once sadly told how, when travelling in France in his
cassock, he had been delighted by a number of ecclesiastics coming to
call upon their foreign confrere, and how, to his dismay, they all
incontinently fled, as from contagion of plague, when they realised that
he was only an Anglican; he doubtless felt acutely the blindness of the
worthy Romans who failed to recognise the apostolic nature of his
orders. As acutely, perhaps, some Nonconformist minister at home may
have regretted a similar attitude on the part of the good parson to the
unhallowed ministrations of the dissenter.
When we look back over the long centuries that separate us from the
early Apostolic Church, there are few things which make us sadder than
this spirit of distrust and hostility, showing itself between men who
alike believe themselves to be Christians. [p.147] It is no new thing;
what is new to-day as a wide spread spirit is the desire to transcend
our differences, not by despising or ignoring the things which separate
us, nor yet by the victory of one church or sect over another, or the
absorption of the lesser by the greater community, but by the better
understanding of each other and of ourselves, the closer co-operation
where co-operation is possible, and, it may be, the gradual realisation
of a unity deeper than all that keeps us apart.
We remember how the mocking scorn of Celsus made sport of the divisions
between Catholic and heretic Christians of his day, while both alike
were a persecuted minority struggling against the edicts of pagan Rome.
Montanists and orthodox suffered sometimes side by side, and yet, while
awaiting death in the same prisons, they would hold no communion with
each other.
This tragic mutual intolerance between Arian and Athanasian, Iconodule
and Iconoclast, goes on down the ages; was it not, in part at least, one
wonders, due to the fact that each party considered that they alone had
the monopoly of truth; that their own doctrine contained the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? Free trade in thought, if it be right to use
the metaphor of commerce for the life-giving intercourse of mind with
mind, is late in coming in the world's history, but it has surely come
to stay. As we look back over the great divisions of the past, we feel
now that there was some right at least on both sides: in some [p.148]
cases we find it hard to understand how men could have fought so
bitterly over what seems now so small. The shape of the tonsure of the
clergy, the date of the celebration of Easter, and such grounds of
difference, caused almost as much bitterness in their day as did
profound dissensions on the nature of the Godhead or the meaning of the
Incarnation. Even when no theological difference separated men, within
the Church itself and within a single religious order, there has been
the bitterest disagreement and separation of spirit over things we now
hold trifling; such a matter, for instance, as the shape of the hood to
be worn by Observant Franciscans, at the time of the rise of the
Capuchin Friars.
We have come at length to understand that the human spirit expresses
itself in various ways in its upward striving, that the language of
worship may vary for different races, for different men within the same
race, for the individual himself with his changing needs, and that in
differing we need not always condemn each other. So, too, it seems that
men are ceasing to feel that uniformity in Church government is possible
or even desirable. The work of the Free Church Council with all its
limitations has enabled the members of the larger Nonconformist bodies
to co-operate together and understand each other better, to feel a
common unity of membership while retaining their loyalty to their own
denomination. This drawing together has been realised, not by discussion
of [p.149] denominational differences, but by common work and common
worship, by sharing in the same efforts, listening to the same messages
of guidance, following as co-disciples along the same road.
Still more remarkable as an expression of the vital forces at work in
English society is the growth of inter-denominational fellowship shown
in the Student Christian movement, and the conferences which it has
promoted, characterised by joint study of social and missionary
problems, and by union in worship, in which denominational barriers have
not indeed disappeared, but have sunk on to a lower level, for many at
least of those who have been thus drawn together to behold the vision of
the vast work still unaccomplished at home and abroad, with the
knowledge that all alike are coming for strength to one source, striving
to serve one Master.
