* 
 
 JOINT COMMISSION 
 
 I APPOINTED TO ARRANGE FOR A 
 
 WORLD CONFERENCE 
 
 ON 
 
 FAITH AND ORDER 
 
 ffi r Iva irdvres tv <3<ri, KaO <h$ crtf, irarep, iv ipol Kay co tv aot, 
 Wlva Kal abroi iv ijpuv tv coaiv, iva 6 Kda/uLos TruTTeva’rj 6 tl 
 pie oltt tcrreiXas. 
 
 jlUt omnes unum sint, sicut tu Pater in me, et ego in te, ut 
 Bet ipsi in nobis unum sint, ut credat mundus, quia tu me 
 Kmisisti. 
 
 | That 'they all may be one ; as thou , Father, art in me, and I 
 | in thee , that they also may be one in us $ that the world may 
 I believe that thou hast sent me, 
 
 Jt 
 
 THE 
 
 MANIFESTATION OF UNITY 
 | By the Rt. Rev. C. P. Anderson, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF CHICAGO 
 
 [ »o ] 
 

 THE 
 
 MANIFESTATION OF UNITY* 
 By the Rt. Rev. C. P. Anderson, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF CHICAGO 
 
 [This paper is deemed q worthy of publication by the Com- 
 mission of the Protestant Episcopal Church on a W or Id 
 Conference on Faith and Order , which, however, does 
 not hold itself responsible for any statement or opinion 
 herein expressed .] 
 
 Dear Brethren of the Clergy and of the Laity : 
 
 RACE be to you and peace from 
 
 V_J God our Father, and from the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Two years ago I addressed you on 
 “Catholicity and Unity.” Let me re- 
 turn to the same subjedl again, and 
 consider it from another angle. 
 
 Unity is the will of Christ. Unity 
 is a fundamental dogma of the Chris- 
 tian religion. The interior unity of the 
 Church of Christ is an established spir- 
 itual fadt. The manifestation of this 
 unity is the duty of Christ’s disciples. 
 
 * A charge to the Annual Convention of the Diocese of 
 Chicago, May 28, 1912. 
 
Christ’s agonizing prayer was “that 
 they all may be one: even as Thou, 
 Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that 
 they also may be in us : that the world 
 may believe thatThou didst send me.” 
 “ I in them and Thou in Me, that they 
 may be perfected into one.” The bur- 
 den of our Lord’s prayer was for the 
 accomplishment of the will of God, and 
 for the fruit of His own sacrifice in the 
 establishment of unity and in its man- 
 ifestation amongst His disciples. It was 
 a manifested unity for which Christ 
 prayed. “That they may be one” was 
 the prayer. “Even as we are one” is 
 the foundation of the prayer. “I in 
 them and Thou in Me, that they may 
 be perfected into one, that the world 
 may know that Thou didst send Me, 
 and lovedst them even as Thou lovedst 
 Me.” There is a unity to be believed 
 in, as well as a unity to be exhibited 
 to the world. It is important to keep 
 this in mind. It is essential to realize 
 [ 4 ] 
 
that the interior unity of the Church is 
 a divine, imperishable reality, and that 
 our task is not to make unity, but to 
 make it manifest. Extraordinary results 
 are promised from this manifestation 
 of unity. There is unity, but the world 
 cannot see it. There is unity, but the 
 world does not believe it. Our part is to 
 cooperate with God and yield to the 
 strivings of the Holy Spirit, so that the 
 unity of the Church will be actualized 
 and visualized in such corporate man- 
 ner that the world can see it with its 
 own eyes, and seeing it, will believe in 
 the power and love of God. 
 
 Unity and Union 
 
 It is quite common to contrast unity 
 and union as though a choice had to 
 be made between them. The words are 
 not synonymous, by any means; nei- 
 ther are they mutually exclusive. It is 
 well to define one’s terms. God makes 
 unity. Man makes union. There might 
 [ 5 ] 
 
be union without unity. There might 
 be a union of churches which would 
 be vastly different from the unity 
 of the Church. Nevertheless, unity 
 can be shown forth to the world only 
 through union. Under present circum- 
 stances unity means the union of the 
 churches in the Church. It means that 
 the whole Church encompasses and 
 contains and controls all that pertains 
 to it. It means that each church shall 
 be visibly incorporated into the whole 
 Church and that the whole shall be 
 clearly the property of each. It means 
 that the tree claims the branches be- 
 cause the branches claim the tree. It 
 means that the life of the tree and of 
 the branches is so clearly one life that 
 no one thinks of asking whether the 
 life-giving sap can reach the remotest 
 leaf of the farthest twig. It means that 
 each baptized man is conscious of his 
 membership in the one Church, and 
 that his membership is immediate and 
 [ 6 ] 
 
diredt and not derived through his 
 membership in some subsidiary organ- 
 ization. It means that instead of a man 
 saying, “ I am a member of the invisi- 
 ble Church because I belong to one 
 of the visible churches,” he will say, 
 “I belong to the One visible Church 
 because there are no visible churches.” 
 It means that the churches as such may 
 lose their identity in order that the 
 Church may preserve its identity. 
 
