general mind of these churches it must be understood that I do not in
any way commit them but speak only for myself. I propose first to recall
the circumstances which gave rise to these churches and the conditions
which still operate in maintaining them as separate Christian bodies,
and then to give some account of the various movements towards reunion
in which they have taken part. The Baptists and Congregationalists you
will remember arose at a time when membership in the Anglican Church was
a formal and perfunctory thing. It was open to every parishioner and
meant very little in the way of Christian life or witness. The first
Nonconformists stood for the principle that membership in Christian
churches should be confined to genuinely Christian people, and in order
to secure this they formed separated churches, on the New Testament
model, of those who were able to give effective witness of their
Christian calling. That such churches should be self-governed followed
almost as a matter of course. Their meeting in the name of Christ
secured His presence among them and the guidance of His spirit in their
doings. But it is always important to remember that their essential
characteristic is not either democracy in church government or dissent
from the Establishment, but the positive witness to purity of membership
and to the sole headship of Jesus Christ just described. The Wesleyan
Church, the parent of the whole great Methodist movement, arose at the
end of the 18th century from somewhat similar reasons. There was never
anything schismatic in the spirit of John Wesley, but when he found that
the rigour and stiffness of Anglicanism made a free spiritual witness
almost impossible, he was driven, like the Nonconformists of the
Elizabethan times, to set up separate churches. While it is quite true
that the great principle for which English Nonconformity has stood is
now almost universally accepted, and that what may be called the
negative witness of the Free Churches is much less necessary than it
used to be, there is still room for their positive contribution to the
religious life of the country, for their witness to freedom,
spirituality, and the rights of the people in the Church. For a long
time, no doubt, they did rejoice in the dissidence of their dissent, and
they suffered, and still suffer, to some degree, from a Pharisaic
feeling of superiority to those whom they regard as bound by tradition
and State rule. The great majority among them, however, have long since
come to feel that they have more in common with one another and with
many in the Anglican Church than they have been hitherto prepared to
admit, and that existence in isolation from the rest of Christendom is
neither good for them nor helpful to the cause of Christ and His
Kingdom. This feeling first took definite shape about the year 1890 in
connexion with what are now known as the Grindelwald Conferences. For
three successive years informal parties of clergy and ministers were
arranged by Sir Henry Lunn, at Grindelwald and Lucerne, with the object
of getting representatives of the different churches together in order
to exchange views on the subject of union, and to create an atmosphere
of mutual knowledge, sympathy, and friendliness. Although no practical
steps directly followed them, these conferences undoubtedly did good by
removing misunderstandings and paving a way for further intercourse. To
many of the Free Churchmen who attended them they seem to have suggested
for the first time the evils of our unhappy divisions, and they
certainly created a desire for better relations. It became obvious that
one of the necessary first steps in this direction would be the setting
up of a closer cooperation among the Free Churches themselves, and of
breaking down the denominational isolation in which they too often
lived. Further conferences were held in England at Manchester, Bradford,
London and other centres, the ultimate issue of which was the foundation
of the National Federation of the Evangelical Free Churches under the
guidance of the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, Dr Berry of Wolverhampton, Dr
Mackennal of Bowdon, and Dr Munro Gibson of London, along with laymen
like Sir Percy Bunting and Mr George Cadbury. The aim of the Federation
was to bring all the evangelical Nonconformist churches into closer
association in order that they might in various localities take
concerted action on questions affecting their common faith and interests
and the social, moral, and religious welfare of the community. Since
that time the work of the Federation has gradually covered the whole
country through local councils working on a Free Church parish system,
and engaging in various forms of social and evangelistic effort. The
representative central council has become a powerful instrument for
furthering the cause of the Free Churches and for bringing their
influence to bear on social and political matters. It must be freely
admitted that this council has sometimes gone further in political
action than some of the churches have been altogether prepared for. From
the first, so representative a Nonconformist as the late Dr Dale of
Birmingham stood aloof from it, on the ground that it tended to divert
the energy of the churches from the proper channels and to involve them
too deeply in political controversy. In this action he was supported by
many of the more conservative elements in the churches themselves,
particularly as the circumstances of the time compelled the council to
engage in a good deal of political agitation. In spite of this, however,
there is no doubt that the Free Church Council movement as a whole has
had the effect its first promoters intended and desired, and has brought
all the Free Churches into much closer relations with one another, and
has established them in a position of mutual understanding and sympathy.
