Produced by Irma pehar, Martin Pettit and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
THE WAR AND UNITY
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C. F. CLAY, MANAGER
LONDON: FETTER LANE, E.C. 4
NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
BOMBAY }
CALCUTTA } MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
MADRAS }
TORONTO: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.
TOKYO: MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THE WAR AND UNITY
BEING LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE
LOCAL LECTURES SUMMER MEETING OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, 1918
EDITED BY THE REV.
D. H. S. CRANAGE, LITT.D.
KING'S COLLEGE
CAMBRIDGE
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
1919
PREFACE
For some time past the Local Examinations and Lectures Syndicate have
arranged a Summer Meeting in Cambridge every other year in connexion
with the Local Lectures. The scheme of study has always included a
number of theological lectures, and at the last two meetings an attempt
has been made to deal with some of the religious and moral problems
suggested by the War. In 1916 a course of lectures was delivered, and
afterwards published by the University Press, on _The Elements of Pain
and Conflict in Human Life_. In 1918 the Syndicate decided to arrange a
course on Unity. It was at first suggested that the lectures should be
confined to the subject of Christian Reunion, but it was finally
arranged to deal not only with Unity between Christian Denominations,
but with Unity between Classes, Unity in the Empire, and Unity between
Nations.
Many of those who attended expressed a strong wish that the lectures
should be published, and the Lecturers and the Syndicate have cordially
agreed to their request. The central idea of the course is undeniably
vital at the present time, and the book is now issued in the hope that
it may be of some help in the period of "reconstruction."
D. H. S. CRANAGE,
Secretary of the Cambridge University
Local Lectures.
_November 1918._
CONTENTS
UNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS
I. A GENERAL VIEW PAGE 1
By the Reverend V. H. Stanton, D.D.,
Fellow of Trinity College, Regius Professor
of Divinity.
II. THE CHURCH IN THE FURNACE 25
By the Reverend Eric Milner-White, M.A.,
D.S.O., Fellow and Dean of King's College,
late Chaplain to the Forces.
III. THE PROBLEM OF THE ENGLISH FREE CHURCHES 51
By the Reverend W. B. Selbie, M.A. (Oxford
and Cambridge), Hon. D.D. (Glasgow), Principal
of Mansfield College, Oxford.
IV. THE SCOTTISH PROBLEM 72
By the Very Reverend James Cooper, D.D.
(Aberdeen), Hon. Litt.D. (Dublin), Hon.
D.C.L. (Durham), V.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical
History in the University of Glasgow,
ex-Moderator of the Church of Scotland.
UNITY BETWEEN CLASSES
I. By the Right Reverend F. T. Woods, D.D.,
Trinity College, Lord Bishop of Peterborough 89
II. By the Right Honourable J. R. Clynes, M.P.,
Minister of Food 115
UNITY IN THE EMPIRE
By F. J. Chamberlain, C.B.E., Assistant
General Secretary of the Young Men's Christian
Association 137
UNITY BETWEEN NATIONS
By the Reverend J. H. B. Masterman, M.A.,
St John's College, Rector of St Mary-le-Bow
Church, Canon of Coventry, late Professor of
History in the University of Birmingham 151
UNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS
I. A GENERAL VIEW
By the Rev. V. H. STANTON, D.D.
The governing idea of this early morning course, which at the present as
at former Summer Meetings is devoted to a subject connected with
religious belief, is this year the power that Christianity has, or is
fitted to have, to unite Christian denominations with one another, and
also to unite races and nations, and different portions of that
commonwealth of nations which we call the British Empire, and different
classes within our own nation. A moment's reflection will shew that the
question of unity between denominations of Christians derives special
significance from being placed in connexion with all those other cases
in regard to which the promotion of unity is to be considered. If it
belongs to the genius of Christianity to be a uniting power, it is above
all in the sphere of professed and organised Christianity, where
Christians are grouped together _as_ Christians, that its influence in
producing union should be shewn. If it fails in this here, what hope, it
may well be asked, can there be that it should be effective, when its
principles and motives cannot be applied with the same directness and
force? In the very assumption, then, which underlies this whole course
of lectures, that Christianity can unite men, we have a special reason
for considering our relations to one another as members of Christian
bodies, with regard to this matter of unity.
