H..* CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS ANGLICAN COMMUNION HOLDEN AT LAMBETH PALACE, JULY 5 TO AUGUST 7. 1920.- r 'h3 lEuc^cUcal Xettet FROAl THE BISHOPS, WITH THE ' RESOLUTIONS AND REPORTS. §¦¦ m ™t-.' |j{ij|S ¦=i:i ew B^I i''^ m S' Hp*' .- [|Br'» — ' Ijiy Mbtti]2. LONDON SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1920. D "I give tie/e Booh for the founding of a. College in, Hm Cobayt' Gift of Prof. Fred W. Williams 191 CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION HOLDEN AT LAMBETH PALACE, JULY 5 TO AUGUST 7. 1920. Enci^cUcal Xetter FROM THE BISHOPS. WITH THE RESOLUTIONS AND REPORTS. LONDON SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1920. /^ 1 .X CONTENTS I, List of the Bishops attending the Conference ; arranged according to DATE OF CONSECRATION V II. List of the Bishops attending the Conference ; ARRANGED ACCORDING TO PROVINCES ... 3 III. Encyclical Letter from the Assembled Bishops 9 IV. Resolutions formally adopted by the Confer ence 25 V. Reports of Committees^ (i) Christianity and International Relations . . 51 (2) The Church and Industrial Problems . . 59 (3) The Development of Provinces . . -7^ (4) Missionary Problems 8l (5) Position of Women ... . . 95 (6) Problems of Marriage 107 (7) Spiritualism, Christian Science, and Theosophy 116 (8) Reunion 132 a 2 LIST OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE OF 1920. In the arrangement of the following hst of Bishops attending the Conference, the general order follo^wed is that of the date of Consecration. In the case of Primates and Metropolitans the order foUo^wed, speaking generally, is regulated by the priority of the formation of the Province. The Bishops of London, Durham, Winchester, and Meath have an ancient priority -which has been recognised in the list. I Archbishop of Canterbury (Most Rev. R. T. Davidson, D.D.) 1903. April 25th, 1891. 2 Archbishop of York (Most Rev. C. G. Lang, D.D.) 1909. May ist, 1901. 3 Archbishop of Armagh (Most Rev. C. F. D'Arcy, D.D.) 1920. February 24th, 1903. 4 Bishop of Calcutta, Metropolitan of India (Most Rev. F. Westcott, D.D.) 1919. November 30th, 1905. 5 Archbishop of Sydney (Most Rev. J. C. Wright, D.D.) 1910. August 24th, 1909. 6 Archbishop of Capetown (Most Rev. W. M. Carter, D.D.) 1909. September 29th, 1891. 7 Archbishop of Rupert's Land (Most Rev. S. P. Matheson, D.D.) 1905. November 15th, 1903. 8 Archbishop of the West Indies and Bishop of Guiana (Most Rev. E. A. Parry, D.D.) 1917. December 28th, 1900. 9 Archbishop of Melbourne (Most Rev. H. Lowther Clarke, D.D.) 1905. November ist, 1902. 10 Archbishop of Nova Scotia (Most Rev. C. L. Worrell, D.D.) 1915, October 18th, 1904. II Archbishop of Brisbane (Most Rev, St. C. G. A. Donald son, D.D,) 1905. October 28th, 1904, 12 Archbishop of Algoma (Most Rev, G, Thorneloe, D,D.) 1915. January 6th, 1897. 13 Bishop of Brechin, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Most Rev. W. J. F. Robberds, D.D.) 1908. January 6th, 1904. 14 Archbishop of Wales (Most Rev. A. G. Edwards, D.D.) 1920. March 25th, 1889. 15 Bishop of Tennessee (Right Rev. T. F. Gailor, D.D.) July 25th, 1893. 16 Bishop of London (Right Rev. A. F, Winnington-Ingram, D,D.) November 30th, 1897. 17 Bishop of Durham (Right Rev, H, Hensley Henson, D.D.) February 2nd, 1918, VI LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O 18 Bishop of Winchester (Right Rev. E. S. Talbot, D.D.) October i8th, 1895. 19 Bishop of Meath, Premier Bishop of Ireland (Most Rev, B. J, Plunket, D,D.) May 13th, 1913. 20 Assistant Bishop of Bath and Wells (Right Rev, W. H. Stirling, D,D,) December 21st, 1869. 21 Assistant Bishop for Tonga (Right Rev, A, Willis, D.D.) February 2nd, 1872. 22 Bishop R. S. Copleston, D.D. December 28th, 1875. 23 Bishop of Bath and Wells (Right Rev. G. W. Kennion, D.D.) November 30th, 1882. 24 Assistant Bishop of Winchester (Right Rev. E. G. Ingham, D.D.) February 24th, 1883. 25 Bishop of Bethlehem (Right Rev, E, Talbot, D,D.) May 27th, 1887, 26 Bishop of Southern Ohio (Right Rev, Boyd Vincent, D.D.) January 25th, 1889. 27 Bishop H. H. Montgomery, D.D. May ist, 1889. 28 Bishop of Beverley (Right Rev. R. J. Crosthwaite, D.D.) June nth, 1889. 29 Bishop of Ohio (Right Rev. W. A. Leonard, D.D.) October 12th, 1889. 30 Assistant Bishop of St. Albans (Right Rev. E. N. Hodges, D.D.) April 25th, 1890. 31 Bishop of Christchurch (Right Rev. C. Julius, D.D.) May ist, i8go. 32 Bishop of Wakefield (Right Rev. G. R. Eden, D.D.) October i8th, i8go. 33 Bishop of Coventry (Right Rev. H. W. Yeatman-Biggs, D.D.) September 29th, 1891. 34 Bishop of Texas (Right Rev. G, H. Kinsolving, D,D,) October 12th, 1892, 35 Bishop of Willesden (Right Rev, W. W, Perrin, D,D.) March 25th, 1893, 36 Bishop (Missionary) of Tokyo (Right Rev, J, McKim, D,D,) June 14th, 1893, 37 Assistant Bishop of Lagos (Right Rev, I. Oluwole, D.D,) June 29th, 1893. 38 Bishop of Saskatchewan (Right Rev. J. A. Newnham, D.D,) August 6th, 1893, 39 Assistant Bishop of Birmingham (Right Rev, A, Hamilton Baynes, D,D,) September 29th, 1893. 40 Bishop of Massachusetts (Right Rev. W. Lawrence, D,D,) October 5th, 1893. 41 Bishop of North Carolina (Right Rev, J, B, Cheshire, D,D,) October 15th, 1893. 42 Bishop of Vermont (Right Rev, A, C. A, Hall, D,D,) February 2nd, 1894. 43 Bishop of Bunbury (Right Rev, C, Wilson, D,D.) June nth, 1894. 44 Bishop of Manchester (Right Rev, E, A, Knox, D,D,) December 28th, 1894, 45 Bishop G. F. Browne, D.D. April 21st, 1895. LIST OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE vii 46 Bishop of Rochester (Right Rev. J. R. Harmer, D.D.) May 23rd, 189' 47 Bishop of Riverina (Right Rev. E. A. Anderson, D.D June 29th, 1895 48 Bishop of Western China (Right Rev. W. W. Cassels, D.D. October i8th, 1895 49 Bishop G. Mott Williams, D.D. May ist, i8g6 50 Bishop of Grantham (Right Rev. J. E. Hine, D.D.) June 29th, 1896 51 Bishop of Crediton (Right Rev. R. E. Trefusis, D.D. February 24th, 1897 52 Bishop of St. David's (Right Rev. J. O'wen, D.D.) May ist, 1897 53 Bishop of Connecticut (Right Rev. C. B. Brewster, D.D. October 28th, 1897 54 Bishop of Southampton (Right Rev. J. Macarthur, D.D. September 29th, 1898 55 Bishop (Missionary) of Asheville (Right Rev. J. M. Horner D.D.) December 28th, 1898 56 Bishop (Missionary) of Southern Brazil (Right Rev. L. L, Kinsolving, D.D.) January 6th, 1899 57 Bishop of Sacramento (Right Rev. W. H. Moreland, D.D. January 25th, 1899 58 Bishop of Bangor (Right Rev. W. H. Williams, D.D.) February 2nd, 1899 59 Bishop of Osaka (Right Rev. H. J. Foss, D.D.) February 2nd, 1899 60 Bishop of Madras (Right Rev. H. Whitehead, D.D.) June 29th, 1899 61 Bishop G. L. King, D.D. June 29th, 1899 62 Bishop of West Virginia (Right Rev. W. L. Gravatt, D.D. November loth, 1899 63 BisHOP of West Missouri (Right Rev. S. C. Partridge, D.D. February 2nd, 1900 64 Bishop of Liverpool (Right Rev. F. J. Chavasse, D.D.' April 25th, 1900 65 Bishop of Willochra (Right Rev. G. White, D.D.) August 24th, igoo 66 Bishop of Salisbury (Right Rev. F. E, Ridgeway, D,D, February 17th, 1901 67 Bishop of Natal (Right Rev. F, S, Baines, D,D,) August 4th, 1 90 1 68 Bishop of Jarrow (Right Rev. J. N, Quirk, D.D.) October i8th, 1901 69 Bishop of Southwell (Right Rev. E. Hoskyns, D.D.) October i8th, igoi 70 Bishop of St. John's, Kaffraria (Right Rev. J. W. Williams D.D.) November 30th, igoi, 71 Bishop (Missionary) of Southern Florida (Right Rev. C, Mann, D.D.) December 4th, igoi 72 Bishop of Western New York (Right Rev. C. H. BrenT; D.D.) December igth, 1901 73 Bishop (Missionary) of Olympia (Right Rev. F. W. Keator D.D.) January 8th,igo2 VUl LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O 74 Bishop of Long Island (Right Rev. F. Burgess, D.D.) January 15th, 1902. 