Its chief weakness has been that it has depended for support on
individual churches rather than on the denominations they represented.
It is the consciousness of this which has led the way to a later
movement in the direction of still closer federation. The lead has been
taken by the Rev. J. H. Shakespeare, who, as President of the Free
Church Council in 1916, propounded an elaborate scheme for the
federation of the Free Church denominations. In his first presidential
address under the title "The Free Churches at the Cross-roads" he put
forward an unanswerable case for the union of the whole of the Free
Churches of England. He pointed to the fact that for many years past
these churches have suffered a serious decline in the number of their
members and of their Sunday school scholars and teachers; and he found
one of the chief causes of this in their excessive denominationalism,
which led to over-lapping and rivalry. He pleaded that the old sectarian
distinctions had now ceased to represent vital issues, and to appeal to
the best elements both in the churches and in the nation outside; and he
urged that the maintenance of these distinctions now tended to destroy
the collective witness of the Free Churches and involved an immense
waste of men, money and energy. For the sake of efficiency, as well as
in order to maintain a proper Christian comity, he argued that it was
absolutely necessary to put an end to this condition of things. As long
as the Free Churches were thus divided, they could not expect either to
do their own work well or to exercise their proper influence in the life
of the nation. There is no doubt that this estimate of the situation
represented a growing feeling among those who were best acquainted with
the facts. But it is probable that Mr Shakespeare under-estimated the
strength of the conservative spirit in many of the Free Churches. And
there is no doubt that a considerable educational process will have to
be gone through before his proposals take practical shape. This process,
however, has already begun and has made considerable way. Mr
Shakespeare's challenge led almost immediately to the formation of a
large conference of representatives appointed by the Free Church
Council along with the Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, Primitive
Methodist, Independent Methodist, Wesleyan Methodist, Wesleyan Reform,
United Methodist, Moravian, Countess of Huntingdon, and Disciples of
Christ Churches. This Conference first met at Mansfield College, Oxford,
in September, 1916, and later at the Leys School, Cambridge, in 1917,
and again in London in the early part of this year. It appointed
Committees on Faith, Constitution, Evangelization and the Ministry, all
of which have held many meetings in addition to those of the whole
Conference. The Committee on Faith was able to frame a declaratory
statement on doctrine which was afterwards unanimously adopted as
follows:
I
There is One Living and True God, Who is revealed to us as Father,
Son and Holy Spirit; Him alone we worship and adore.
II
We believe that God so loved the world as to give His Son to be the
Revealer of the Father and the Redeemer of mankind; that the Son of
God, for us men and for our salvation, became man in Jesus Christ,
Who, having lived on earth the perfect human life, died for our
sins, rose again from the dead, and now is exalted Lord over all;
and that the Holy Spirit, Who witnesses to us of Christ, makes the
salvation which is in Him to be effective in our hearts and lives.
III
We acknowledge that all men are sinful, and unable to deliver
themselves from either the guilt or power of their sin; but we have
received and rejoice in the Gospel of the grace of the Holy God,
wherein all who truly turn from sin are freely forgiven through
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and are called and enabled, through
the Spirit dwelling and working within them, to live in fellowship
with God and for His service; and in this new life, which is to be
nurtured by the right use of the means of grace, we are to grow,
daily dying unto sin and living unto Him Who in His mercy has
redeemed us.
IV
We believe that the Catholic or Universal Church is the whole
company of the redeemed in heaven and on earth, and we recognise as
belonging to this holy fellowship all who are united to God through
faith in Christ.
The Church on earth--which is One through the Apostolic Gospel and
through the living union of all its true members with its one Head,
even Christ, and which is Holy through the indwelling Holy Spirit
Who sanctifies the Body and its members--is ordained to be the
visible Body of Christ, to worship God through Him, to promote the
fellowship of His people and the ends of His Kingdom, and to go
into all the world and proclaim His Gospel for the salvation of men
and the brotherhood of all mankind. Of this visible Church, and
every branch thereof, the only Head is the Lord Jesus Christ; and
in its faith, order, discipline and duty, it must be free to obey
Him alone as it interprets His holy will.