While a friendlier understanding has been helping men to cross by
sympathy the ancient chasms which have separated church from church for
so long, there has been visible too in recent years a marked tendency
towards greater organic unity between religious communities closely
allied to each other. Locally this has occasionally found expression in
the springing up of "union churches," whose members originally belonged
to different Nonconformist denominations, but such union sometimes has
come about for convenience rather than from conviction, and has not
always been permanent in character. It is different with the [p.150]
union of the three Methodist Societies now combined in the United
Methodist Church, or with the great movement which brought about the
United Free Church of Scotland. We may look forward in the near future
to still further developments of this spirit, and already a leader of
Free Church thought, Dr. J. H. Shakespeare, the Secretary of the Baptist
Union, has outlined proposals for the incorporation of the great
Nonconformist denominations in one national communion, a Free Church of
England, which would retain within its compass the different rites and
systems of Church government of its various constituent churches. This
would still leave unsolved the greater problem of the separation between
the Free Churches and the Church of England, but it would be in itself
an immense step forward as a practical recognition of common
discipleship, and as such would be welcomed warmly by many of us who,
almost certainly, would be left outside the ecclesiastical membership of
this great Free Church. The Free Church Council has already done
something to make such a union possible; and even if no formal
connection between various churches whose members are associated with
its work should be achieved, yet, in point of fact, a common member ship
is being realised by them. The great leaders of Free Church thought and
action are recognised not merely as belonging to one denomination, but
as prophets and teachers for all. The worth of their ministry is felt
even by those who cannot [p.151] recognise the validity of their orders,
because of its non-episcopal origin.[32] <#_edn32>
And yet all such plans for the promotion of visible ecclesiastical
reunion do not touch the heart of things. In earlier ages men have
sought reunion through ecclesiastical organisation and through fuller
realisation of doctrinal unity, and [p.152] have failed repeatedly in
the attempt. Can we hope to achieve union now by some ingenious scheme
of comprehensive Church Government or by the formulation of a new creed
where all the old creeds have failed to unite men?
Would not even the widest Church leave outside its membership multitudes
now drawing together in Adult Schools and Brotherhoods and kindred
Societies, under the inspiration of Christian influence, but without any
formal connection with the Church, and beyond them an unknown number of
men and women whose lives turn for their inspiration to the Master whose
name they reverence, but do not venture to take?
Yet such men, whose life-creed is better than their thought-creed, are a
proof that discipleship is a vital relationship, involving more than a
mere emotional surrender or intellectual submission. It will surely be
in the more faithful working out of this conception of discipleship,
that Christian folk will be able to achieve that spirit of unity which
is of more value than external Reunion.
Wherever wrong ideals of life exist, we are coming to feel there is a
loss, not merely to the individuals immediately concerned, but to an
ever widening circle about them. We cannot acquiesce in moral failure or
divest ourselves of responsibility for it, because we ourselves adopt a
different standpoint. Much less can we consent to make a truce with what
we see is wrong in the Church to which we belong. [p.153]
A sixteenth century Cardinal who was engaged in controversy with his
Protestant colleague, Odet de Coligny, found a curious consolation for
the practical failure of the Church of his day by his exposition of a
text in the Song of Solomon: "I am black but comely," was, he held, a
prophetic saying applied to the Church, black in point of morals, comely
in point of doctrine.
To-day, however much we may differ in doctrine, we are coming to feel
that in every failure to realise the Christian ideal of character, the
loss of each religious community is the loss of all; wherever a Church
rises to higher levels of sacrifice, or raises the standard of its
members' lives, the benefit is felt far beyond its own borders.
The saints, whether canonised or uncanonised by authority, are the
common heritage of all who are striving to find their lives dominated by
the same purpose; they are a constant unifying influence throughout the
world, even though their messages differ as greatly as they often have
done in the past.
As the different Christian communities frankly face the unconquered
evils in the world about them, as their individual members set
themselves to wrestle against the selfish instincts in their own lives,
and to become more effective agents of peace and goodwill amongst their
neighbours and worthier citizens of the state, they will find themselves
working side by side with allies they had not hitherto known; in
extending the bounds of [p.154] knowledge and the rule of a kindlier
law, sharing the same spirit of sacrifice, facing the same difficulties,
they will be united by more than a common hope, they will feel within
them the inspiration of the same spirit.