75 Bishop of North-West Australia (Right Rev. G. Trower, D.D.) January 25th, 1902. 76 Bishop in Argentina (Right Rev. E. F. Every, D.D.) July 14th, igo2. 77 Bishop of Nagpur (Right Rev. E. Chatterton, D.D.) March 25tli, 1903. 78 Bishop of Zululand (Right Rev. W. L. Vyvyan, D.D.) May 2 1 St, 1903. 7g Bishop of Thetford (Right Rev. J. P. A. Bowers, D.D.) June 2gth, 1903. 80 Bishop of Colombo (Right Rev. E. A. Copleston, D.D.) August 30th, 1903. 81 Bishop of Shantung (Right Rev. G. D. Iliff, D.D.) October 28th, 1903. 82 Bishop of Newark (Right Rev. E. S. Lines, D.D.) November i8th, igo3. 83 Bishop of Croydon (Right Rev. H. H. Pereira, D.D.) January 25th, igo4. 84 Bishop of Glasgow (Right Rev. A. E. Campbell, D.D.) February 24th, ig04. 85 Bishop E. W. Osborne, D.D. October 23rd, igo4. 86 Bishop (Missionary) of Hankow (Right Rev. L. H. Roots, D.D.) November 14th, igo4. 87 Bishop of Moray, Ross, and Caithness (Right Rev. A. J. Maclean, D.D.) December 21st, igo4. 88 Bishop of Huron (Right Rev. D. Williams, D.D.) January 6th, igo5. 89 Bishop in South Tokyo (Right Rev. C. H. Boutflower, D.D.) January 25th, 1905. 90 Bishop of Harrisburg (Right Rev. J. H. Darlington, D.D.) April 26tli, 1905. 91 Bishop of Gloucester (Right Rev. E. C. S. Gibson, D.D.) June ist, 1905. 92 Bishop of Llandaff (Right Rev. J. P. Hughes, D.D.) June ist, 1905. 93 Bishop of St. Helena (Right Rev. W. A. Holbech, D.D.) 94 Bishop of Ely (Right Rev. F. H. Chase, D.D.) June 24th, 1905 October i8th, igo5. 95 Assistant Bishop of Salisbury (Right Rev. A. E. Joscelyne, D.D.) October i8th, 1905. 96 Coadjutor Bishop of Missouri (Right Rev. F. F. Johnson, D.D.) November 2nd, 1905. 97 Bishop of Knaresborough (Right Rev. L. F. M. B. Smith, D.D.) December 27th, 1905. 98 Bishop of Adelaide (Right Rev. A. Nutter Thomas, D.D.) February 2nd, 1906. 99 Assistant Bishop of Ely (Right Rev. H. M. E. Price, D.D.) February 2nd, igo6. 100 Bishop of Michigan (Right Rev. C. D. Williams, D.D.) February 7th, igo6. loi Bishop of Western Michigan (Right Rev. J. N. McCormick, D.D.) February 14th, igo6. list OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE ix 102 Bishop of Milwaukee (Right Rev. W. W. Webb, D.D.) February 24th, 1906. 103 Bishop of Chester (Right Rev. H. L. Paget, D.D.) April 25th, 1906. 104 Bishop of Bristol (Right Rev. G. Nickson, D.D.) June 29tii, igo6. 105 Bishop of Fredericton (Right Rev. J. A. Richardson, D.D.) November 30th, igo6. 106 Bishop of Argyll and the Isles (Right Rev. K. Mac kenzie, D.D.) January 25th, igo7. 107 Bishop of South Carolina (Right Rev. W. A. Guerry, D.D.) September 15th, igo7, 108 Bishop in Chekiang (Right Rev, H, J, Molony, D,D,) January 25th, igo8. 109 Bishop of Clogher (Right Rev, M, Day, D.D.) January 25th, 1908. no Bishop of St. Andrews, Dunkeld, and Dunblane (Right Rev. C. E. Plumb, D.D.) March 25th, 1908. Ill Bishop of Bombay (Right Rev. E. J. Palmer, D.D.) May 28th, 1908. 112 Bishop in Polynesia (Right Rev. T. C. Twitchell, D.D.) May 28th, 1908. 113 Bishop in Khartoum (Right Rev. L1. H. Gwynne, D.D.) October nth, 1908. 114 Bishop of Zanzibar (Right Rev. F. Weston, D.D.) October nth, 1908. 115 Bishop of Montreal (Right Rev, J, C, Farthing, D,D,) January 6th, igog, 116 Bishop of Washington (Right Rev, A, Harding, D,D.) January 25th, 1909, 117 Bishop of Colchester (Right Rev, R, H, Whitcombe, D,D,) February 2nd, 1909, 118 Bishop of Rockhampton (Right Rev, G, D, Halford, D,D.) February 2nd, igog. 119 Bishop of Guildford (Right Rev. J. H. G. Randolph, D.D.) February 21st, igog. 120 Bishop of Toronto (Right Rev. J. F. Sweeny, D.D.) March 25th, 1909. 121 Bishop (Missionary) of Wyoming (Right Rev. N. S. Thomas, D.D.) May 6th, 1909. 122 Bishop of Moosonee (Right Rev, J, G, Anderson, D,D.) May 16th, 1909. 123 Bishop of Maine (Right Rev, B. Brewster, D.D.) June 17th, 1909. 124 Bishop of St. Albans (Right Rev. M. B. Furse, D.D.) June 29th, 1909. 125 Bishop of Burnley (Right Rev. H. Henn, D.D.) July nth, 1909. 126 Bishop of Sheffield (Right Rev. L. H. Burrows, D.D.) July nth, igog. 127 Bishop of Singapore (Right Rev. C. J. Ferguson-Davie, D.D.) August 24th, igog. 128 Bishop of Barrow (Right Rev. C. West Watson, D.D.) September 21st, 1909. : LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O 29 Bishop of Whalley (Right Rev. A. G. Rawstorne, D.D.) September 21st, igog. 30 Bishop of Maryland (Right Rev. J. G. Murray, D.D.) September 2gth, igog. 31 Bishop of Derby (Right Rev. C. T. Abraham, D.D.) November 30th, igog. 32 Bishop of Honan (Right Rev. W. C. White, D.D.) November 30th, igog. 33 Bishop in Kwangsi and Hunan (Right Rev. W. Banister, D.D.) November 30th, igog. 34 Bishop in Kyushu, South Japan (Right Rev. A. Lea, D.D.) November 30th, igog. 35 Bishop of Auckland (Right Rev. A. W. Averill, D.D. January i6th, 1910. 36 Bishop of Rangoon (Right Rev. R. S. Fyffe, D.D.) Januarj' i6th, 1910. 37 Bishop of New Guinea (Right Rev. G. Sharp, D.D.) April 25th, 1910. 38 Bishop of Norwich (Right Rev. B. Pollock, D.D.) April 25th, igio. 3g Bishop of Lichfield (Right Rev. J. A, Kempthorne, D.D,) May i6th, igio, 40 Bishop of Edinburgh (Right Rev, G, H, S, Walpole, D,D.) June 24th, igio, 41 Bishop of Nyasaland (Right Rev. T. C. Fisher, D.D.) June 24tli, igio. 42 Bishop of Sierra Leone (Right Rev. J. Walmsley, D.D.) June 24th, 1910. 43 Bishop of New Westminster (Right Rev. A. U. de Pencier, D.D.) Jnly 25th, igio. 44 Bishop of Lucknow (Right Rev. G. H. Westcott, D.D.) November 6th, 1910, 45 Bishop (Missionary) of Western Nebraska (Right Rev, G. A, Beecher, D,D,) November 30th, igio. 46 Bishop (Missionary) of North Texas (Right Rev, E, A, Temple, D,D,) December 15th, igio, 47 Assistant Bishop of Bloemfontein (Right Rev, F, R. T. Balfour, M,A,) January ist, 1911, 48 Bishop of Southern Rhodesia (Right Rev, F, H, Beaven, D,D,) January ist, ign, 4g Bishop of Rhode Island (Right Rev. J. D. Perry, D.D.) January 6th, igii. 50 Bishop of Antigua (Right Rev. E. Hutson, D.D.) January 15th, ign. 51 Bishop (Missionary) of Arizona (Right Rev. J. W. Atwood, D.D.) January i8th, ign, 52 Bishop (Missionary) of Oklahoma (Right Rev, T, P. Thurston, D.D.) January 25th, ign. 53 Bishop of New York (Right Rev. C. S. Burch, D.D.) February 24th, ign. 54 Assistant Bishop of Llandaff (Right Rev. O. T. L. Crossley, D.D.) April 25th, ign, 55 Bishop of Oxford (Right Rev, H, M, Burge, D.D,) May 25th, 1911. LIST OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE X 136 Bishop in Corea (Right Rev. M. N. Trollope, D.D.) July 25th, 191 1. 157 Bishop of Gibraltar (Right. Rev. H. J. C. Knight, D.D.) July 25th, 191 1. 158 Bishop of Taunton (Right Rev. C. F. De Salis, D.D.) July 25th, ign. 159 Bishop of Grafton (Right Rev. C. H. Druitt, D.D.) August 6th, ign. 160 Bishop of George (Right Rev. H. B. Sidwell, D.D.) September 2gth, igii. 161 Bishop of Western Massachusetts (Right Rev. T. F. Davies, D.D.) October i8th, ign. 162 Bishop of Birmingham (Right Rev. H. R. Wakefield, D.D.) October 28th, ign. 163 Bishop of Pennsylvania (Right Rev. P. M. Rhinelander, D.D.) October 28th, ign. 164 Suffragan Bishop of Pennsylvania (Right Rev. T. J. Garland, D.D.) October 28th, igii. 165 Bishop of Kensington (Right Rev. J. P. Maud, D.D.) December 28th, ign, 166 Bishop of Uganda (Right Rev. J. J. Willis, D.D.) January 25th, igi2. 167 Bishop of Ottawa (Right Rev. J. C. Roper, D.D.) February 24th, igi2. 168 Bishop of Sodor and Man (Right Rev. J. D. Thompson, D.D.) March 25th, 1912. 169 Bishop of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross (Right Rev. C. B. Dowse, D.D.) June nth, 1912. 170 Bishop of Kimberley and Kuruman (Right Rev. W. Gore- Browne, M.A.) June 29th, 1912. 