V
We receive, as given by the Lord to His Church on earth, the Holy
Scriptures, the Sacraments of the Gospel, and the Christian
Ministry.
The Scriptures, delivered through men moved by the Holy Ghost,
record and interpret the revelation of redemption, and contain the
sure Word of God concerning our salvation and all things necessary
thereto. Of this we are convinced by the witness of the Holy Spirit
in the hearts of men to and with the Word; and this Spirit, thus
speaking from the Scriptures to believers and to the Church, is the
supreme Authority by which all opinions in religion are finally to
be judged.
The Sacraments--Baptism and the Lord's Supper--are instituted by
Christ, Who is Himself certainly and really present in His own
ordinances (though not bodily in the elements thereof), and are
signs and seals of His Gospel not to be separated therefrom. They
confirm the promises and gifts of salvation, and, when rightly used
by believers with faith and prayer, are, through the operation of
the Holy Spirit, true means of grace.
The Ministry is an office within the Church--not a sacerdotal
order--instituted for the preaching of the Word, the ministration
of the Sacraments and the care of souls. It is a vocation from God,
upon which therefore no one is qualified to enter save through the
call of the Holy Spirit in the heart; and this inward call is to be
authenticated by the call of the Church, which is followed by
ordination to the work of the Ministry in the name of the Church.
While thus maintaining the Ministry as an office, we do not limit
the ministries of the New Testament to those who are thus ordained,
but affirm the priesthood of all believers and the obligation
resting upon them to fulfil their vocation according to the gift
bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit.
VI
We affirm the sovereign authority of our Lord Jesus Christ over
every department of human life, and we hold that individuals and
peoples are responsible to Him in their several spheres and are
bound to render Him obedience and to seek always the furtherance of
His Kingdom upon earth, not, however, in any way constraining
belief, imposing religious disabilities, or denying the rights of
conscience.
VII
In the assurance, given us in the Gospel, of the love of God our
Father to each of us and to all men, and in the faith that Jesus
Christ, Who died, overcame death and has passed into the heavens,
the first-fruits of them that sleep, we are made confident of the
hope of Immortality, and trust to God our souls and the souls of
the departed. We believe that the whole world must stand before the
final Judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ. And, with glad and solemn
hearts, we look for the consummation and bliss of the life
everlasting, wherein the people of God, freed for ever from sorrow
and from sin, shall serve Him and see His face in the perfected
communion of all saints in the Church triumphant.
The Committee on Constitution recommended a definite union of the Free
Church denominations on the basis of a federation which should express
their essential unity, promote evangelization, maintain their liberties
and take action where authorised in all matters affecting the interests,
duties, rights, and privileges of the federating churches, and to enter
into communion and united action where possible with other branches of
the church of Christ throughout the world. It is proposed that the
federation shall work through a council consisting of about 200
representatives of the denominations in order to carry out their will.
The Committee on Evangelization and the Ministry also suggested certain
practical measures necessary for cooperation in these important branches
of service. The scheme has been carefully thought out and elaborated,
but at the same time is not too cumbrous for action, and if it can be
carried out there is no doubt that it would secure the ends aimed at. In
many ways the doctrinal declaration is the most important part of it,
and shews a sufficient general agreement on essentials to ensure
harmonious working. The fate of it lies of course with the different
denominations concerned. By this time most of them have had an
opportunity of considering it and, generally speaking, it has met with a
favourable reception. The Baptists, Congregationalists, and United
Methodists have declared their willingness to proceed to closer union on
this basis. But the Presbyterians and Wesleyan Methodists have referred
it back for further consideration. Rightly and naturally both of these
denominations are more concerned for the moment with measures for union
within their own borders. The Presbyterians are looking to a reunion of
the Established and Free Churches in Scotland, while a great scheme for
the reunion of all the Methodist bodies is before the Wesleyan
Conference. If this can be carried out it should not prejudice but
rather be in favour of any scheme for wider Free Church Union.