 Unity and Catholicity 
 I speak as a Churchman, as a Catho- 
 lic, as a Christian. Do I need, does any 
 Christian man need, any other terms 
 to define my religion or his? God is 
 my Father; the Church is my Mother. 
 Christian is my name; Catholic is my 
 surname. Do we need any other names? 
 Why go on to add Anglican, Epis- 
 copalian, Roman, Protestant, Presby- 
 terian, Methodist, Congregationalist, 
 Baptist, and so on, and so on? These 
 [ 7 ] 
 
terms are divisive, sectarian, narrow. 
 They shrivel up one’s soul. Names 
 stand for realities. The realities of reli- 
 gion are its affirmations, not its pro- 
 tests and its negations. The universal 
 positives of religion are mine. The 
 whole sweep of Christian dodtrine, 
 the whole field of spiritual experience, 
 the whole world of religious values, the 
 whole story of Christian triumph, in 
 every age and in every clime, are mine, 
 because I give my whole allegiance to 
 the whole Church, and not to a mere 
 segment of it. Will not every Chris- 
 tian man in these days claim the same 
 thing? If, then, every duly baptized 
 man claims to be nothing less than 
 a member of the Catholic Church (a 
 claim that has the sanction of sound the- 
 ology), why not begin to plan to give 
 outward and visible expression to this 
 inward spiritual reality? Why seek to 
 perpetuate division and segregation, 
 except to thwart the will of God, to 
 [ 8 ] 
 
feed our own pride, and to defeat the 
 power of the Church of Christ? Chris- 
 tians, Churchmen, Catholics! Chris- 
 tians because of our discipleship to 
 Christ; Churchmen because we are in- 
 corporated into His mystical Body; 
 Catholics because we belong to noth- 
 ing less than the Church universal. 
 These are the inclusive, the compre- 
 hensive, the unifying terms. Cling to 
 them, dear brethren, cling to them, and 
 make them truly expressive of your 
 religion. So long as there is a drop of 
 denominationalism or sectarianism in 
 men’s blood, it will block the mani- 
 festation of unity. God never made 
 Protestant Episcopalians, — nor Pres- 
 byterians, nor Congregationalists, nor 
 any of sectarian name. He made Chris- 
 tians, and they chose to call themselves 
 by less lovely names. “We receive this 
 child into the congregation of Christ’s 
 flock and do sign him with the sign of 
 the cross.” That is your only Church, 
 [ 9 ] 
 
and that is the sign by which you are 
 known. Realize with all your might the 
 universality of your religion. Impress 
 it upon your minds and upon the 
 minds of others. When men begin to 
 realize what true Catholicity is, they 
 will seek ways of making if apparent 
 that they belong to the whole Church 
 and not merely to some segregation of 
 Christians whose connexion with the 
 parent body is not apparent to the 
 world. 
 
 Unity does not involve Surrender 
 The Christian unity programme need 
 not awaken any suspicion of surrender 
 or of the sacrifice of honor, as the diplo- 
 matists would say. Rightly understood, 
 it means that each gains all and loses 
 nothing. Itisamatterof relating things, 
 — of relating the churches to each other, 
 and to the Church. Every man recog- 
 nizes that each church has done much 
 for the souls of men. Every fair-minded 
 [ 10 ] 
 
student puts a high estimate on those 
 thrilling movements that enliven the 
 pages of Church history. Those move- 
 ments and the churches which grew out 
 of them have played their part in the 
 progress of the world. Battles have been 
 fought and won. Battles have been won, 
 not for the conquering churches, but for 
 the Church of God. They were battles 
 and movements within the bosom of 
 Christendom itself. But the battles are 
 over. They cannot befought again. The 
 Reformation has taken place. Protes- 
 tantism has arrived. Luther, Calvin, 
 Wesley, have lived. The world is dif- 
 ferent because these things have hap- 
 pened and these men lived. But the 
 Church cannot live on its past con- 
 flicts. It cannot acquiesce in an armed 
 truce as a permanent attitude. It has 
 firmly resolved not to perpetuate inter- 
 necinewar.What,then,is to be the next 
 movement in Christendom? Is it not to 
 correlate and to coordinate these values 
 [ ” ] 
 
which each church has proclaimed at 
 great cost and for the stewardship of 
 which it is keenly conscious? Since the 
 Reformation the Christian religion has 
 been subjedted to disintegrating analy- 
 ses. Men have taken it apart to ascer- 
 tain what each jewel in the setting was 
 like. Has not the time come to put 
 them together again in a beautiful mo- 
 saic? Truths are not isolated. They are 
 related. They are one. Modern creeds 
 and articles and confessions may be 
 admitted to be true. If true, they are 
 related. Or rather they are true only 
 when related. It is no discourtesy to 
 any church to suggest that the time has 
 come to abandon this analytical pro- 
 cess by which the Church has been dis- 
 integrated and to substitute for it a syn- 
 thetic process, by which the churches 
 will be related. Harmonize the values. 
 Synthesize the theologies. Stop fight- 
 ing these oft-won battles over again. 
 Cease these interminable logomachies. 
 
 [ 1 * ] 
 
Strive towards that manifestation of 
 visible unity that will bring defeat to 
 none and victory to all. 
 