171 Bishop of Chichester (Right Rev. W. O. Burrows, D.D.) July 25th, igi2. 172 Bishop of Athabasca (Right Rev. E. F. Robins, D.D.) November 24th, igi2. 173 Bishop of Dornakal (Right Rev. V. S. Azariah, D.D.) December 29th, 1912. 174 Bishop of Accra (Right Rev. M. S. O'Rorke, D.D.) January 25th, igi3. 175 Assistant Bishop of Natal (Right Rev. F. Roach, D.D.) January 25th, igi3. 176 Bishop of North Queensland (Right Rev. J. 6. Feetham, D.D.) April 25th, igi3. 177 Bishop of Leicester (Right Rev. N. McL. Lang, D.D.) May 1st, igi3. 178 Bishop of Ontario (Right Rev. E. J. Bidwell, D.D.) June 24th, igi3. 179 Bishop of Mackenzie River (Right Rev. J. R. Lucas, D.D.) August 31st, 1913. 180 Bishop of Hull (Right Rev. F. Gurdon, D.D.) September 2gth, igi3. 181 Bishop of Richmond (Right Rev. F. C. Kilner, D.D.) September 29th, 1913. 182 Bishop of Jamaica (Right Rev. G. F. C. De Carteret, D.D.) October i8th, 1913. Xll LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O 183 Bishop of Buckingham (Right Rev. E. D. Shaw, D.D.) January ist, 1914- 84 Bishop in North China (Right Rev. F. L. Norris, D.D.) January ist, 1914- 85 Coadjutor Bishop of Ohio (Right Rev. F. Du Moulin, D.D.) January 8th, igi4. 86 Bishop (Missionary) of New Mexico (Right Rev. F. B. Howden, D.D.) January 14th, igi4. S7 Bishop of Waiapu (Right Rev. W. W. Sedgwick, D.D.) February 22nd, igi4. 88 Bishop of Chelmsford (Right Rev. J. E. Watts-Ditchfield, D.D.) February 24th, 1914. 89 Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Right Rev. H. B. Hodgson, D.D.) February 24th, 1914. 90 Bishop of Edmonton (Right Rev. H. A. Gray, D.D.) March 25th, 1914. gi Bishop of Northern Rhodesia (Right Rev. A. J. W. May, D.D.) April 25th, igi4. g2 Bishop of Newcastle, N.S.W. (Right Rev. R. Stephen, D.D.) September 13th, igi4. g3 Bishop in Jerusalem (Right Rev. R. MacInnes, D.D.) October 28th, 1914. 94 Bishop of Virginia (Right Rev. W. C. Brown, D.D.) October 28th, 1914. 95 Bishop of Kingston-on-Thames (Right Rev. S. M. Ta^ylor, D.D.) January 6th, 1915, 96 Bishop in Assam (Right Rev. H. Pakenham-Walsh, D.D.) January loth, 1915. 97 Bishop of New Jersey (Right Rev. P. Matthews, D.D.) January 25th, 1915. 98 Bishop of Quebec (Right Rev. L. W. Williams, D.D.) January 25th, 1915. gg Bishop of Kootenay (Right Rev. A. J. Doull, D.D.) February 24th, 1915. 200 Bishop of Goulburn (Right Rev. L. B. Radford, D.D.) August 24th, 1915. 201 Bishop of Carpentaria (Right Rev. H. Newton, D D.) September 21st, 1915. 202 Bishop of Stafford (Right Rev. L. P. Crawfurd, D.D.) September 2gth, igi5. 203 Bishop of Swansea (Right Rev. E. L. Bevan, D.D.) September 30th, igi5. 204 Coadjutor Bishop of Newark (Right Rev. W. R. Stearly, D.D.) October 21st, igi5. 205 Bishop of Grahamstown (Right Rev. F. R. Phelps, D.D.) October 31st, igi5. 206 Bishop in Tinnevelly and Madura (Right Rev. E. H. M. Waller, D.D.) November 28th, igi5. 207 Bishop of Kilmore, Elphin, and Ardagh (Right Rev, W. R, Moore, D.D.) November 30th, 1915. 208 Bishop of Newcastle (Right Rev. H. L. Wild, D.D.) November 30th, igi5, 209 Bishop of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin (Right Rev, J, A. F. Gregg, D.D.) December 28th, 1915. LIST OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE I 210 Bishop of Dover (Right Rev. H. E, Bilbrough, D,D,) February 24th, igi6, 211 Bishop of Derry and Raphoe (Right Rev, J, I, Peacocke, D.D.) April 25th, igi6! 212 Bishop of Peterborough (Right Rev. F. T, Woods, D,D,) September 21st, 1916. 213 Bishop of Kansas (Right Rev, J, Wise, D,D.) October 28th, 1916, 214 Bishop of Columbia (Right Rev. C, de V, Schofield, D.D.) November 30th, 1916. 215 Bishop (Missionary) of South Dakota (Right Rev. H. L. Burleson, D.D.) December 14th, 1916. 216 Bishop of Exeter (Right Rev. The Lord William Cecil, D.D.) December 28th, 1916. 217 Bishop of Ballarat (Right Rev. M. H, Maxwell-Gumbleton, D.D,) January ist, igi7. 218 Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney (Right Rev. F. L. Deane, D.D.) May ist, igi7. 2ig Coadjutor Bishop of Capetown (Right Rev. J. O. Nash, D.D.) May 17th, igi7. 220 Bishop of Barbados (Right Rev. A. P. Berkeley, D.D.) August 1 2th, 1917. 221 Bishop of Honduras (British) (Right Rev. E. A. Dunn, D.D.) August 12th, 1917. 222 Bishop of Atlanta (Right Rev. H. J. Mikell, D.D.) November ist, igi7, 223 Bishop of Gippsland (Right Rev, G, H. Cranswick, D.D.) November ist, igi7. 224 Suffragan Bishop of South Dakota (Right Rev. W. P. Remington, D.D.) January loth, igi8. 225 Bishop of Wool^wich (Right Rev. W. W. Hough, D.D.) February 2nd, igi8. 226 Bishop of Newfoundland (Right Rev. W. C. White, D.D.) March loth, igi8. 227 Bishop of Mombasa (Right Rev. R. S. Heywood, M.A.) April 2ist, igi8. 228 Bishop in Fukien (Right Rev. J. Hind, D.D.) October i8th, igi8. 22g Bishop of Warrington (Right Rev. M. Linton Smith, D.D.) November ist, igi8. 230 Bishop of Worcester (Right Rev. E. H. Pearce, Litt.D.) February 24th, igig. 231 Bishop of Cashel (Right Rev. R. Miller, D.D.) June nth, igig. 232 Bishop of the Falkland Isles (Right Rev. N. S. de Jersey, D.D.) June 24th, igig. 233 Bishop of Nassau (Right Rev. R. G. Shedden, D.D.) June 24th, igig. 234 Bishop of Barking (Right Rev. J. T. Inskip, D.D.) June 24th, igig. 235 Bishop of Tasmania (Right Rev. R. S. Hay, D.D.) August 24th, igig. 236 Bishop of Nebraska (Right Rev. E. V. Shayler, D.D.) September nth, igig. 2 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O 237 Bishop of Truro (Right Rev. F. S, G, Warman, D,D.) October i8th, 1919. 238 Bishop of Southwark (Right Rev. C, F. Garbett, D,D,) October i8th, igig. 23g Bishop of Stepney (Right Rev. H. Mosley, D.D.) October i8th, igig, 240 Bishop of Lagos (Right Rev, F, Melville Jones, D.D.) October i8th, igig. 241 Bishop in Persia (Right Rev. J. H. Linton, D.D.) October i8th, igig, 242 Bishop of Down (Right Rev. C. T. P. Grierson, D,D,) October 28th, igig, 243 Bishop of Kalgoorlie (Right Rev, W. E. Elsey, M.A,) November gth, igig. 244 Bishop of Lincoln (Right Rev, W, S, Swayne, D.D.) January 6th, ig20. 245 Bishop of Bendigo (Right Rev. D. Baker, D.D.) February 2nd, ig20. 246 Bishop of Bradford (Right Rev. A. W. T, Perowne, D,D,) February 2nd, ig20, 247 Bishop of Tuam (Right Rev. A, E, Ross, D.D,) February 24th, 1920, 248 Bishop of Pretoria (Right Rev. N, S, Talbot, D,D,) June 24th, 1920, 249 Bishop of Victoria, Hongkong (Right Rev, C, R, Duppuy, M,A.) June 24th, 1920. 250 Suffragan Bishop of Lewes (Right Rev. H. K. Southwell, M.A.) June 24th, 1920. 251 Assistant Bishop in Western Equatorial Africa (Right Rev. a. W. Howells, M.A.) June 24th, ig20. 