Nothing that has been done so far among the Free Churches is likely in
any way to hinder the fulfilment of the desire which is now widely felt
on all sides for better relations with the Anglican Church. It can
easily be understood from the difficulties that have already emerged in
the way of closer union among the Free Churches how much more difficult
is the prospect of union with Anglicanism. There is no doubt that
denominational feeling is still very strong among the rank and file of
the churches. In spite of the changes which have taken place in emphasis
and conditions in modern church thought, each denomination realises that
it stands for something positive and is anxious to give its positive
witness in the best possible way. It has therefore been an essential of
reunion that any scheme proposed shall not interfere with the autonomy
of any individual denomination and shall allow full scope for its
genius. It is equally necessary that this should be preserved in any
scheme contemplated for reunion with Anglicanism. The Free Churches are
not disposed to bate anything of their freedom or to sink their identity
in any national church. If, however, any scheme can be devised which
will preserve their individuality and give them scope for their special
witness and at the same time avoid the dissensions and divisions which
have so marred their relations with Anglicanism in the past it is likely
to meet with a very warm welcome. The war has brought home to all
thinking men in the churches the imperative need that there is for
closer union and for a more united testimony. And they are conscious
that if they are to face the increasing difficulties of the future all
the churches must be able to stand together, to cooperate in Christian
service, and to speak with one voice.
It is therefore regarded by them as a welcome sign of the times that
there should be a world-wide desire for Christian reunion, and that this
should have begun to take practical shape just before the outbreak of
the war. The movement was initiated by the Protestant Episcopal Church
of America supported by practically all the churches in that country. It
first took shape in proposals for a world-wide conference on Faith and
Order with a view of promoting the visible unity of the body of Christ.
But for the war this conference would have been held already, but under
existing circumstances the work has had to be confined to preparations
for it on both sides of the Atlantic. In this country the work has been
mainly done by a joint Conference, consisting of representatives of the
Committee appointed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and of
commissions appointed by the various Free Churches, in order to promote
the Faith and Order movement. This Conference has held repeated meetings
in the historic Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster and elsewhere, and has
published two interim reports "Towards Christian Unity" which are of the
utmost importance. These reports represent the work of a sub-committee
but have received the general sanction of the whole Conference. The
first report contains the following statement of agreement on matters of
faith, which is "offered not as a creed for subscription, or as
committing in any way the churches thus represented, but as indicating a
large measure of substantial agreement and also as affording material
for further investigation and consideration":
A STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT ON MATTERS OF FAITH
We, who belong to different Christian Communions and are engaged in
the discussion of questions of Faith and Order, desire to affirm
our agreement upon certain foundation truths as the basis of a
spiritual and rational creed and life for all mankind. We express
them as follows:
(1) As Christians we believe that, while there is some knowledge of
God to be found among all races of men and some measure of divine
grace and help is present to all, a unique, progressive and
redemptive revelation of Himself was given by God to the Hebrew
people through the agency of inspired prophets, "in many parts and
in many manners," and that this revelation reaches its culmination
and completeness in One Who is more than a prophet, Who is the
Incarnate Son of God, our Saviour and our Lord, Jesus Christ.
(2) This distinctive revelation, accepted as the word of God, is
the basis of the life of the Christian Church and is intended to be
the formative influence upon the mind and character of the
individual believer.
(3) This word of God is contained in the Old and New Testaments and
constitutes the permanent spiritual value of the Bible.
(4) The root and centre of this revelation, as intellectually
interpreted, consists in a positive and highly distinctive doctrine
of God--His nature, character and will. From this doctrine of God
follows a certain sequence of doctrines concerning creation, human
nature and destiny, sin, individual and racial, redemption through
the incarnation of the Son of God and His atoning death and
resurrection, the mission and operation of the Holy Spirit, the
Holy Trinity, the Church, the last things, and Christian life and
duty, individual and social: all these cohere with and follow from
this doctrine of God.