 Unity and Conservatism 
 The Christian unity propaganda is not 
 radical nor destructive. 1 1 is constructive 
 conservatism. It conserves the original 
 constitution of the Church. Let us sup- 
 pose that you are reading the New T es- 
 tament for the first time, without any 
 presuppositions based upon modern 
 conditions in Christendom. You read 
 “on this rock I will build my Church.” 
 “Tell it to the Church.” “The Church, 
 which is His body.”“ He is the head of 
 the Body, the Church.” “The Church 
 of the Thessalonians,” and soon. Here 
 the Church is one. It is a Body. It is 
 visible. Now take your eyes off the 
 Bible and look around. Does the bewil- 
 dering multiplicity of churches fit into 
 the Bible conception of the Church? 
 Leave out for the present the form and 
 [ i3 ] 
 
organization of the Church. The point 
 to be pressed is that the New Testa- 
 ment is strong on the doctrine of the 
 Church, but knows nothing whatever 
 of the modern idea of churches. Poly- 
 churchism is as foreign to the New Tes- 
 tament as polytheism. The “ churches” 
 of the New Testament are geographi- 
 cal congregations of the Church. It is 
 true that the sect germ threatened to 
 invade the Church even in those early 
 days, but it was anathematized as a sin 
 of the flesh. “Now this I mean, that 
 each one of you saith, I am of Paul; 
 and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; 
 and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ?” “ I 
 beseech you that there be no divisions 
 among you.” This very schism which 
 St. Paul characterized as carnal sin has 
 become triumphantly rampant in our 
 time. When one saith, I am of Rome; 
 and another, I of Canterbury, and I 
 of Geneva, and I of Luther, and I of 
 Wesley, are we not carnal and walk as 
 [ 14 ] 
 
men? The reunion of Christendom, 
 then, is not a perilous pursuit. It would 
 heal wounds, build up the Body, and 
 restore that unity which characterized 
 the Church when she first set out to 
 win the world for Christ. 
 
 Visible Unity an Economic Necessity 
 The union of the churches in the 
 Church is becoming an economic ne- 
 cessity. The economic argument might, 
 of course, be easily overworked. Money 
 does not weigh much over against con- 
 science. Nevertheless, the economic 
 argument derives weight from the fadt 
 that divisions are proving to be as eco- 
 nomically unsound as they are theo- 
 logically unsafe. God uses political and 
 financial situations for the furtherance 
 of His will. Unlovely complications 
 have often ushered in great move- 
 ments. Hard fadts are demonstrating 
 that Christ’s dodtrine of unity is the 
 only workable dodlrine in this pradtical 
 [ ^5 ] 
 
work-a-day world. It is being proved 
 up to the hilt that the churches cannot 
 do the work of the Church. 
 
 Take the missionary situation. What 
 does the non-Christian know or care 
 about our ecclesiastical differences? 
 When a Presbyterian minister in India 
 complained that his greatest difficulty 
 consisted in teaching his converts 
 the difference between the established 
 Church of Scotland and the Free Kirk, 
 he should have been retired as a man 
 who did not know his business, or else 
 those august bodies should have re- 
 lieved him of his embarrassment by 
 abolishing the distinction. When an 
 Anglican Dean could not offer up spe- 
 cial prayers in time of a sudden calam- 
 ity because the rubric made no provi- 
 sion for such an emergency, and his 
 Bishop was not on hand to authorize 
 special prayers, it raised the question 
 as to whether the stiffness of Anglican 
 uniformity does not need some lim- 
 [ 16 ] 
 
bering in the interest of spiritual unity. 
 When a “Christian” minister told me 
 that there could be no union apart from 
 immersion, it made me feel the impor- 
 tance of distinguishing between a fad 
 and its expression, between regenera- 
 tion and its sign, between a man and 
 his clothes. And when men take their 
 stereotyped idiosyncrasies into foreign 
 lands and back them up with an eccle- 
 siastical organization, it raises the ques- 
 tion as to whether the best way to save 
 the heathen’s soul is to confuse his wits. 
 
 Why should the non-Christian be 
 contaminated with inter-denomina- 
 tional controversies, especially in the 
 kindergarten stage of his Christian 
 education? Why should he be told 
 anything about those family quarrels 
 of ours out of which the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, the Westminster Confession, 
 the Augsburg Confession, and all the 
 seds of Christendom have sprung? 
 It has been said that Japan never had 
 [ "7 ] 
 
a gas age. It leaped from kerosene 
 to eledricity. Let it leap into the full 
 light of a united Church without pass- 
 ing through an ecclesiastical gas age. 
 St. Paul revolutionized acontinent with 
 one Church and one short creed. Is it 
 not enough to take to Asia and Africa 
 the same religion that he took to 
 Europe ? Either the missionary enter- 
 prise will have to make some shortcuts 
 which will startle us here at home, or 
 else the Churches must anticipate the 
 missionaries by putting up a more 
 solid front. The united Church can 
 preach a fuller Gospel, provide more 
 men to preach it, and do it with a 
 more economic expenditure of God’s 
 money, than can the aggregate of all 
 the churches. The choice in non- 
 Christian lands must be between 
 Christ and some other master, between 
 the Church and the world, between the 
 Church and no church. It cannot be 
 wise to compel them to make a choice 
 [ 18 ] 
 
between churches. If it be said that the 
 missionary propaganda minimizes or 
 conceals the ecclesiastical differences, 
 then they are either wrong in doing so, 
 or else we are wrong in maintaining 
 those diverse organizations whose dif- 
 ferences our agents have to conceal in 
 the interest of a truer Christianity. 
 