252 Bishop of Kampala (Right Rev. H. Gresford Jones, D.D.) June 24th, 1920. LIST OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE LAMBETH CON FERENCE OF 1920, ARRANGED ACCORDING TO PROVINCES. Archbishop of Canterbury (Most Rev. R. T. Davidson, D.D.). Bishop of Dover (Rt. Rev. H. E. Bilbrough, D.D.). Bishop of Croydon (Rt. Rev. H. H. Pereira, D.D.). Bishop of London (Rt. Rev. A. F. Winnington-Ingram, D.D.). Bishop of Stepney (Rt. Rev. H. Mosley, D.D.). Bishop of Kensington (Rt. Rev. J. P. Maud, D.D.). Bishop of Willesden (Rt. Rev. W, W, Perrin, D,D,), Bishop of Winchester (Rt, Rev, E, S, Talbot, D,D,), Bishop of Southampton (Rt, Rev, J, Macarthur, D.D.), Bishop of Guildford (Rt, Rev, J, H, G, Randolph, D,D.), Assistant Bishop of Winchester (Rt, Rev, E. G, Ingham, D.D.), Bishop of Bath and Wells (Rt. Rev, G. W. Kennion, D.D.). Bishop of Taunton (Rt. Rev. C. F. De Salis, D.D.). Assistant Bishop of Bath and Wells (Rt. Rev. W, H, Stir ling, D.D,), Bishop of Birmingham (Rt, Rev, H, R, Wakefield, D,D,), Assistant Bishop of Birmingham (Rt. Rev. A, Hamilton Baynes, D,D,), Bishop of Bristol (Rt, Rev. G. Nickson, D.D.). Bishop of Chelmsford (Rt. Rev. J. E. Watts-Ditchfield, D.D.). Bishop of Barking (Rt. Rev. J. T. Inskip, D.D.). Bishop of Colchester (Rt. Rev. R. H. Whitcombe, D.D.). Bishop of Chichester (Rt. Rev. W. O. Burrows, D.D.). Bishop of Lewes (Rt. Rev, H, K, Southwell, M.A.). Bishop of Coventry (Rt, Rev. H. W. Yeatman-Biggs, D.D.). Bishop of Ely (Rt, Rev, F, H, Chase, D.D.). Assistant Bishop of Ely (Rt. Rev. H. M. E. Price, D.D.). Bishop of Exeter (Rt. Rev. Lord William Cecil, D,D,). Bishop of Crediton (Rt, Rev, R. E, Trefusis, D,D.). Bishop of Gloucester (Rt, Rev, E, C. S, Gibson, D.D.). Bishop of Lichfield (Rt. Rev. J. A. Kempthorne, D.D.). Bishop of Stafford (Rt. Rev. L. P. Crawfurd, D.D.). Bishop of Lincoln (Rt. Rev. W. S. Swayne, D.D.). Bishop of Grantham (Rt. Rev. J. E. Hine, D.D.). Bishop of Norwich (Rt. Rev. B. Pollock, D.D.). Bishop of Thetford (Rt. Rev. J. P. A. Bowers, D.D.). Bishop of Oxford (Rt. Rev, H, M. Burge, D.D.). Bishop of Buckingham (Rt. Rev. E. D. Shaw, D.D.), Bishop of Peterborough (Rt. Rev. F. T, Woods, D,D.). Bishop of Leicester (Rt. Rev. N. McL. Lang, D.D.). Bishop of Rochester (Rt. Rev. J. R. Harmer, D.D.), Bishop of St. Albans (Rt. Rev. M. B. Furse, D.D.). Assistant Bishop of St. Albans (Rt. Rev. E. N. Hodges, D.D.). 3 B 2 4 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich (Rt. Rev. H. B. Hodgson, D.D.). Bishop of Salisbury (Rt. Rev. F. E. Ridgeway, D.D.). Assistant Bishop of Salisbury (Rt. Rev. A. E. Joscelyne, D.D.). Bishop of Southwark (Rt. Rev. C. F. Garbett, D.D.). Bishop of Kingston-on-Thames (Rt. Rev. S. M. Taylor, D.D.). Bishop of Woolwich (Rt. Rev. W. W. Hough, D.D.). Bishop of Southwell (Rt. Rev. E, Hoskyns, D,D,), Bishop of Derby (Rt, Rev. C. T. Abraham, D.D.), Bishop of Truro (Rt. Rev. F. S. G. Warman, D.D.). Bishop of Worcester (Rt. Rev. E. H. Pearce, Litt.D.). Rt. Rev. G. F. Browne, D.D. Rt. Rev. R. S. Copleston, D.D. Rt. Rev. G. L. King, D.D. Rt. Rev. H. H. Montgomery, D.D. Archbishop of York (Most Rev. C. G. Lang, D.D.). Bishop of Beverley (Rt. Rev. R. J. Crosthwaite, D.D.). Bishop of Hull (Rt. Rev. F. Gurdon, D.D.). Bishop of Durham (Rt. Rev. H. Hensley Henson, D.D.). Bishop of Jarrow (Rt. Rev. J. N. Quirk, D.D.). Bishop of Bradford (Rt. Rev. A. W. T. Perowne, D.D,). [Bishop of Carlisle] Bishop of Barrow (Rt, Rev, C, West Watson, D,D,), Bishop of Chester (Rt, Rev, H, L, Paget, D.D.), Bishop of Liverpool (Rt, Rev, F, J. Chavasse, D.D,). Bishop of Warrington (Rt. Rev, M, Linton Smith, D,D,). Bishop of Manchester (Rt, Rev. E, A, Knox, D,D,). Bishop of Burnley (Rt. Rev. H. Henn, D.D.). Bishop of Whalley (Rt. Rev. A. G. Rawstorne, D.D.). Bishop of Newcastle (Rt. Rev. H. L. Wild, D.D.). [Bishop of Ripon] Bishop of Knaresborough (Rt. Rev. L. F. M. B. Smith, D.D.). Bishop of Richmond (F. C. Kilner, D.D.). Bishop of Sheffield (Rt. Rev. L. H. Burrows, D.D.). Bishop of Sodor and Man (Rt. Rev. J. Denton Thompson, D,D,), Bishop of Wakefield (Rt, Rev, G, R, Eden, D.D,). Archbishop of Armagh (Most Rev. C, F, D'Arcy, D,D,). Bishop of Meath (Most Rev, B, J, Plunket, D,D.). Bishop of Clogher (Rt. Rev. M. Day, D.D.). Bishop of Derry and Raphoe (Rt. Rev. J, I, Peacocke, D,D,), Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore (Rt, Rev, C, T. P, Grier son, D.D.). Bishop of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh (Rt. Rev. W, R, Moore, D,D.). Bishop of Tuam, Killala and Achonry (Rt, Rev. A, E, Ross, D.D.), Bishop of Cashel, Emly, Waterford and Lismore (Rt. Rev. R. Miller, D.D,). LIST OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE 5 Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross (Rt. Rev. C. B. Dowse D D ) BisHop^F Ossory, Ferns and Leighlin (Rt. Rev. J. A. F. Gregg," Archbishop of Wales (Most Rev. E. G. Edwards D D ) Bishop of Bangor (Rt. Rev. W. H. Williams, D.D.) " Bishop of Llandaff (Rt. Rev. J. P. Hughes D D ) ^s^isTANT Bishop of Llandaff (Rt. Rev.'o. T. L. Crossley, Bishop of St. Davids (Rt. Rev. J, Owen, D,D,) Bishop of Swansea (Rt, Rev, E, L, Bevan, D,D,). Bishop of Brechin, Primus (Most Rev, W, J, F, Robberds D D ) Bishop of Aberdeen (Rt, Rev, F. L, Deane D D ) Bishop of Argyll (Rt, Rev, K, Mackenzie, D D ) Bishop of Edinburgh (Rt, Rev, G, H, S, Walpole, D,D.). Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway (Rt. Rev. A. E. Campbell, Bishop of Moray, Ross, and Caithness (Rt. Rev. A. J. Maclean, Bishop of St. Andrews, Dunkeld, and Dunblane (Rt. Rev. C E. Plumb, D.D.). Bishop of Calcutta, Metropolitan (Most Rev. F. Westcott, D.D,), Bishop in Assam (Rt, Rev, H. Pakenham-Walsh, D,D,), Bishop of Bombay (Rt, Rev. E, J, Palmer, D,D.). Bishop of Colombo (Rt. Rev. E. A. Copleston, D.D.), Bishop of Dornakal (Rt, Rev. V. S. Azariah, D.D.), Bishop of Lucknow (Rt, Rev. G. H, Westcott, D.D,), Bishop of Madras (Rt, Rev, H. Whitehead, D,D,), Bishop of Nagpur (Rt. Rev, E. Chatterton, D.D.), Bishop of Rangoon (Rt, Rev. R. S, Fyffe, D.D.). Bishop in Tinnevelly and Madura (Rt. Rev. E. H. M. Waller, D.D.). Archbishop of Capetown, Metropolitan (Most Rev. W. M. Carter, D.D,). Coadjutor Bishop of Capetown (Rt. Rev. J, O, Nash, D,D,), [Bishop of Bloemfontein.] Assistant Bishop of Bloemfontein (Rt, Rev, F. R. T. Bal four, M.A,), Bishop of George (Rt, Rev. H. B. Sidwell, D.D.). Bishop of Grahamstown (Rt. Rev. F. R. Phelps, D.D.). Bishop of Kimberley and Kuruman (Rt. Rev. W. Gore-Browne, M.A.), Bishop of Natal (Rt. Rev, F. S, Baines, D,D.). Assistant Bishop of Natal (Rt. Rev. F. Roach, D.D.). Bishop of Pretoria (Rt. Rev. N. S. Talbot, D.D.). Bishop of Southern Rhodesia (Rt. Rev. F. H. Beaven, D.D.). Bishop of St. Helena (Rt, Rev, W, A, Holbech, D.D.). Bishop of St. John's, Kaffraria (Rt. Rev. J. W. Williams, D.D.). Bishop of Zululand (Rt. Rev. W. L. Vyvyan, D.D.). b LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Archbishop of Rupert's Land, Primate and Metropolitan (Most Rev. S. p. Matheson, D.D.). Bishop of Athabasca (Rt. Rev. E. F. Robins, D.D.). Bishop of Edmonton (Rt. Rev. H. A. Gray, D.D.). Bishop of Honan (Rt. Rev. W. C. White, D.D.). Bishop of Mackenzie River (Rt. Rev. J. R. Lucas, D.D.). Bishop of Moosonee (Rt. Rev. J. G. Anderson, D.D.). Bishop of Saskatchewan (Rt. Rev. J. A. Newnham, D.D.). Archbishop of Nova Scotia, Metropolitan (Most Rev. C. L. Worrell, D.D.). Bishop of Fredericton (Rt. Rev. J. A. Richardson, D.D.). Bishop of Montreal (Rt. Rev. J. C. Farthing, D.D.). Bishop of Quebec (Rt. Rev. L. W. Williams, D.D.). Archbishop of Algoma, Metropolitan (Most Rev. G. Thorneloe, D.D.). Bishop of Huron (Rt. Rev, D, Williams, D,D.), Bishop of Ontario (Rt, Rev, E, J, Bidwell, D,D.). Bishop of Ottawa (Rt. Rev. J. C. Roper, D.D.). Bishop of Toronto (Rt. Rev. J. F. Sweeny, D.D.). Bishop of Columbia (Rt. Rev. C. de V. Schofield, D.D.). Bishop of Kootenay (Rt. Rev. A. J. Doull, D.D.). Bishop of New Westminster (Rt. Rev. A. U. de Pencier, D.D.). Archbishop of the West Indies and Bishop of Guiana, Metro politan (Most Rev. E. A. Parry, D.D.). Bishop of Antigua (Rt. Rev. E. Hutson, D.D.). Bishop of Barbados (Rt. Rev. A. P. Berkeley, D.D.). Bishop of Honduras, British (Rt. Rev. E. A. Dunn, D.D.). Bishop of Jamaica (Rt. Rev. G. F. C. De Carteret, D.D.), Bishop of Nassau (Rt. Rev. R. G. Shedden, D.D.). Archbishop of Sydney, Primate and Metropolitan (Most Rev. J. C. Wright, D.D.). Bishop of Adelaide (Rt. Rev. A. N. Thomas, D.D.), Bishop of Goulburn (Rt, Rev. L. B. Radford, D.D,), Bishop of Grafton (Rt, Rev, C, H. Druitt, D.D.). Bishop of Newcastle (Rt. Rev. R. Stephen, D.D.). Bishop of North-West Australia (Rt. Rev. G. Trower, D.D.), Bishop of Riverina (Rt, Rev, E. A, Anderson, D.D.). Bishop of Tasmania (Rt. Rev. R. S. Hay, D.D.). Bishop of Willochra (Rt. Rev. G. White, D.D.). Archbishop of Melbourne, Metropolitan (Most Rev. H. Lowther Clarke, D.D.). Bishop of Ballarat (Rt. Rev. M. H. Maxwell-Gumbleton, D.D.). Bishop of Bendigo (Rt. Rev. D. Baker, D.D.). Bishop of Gippsland (Rt. Rev. G. H. Cranswick, D.D.). LIST OF BISHOPS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE 7 Archbishop of Brisbane, Metropolitan (Most Rev. St. C. G. A. Donaldson, D.D.), Bishop of Carpentaria (Rt, Rev. H. Newton, D.D.). Bishop of New Guinea (Rt. Rev. G. Sharp, D.D.). Bishop of North Queensland (Rt. Rev. J. O. Feetham, D.D.). Bishop of Rockhampton (Rt. Rev. G. D. Halford, D.D.). Bishop of Bunbury (Rt. Rev. C. Wilson, D.D.), Bishop of Kalgoorlie (Rt. Rev. W. E. Elsey, M.A.) Bishop of Auckland (Rt. Rev. A. W. Averill, D.D.). Bishop of Christchurch (Rt. Rev. C. Julius, D.D.). Bishop of Waiapu (Rt. Rev. W, W, Sedgwick, D,D.). Bishop of Accra (Rt. Rev, M, S, O'Rorke, D,D,), Bishop in Argentina (Rt. Rev. E. F. Every, D.D.). Bishop in Chekiang (Rt. Rev. H. J. Molony, D.D.). Bishop in Corea (Rt, Rev. M. N. 