But we are also all of us aware that the divisions among Christians are
often severely commented on by those who refuse to make any definite
profession of the Christian Religion, and are given by them sometimes as
a ground of their own position of aloofness. It is true that strictures
passed on the Christian Religion and its professors for failures in
this, as well as in other respects, frequently shew little discernment,
and are more or less unjust. So far as they are made to reflect on
Christianity itself, allowance is not made for the nature of the human
material upon which and with which the Christian Faith and Divine Grace
have to work. And when Christians of the present day are treated as if
they were to blame for them, sufficient account is not taken of the long
and complex history, and the working of motives, partly good as well as
bad, through which Christendom has been brought to its present divided
condition. Still we cannot afford to disregard the hindrance to the
progress of the Christian Faith and Christian Life among men created by
the existing divisions among Christians. Harm is caused by them in
another way of which we may be, perhaps, less conscious. They bring loss
to ourselves individually within the denominations to which we severally
belong. We should gain incalculably from the strengthening of our faith
through a wider fellowship with those who share it, the greater volume
of evidence for the reality of spiritual things which would thus be
brought before us; and from the enrichment of our spiritual knowledge
and life through closer acquaintance with a variety of types of
Christian character and experience; and not least from that moral
training which is to be obtained through common action, in proportion to
the effort that has to be made in order to understand the point of view
of others, and the suppression of mere egoism that is involved.
These are strong reasons for aiming at Christian unity. But further
there comes to all of us at this time a powerful incentive to reflection
on the subject, and to such endeavours to further it as we can make, in
the signs of a movement towards it, the greater prominence which the
subject has assumed in the thought of Christians, the evidence of more
fervent aspirations after it, the clearer recognition of the injury
caused by divisions. I remember that some 40 or more years ago, one of
the most eminent and justly esteemed preachers of the day defended the
existence of many denominations among Christians on the ground that
through their competition a larger amount of work for the advance of the
kingdom of God is accomplished. We are not so much in love with
competition and its effects in any sphere now. And it should always have
been perceived that, whatever its rightful place in the economic sphere
might be, it had none in the promotion of purely moral and spiritual
ends. The preacher to whom I have alluded did not stand alone in his
view, though perhaps it was not often so frankly expressed. But at least
acquiescence in the existence of separated bodies of Christians, as a
thing inevitable, was commoner than it is now.
In the new attitude to this question of the duty of unity that has
appeared amongst us there lies an opportunity which we must beware of
neglecting. It is a movement of the Spirit to which it behoves us to
respond energetically, or it will subside. Shakespeare had no doubt a
different kind of human enterprises mainly in view when he wrote:
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
But this observation is broadly true of all human progress. An advance
of some kind in the relations of men to one another, or the remedying of
some abuse, begins to be urged here and there, and for a time those who
urge it are but little listened to. Then almost suddenly (as it seems)
the minds of many, one hardly knows why, become occupied with it. If in
the generation when that happens desire leads to concentrated effort,
the good of which men have been granted the vision in their minds and
souls will be attained. Otherwise interest in it will pass away, and the
hope of securing it, at least for a long time, will be lost.
Before we attempt to consider any of the problems presented by the
actual state of Christendom in connexion with the subject now before us,
let us go back in thought to the position of believers in Jesus Christ
of the first generation, when His own brief earthly life had ended. They
form a fellowship bound together by faith in their common Lord, by the
confident hopes with which that faith has inspired them, and the new
view of life and its duties which they have acquired. Soon indeed
instances occur in which the bonds between different members of the body
become strained, owing especially to differences of origin and character
in the elements of which it was composed. We have an example at a very
early point in the narrative of the book of _Acts_ in the
dissatisfaction felt by believers from among Hellenistic Jews, who were
visiting, or had again taken up their abode at, Jerusalem, because a
fair share of the alms was not assigned to their poor by the Palestinian
believers, who had the advantage of being more permanently established
in the city, and were probably the majority. But the chiefs among the
brethren, the Apostles, take wise measures to remove the grievance and
prevent a breach.
A few years later a far more serious difference arises. Jewish believers
in Jesus had continued to observe the Mosaic Law. When converts from
among the Gentiles began to come in the question presented itself, "Is
observance of that Law to be required of them?" Only on condition that
it was would many among the Jewish believers associate with them. In
their eyes still all men who did not conform to the chief precepts of
this Law were unclean. It is possible that there were Jews of liberal
tendencies, men who had long lived among Gentiles, to whom this
difficulty may have seemed capable of settlement by some compromise. But
in the case of most Jews, not merely in Palestine, but probably also in
the Jewish settlements scattered through the Græco-Roman world,
religious scruples, ingrained through the instruction they had received
and the habits they had formed from child-hood, were deeply offended by
the very notion of joining in common meals with Gentiles, unless they
had fulfilled the same conditions as full proselytes to Judaism, the
so-called "proselytes of righteousness." On behalf, however, of Gentiles
who had adopted the Faith of Christ, it was felt that the demand for the
fulfilment of this condition of fellowship must be resisted at once and
to the uttermost. So St Paul held. To concede it would have caused
intolerable interference with Gentile liberty, and hindrance to the
progress of the preaching of the Gospel and its acceptance in the world.