If then the new spirit making for co-operation and truer understanding
of each other which is already at work amongst the different churches is
to have fuller influence, do we not need to set out with a new
enthusiasm upon the common task which awaits us at home and abroad, and
to work out together new applications of the social teaching of the
Christian Church? For many, this will come along the lines of political
and municipal action, in using what powers and duties the law already
gives us, as well as in making better laws or claiming extended
facilities for communal action.
But however much the powers and functions of the state may be altered
and extended, there are vast regions which must for ever lie outside its
domain: evils which laws and bye-laws cannot control, where the
mysterious forces of personality have play, and the healing spiritual
influences may work, which come with the direct contact of goodness and
unselfishness, upon the broken and bruised failures of humanity. The
state may punish wrong-doing, it may prevent particular acts of crime,
it may confine its hardened criminals within the walls of a prison. It
cannot convert them from themselves, it cannot redeem them. The state
may give pensions to old age, and make [p.155] provision for the sick,
the blind and the maimed, the epileptic, the lunatic, the idiot and the
feeble-minded. It cannot bring to these darkened lives what most they
need, the sunlight of human love and comradeship, the healing influence
of an atmosphere of prayer and of unselfish service in which they may
come themselves into touch with the Centre and Source of this pure and
cleansing stream of good.
This must be once again the task of the Church, as it was in the best
days of the monasteries, the guilds and confraternities of the middle
ages. We need to have a fresh Crusade, not to conquer any far-off enemy,
but against our apathy towards the social evils in our midst. Can we not
hope to see a network of new guilds and brotherhoods, settlements,
houses of peace and healing, covering the length and breadth of the
land, where men and women will sacrifice some portion at least of their
lives, giving of their work and leisure to this task? Some will afford a
shelter to the outcasts of society, who are driven now from prison to
casual ward, and from workhouse to jail, for whom the commercial world
has no use, to whom the law offers nothing but threats and penalties:
others will provide training for boys or girls who have been committed
to industrial schools, or will offer a fresh start to those who have
fallen into serious crime: there will be some which will try to provide
a home and work for the weaklings, or those who are prevented by mental
or physical defect from [p.156] holding their own in the ordinary
streams of life. Others again will offer an asylum to sickness,
helplessness and old age. Centres of prayer, as well as centres of work,
they will be the schools of saints, where men in serving the needy in
many different ways, will all the while be brought nearer to the
ultimate reunion of Christendom and of humanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The words of Celsus ring strangely in our ears after
these seventeen centuries and more: "You may hear all those who differ
so widely, and who assail each other in their disputes with the most
shameless language, uttering the words, 'The world is crucified unto me,
and I unto the world'" (Origen, "Contra Celsum," v. § 64; and cf. iii § 12).
[2] "Les Apotres," p. 56.
[3] i Cor. xiv. 24, 25
[4] xlii. 4, 5.
[5] [Greek: I will appoint their bishops in righteousness
and their deacons in faith]
[6] ad Smyrn. viii. i, 2.
[7] The earliest Latin versions of the Bible seem often to
have used the word sacramentum to translate the Greek μυστήριον, thus in
St. Matthew xiii. 11, in reply to the disciples' query "Why speakest
thou unto them in parables?" is given the response "To you is given to
know the sacraments of the Kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not
given" (Cod. Bobbiensis). Even the Vulgate retains this rendering in a
number of passages (Eph. i. 9; iii. 3; v. 32; Revelation i. 20), and one
cannot help wishing that our English version might have retained so
beautiful a rendering as "the sacrament of His will," or the reference
to the mystical union of Christ and His church as "the great sacrament."
Similarly, it is interesting to hear the Vulgate speak of "the sacrament
of the seven stars," in the Apocalypse, and to read in i Tim. iii. 16,
"great is the sacrament of godliness."