'Trollope, D.D.). Bishop of the Falkland Isles (Rt. Rev. N. S. de Jersey, D.D.). Bishop in Fukien (Rt. Rev. J. Hind, D.D.). Bishop of Gibraltar (Rt. Rev. H. J. C. Knight, D.D.). Bishop in Jerusalem (Rt. Rev. R. MacInnes, D.D.). Bishop in Khartoum (Rt. Rev. Ll. H. Gwynne, D.D.). Bishop in Kwangsi and Hunan (Rt. Rev. W. Banister, D.D.). Bishop in Kyushu (Rt. Rev. A. Lea, D.D.). Bishop of Lagos (Rt, Rev, F. Melville Jones, D.D.). Assistant Bishop of Lagos (Rt. Rev. I. Oluwole, D.D.), Bishop of Mombasa (Rt. Rev. R. S. Heywood, M.A.). Bishop of Newfoundland (Rt. Rev. W. C. White, D.D.). Bishop in North China (Rt. Rev. F. L. Norris, D.D.). Bishop of Northern Rhodesia (Rt. Rev. A. J. W. May, D.D.). Bishop of Nyasaland (Rt. Rev. T. C. Fisher, D.D.). Bishop of Osaka (Rt. Rev. H. J. Foss, D.D.). Bishop in Persia (Rt. Rev. J. H. Linton, D.D.). Bishop in Polynesia (Rt. Rev. T. C. Twitchell, D.D.). Assistant Bishop for Tonga (Rt. Rev. A. Willis, D.D.). Bishop in Shantung (Rt. Rev. G. D. Iliff, D.D.). Bishop of Sierra Leone (Rt. Rev. J. Walmsley, D.D.). Bishop of Singapore (Rt. Rev. C. J. Ferguson-Davie, D.D.) Bishop in South Tokyo (Rt. Rev. C. H. Boutflower, D.D.) Bishop of Uganda (Rt. Rev. J. J. Willis, D.D.), Bishop of Kampala (Rt, Rev, H, Gresford Jones, D.D.). Bishop of Victoria, Hongkong (Rt. Rev. C. R. Duppuy, M.A.). Bishop in Western China (Rt. Rev. W. W. Cassels, D.D.). Assistant Bishop of Western Equatorial Africa (Rt. Rev. A, W, Howells, M,A,), Bishop of Zanzibar (Rt, Rev, F. Weston, D.D.). Bishop of Tennessee, acting-Presiding Bishop (Rt. Rev. T. F. Gailor, D.D,). Bishop of Arizona (Rt, Rev. J. W. Atwood, D.D.). Bishop of Asheville (Rt. Rev. J. M. Horner, D.D.). 8 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Bishop of Atlanta (Rt. Rev. H. J. Mikell, D.D.). Bishop of Bethlehem (Rt. Rev. E. Talbot, D.D.). Bishop of Connecticut (Rt. Rev. C. B. Brewster, D.D.). Bishop of Hankow (Rt. Rev. L. H. Roots, D.D.). Bishop of Harrisburg (Rt. Rev. J. H. Darlington, D.D.). Bishop of Kansas (Rt. Rev. J. Wise, D.D.). Bishop of Long Island (Rt. Rev. F. Burgess, D.D.). Bishop of Maine (Rt. Rev. B. Brewster, D.D.). Bishop of Maryland (Rt. Rev. J. G. Murray, D.D.). Bishop of Massachusetts (Rt. Rev. W. Lawrence, D.D.). Bishop of Michigan (Rt. Rev. C. D. Williams, D.D.). Bishop of Milwaukee (Rt. Rev. W. W. Webb, D.D.). Bishop Coadjutor of Missouri (Rt. Rev. F. F. Johnson, D.D.). Bishop of Nebraska (Rt. Rev. E. V. Shayler, D.D.). Bishop of Newark (Rt. Rev. E. S. Lines, D.D.) Bishop Coadjutor of Newark (Rt. Rev. W. R. Stearly, D.D.). Bishop of New Jersey (Rt. Rev. P. Matthews, D.D.). Bishop of New Mexico (Rt. Rev. F. B. Howden, D.D.). Bishop of New York (Rt. Rev. C. S. Burch, D.D.). Bishop of North Carolina (Rt. Rev. J. B. Cheshire, D.D.). Bishop of North Texas (Rt. Rev. E. A. Temple, D.D.). Bishop of Ohio (Rt. Rev. W. A. Leonard, D.D.). Bishop Coadjutor of Ohio (Rt. Rev. F. Du Moulin, D.D.). Bishop of Oklahoma (Rt. Rev. T. P. Thurston, D.D.). Bishop of Olympia (Rt. Rev. F. W. Keator, D.D.). Bishop of Pennsylvania (Rt. Rev. P. M. Rhinelander, D.D.). Bishop Suffragan of Pennsylvania (Rt. Rev. T. J. Gar land, D.D.). Bishop of Rhode Island (Rt. Rev. J. D. Perry, D.D.). Bishop of Sacramento (Rt. Rev. W. H. Moreland, D.D.). Bishop of Southern Brazil (Rt. Rev. L. L. Kinsolving, D.D.). Bishop of South Carolina (Rt. Rev. W. A. Guerry, D.D.). Bishop of South Dakota (Rt. Rev. H. L. Burleson, D.D.). Bishop Suffragan of South Dakota (Rt. Rev. W. P. BLeming- TON, D.D.). Bishop of Southern Florida (Rt. Rev. C. Mann, D.D.). Bishop of Southern Ohio (Rt. Rev. Boyd Vincent, D.D.) Bishop of Texas (Rt. Rev. G. H. Kinsolving, D.D.). Bishop of Tokyo (Rt. Rev. J. McKim, D.D.). Bishop of Vermont (Rt. Rev. A. C. A. Hall, D.D.). Bishop of Virginia (Rt. Rev. W. C. Brown, D.D.). Bishop of Washington (Rt. Rev. A. Harding, D.D.). Bishop of Western Massachusetts (Rt. Rev. T. F. Davies, D.D.). Bishop of Western Michigan (Rt. Rev. J. N. McCormick, D.D.). Bishop of West Missouri (Rt. Rev. S. C. Partridge, D.D.). Bishop of Western Nebraska (Rt. Rev. G. A. Beecher, D.D.). Bishop of Western New York (Rt. Rev. C. H. Brent, D.D.). Bishop of West Virginia (Rt. Rev. W. L. Gravatt, D.D.). Bishop of Wyoming (Rt. Rev. N. S. Thomas, D.D.). Rt. Rev. E. W. Osborne, D.D. Rt. Rev. G. Mott Williams, D.D. [Note. — // it is desired to read this Encyclical Letter in the public services of the Church, it may he found convenient to divide it into two portions. For this purpose, the break should he made at page 17, after the words " love to men."] LETTER To the Faithful in Christ Jesus, We, Archbishops and Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church in full communion -with the Church of England, two hundred and fifty-two in number, assembled from divers parts of the, earth at Lambeth, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year of our Lord 1920, within two years of the ending of the Great War, give you greeting in the name of our Lord and Sa-viour, Jesus Christ. We who speak are bearers of the sacred commission of the Ministry given by our Lord through His Apostles to the Church. In His Name we desire to set forth before you the outcome of the grave dehberations to which, after solemn prayer and Eucharist, we have for five weeks devoted ourselves day by day. We take this opportunity of thanking from our hearts all those, both far and near, who have prayed God to give us His Spirit's present aid. We hope that the results of our work may bring encouragement and help to this great circle of inter cessors, even in remote parts of the earth. Our deliberations were preceded by careful inquiry upon many sides into the matters about which we speak. In this Letter we propose to give a connected ¦view of these matters, in the hope that it wiU make our Resolutions more intelligible, and lead some to study them, together ¦with the Reports of our Committees on which they are based. We find that one idea runs through all our work in this Conference, binding it together into a true unity. It is an idea prevalent and potent throughout the world to-day. It is the idea of Fellowship, The minds and the hearts of men already go out to this idea. Men never prized the universal fellowship of mankind as they did when the Great War had for the time destroyed it. For four terrible years the loss of international fellowship emphasized its value. But the war which broke one fellowship created others. Nations became associated in alliances, which they cemented with their blood. In every national army, comradeship, novel and intense, united men of different classes and most various traditions. Thousands gained quite a new impression of what human nature might be, when they experi enced the fellowship of man with man in danger and death. 