And further--upon this consideration St Paul insisted above all--the
requirement that Gentiles should keep the Jewish Law might be taken to
imply, and would certainly encourage, an entirely mistaken view of what
was morally and spiritually of chief importance; it would put the
emphasis wrongly in regard to that which was essential in order that man
might be in a right relation to God and in the way of salvation.
But the point in the history of this early controversy to which I desire
in connexion with our present subject to draw attention is the fact that
it is not suggested from any side that Jewish Christians and Gentile
Christians should form two separate bodies that would exist side by side
in the many cities where both classes were to be found, keeping to their
respective spheres, endeavouring to behave amicably to one another,
"agreeing to differ" as the saying is. This would have been the plan, we
may (I think) suppose, which would have seemed the best to that worldly
wisdom, which is so often seen to be folly when long and broad views of
history are taken. And we can imagine that not a few of the
ecclesiastical leaders of recent centuries might have proposed it, if
they had been there to do so. For never, perhaps, have there been more
natural reasons for separation than might have been found in those
national and racial differences, and in those incompatibilities due to
previous training and associations between Christians of Jewish and
Gentile origin. Yet it is assumed all through that they _must_ combine.
And St Paul is not only sure himself that to this end Jewish prejudices
must be overcome, but he is able to persuade the elder Apostles of this,
as also James who presided over the believers at Jerusalem, though they
had been slower than he to perceive what vital principles were at stake.
Believers of both classes must join in the Christian Agapæ, or
love-feasts, and must partake of the same Eucharist, because the many
are one loaf[1], one body. They must grasp, and give practical effect
to, the principle that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor
free, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus[2]."
For that society, or organism, into which Jewish and Gentile believers
were alike brought, a name was found; it was that of _Ecclesia,_
translated _Church_. It will be worth our while to spend a few moments
on the use of this name and its significance. We find mention in the New
Testament of "the Church" and of "Churches." What is the relation
between the singular term and the plural historically, and what did the
distinction import? The sublime passages concerning the Church as the
Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ occur in the Epp. to the
Colossians and Ephesians[3], which are not among the early Pauline
Epistles. Nevertheless in comparatively early Epistles, the authorship
of which by St Paul himself is rarely disputed, there are expressions
which seem plainly to shew that he thought of the Church as a single
body to which all who had been baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ
belonged. In the Epp. to the Galatians and 1 Corinthians[4] he refers
to the fact that he persecuted the "Church of God," and his persecution
was not confined to believers in Jerusalem or even in Judæa, but
extended to adjacent regions. He might have spoken of "the Churches of
Syria," as he does elsewhere (using the plural) of those of Judæa,
Galatia, Asia, Macedonia[5]. But he prefers to speak of the Church, and
he describes it as "the Church of God." The impiety of his action thus
appeared in its true light. He had not merely attacked certain local
associations, but that sacred body--"the Church of God." Again, it is
evident that he is thinking of a society embracing believers everywhere
when he writes to the Corinthians concerning different forms of
ministry, "God placed some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily
prophets" and so forth[6]. Again, when he bids the Corinthians, "Give no
occasion of stumbling, either to Jews or to Greeks, or to the Church of
God[7]," or asks them whether they "despise the Church of God[8],"
although it was their conduct to brethren among whom they lived that was
especially in question, it is evident that, as in the case of his own
action as a persecutor, the gravity of the fault can in his view only be
truly measured when it is realised that each individual Church is a
representative of the Church Universal. This representative character of
local Churches also appears in the expression common in his Epistles,
the "Church in" such and such a place.
The usage of St Paul's Epistles does not, therefore, encourage the idea
that the application of the term _ecclesia_ to particular associations
preceded its application to the whole body, but the contrary, and
plainly it expressed for him from the first a most sublime conception. I
may add that there is no reason to suppose that the use of the term
originated with him. We find it in the Gospel according to St Matthew,
the Epistle of St James and the Apocalypse of St John, writings which
shew no trace of his influence.
There is no passage of the New Testament from which it is possible to
infer clearly the idea which underlay its application to believers in
Jesus Christ. But when it is considered how full of the Old Testament
the minds of the first generation of Christians were, it must appear to
be in every way most probable that the word _ecclesia_ suggested itself
because it is the one most frequently employed in the Greek translation
of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) to render the Hebrew word
k[macron a]h[macron a]l, the chief term used for the assembly of Israel
in the presence of God, gathered together in such a manner and for such
purposes as forced them to realise their distinctive existence as a
people, and their peculiar relation to God. The believers in Jesus now
formed the _ecclesia_ of God, the true Israel, which in one sense was a
continuation of the old and yet had taken its place. This was the view
put forward by Dr Hort in his lectures on the Christian Ecclesia[9], and
it is at the present time widely, I believe I may say generally, held. I
may mention that the eminent German Church historians, A. Harnack[10]
and Sohm[11], give it without hesitation as the true one.