 The economic argument applies at 
 home as well as abroad. Take some 
 pra&ical illustrations. There is a city 
 of fifteen hundred souls — men, wo- 
 men, and children — in the Diocese of 
 Chicago. That city has nine churches. 
 Some of these nine are supported by 
 home missionary boards, and get more 
 than they give. Allowing five toafamily, 
 each one of these churches would have 
 about thirty-three families. By adtual 
 count, about 50 per cent of the heads 
 of families do not belong to any of the 
 nine, though they are by no means 
 antagonistic to the Christian religion. 
 Is it strange that men find it difficult 
 
 C *9 ] 
 
to make a choice, and that they cut 
 the Gordian knot by choosing none? 
 Not one of those churches is strong 
 enough to beget self-respedt, nor to 
 command allegiance. Not one of them, 
 nor all of them put together, can be 
 regarded as a worthy exponent of the 
 Christian religion. The churches have 
 dethroned the Church. That’s what has 
 happened. Compare the situation in 
 that Illinois city with the New Testa- 
 ment idea of the Church. St. Paul wrote 
 a letter to “the Church of God which 
 is at Corinth,” and the Church got it 
 and read it. If one of St. Paul’s suc- 
 cessors were to send a letter to the 
 Church of God which is at this particu- 
 lar city in Illinois (or any other city in 
 the United States), who would get it? 
 Probably no one. The Church of God 
 is so obscured by the churches that 
 the postmaster couldn’t find it. He 
 couldn’t see the woods for the trees. 
 Down in Indiana there is a village of 
 [ 20 ] 
 
two hundred inhabitants. It has six 
 churches. One wonders if it has any 
 Christianity. These are of course ag- 
 gravated cases, but approximately they 
 represent a state of affairs in hundreds 
 of small cities and villages in the 
 United States. Is it Christian? Is it 
 statesmanlike? Is it good religion? Is 
 it good business? No, it is a sin and 
 a shame. Our many church labels are 
 proving to be libels against Christian- 
 ity, and many religions are not increas- 
 ing religion. 
 
 Then, too, if many places are 
 over-churched, others are unchurched. 
 There are rural communities and many 
 villages and small cities that have 
 neither church nor chapel, priest nor 
 preacher, mass nor meeting, Sunday- 
 school nor catechism. That is true in 
 the southern part of our own state. It 
 is not because they are not Christians, 
 but because they are sectarians. They 
 cannot have five or ten churches and 
 [ 21 ] 
 
so they have none. Come right home 
 here to the environments of Chicago. 
 There are communities on the out- 
 skirts of this city, with either no com- 
 munity church, or with churches sup- 
 ported by missionary boards and sup- 
 porting none. Many religious bodies 
 are trying to meet this situation, both 
 at home and abroad, by some sort of 
 gentlemen’s agreement under which it 
 is sought to avoid overlapping. This 
 is good. There would seem to be no 
 reason why those denominations which 
 are scarcely distinguishable from each 
 othershould not adoptsomesuch plan, 
 at least as a temporary measure. As 
 a permanent policy it is open to two 
 grave objections. It acquiesces in divi- 
 sions and it deprives the people of the 
 privilege of being anything else than 
 sectarians. It seems to say that divi- 
 sions are bad, but must stay. Worse 
 still, it dooms certain sections to a nar- 
 row Christianity. No denomination- 
 [ 22 ] 
 
alist claims that his denomination is 
 the whole Church. Consequently the 
 division of territory would establish a 
 sectarian rather than a Catholic Chris- 
 tianity. Yes, there may be temporary 
 expedients, but there can be only one 
 permanent policy — the reunion of 
 Christendom. 
 
 Unity a Social Necessity 
 Visible unity is a necessity from the 
 viewpoint of social efficiency. A sec- 
 tarian Christianity cannot mould the 
 social conscience. It is incapable of a 
 catholic cosmopolitanism. It cannot 
 adt continentally. After all, sectarian- 
 ism is only one remove from individ- 
 ualism, and individualism is incompat- 
 ible with organized Christianity. If 
 there can be five churches, there can 
 be five hundred or five thousand, or 
 as many churches as there are individ- 
 uals. Hence the premise which admits 
 of many churches carries one on logi- 
 [ ^3 ] 
 
cally to no church. Now this is not 
 Christianity. Christianity is not only a 
 religion for individuals, it is for soci- 
 ety. It is a social religion. It is a King- 
 dom, a Body, an Organism. The world 
 is the subjedt of redemption. Society it- 
 self is to be regenerated. The nations 
 are to bow before Christ. 
 