10 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Comradeship ennobled war. To-day men are asking. Can it not ennoble peace ? But the power of fellowship was prominent even before the war. Through trade-unions and other societies it had changed the face of industrial life. It bound together workers in science, education, and social reform. It gave its character to our recreations. In these and many other phenomena of the times, there is the same motive taking different forms, the desire for fuller and freer Ufe, and there is the same conviction that it is to be gained by effort in fellowship. To a world that craves for fellowship we present our mes sage. The secret of hfe is fellowship. So men feel, and it is true. But fellowship with God is the indispensable condition of human fellowship. The secret of life is the double fellowship, fellow ship ¦with God and ¦with men. This cardinal truth was emphasized by our Lord in words which can never grow old, when He said : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with aU thy heart and with all thy soul and with aU thy mind. This is the great and first commandment," It can never yield the primacy to the second, which is like unto it : " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," For that primacy belongs to the order of creation, God made man in His own image, and God is love. Men to-day are tempted to despair of the world and to blame its design. But this at least we can say : the life of men upon earth was designed to give opportunities for love and nothing has defeated that design. Those things which most perplex us, suffering and sin, have been the occasion of the most conspicuous triumphs of love. This design is the clue to the labyrinth of life. We lose our way in the maze whenever we let go this clue. Men lost the clue and they are always losing it, for they will not keep God in their knowledge, nor love in their hearts. It is ours to recall men to God and to His revealed purposes and His acts which reveal them. It is ours to bid them pause in the hurry and stress of life, in the midst of its tri^vialities and its tragedy, and contemplate anew the ways of God. He made men for love, that they might love Him and love one another. They rejected His purpose, but He did not abandon it. He chose a nation, and made it in a special sense His own, that within it love of God and men might be cultivated, and that thus it might enlighten the world. Into that nation He sent forth His Son, both to reconcile the world to Himself and to reconcile men one to another. And His Son formed a new and greater Israel, which we call the Church, to carry on His own mission of reconciling men to God and men to men. The founda tion and ground of all fellowship is the undeflected will of God, renewing again and again its patient effort to possess, ¦without ENCYCLICAL LETTER II destroying, the vnlls of men. And so He has called into being a fellowship of men. His Church, and sent His Holy Spirit to abide therein, that by the prevailing attraction of that one Spirit, He, the one God and Father of all, may ¦win over the whole human family to that fellowship m Himself, by which alone it can attain to the fulness of life. This then is the object of the Church. In the prosecution of this object it must take account of every fellowship that exists among men, must seek to deepen and purify it, and, above all, to attach it to God, But in order to accomplish its object, the Church must itself be a pattern of fellowship. It is only by shewing the value and power of fellowship in itself that it can win the world to fellowship. The weakness of the Church in the world of to-day is not surprising when we consider how the bands of its own fellowship are loosened and broken. The truth of this had been slowly working into the con sciousness of Christians before the war. But the war and its horrors, waged as it was between so-called Christian Reunion of nations, drove home the truth ¦with the shock of a Christen- sudden awakening. Men in all Communions began to dom. think of the reunion [of Christendom, not as a laudable ambition or a beautiful dream, but as an imperative necessity. Proposals and counter-proposals were made, some old, some new. Mutual recognition, organic union, federation, absorption, submission — these phrases indicate the variety of the programmes put forward. Some definite proposals came from the Mission Field, where the urgency of the work of evangelization and the birth of national Churches alike demand a new fellowship. Again, in the shadow of suffering and in the light of sympathy, the ancient Churches of the East drew nearer to our own than ever before. An official delegation from the Oecumenical Patriarchate came to London, at the time of our Conference, to confer with our Committee on the points which stUl need mutual explanation between our two Churches, The preparations for the World Conference on Faith and Order had not only drawn attention in all parts of the world to Christian unity, but had led to discussions in many quarters which brought to light unsuspected agreement between the leaders of different Communions, The great wind was blowing over the whole earth. Such were the conditions of the time at which our Conference met. All realized that the subject of reunion was our most important subject. The Bishops brought with them, into the Conference, very various preconceptions. Different traditions, different estimates of history, different experiences in the present, different opinions on current proposals, seemed almost to preclude the hope of reaching any common mind. The subject of Reunion was entrusted to the largest Committee ever appointed in a 12 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Lambeth Conference. As their work proceeded, the members of it felt that they were being drawn by a Power greater than themselves to a general agreement. Their conclusions were accepted by the Conference under the same sense of a com pelling influence. The decision of the Conference was reached with a unanimity all but complete. It is embodied in our Appeal to all Christian people. In this Appeal we urge them to try a new approach to reunion ; to adopt a new point of view ; to look up to the reality as it is in God. The unity which we seek exists. It is in God, Who is the perfection of unity, the one Father, the one Lord, the one Spirit, Who gives life to the one Body. Again, the one Body exists. It needs not to be made, nor to be remade, but to become organic and ¦visible. Once more, the fellowship of the members of the one Body exists. It is the work of God, not of man. We have only to discover it, and to set free its activities. Thus our appeal is in idea and in method a new appeal. If it be prospered, it wiU change the spirit and direction of our efforts, "Terms of reunion must no longer be judged by the success ¦with which they meet the claims and preserve the positions of two or more uniting Communions, but by their correspondence to the common ideal of the Church as God would have it to be. Again, in the past, negotiations for reunion have often started with the attempt to define the measure of uniformity which is essential. The impression has been given that nothing else matters. Now we see that those elements of truth about which differences have arisen are essential to the fulness of the ¦witness of the whole Church. We have no need to beUttle what