Among the Jews the thought of the people in its relation to God was
associated with great assemblies in the courts and precincts of the
temple at Jerusalem, which altogether overshadowed any expression of
their covenant relation to God as a people which they could find in
their synagogue-worship, however greatly they valued the bonds with one
another which were strengthened, and the spiritual help which they
obtained, through their synagogues. But Christians had no single,
central meeting-place for their common worship at which their ideal
unity was embodied. It was, therefore, all the more natural that the
exalted name which described that unity should be transferred to the
communities in different places which shared the life, the privileges,
and the responsibilities of the whole, and in many ways stood to those
who composed them severally for the whole. The divisions between these
communities were local only. They arose from the limitations to
intercourse and common action which distance imposed. Or, in cases where
the Church in some Christian's house is referred to, they were due to
the necessity, or the great convenience, of meeting in small numbers,
owing to the want of buildings for Christian worship, or the hostility
of the surrounding population. Moreover these local bodies were not
suffered to forget the ties which bound them all together. Those in the
Greek-speaking world were required to send alms to the Churches in
Judæa. Again an individual Church was not free to disregard the judgment
of the rest. After St Paul has reasoned with the Corinthians on the
subject of a practice which he deemed inexpedient, he clinches the
matter by declaring, "we have no such custom neither the Churches of
God[12]." Lastly, the Apostles, and preeminently St Paul, through their
mission which, if not world-wide, at least extended over large
districts, and the care of the Churches which they exercised, and the
authority which they claimed in the name of Christ, and which was
conceded to them, were a unifying power.
Thus the plural "the Churches" has in important respects a different
connotation in the New Testament from that which it has in modern times.
In the Apostolic Age the distinction between the Church and the Churches
is connected only with the different degrees to which a common life
could be realised according to geographical proximity. By a division of
this nature the idea of One Universal Church was not compromised. The
local body of Christians in point of fact rightly regarded itself as
representative of the whole body. The Christians in that place were the
Church so far as it extended there.
The preservation of unity within the Church of each place where it was
imperilled by rivalries and jealousies and misunderstandings, such as
are too apt to shew themselves when men are in close contact with one
another, and of unity between the Churches of regions remote from one
another, in which case the sense of it is likely to be weak through want
of knowledge and consequently of sympathy--these appear as twin-aims
severally pursued in the manner that each required. Not indeed that it
is implied that everything is to be sacrificed to unity. But it is
demanded that the most strenuous endeavours shall be made to maintain
it, and it appears to be assumed that without any breach of it, loyalty
to every other great principle, room for the rightful exercise of every
individual gift, recognition of every aspect of Divine truth the
perception of which may be granted to one or other member of the body,
can be secured, if Christians cultivate right dispositions of mutual
affection and respect.
There is one more point in regard to the idea of the Church in the New
Testament as to which we must not suffer ourselves to be misled, or
confused, by later conceptions and our modern habits of thought. We have
become accustomed to a distinction between the Church Visible and the
Church Invisible which makes of them two different entities. According
to this, one man who is a member of the Church Visible may at the same
time, if he is a truly spiritual person, even while here on earth belong
to the Church Invisible; but another who has a place in the Church
Visible has none and it may be never will have one in the Church
Invisible. This conception, though it had appeared here and there before
the 16th century, first obtained wide vogue then under the influence of
the Protestant Reformation.
It arose through a very natural reaction from the mechanical view of
membership in the Church, its conditions and privileges, which had grown
up in the Middle Ages. But it does not correspond to the ideas of the
Apostolic Age. According to these there is but one Church, the same as
to its true being on earth as it is in heaven, one Body of Christ,
composed of believers in Him who had been taken to their rest and of
those still in this world. In the earlier part of the Apostolic Age the
great majority were in fact still in this world. The Body was chiefly a
Visible Body. It had many imperfections. Some of its members might even
have no true part in it at all and require removal. But Christ Himself
"sanctifies and cleanses it that He may present it"--that very same
Church--"to Himself a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or any
such thing, but holy and without blemish[13]."