 It is commonly supposed that the 
 function of the Church is to convert 
 individual men to Christ. Yes, it is 
 that, but it is more than that. It is com- 
 monly supposed that thefundtion of the 
 Church is to be the good Samaritan to 
 those that are fallen by the wayside. Of 
 course it is all that, but it is more than 
 that. Its function is to clear the high- 
 ways — the industrial, the social, the 
 political highways — of thieves and 
 robbers, and not simply to be the good 
 Samaritan to those that have been 
 knocked down and robbed. Its function 
 is to bring about the new earth in which 
 dwelleth righteousness, to be the exe- 
 
 [ 24 ] 
 
cutive agency of God’s Kingdom of 
 righteousness and peace and joy. Men 
 sometimes say that if the Church con- 
 verts individuals, society will take care 
 of itself. The individual must of course 
 be converted, but that is not enough. 
 Every stone in the building may be 
 perfedt, and yet if they had not been 
 put together properly, they might have 
 fallen down over men’s heads. Individ- 
 uals may be good, and yet society may 
 be badly constructed. Society is some- 
 thing more than the aggregate of its 
 individuals. The Church is infinitely 
 more than the aggregate of its churches 
 or of its individuals. Life is an organ- 
 ism. The Church is an organism. There- 
 fore individualism is not the gospel for 
 this world. The world is organized. 
 Money is organized. Labor is organ- 
 ized. Society is organized. Politics are 
 organized. Even the nations of the 
 world are beginning to organize inter- 
 nationalism. Everything is organized 
 [ 2 5 ] 
 
except the Christian religion, and Christ 
 prayed that that would be organized. 
 As things stand now, it is an unequal 
 fight between an organized world and 
 a disorganized Church. A disunited, 
 disjointed, individualistic Christianity, 
 where every church and every man is 
 an independent unit, cannot stand up 
 against the highly organized conditions 
 of to-day. This was well recognized by 
 “The Federal Council of Churches in 
 America,” when it put these words in 
 its platform: “Christ’s mission is not 
 merely to reform society, but to save 
 it. He is more than the world’s Re- 
 adjuster. He is its Redeemer. ... At 
 no time have the disadvantages of the 
 sectarian divisions of the Church been 
 more apparent than when the call has 
 come for a common policy or a united 
 utterance.” Those are wise words. The 
 powers that make for unrighteousness, 
 the powers that corrupt legislatures, 
 that promote intemperance, that thrive 
 [ *6 ] 
 
on lust, that threaten the judiciary, 
 that oppress the hireling, are solid and 
 compact. They sink differences for 
 a common cause. Against them the 
 churches have a common creed, but 
 an uncommonly unorganized method 
 of defence. They are beating the air. 
 The powers that make for unright- 
 eousness can mock at righteousness 
 as they say to the churches, “United 
 we stand; divided you fall.” 
 
 Indeed, it has come to pass that a 
 large part of the work of the churches 
 must perforce be taken away from 
 them, in order to avoid denomina- 
 tional entanglements. When men are 
 moved to do something in the name 
 of God and humanity for the city or 
 nation, they feel compelled to make it a 
 non-Church and a non-religious enter- 
 prise. Denominationalism is too inco- 
 herent for a social programme. True, 
 the gospel of Christ supplies the spir- 
 itual conviction, but when that convic- 
 [ *7 ] 
 
tion takes concrete shape, it somehow 
 seems to have to divorce itself from the 
 source of its inspiration. Thus there are 
 settlements, leagues, associations, or- 
 ganizations, doing the work of Christ, 
 but forced to do it, forsooth, on a non- 
 religious basis. Thus they lose ideals, 
 inspiration, spiritual power. Thus the 
 things that God hath joined together 
 are being forced apart through the dis- 
 integration of His Church. For reform 
 without religion is the mere white- 
 washing of the surface. Society needs 
 regeneration, not simply reformation. 
 And any man who thinks that social 
 regeneration can be accomplished apart 
 from the power of the Spirit of God, 
 speaking through His Church, is liv- 
 ing in a fool’s paradise. Grasp the 
 situation, brethren. It is this, that the 
 Church of Christ is in danger of los- 
 ing its power of utterance. Amidst the 
 jargon of voices its voice can scarcely 
 be heard. 
 
 [ 28 ] 
 
Or let us suppose that it is deter- 
 mined to organize some public charity 
 or to inaugurate some uplift movement. 
 You are sure that it has the sanction 
 of Christ and of all good men. What 
 happens ? The first move is to proclaim 
 from the house-tops that it is unde- 
 nominational and non-sedtarian. It is 
 Christian, clearly enough, but never- 
 theless it has to be dissociated from 
 churches, in order to express the con- 
 sciousness of the Church. In one way 
 this is a travesty on churches. In an- 
 other way it is eloquent for good. It 
 means that Christ’s work refuses to 
 come under sedtarian lines. Christ’s 
 work is as catholic as human needs. 
 It requires for its execution nothing 
 smaller than a Catholic Church. 
 
 Or take the matter of Christian edu- 
 cation. Surely this is fundamental if 
 anything is. Our divisions have made 
 it impradticable. They have separated 
 into two the things that are one, viz., 
 [ 2 9 ] 
 
religion and education. Education has 
 been as completely secularized as if man 
 had no soul, and the world had no God. 
 Religion has been as completely iso- 
 lated as if chara&er had no place in a 
 child’s education. Our education is los- 
 ing its religious values. Our religion is 
 losing its educational values. Christian 
 ideals and principles cannot be woven 
 into the warp and woof of the lives of 
 our own children, as a part of their 
 schooling, simply because of the divi- 
 sions in the Church. To my mind there 
 are three great problems to be worked 
 out amongst Christian people in the 
 interest of a permanent Christianity. 
 They are Christian education, Chris- 
 tian social righteousness, and Christian 
 unity. I believe the first two await the 
 third. 
 