is distinctive in our own interpretation of Christian life : we believe that it is something precious which we hold in trust for the common good. We desire that others should share in our heritage and our blessings, as we -wish to share in theirs. It is not by reducing the different groups of Christians to uniformity, but by rightly using their diversity, that the Church can become all things to all men. So long as there is ¦vital connexion with the Head, there is positive value in the differentiation of the members. But we are convinced that this ideal cannot be fulfilled if these groups are content to remain in separation from one another or to be joined together only in some vague federation. Their value for the fulness of Christian life, truth, and witness can only be reaUsed if they are united in the fellowship of one visible society whose members are bound together by the ties of a common faith, common sacraments, and a common ministry. It is towards this ideal of a united and truly Catholic Church that we must all set our minds. This truer conception of the Church and of the Di^vine purpose disclosed in its history must regulate our aspirations as well as our endeavours. We cannot suppose, indeed, that we have found ENCYCLICAL LETTER 13 a way to solve all difficulties in a moment. The vision must become clear to the general body of Christian men and women, and this ¦wiU take time. We must all direct our gaze towards it'. We must help one another to see what steps lead towards its fulfilment, and what steps lead the other way. The vision points the road to reunion. That road may not be short, but, we beUeve, it wiU be sure. The more our minds are filled with the hopes of seeing the universal fellowship in full and free activity, the more zealous ought we to be to improve and strengthen in every The way the fellowship of our own Church. This is one Anglican of the most direct and obvious methods of preparing Communion, for reunion. In our Resolutions we call upon each Church of our Communion to develop its constitutional self-government and to give more and better opportunities for ser^vice to all its members. The ¦wider and deeper, the more complete and the more effective is the life of any one Church, the more points of contact will it find with others. We would also communicate to the Churches of our Communion an impression which has forced itself upon us on many occasions in our discussions. Because our Church has spread over the world, and stiU more because we desire to enter into the world-wide fellowship of a reunited universal Church, we must begin now to clear ourselves of local, sectional, and tem porary prepossessions, and cultivate a sense of what is universal and genuinely Catholic, in truth and in hfe. Our Conferences give us the opportunity of comparing the experience which we have gained in matters of organization, and of bringing together and recording the results for the information of the whole Com munion. In this connexion we may mention that at the present meeting we adopted a series of somewhat technical resolutions dealing ¦with the formation of new Pro'vinces and the constitution of the Central Consultative Body. The subject of the Pro^vinces, though important, we wiU pass over here. The Central Consul tative Body acts, in a certain limited way, for the Lambeth Conference in the intervals between its meetings. It is thus one of the links which bind together our fellowship. The character istics of that fellowship are well worth attention when the reunion of the world-^wide Church is in men's thoughts. The fact that the Anglican Communion has become world-wide forces upon it some of the problems which must always beset the unity of the CathoHc Church itself. Perhaps, as we ourselves are dealing ¦with these problems, the way will appear in which the future reunited Church must deal with them. For half a century the Lambeth Conference has more and more served to focus the experience and counsels of our Communion. 14 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O But it does not claim to exercise any powers of control or com mand. It stands for the far more spiritual and more Christian principle of loyalty to the fellowship. The Churches represented in it are indeed independent, but independent "with the Christian freedom wliich recognizes the restraints of truth and of love. They are not free to deny the truth. They are not free to ignore the fellowship. And the objects of our Conferences are to attain an ever deeper apprehension of the truth, and to guard the fellow ship with ever increasing appreciation of its value. If the Con ference is to attain such objects, it must be because it is itself a fellowship in the Spirit. The duty of preserving and strengthening the fellowship of the Church belongs specially to a smaller fellowship ¦within it, the fellowship of the ordained ministry. The three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons have always ^'l' w'"^*'*'^ been assisted in their ministry by many others who o omen. ^^ different times and in different places have had different names and positions. In a wider and more general sense these aU belong to the ministry of the Church ; for the special kinds of service which they have to do dis tinguish them from the main body of Christians, who are com manded in general terms " by love to serve one another," Thus the great fellowship is throughout cemented by service, which is love in action. There has been much discussion of late about the admission of women to share in the ministry of the Church, both in the ¦wider and in the narrower sense of those words ; and the Church must frankly acknowledge that it has under-valued and neglected the gifts of women and has too thanklessly used their work. We have thought well to give in a series of Resolutions what we think to be the general mind of our branch of the CathoUc Church at this time about this subject. We feel bound to respect the customs of the Church, not as an iron law, but as results and records of the Spirit's guidance. In such customs there is much which ob'viously was dictated by reasonable regard to contemporary social conventions. As these differ from age to age and country to country, the use which the Church makes of the service of women wiU also differ. But this use wiU be further determined by a more important consideration. It is the pecuhar gifts and the special excellences of women which the Church will most wish to use. Its wisdom will be she^wn, not in disregarding, but in taking advantage of, the differences between women and men. These considerations seem to have guided the primitive Church to create the Order of Deaconesses. We have recorded our approval of the re^vival of that Order, and we have attempted to indicate the duties and functions which in our judgement belong to it. We also recognize that God has granted to some ENCYCLICAL LETTER 15 women special gifts of spiritual insight and powers of prophetic teaching. We have tried to shew how these gifts can be exercised to the greatest benefit of the Church. The arrangements which we have suggested are not appHcable to aU countries alike. Yet everywhere the attempt must be made to make room for the Spirit to work, according to the wisdom which He ¦wiU give, so that the fellowship of the Ministry may be strengthened by the co-operation of women and the fellowship of the Church be enriched by their spiritual gifts. There is much that the fellowship of the Church lacks for its completeness of life. As a fellowship ¦with God and in God, it has infinite resources of power on which to draw. Some But the tendency to