Now while one can understand the point of view from which in later times
so deep a line of demarcation has been drawn between the Visible and the
Invisible Church as to make of them two entirely separate things, and
although to many it may still seem hard to do without this distinction,
or in the existing condition of the nominally Christian world to employ
that primitive conception of the Church even as, so to speak, a working
hypothesis, I would ask whether the primitive conception is not a nobler
and sounder one. Surely it places the ideal in its right relation to the
actual. The full realisation of the ideal no doubt belongs only to
another world; yet if we believe in it as an ideal we must seek to
actualise it here. There is something unwholesome in acknowledging any
ideal which we do not strive so far as we can to actualise. And plainly
participation in the same grace, and the spiritual ties arising
therefrom, ought to find expression in an outer life of fellowship, of
intercourse and common action, and such common organisation as for human
beings in this world these require. No doubt it is always too possible
that the outward may hinder the perception of the inward. But if we can
guard successfully against this danger, the inward and spiritual will
become all the more potent by having the external form through which to
work; while the outward, if it is too sharply dissevered in thought from
the inward, loses its value and even becomes injurious.
Again, a view of the Church is more wholesome which does not encourage
us to classify its members in a manner only possible to the Allseeing
God; to draw a line between true believers and others, and to determine
(it may be) on which side of the line different ones are by their having
had spiritual experiences similar to our own, and having learned to use
the same religious language that we do; but which on the contrary leads
us to think of all as under the Heavenly Father's care, and subject to
the influences of the Holy Spirit, and placed in that Body of Christ
where, although the spiritual life in them is as yet of very various
degrees of strength, and their knowledge of things Divine in many cases
small, all may and are intended to advance to maturity in Christ.
It is necessary that the relation of the idea of the Church upon which I
have been dwelling to her subsequent history for centuries should be
clearly apprehended. Its hold on the minds of Christians preceded the
very beginnings of organisation in the Christian communities, and it
would probably be no exaggeration to say that it governed the whole
evolution of that organisation for many centuries. Particular offices
were doubtless instituted and men appointed to them with specific
reference to needs which were making themselves felt. But all the while
that idea of the Church's unity and of her holiness was present in their
thoughts. And certainly as soon as it becomes necessary to insist upon
the duty of loyalty to those who had been duly appointed to office, and
directly or indirectly to defend the institutions themselves, appeal is
made to the idea, as notably by the two chief Christians in the
Sub-Apostolic Age, Clement of Rome and Ignatius.
It is in itself evidence of a common spirit and common tendencies that
broadly speaking the same form of constitution in the local Christian
communities, though not introduced everywhere with quite equal rapidity,
was so nearly everywhere almost on the confines of the Apostolic Age,
and that soon it was everywhere. Ere long, with this form of government
as a basis, plans were adopted expressly for the purpose of uniting the
local Churches on terms of equality among themselves, especially in
combating error. And at length in the name still of the Church's unity
there came, however much we may regret it, the centralisation of Western
Christendom in the See of Rome.
All these measures of organisation, from the earliest to the latest of
them, were means to an end; and we shall regard them differently. But we
ought not any of us to regard means, however they may commend themselves
to us, and however sacred and dear their associations may be, in the
same way as we do the end. There must always be the question, which will
present itself in a different light to different minds, whether
particular means, even though men may have been led by the Holy Spirit
to employ them, were intended for all time. Moreover there are points in
regard to the earliest history of Church organisation which remain
obscure, in spite of all the labour that has been expended in
investigating them: for instance the exact relation of different
ministries, of the functions of different officers, to one another, the
exact moment when the orders of ministers which proved to be permanent
appeared in this or that important Church, the part which any of the
immediate disciples of Christ had in their establishment, the ideas
which at first were held as to the dependence of the rites of the Church
for their validity upon being performed by a lawful ministry. Upon
these matters, or some of them, it is possible for honest and competent
inquirers to hold different opinions. But no such doubt hangs over that
End which was also the Beginning, of the Church's life, that conception
of what she is, or ought to be, as the society of those who confess the
Name of Jesus Christ, and who are His Body. I insist upon this because I
think that amid discussions on the origin of the Christian Ministry, the
significance of that more fundamental question, namely, the right
conception of the Christian Church, is apt to be too much lost sight of.
About this, though men still do not, they ought to be able to agree, and
it should be our common inspiration, both impelling us and guiding us in
seeking our goal.
We need it to impel us. The obstacles to the reunion of Christendom at
the present day are such that a motive which can be found is required to
induce and sustain action in seeking it, whenever and wherever the
opportunity for doing so presents itself; such a motive is to be found
in a deep conviction of the sacredness of this object, so that our eyes
maybe kept fixed upon it even when there appears to be no opening
through which an advance toward it can be made, and there is nothing to
be done save to wait and watch and pray. But in order also that the
result of any efforts that are made may be satisfactory, it is necessary
that our minds should be under the guidance of a great and true idea,
and that we should not simply be animated with the desire of meeting
immediate needs. These are the reasons which I think justify me for
having detained you so long over the consideration of the fundamental
conception of the Church which is rooted in the Christian Faith itself
as it first appeared and spread in the world.