 Unity a National Necessity 
 Christian unity is necessary to give 
 organic expression to the religious life 
 [ 30 ] 
 
of the nation. The Catholic Church is 
 world-wide, but just because it is Cath- 
 olic, it is also national in tone and tem- 
 per. We love to call this a Christian 
 nation, yet we shrink from attempting 
 to define what American Christianity 
 is. The United States has millions of 
 Christians and scores of churches, with- 
 out a Christianity that is distinctively 
 her own. Latin Christianity we know. 
 It took possession of the Latin nations 
 and moulded their religious life. Scotch 
 Christianity we know. Perhaps there 
 never was a religion which sank more 
 deeply into a nation’s mind than Pres- 
 byterianism did in Scotland. English 
 Christianity we know. It made Eng- 
 land. It built her national and domes- 
 tic life. But what is American Christian- 
 ity? Is it not largely an importation? 
 It is one thing to inherit Christianity 
 in its essence; it is another to import 
 foreign characteristics. We have im- 
 ported certain national types which 
 [ 3i ] 
 
took their form and shape in other 
 lands — an Italian Christianity from 
 I taly, Lutheranism from Germany, An- 
 glicanism from England, Presbyterian- 
 ism from Scotland, Orientalism from 
 Asia Minor. Proud of our own origi- 
 nality, impatient of tradition, our reli- 
 gion is nevertheless an heterogeneous 
 conglomeration of imported traditions. 
 Every kind ofchurch can be found here. 
 Here are all the elements of ecumen- 
 icity. Here they are side by side, yet 
 they know not one another. Are they 
 incurably incompatible? Is there noth- 
 ing to look forward to except the per- 
 manent establishment of foreign types 
 on American soil? Centuries ago Eng- 
 land blended diverse peoples and reli- 
 gions into one Churchand nation. What 
 has been done can be done. Here in 
 America, where churches are politically 
 equal, where all the churches of Chris- 
 tendom are housed under the same na- 
 tional roof — here the problem of unity 
 [ 32 ] 
 
must be worked out, if anywhere. The 
 nation has a problem similar to that 
 of the Church. She gathers her people 
 from the four quarters of the globe 
 and makes staunch Americans of them. 
 She brings order out of chaos, and 
 makes one from many. Is the nation 
 stronger than God? Has the Church 
 of the living God become so weak- 
 ened through disorganization that she 
 is incapable of bringing her American 
 children into the united Church of the 
 United States? Is there not to be a 
 Catholicism that will express the reli- 
 gious life of America, as Americanism 
 expresses her national life? Surely there 
 is something better in store for us than 
 a condition of chronic chaos. Go back 
 once more to your New Testament for 
 a description of the Church that once 
 was and that may be again: “That we 
 may be no longer children, tossed to and 
 fro, and carried about with every wind 
 of doftrine . . . but speaking truth in 
 [ 33 ] 
 
love, may grow up in all things into 
 Him, Who is the Head, even Christ; 
 from Whom all the Body, fitly framed 
 and knit together through that which 
 every joint supplieth, according to the 
 working in due measure of each sev- 
 eral part maketh the increase of the 
 body, unto the building up of itself in 
 love.” That is what is meant by unity. 
 The Church is fitly framed and knit 
 together. What a contrast there is be- 
 tween the Church of the ages and the 
 churches of this age. 
 
 Brethren, the reunion of Christen- 
 dom is the future task of the churches. 
 In working at this task, let us be sure 
 of a right start. Christ is the head. The 
 Church is His Body. Christians are 
 united to Christ through membership 
 in His Body. Here is an indestrudli- 
 ble unity at the outset — unity in the 
 one Lord through the one baptism ; the 
 unity of a common membership, a com- 
 mon discipleship, and a common expe- 
 [ 34 ] 
 
rience. That unity exists in spite of all 
 the sedts of Christendom and all the 
 powers of hell. Magnify it. Proclaim it. 
 Manifest it. It is not our business to 
 make unity. God has done that. It is 
 our business to make it apparent. It 
 is ours to try to bring ourselves and 
 others into such visible unity in the 
 One Church of Christ, that an unbe- 
 lieving world will be convinced. Am I 
 succeeding in persuading you to any 
 extent that the Christian unity enter- 
 prise is more than an academic theory ; 
 that it is the will of Christ; that it 
 is a matter of practical efficiency; and 
 that loyalty to Christ and service to 
 the world combine to make our duty 
 clear? If you come with me this far, 
 then let me venture to point out some 
 simple ways of creating an atmosphere 
 in which unity will have a chance to 
 show itself. 
 
 { 35 ] 
 
The Atmosphere in which Unity 
 Thrives 
 
 i. Let us confess the sin of schism — 
 the sin, I say ; not simply its economic 
 disadvantage, its short-sighted policy, 
 its unstatesmanlike method, its unstra- 
 tegic warfare with the world, but its sin. 
 
 i. Let us confess our part in the sin. 
 It is easy to confess sin in the abstract. 
 What is needed is an honest though 
 humiliating acknowledgment of our 
 part in the making and in the perpet- 
 uating of schism. We have much to 
 confess — haughtiness, aloofness, self- 
 satisfaition, false witness against our 
 neighbors. 
 