[8] De Anima, ix.
[9] Adv. Marcion, v. 4.
[10] Adv. Marcion, v. i.
[11] "/Hoc enim lignum tunc in sacramento erat/" (Adv.
Judaeos, xii.).
[12] "/Nolite verba, cum sacramentum meum erit
canendum,providenter quaerere/ ."
[13] "/Quid enim sunt aliud quaeque corporalia sacramenta
nisi quaedam quasi verba visibilia sacrosancta quidem, veruntamen
mutabilia at temporalia/ ?" (Contra Faustum Manichaeum., Lib. xix. Cap.
16.).
[14] ("De Praescriptione Haereticorum" xl.) At his best,
however, Tertullian, at least in one of his works, did seem to go
farther than this, and to recognise in the instinctive strivings of
natural religion the witness of the soul to the truths revealed in
Christ ("De Testimonio Animae").
[15] The "Guide des ceremonies civiles" (Par Lux, Paris, 1902).
[16] See i Cor. i. 14-15. "For Christ sent me not to
baptize but to preach the Gospel."
[17] i Cor. xv.
[18] Aug. de Baptismo Lib. iv. Cyprian had instanced this
as a case of baptism of blood, but Augustine pointed out that the
penitent thief suffered not as a Christian, but in punishment for a crime.
[19] De Poen, C. vi.; cf. xii. and xiii.
[20] It is more generally held at present by scholars that
the Didache was written in Egypt; but would not this prayer rather befit
the hilly country of Phrygia, where afterwards Montanus taught?
[21] Rev. W. Tuckwell: "Reminiscences of Oxford."
[22] "Mundi imago divinae sapientise et potentiae praeconium."
[23] Exodus xix. 6.; Isaiah Ixi. 6.
[24] I Peter ii. 5, 9.
[25] Rev. v. 10; xx. 6.
[26] Romans xii. i.
[27] Tim. iv. 6. Cf. Phil. iii. 17: "If I be poured forth
as a libation upon the sacrifice and service (Liturgy) of your faith;"
[28] Irenaeus is apparently the first to use the term
ιερεύς (sacrificing priest) instead of the earlier title of πρεσβύτερος
(elder).
[29] This suggestion, and several of the preceding ones,
are set forth with much greater fulness and clearness by Mr. St. George
Stock in the Hibbert Journal for January, 1906.
[30] Ѐστι [Ѐστιν]δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων
ἔλεγχοςou οὐ βλεπομένων Heb 11:1.
[31] Ecclesiastes iii. 11.
[32] It is possible that some day this difficulty might be
surmounted by the willingness of a small group of such Free Church
leaders to receive conditional episcopal consecration at the hands of
some friendly Gregorian or Nestorian Bishops. They could then preach
from the pulpit in Church or Cathedral at the invitation of the
authorities of the Church of England, and, by receiving their episcopal
orders conditionally, they would place no stigma on their Nonconformist
colleagues. The Free Churches would then be somewhat in the position of
the old Celtic Churches before the conquest of Britain by Latin
Christianity, when Bishops did not rule by monarchial methods over fixed
dioceses, but exercised a more personal influence from their monastic
homes, where sometimes several Bishops resided together at once. We
should thus have a Free Church College of Bishops exercising authority
by reason of their personal and spiritual qualifications and seeking no
other sanction than the weight which such an influence would give.
There may be difficulties in the way of such a proposal, but many
Nonconformists who could not agree to accept the diocesan method of
Church government would have little or no objection to such overseers of
the Free Churches, who, holding an unpaid office, carrying no legal
privileges, would have no right to rule, but rather be recognised as
teaching, advising or pleading, with the authority of an elder brother
in the spiritual family of which they would be members. Such a simple
apostolic episcopate, strengthened from time to time by the addition of
new members called to accept their office by the voice of their Church,
might afford for those who have need of it a sign of visible communion
between the Protestant Churches and the older episcopal churches of East
and West.