I will now, however, before concluding make a few remarks on one part of
the complicated problem of reunion facing us to-day. The part of it on
which I desire to speak is the relations between the Church of England,
and the Churches in communion with her in various parts of the British
Empire and in the United States, on the one hand, and on the other
English Nonconformists, the Presbyterians of Scotland, and all
English-speaking Christians allied to or resembling these. It will, I
think, be generally felt that this is a part of the subject which for
more than one reason specially invites our attention. There are, indeed,
some, both clergy and laity, of the Church of England, though they are
but a very small number in comparison with its members as a whole, whose
interest in the subject of the reunion of Christendom is mainly shewn in
the desire to obtain recognition for the Church of England, as a portion
of the Church Catholic, from the great Church of the West. But in view
of the attitude maintained by that Church there appears to be no
prospect of this and nothing to be gained by attempts at negotiation.
Endeavours to establish intercommunion with the Churches of Eastern
Christendom may be made with more hope of success. Indeed there is
reason to think that in the years to come the Church of England may be
in a specially favourable position for getting into touch with these
Churches and assisting them to recover from the effects of the War, and
to make progress; and Englishmen generally would, I am sure, rejoice
that she should undertake such work. But the question of the duty to one
another of all those bodies of English Christians which I have
specified comes nearer home and should press upon our minds and hearts
more strongly. It is a practical one in every English town and every
country parish, and almost everywhere throughout the world where the
English language is spoken. Moreover, even the most loyal members of the
Church of England, in spite of the points of principle on which they are
divided from those other English Christians, resemble them more closely
in many respects in their modes of thought, even on religion, than they
do the members of other portions of the ancient Catholic Church from
which they have become separated. And in addition to the distinctly
religious reasons for considering the possibility of drawing more
closely together and even ultimately uniting in one communion these
different denominations of British Christians, there is a patriotic
motive for doing so. Fuller religious sympathy, more cooperation,
between the members of these different denominations could not fail to
strengthen greatly the bonds between different classes amongst us, and
to increase the coherency of the whole nation and empire.
It would be unwise, if in proposing steps towards reunion, difficulties
and dangers connected with them were ignored; and I believe it to be my
duty frankly to refer to some which suggest themselves to one looking
from a Churchman's point of view. There are two chief barriers to the
union of members of the Church of England and English Nonconformists
that must be mentioned.
(1) That which I will refer to first is the connexion of the Church of
England with the State.
This connexion is not, I think, such a hindrance to religious sympathy
as it was, but it would be untrue to say that it is none. And there is
of course the danger that if disestablishment became a political
question, and especially if it involved the deflection of endowments
which have long been used, and on the whole well-used, for the
maintenance and furtherance of religion to secular objects, feeling
between the majority of Churchmen and those who in consequence of their
views in the matter became opposed to them might be seriously
embittered. Yet there is good ground for hoping that the question of the
relations of Church and State and all matters connected therewith will
in the years that are coming be faced in a calmer spirit, and with truer
insight into important principles, than too often they have been in the
past. It should certainly be easier for those who approach them from
different sides to understand one another. Particular grievances
connected with inequality of treatment by the State have been removed;
while a broad principle for which Nonconformists stand in common has
come to be more clearly asserted, through their attaching increasingly
less significance to the grounds on which different bodies amongst them
were formed, as indicated in the names by which they have been severally
known, and banding themselves together as the "Free Churches." But in
the Church of England also in recent years there has been a growing
sense of the need of freedom. It is better realised than at one time
that in no circumstances could the Church rightly be regarded as a mere
department of the State, or even as the most important aspect of the
life of the State. However complete the harmony between Church and State
might be, the Church ought to have a corporate life of her own. She
requires such independence as may enable her to be herself, to do her
own work, to act according to the laws of her own being. This is
necessary even that she may discharge adequately her own function in the
nation.
It is not part of my duty now to inquire in what respects the Church of
England lacks this freedom, or whether such readjustments in her
connexion with the State can be expected as would secure it to her,
implying as the making of them would that, although she does not now
include among her members more than half the nation, she is still for an
indefinitely long time to continue to be the official representative of
religion in the nation. But I would urge that when these points are
discussed the question should also be considered whether, in a nation
the great majority in which profess to be Christian, the State ought not
to make profession of the Christian religion, which involves its
establishment in some form, and whether there are not substantial
benefits especially of an educative kind to be derived therefrom for the
nation at large; and if so how this can in existing circumstances be
suitably done. It should be remembered that in many cases the
forefathers of those who are now separated from the National Church did
not hold that a connexion between Church and State under any form was
wrong; but on the contrary their idea of a true and complete national
life included one. I think it is well to recall the view in this matter
of men of another time. It is desirable that we should make our
consideration of the whole subject of Church and State as broad as we
can, and that we should strive not to be carried away into accepting
some solution which at the moment seems the easiest, when with a little
patience some better and truer one might be found possible.