 3. Let us cease confessing other 
 people’s sins. We Anglicans have con- 
 fessed the sins of the Roman Catholics 
 and the Protestants with great ardor 
 and with unstinted fullness. Let them 
 confess their own. It will keep them 
 busy. We are not authorized to do it 
 for them. We are forbidden to judge 
 [ 36 ] 
 
others and commanded to judge our- 
 selves. Rome’s contribution to the sin 
 of schism may have been incalculably 
 great. Protestant contributions may 
 have been incalculably many. But our 
 own skirts are not clean by any means. 
 Please God they and we may see the 
 sinfulness of our sins some day and 
 humbly confess it. Thankful may that 
 church be, to which God gives the 
 grace to be the first to cry, Peccavi. 
 Until the churches are convidted of sin, 
 as our Methodist brethren would say, 
 there will be little progress towards the 
 manifestation of unity. 
 
 4. Let us learn to play fair, and, if 
 we have to fight, to fight fair. We are 
 familiar with those pulpit pictures and 
 polemic brochures, wherein are vividly 
 portrayed the horrors of Rome, the 
 heresies of dissent, and the unsullied 
 beauty of the Anglican Communion. 
 Of course we have no monopoly of 
 that ungenerous business, but it would 
 [ 37 ] 
 
be to our profit to get out of it entirely. 
 Teach the Catholic faith positively. 
 To do this requires no negatives and 
 no anathemas. A whole library of lies 
 could be extracted from the contro- 
 versial literature of Christian churches. 
 What false witness against their neigh- 
 bors has been given by pious Papists, 
 pious Protestants, and pious Protestant 
 Episcopalians. Let us learn to tell the 
 truth and to play fair ; and to fight fair, 
 if we have to fight at all. 
 
 5. Let us put the best possible in- 
 terpretation upon the beliefs and prac- 
 tices of others. Assume that the things 
 that mean nothing to us mean much 
 to their advocates. Let us try to get the 
 point of view of the other man for the 
 sake of the enrichment of our own 
 minds. Let me illustrate. Because the 
 angry dispute of some centuries ago, 
 over the relation of the Bishop of 
 Rome to the Church of England, was 
 settled to our satisfaction, are we to 
 
 [ 38 ] 
 
go on aggravating the rupture by talk- 
 ing and adting as though the Papacy is 
 and always has been unalterably bad, 
 and as though no place could be found 
 for it in the constitution of the United 
 Church of the future ? The Papacy 
 must be better than its enemies think 
 it is, or else the world has had many 
 brilliant fools. Because the Methodists 
 left us for reasons which do us no 
 credit, are we to go on estimating 
 Methodism at its worst, as if it stood 
 for nothing that would be worth while 
 in the life of the Catholic Church of 
 the future? Methodism must be some- 
 thing better than some people think 
 it is, or it would not have brought so 
 many thousands nearer to their God. 
 Because bishop-baiting Covenanters 
 and lordly prelates lost their tempers 
 a long time ago and called each other 
 unspeakable names, are we to go on, 
 now that things have cooled down, as 
 if reconciliation were impossible, and 
 [ 39 ] 
 
as if Presbyterian theology were wholly 
 foreign to the Catholic faith? Pres- 
 byterianism must be more than some 
 of us have thought, else it would not 
 have captivated the minds and domi- 
 nated the lives of a strong intellectual 
 people. Estimate people at their best. 
 Try to see what they see. Be careful 
 to put your own best foot forward, so 
 that the Church of your allegiance will 
 be seen — not at its worst. This lesson 
 has been impressed upon me afresh 
 through a considerable correspond- 
 ence on Church Unity with represen- 
 tatives of many churches. Amongst 
 my correspondents have been some 
 candid friends who write with brutal 
 frankness about the Episcopal Church. 
 Dear brethren, if the Anglican Com- 
 munion were the wood, hay, and stub- 
 ble that my friends think it is, you and 
 I wouldn’t be where we are. Now it 
 may be that this shoe fits the other foot 
 also. 
 
 [40 ] 
 
Please do not misunderstand me. 
 It would be foolish and shallow to talk 
 as if there were no serious difficulties 
 and differences in the way of visible 
 unity. There are. There are. There are 
 different premises. There are different 
 conceptions of what the Church of 
 Christ is. There are fixed habits of 
 mind in great variety. We press on 
 towards the reunion of Christendom, 
 not because it is in sight, but because 
 we have a passion for unity — a pas- 
 sion that is based upon our loyalty 
 to Christ and a desire to do good in 
 the world. No one sees much day- 
 light ahead as yet. We cannot see the 
 distant scene, and we can take but one 
 step at a time. But we feel sure that 
 that one step is in the right direction if 
 it leads us to think highly of the things 
 of others. 
 
 6. Let us lend our influence in the 
 promotion of frank and friendly con- 
 ferences on our differences. A World 
 [ 4i ] 
 
Conference of this sort has been pro- 
 posed, as you know. It may come soon 
 or late — or never. It would come too 
 soon if it came before the churches 
 were convinced of the necessity for 
 union, or of the practicability of such 
 a conference in promoting it. More 
 important than the Conference itself 
 would be the spirit in which it as- 
 sembled. Let us cultivate that charity 
 and that love of personal contadt, with- 
 out which a conference might rekindle 
 controversy. On some other occasion 
 I may say more about the scope and 
 purpose of the Conference plan. In the 
 meantime give your sympathy and co- 
 operation to such measures as make for 
 friendly and unhostile contaCt. 
 