(5) Since Christianity offers an historical revelation of God, the
coherence and sequence of Christian doctrine involve a necessary
synthesis of idea and fact such as is presented to us in the New
Testament and in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds: and these Creeds
both in their statements of historical fact and in their statements
of doctrine affirm essential elements of the Christian faith as
contained in Scripture, which the Church could never abandon
without abandoning its basis in the word of God.
(6) We hold that there is no contradiction between the acceptance
of the miracles recited in the Creeds and the acceptance of the
principle of order in nature as assumed in scientific enquiry, and
we hold equally that the acceptance of miracles is not forbidden by
the historical evidence candidly and impartially investigated by
critical methods.
This was followed by a statement of agreement on matters relating to
order as follows:
With thankfulness to the Head of the Church for the spirit of unity
He has shed abroad in our hearts we go on to express our common
conviction on the following matters:
(1) That it is the purpose of our Lord that believers in Him should
be, as in the beginning they were, one visible society--His body
with many members--which in every age and place should maintain the
communion of saints in the unity of the Spirit and should be
capable of a common witness and a common activity.
(2) That our Lord ordained, in addition to the preaching of His
Gospel, the Sacraments of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper, as not
only declaratory symbols, but also effective channels of His grace
and gifts for the salvation and sanctification of men, and that
these Sacraments being essentially social ordinances were intended
to affirm the obligation of corporate fellowship as well as
individual confession of Him.
(3) That our Lord, in addition to the bestowal of the Holy Spirit
in a variety of gifts and graces upon the whole Church, also
conferred upon it by the self-same Spirit a Ministry of manifold
gifts and functions, to maintain the unity and continuity of its
witness and work.
In subsequent discussions a very considerable advance was made on the
positions here laid down. It was felt that if ever reunion was to become
a reality the question of order must be frankly faced, and the following
statements were put forth for the consideration of the churches
concerned, not as a final solution, but as the necessary basis for
discussion in framing a practical scheme:
1. That continuity with the historic Episcopate should be
effectively preserved.
2. That in order that the rights and responsibilities of the whole
Christian community in the government of the Church may be
adequately recognised, the Episcopate should re-assume a
constitutional form, both as regards the method of the election of
the bishop as by clergy and people, and the method of government
after election. It is perhaps necessary that we should call to mind
that such was the primitive ideal and practice of Episcopacy and it
so remains in many Episcopal communions to-day.
3. That acceptance of the fact of Episcopacy and not any theory as
to its character should be all that is asked for. We think that
this may be the more easily taken for granted as the acceptance of
any such theory is not now required of ministers of the Church of
England. It would no doubt be necessary before any arrangement for
corporate reunion could be made to discuss the exact functions
which it may be agreed to recognise as belonging to the Episcopate,
but we think this can be left to the future.
The first point to note in regard to the work of this Conference is the
remarkable unanimity achieved in regard to Christian doctrine. While
there is no intention of binding any of the parties to the _ipsissima
verba_ of any doctrinal declaration, but rather every desire to allow
for varieties of expression, it is now perfectly clear that there is
among all the churches concerned a substantial agreement on the main and
essential matters of the Christian faith. This supplies the most real
and hopeful basis for the vital union of churches thus minded, and makes
their continued separation and antagonism intolerable. The more closely
this aspect of the situation is explored the more clearly does it lead
to the conclusion that those who are so largely one in aim, intention,
and desire should find some genuine and practical expression of their
unity. The question of church order is more difficult; but here again
much has happened of late to justify a reconsideration of the position
on both sides. On the one hand recent investigations into early church
history have shewn that no one form of church government can claim
exclusive scriptural or Apostolic authority. Under the guidance of the
Spirit of God the Church has in the past adapted herself and her
organization to the needs of the times in order the better to do the
work of the Kingdom. Men are coming now to see that the test of a true
Church is not conformity to type but effectiveness in fulfilling the
will of her Lord, and that therefore organization need not be of a
single uniform type. So we find denominations like the Baptists and
Congregationalists setting up superintendents (overseers, Bishops) over
their churches because the needs of the time demand such supervision.
And on the other hand we find Anglicans inclining to exchange prelacy
for a more modest and elective form of episcopacy. In this respect the
two extremes are drawing together to an extent which would have been
incredible twenty years ago, and, given good will, it should be possible
to find even here a real _modus vivendi_.