(2) The other barrier to which I have referred is the claim of the
Church of England to a continuity of faith and life with the faith and
life of the Church Universal from the beginning, maintained in the first
place through a Ministry the members of which have in due succession
received their commission by means of the Historic Episcopate, and,
secondly, through the acknowledgment of certain early and widely
accepted creeds. This continuity was reasserted when the Church of
England started on her new career at the Reformation, though at the same
time the necessity was then strongly insisted on of testing the purity
and soundness of the Church's faith and forms of worship by Holy
Scripture. These guarantees and means of continuity are valued in very
different degrees by different sections of opinion in the Church of
England, and some who attach comparatively little importance to matters
of organisation would attach great importance to the formularies of
belief. But there can be no doubt that any steps which appeared
seriously to compromise the preservation of the great features of the
Church of England in either of these respects would cause deep
disturbance among her members. On the other hand, it will be readily
understood by all who can appreciate the changes that in our own and
recent generations have come in men's view of Nature and of Mind, and in
the interpretation of historical evidence, that definitions of belief
framed in the past may not in every point express accurately the beliefs
of all who nevertheless with full conviction own Jesus Christ as Lord.
It is obvious, I think, that, if the Christian Church is to endure,
there must be on the part of her members essential loyalty to the faith
out of which she sprang, and which has inspired her throughout the ages
to this day. But it is an anxious problem for the Church of England at
the present time--and it is likely to become so likewise, if it is not
yet, for all portions of the Church in which ancient standards of
belief, or those framed in the 16th century, or later, hold an
authoritative place--to decide wherein essential loyalty to "the faith
once delivered" consists.
It may seem at first sight that when the Church of England has serious
questions to grapple with affecting her internal unity, and especially
affecting that unity in variety which to some considerable degree she
represents and which is the most valuable kind of unity, attempts to
join with other Christians outside her borders in considering a basis of
union with them are unwise at least at the moment, as tending to
increase the complexity and the difficulties of the position within, and
as therefore to be deprecated in the interests of unity itself. I do not
think so, but believe that assistance may thus be obtained in reaching a
satisfactory settlement even of internal difficulties.
For, in the first place, there has of late been among members of the
Church of England a change of temper which should be a preparation for
considering her relations with those separated from her in a wiser and
more liberal spirit than has before been possible. Those Churchmen who
would insist most strongly on the necessity of preserving the Church's
ancient order do not usually maintain the attitude to dissent of the
Anglican High and Dry School, which was still common in the middle of
the 19th century. The work which Nonconformist bodies have done for the
spiritual and moral life of England, and the immense debt which we all
owe to them on that account, are thankfully admitted. No one indeed can
do otherwise than admit it thankfully who has eyes to see, and the sense
of justice and generosity of mind to acknowledge what he sees. And the
inference must be that, although the belief may be held as firmly as
ever that the Spirit of God inspired that Order which so early took
shape in the Church, and that He worked through it and continues to do
so, yet that also, when men have failed rightly to use the appointed
means, He has found other ways of working. This view, when it has had
its due influence upon thought, can hardly fail to affect profoundly the
measures proposed for healing the divisions which have arisen.
Then, again, on the other side--the side of those separated from the
Church of England--there is more appreciation of the point of view of
Churchmen in respect to their links with the past and their idea of
Catholicity. This is due partly to a broader interest in the life of the
Church in former ages and the heroic and saintly characters which they
produced than since the Reformation has been common among those English
Christians, who are, in a special sense, children of the Reformation;
partly, perhaps, to a growing doubt, as views of Christian truth have
become larger, whether after all a single doctrine or opinion, or
reverence for the teaching of one man, can make a satisfactory basis for
the permanent grouping of Christians. At the same time in regard to
fundamental Christian belief, the meaning which the revelation of God in
Christ has for them, they are and are conscious of being at one with the
Church.