 7. Let us aim high. Let us not be 
 afraid to place organic unity before us 
 as the goal, and let us not despair of 
 comprising all Christendom within it. 
 There may be intermediate steps to be 
 taken, but they are steps on a journey, 
 [ 42 ] 
 
not stopping-places. Interdenomina- 
 tionalism may do some good in places 
 where it does no harm. So far it seems 
 only to have pronounced its blessing 
 on a state of division which it deplores. 
 Federation may do much good where 
 it is workable. Its great value seems 
 to be the witness that it bears to the 
 necessity of something more than fed- 
 eration. Cooperation in good works is 
 absolutely necessary so far as it is prac- 
 ticable between churches which come 
 at things in diredly opposite ways. But, 
 brethren, organic unity has in it all that 
 these" flickering expedients ” have, and 
 infinitely more. The greater includes 
 the less, but the less does not include 
 the greater. Interdenominationalism, 
 federation, the cooperation of unat- 
 tached bodies, have just enough merit 
 in them to be tantalizing, but not 
 enough merit to warrant their advo- 
 cates in devoting precious time to their 
 promotion. They have this merit, that 
 [ 43 ] 
 
they indicate that men no longer apo- 
 theosize divisions, and that they are 
 beginning to dream of better things. 
 While we are at it, let us aim to reach 
 the goal that Christ set up, namely, 
 visible unity. 
 
 And let us take in the whole sweep 
 of Christendom, Catholic and Protes- 
 tant. It may take a long time. It may 
 have to come one step at a time, 
 through the union of those that are 
 most closely related. But every such 
 union is to be regarded as a step 
 towards the realization of that one 
 holy catholic apostolic Church — “fair 
 as the moon, clear as the sun, terrible 
 as an army with banners.” 
 
 8. Let us pray for the manifestation 
 of unity. Christ prayed for it. So must 
 we. It is easy to talk about it. It is 
 easier still to cry Hurrah, and clap our 
 hands when others talk about it. But 
 we must get beyond the talking stage 
 into the praying stage and doing stage. 
 
 [ 44 ] 
 
In this case prayingwill bedoing. Take 
 it to the altar with you. It is around 
 the altar that unity must be mani- 
 fested. It is at the foot of the altar that 
 we shall learn the will of God. When 
 Christians the world over voice their 
 passion for unity at the Mass and in 
 the prayer-meeting, something won- 
 derful will surely happen. Nothing less 
 than this will win the day. The spirit 
 of separatism is that kind of a spirit 
 that can be cast out of the Church by 
 nothing — save by prayer. 
 
 [ 45 ] 
 
L OOK downy O Lord , upon Thy poor 
 j dismembered Church , rent and torn 
 with discord and even ready to sink. We 
 will hope, O Lord, that notwithstanding 
 all Supposed impossibilities, Thou wilt one 
 day in mercy look down upon Thy Sion, 
 and grant a gracious interview of friends 
 so long divided. Thou that wroughtest 
 that great reconciliation between God and 
 man, is Thine arm waxen shorter ? Was 
 it possible to reconcile God to man? To 
 reconcile man to man, is it impossible? 
 Lire El Thy Church, O Lord, in all her 
 petition for peace. Teach her wherein her 
 peace consists, and warn her from the 
 world, and bring her home to Thee; that 
 all those that love Thy peace may at last 
 have the reward of the sons of peace, and 
 reign with Thee in Thy kingdom of peace 
 forever. Amen. 
 
 Prayer of John Hales (died 1656). 
 
T the General Convention of the 
 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
 United States of America in 1910, the fol- 
 lowing resolution was adopted: 
 
 HEREAS, There is to-day among all 
 
 V y Christian people a growing desire for the 
 fulfilment of our Lord’s prayer that all His disci- 
 ples may be one ; that the world may believe that 
 God has sent Him Resolved, 
 
 That a Joint Commission be appointed to bring 
 about a Conference for the consideration of ques- 
 tions touching Faith and Order, and that all Chris- 
 tian Communions throughout the world which 
 confess our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour 
 be asked to unite with us in arranging for and con- 
 ducing such a Conference. The Commission shall 
 consist of seven Bishops, appointed by the Chair- 
 man of the House of Bishops, and seven Presbyters 
 and seven Laymen, appointed by the President of 
 the House of Deputies, and shall have power to 
 add to its number and to fill any vacancies occur- 
 ring before the next General Convention. 
 
 IT 
 
 Copies of this leaflet may be had free on application to 
 the Secretary , Robert H. Gardiner , Gardiner , Maine , 
 U.S.A . , who twill also enter on the mailing list those 
 who signify to him , with their post-ojflce addresses , a 
 desire to receive the publications which the Commission 
 experts to issue from time to time. 
 
 Contributions for the expenses of the Commission and 
 the Conference may be sent to the ’Treasurer , George 
 Zabriskie , 49 Wall Street , New York, U.S.A.