The same may be said with regard to other movements which have been
recently set on foot in the direction of a better common understanding
between Anglicans and Free Churchmen. It is recognised that one of the
greatest obstacles is still the so-called religious education
controversy. Both sides are becoming a little ashamed of their attitude
to this question in the past. They realise that the true interests of
education have been gravely imperilled by making it a bone of contention
among the churches, and they are beginning to look at the whole matter
afresh from the point of view of the good of the child rather than from
that of their denominational interests. Some important conferences have
been held at Lambeth in the course of which the Bishop of Oxford has put
forth a scheme for relegating the conduct of religious teaching in the
elementary schools to interdenominational committees elected _ad hoc_.
This scheme is still under discussion and at the moment is not regarded
very favourably by extremists on either side, but it is all to the good
that the matter should have been raised in so friendly and conciliatory
a spirit and, whenever the time is ripe, it may be hoped that the way
to agreement will be more open than it has ever been yet.
Further the rise and rapid growth of the Life and Liberty movement
within the Established Church is something like a portent and one that
Nonconformists cannot but regard with the deepest interest and sympathy.
They may perhaps be forgiven if they see in it an attempt to win from
within the Church just those privileges and liberties for the sake of
which their ancestors came out many years ago. With a great price they
bought this freedom and they rejoice in this new movement as a real
vindication of the cause for which they have so long contended and as
representing a body of opinion within the establishment the existence of
which, whatever may be its immediate result, is sure to make a common
understanding in the future more attainable. They may have serious
doubts whether the aims of the movement are ever to be obtained without
the Disestablishment of the Church, but for all that they wish it well
and rejoice in the spirit to which it points.
One more sign of the times may be mentioned. During the last 18 months
yet another Conference has been set on foot, this time between
Nonconformists and Evangelical Anglicans, and has come very near to a
common understanding on such vital matters as intercommunion and
interchange of pulpits. It is recognised that there can be no real
Christian unity without such interchange, and the fact that a growing
number of Anglican clergy are prepared to discuss the question and that
there is no real difficulty on the Nonconformist side is again a ground
of hope. It should be understood however that on the Nonconformist side
there is no desire for universal and indiscriminate facilities in the
directions indicated. They do not want a kind of general post among the
pulpits of the land, nor do they ask that their people should desert
their own ordinances for those of the Established Church. Their people
indeed have no such desire. They love the simplicity and homeliness of
their own communion services and would not exchange them if they could.
But they do feel that to be debarred from communicating when there is no
church of their own order available is a real hardship, and they know
that nothing would make for comity among the churches so surely as an
occasional interchange of pulpits. They recognise that it would all have
to be carried out in due order and under conditions, and as long as the
conditions cast no reflexion on their orders, or on the Christian
standing of their members, they would loyally accept them. Under
exceptional circumstances and given due authorization on both sides, it
might be possible to do openly what is often now done in a more or less
clandestine way. There is a growing body of opinion on both sides which
would be favourable to such a course and it is certain that more will be
heard of it after the war.
This leads up to another consideration which our ecclesiastical
authorities would do well to bear in mind. For a long time past younger
men and women in all the churches have been accustomed to meet together
in the various Fellowships and the Student movement. They have learnt to
work and pray together, to know one another's mind and to realise their
fundamental oneness of spirit and aim. It must be remembered that these
are the men and women in whose hands the future of the churches, humanly
speaking, lies, and they will not tolerate an indefinite prospect of
sectarian division and strife. While loyal to their own denominations
they have seen a wider and more glorious vision, and they are already
prepared for very definite steps in the direction of closer relations.
The new and better spirit which they represent is spreading rapidly
among the rank and file in the churches, and has been strongly
reinforced by experiences at the front. There, under the rude stress of
war, denominational exclusiveness has frankly broken down and attempts
to maintain it have excited universal resentment and disgust. There is
no doubt that after the war there will be a strong public opinion in
favour of better relations among the churches, and no church or section
of a church that clings to the old exclusiveness will be able to retain
any hold upon the people. In this case at least it may be assumed that
for once _vox populi_ is _vox dei_.