Striking evidence of these new tendencies of thought on both sides is to
be seen in the movement originated by the Protestant Episcopal Church of
the United States for a World-Conference on Faith and Order, and in the
manner in which the proposal for such a Conference has been received in
England, and the steps already taken in preparation for it. A body of
representatives of the Church of England and of the Free Churches has
been appointed, and a Committee of this body has already published
suggestions for a basis of union. These have still, I understand, to
come before the general body of English representatives, and it is
intended (I believe) that the proposals of the Committee, after being
examined and possibly amended and supplemented by the larger body,
should, with any proposals that may be made from similar joint-bodies in
the United States and in the British Dominions, be considered by a body
of representatives from the whole of this vast area. Any conclusions
which are thus reached must then lie, so to speak, before all the
denominations concerned. Opportunity must be given for their being
widely studied and explained and reflected upon, and if need be
criticized. For the Church of Christ is, or ought to be, in a true sense
a democratic society, a society in which, subject to its governing
principles, the spiritual consciousness of all the faithful should make
itself felt.
For the end of such a process as this we must wait a considerable time.
Meanwhile there are obvious ways in which the cause of unity may be
promoted; viz. through seeking for a larger amount of intercourse with
the members of other denominations than our own; for more joint study of
religious questions and frank interchange of views, and more cooperation
in various forms of moral and social endeavour. The way would thus be,
we may hope, prepared for fuller intercommunion, and it may be for
corporate reunion.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] 1 Cor. x. 17, R.V. mg.
[2] Gal. iii. 28
[3] Col. i. 18, 24; Eph. i. 22, v. 23 ff.
[4] Gal. i. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 9.
[5] 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 19; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Gal. i. 2, 22.
[6] 1 Cor. xii. 28.
[7] 1 Cor. x. 32.
[8] 1 Cor. xi. 22.
[9] _The Christian Ecclesia_, pp. 3 ff.
[10] _Die Mission u. Ausbreitung d. Christentums_, p. 292.
[11] _Kirchenrecht_, 1. pp. 16 ff.
[12] 1 Cor. xi. 16.
[13] Ephes. v. 26, 27.
UNITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS
II. THE CHURCH IN THE FURNACE
By the Rev. E. MILNER-WHITE, M.A., D.S.O.
At last we have begun to see the absolute necessity of Unity in Christ,
of religious reunion, for the sake of both Christianity and the world.
For several years devout Christians in England have been growing more
and more uneasy about their acquiescence in religious division. The
reading of the Gospels, and especially the eighteenth chapter of St
John, where He prays on the threshold of His agony that His disciples
may be one, even as He and the Father are one, has become nothing less
than a torment to those who have any real passion for the doing of God's
will, or who are humbled by the tremendous love of our Lord Jesus
Christ, for each and for all. Thus far have we gone from the clear mind
of Christ; thus far have we ruined His plans for the health and
happiness of the world; thus far have we failed to imitate or display
the love, the humility, the self-sacrifice, that walked to Calvary: He
bade us be _one_, and to _love_; we, the disciples, have chosen to hate
and be many.
English Christianity alone is split into hundreds of denominations. The
fact is its own grim condemnation. We had lost even the sense that
division mattered. It is quite ridiculous to pretend that nothing is
wrong with the religious ideas or state of a race, which produces
hundreds of bodies, big and small, to worship Him who only asked that
His worshippers should be ONE. Denomination itself has become a word of
shame which we shall not be able to use much longer. It brings up at
once the thought of something partial, little, far less than the Body
for which Christ died; and a host of yet more horrid pictures of old
squabbles and present rivalries, of contempt and bitterness and
controversy. It does not suggest one _Christian_ idea at all.
These uneasy thoughts even before the war were brought home by the
practical results of disunion as worked out inevitably in the colonies
and mission field. The language is not too strong that labels them
monstrous. Here was the flower of our Christian devotion going forth to
heathen wilds, meeting by God's grace with wide success; and
establishing our little local denominations firmly in the nations,
tribes, and islands of Asia, Africa, and Australasia; rendering it hard
for a native Christian who moves from his home to get elsewhere the
accustomed ministries and means of grace vital to his young faith;
planting seeds of future quarrel at the very birth of new tribes into
the Prince of Peace. In the Dominions, with their thin and widely
scattered populations, other phenomena, equally deplorable, are
manifest--five churches in places where one suffices, appalling waste of
effort and money, and even ugly competition for adherents.
In England we hardly saw these things. The population was large enough
and indifferent enough to God to provide room for the activities of all.
The indifference indeed seemed to be growing. We did not stop to think
whether disgust at continuous controversy had not done much to cause
that indifference--how far our divisions simply manufactured scepticism
as to there being any religious truth--whether the obvious lovelessness
of such conditions was likely to recommend the religion of Love--whether
this disparate chaos was likely to be a field in which the Lord, who
designed and founded one brotherhood of believers, could work or give
His grace to the uttermost. No, the Christianity of our Christians has
tended to be a thin individual thing, with interests scarcely extended
beyond its own local congregation, which is bad enough; or still worse,
in our towns, content to wander from congregation to congregation,
owning no discipline or loyalty at all.