say " the old is good " is particu- OuteiS^Sie ^^^^^ strong in the Church, Religious people are apt Church. to feel the goodness of the old so much that they are slow to prove whether there are yet powers of God on which they have never drawn. They are almost equally slow to beUeve that they might themselves receive the blessings which were given to faith in its primitive freshness. As a result of this, sometimes men and women form fellowships that they may do outside the Church what they ought to have had opportunity to do, and to do better, within it. One of our committees has dealt ¦with the Christian Faith in relation to Spiritualism, Christian Science, and Theosophy. We commend its Report to all who are interested in these movements. In it the teachings which are connected ¦with them are tested in the Hght of Christian truth. Tried by the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Cross, they are clearly shewn to involve serious error. It is also shewn that adherents of these movements are drawn into practices and cults which injure their spiritual life, and endanger their loyalty to Christ and to the fellowship of His Church. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that these movements are very largely symptoms and re'Sults of reaction against materialistic ¦views of life. We cannot but sympathize with persons who seek a refuge from the pressure of materialism. It is the part of the Church to afford such a refuge, and, if it fails to do so, there is something wrong with its own Ufe. There is much in Christian Science which ought to be found within the Church, where it would be supplemented by truths which in Christian Science are neglected. For instance. Church people receive, and must always receive, with aU thankfulness, as from God, the help which medical skill and devotion can give. But on the other hand they ought to take more account of the recent growth of knowledge about the power of spirit and mind over body. More than this, they ought to display an intenser faith in their Lord Himself as the source of all heahng, bodily l6 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O and spiritual, and to have bolder expectations of His wUhngness to respond to their prayers with gracious revelations of His power. They ought to offer far more numerous examples of that repose upon God which is the health of the soul, and secures, in ways which pass understanding, the health of the body. For aU these things are the rightful heritage of those who abide in the Divine fellowship. Religion has promises which we have not fuUy claimed, not only of the life which now is, but also of the life which is to come. Our fellowship with one another, not less than our fellowship with God, triumphs over death. We who belong to the Church's lesser fellowship in this world are not separated from, but are one ¦with, those who belong to the Church's higher fellowship in the other world. This is, in part, what we mean by the Communion or Fellowship of Saints. "The distance between our temporary and our permanent home, between earth and heaven, is not great. Christ and His Apostles made this clear, and the Christian experience of centuries has confirmed it. Belief in this reahty and the nearness of the other world has been deepened by the war. The bereaved heart of mankind with earnest, if not always wise, endeavour is straining to bridge the space that lies between. It is in this endeavour that many distracted souls turn to spiritualism for help, not realizing that the Church has abundant treasures of comfort, and assurance of the world beyond this, ¦with which to bring to the sorrowing the solace which is the right and the heritage of Christians. It is for the commissioned teachers of the Church so to present the Com munion of Saints as to make it a satisfying force in the life of mourners. Whatever new' triumphs of faith remain to be achieved and whatever new voices of comfort are waiting for utterance, the bond of love, rightly understood, wUl continue to be strong enough to carry the bereaved through the days of mourning and the discipline of separation tiU the day breaks and the shadows flee. Here, as in aU fellowship, there are silences and limitations which cannot be wholly done away while earth lasts. But through them and beyond them fellow ship abides. Fellowship in this life, whether with God or with one another, is but the preliminary stage in an eternal progress. While the spiritualist seeks hght upon the future Hfe through communication with the departed, the theosophist seeks the clue to his own destiny in the mysteries of his own being. Here again the Christian faith gives us all that we need for life and work. That faith bids us look onward from glory to glory, in the ever closer union of the spirit of man with the Christ who is God and was made man, and not merely in the evolution of a Christ within, who is but the higher self of man. Here again feUowship is the path and the goal. The hidden man of the ENCYCLICAL LETTER 17 heart, who is now being fashioned by the one Spirit after the Hkeness of the one Christ, is no lonely seeker after truth, no disciple of an esoteric brotherhood, but a citizen of a spiritual kingdom in which all sorts and conditions of men in every race and nation are being trained to feel the power of God and to fulfil the purpose of God for the whole world. We have spoken of the Church and of those things which it lacks. If it is to be a perfect fellowship, as it ought to be, it must recover them, especially unity and power. We would end this section of our Letter by pleading earnestly with Church people to use the only means by which the Church can regain those great gifts. The flrst is prayer. Pray without ceasing, without wavering, faithfully, instantly, fervently. Prayer is the source of aU our strength. The second is to obey the Lord's command, and more earnestly and more devoutly to partake of the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, In it offer yourselves with your souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and Hvely sacrifice in union with His Sacrifice, In it learn from Him the way of feUowship, with God and with man, and receive in Him the power to share His love to His Father and His love to men. From the fellowship of the Church, what it ought to be and what it ought to contain, we now pass to other fellowships which . exist among men by the will of God. For these fellow- Mi^^the * ships too there is only one inspiration, and that is the Family. Spirit of God. The Church, in which it has pleased God to dwell by His Spirit, ought therefore to have a message for all these feUowships. The fellowship between man and woman in marriage was the earliest which God gave to the human race, " From the beginning of the creation," as our Lord reminded us, God made them male and female. What our Lord adds about marriage is not given as new legislation, but as a declaration of God's original purpose. The man and his wife are no longer twain, but one flesh : and those whom God has joined together, man is not to put asunder. This revelation about God's purpose gives the keynote to all that the Church has to teach about marriage. Because it can found its teaching upon the wiU and act of God in making the union, the Church can go on to teach how God wUl complete it. He wiU work, as those who wait for Him weU know, the miracle by which the two Uves become one, yet so that each Hfe becomes greater and better than it could have been alone. But marriage is not ordained only to give oppor tunity for the development of those two Uves in unity. It has essentially the aim of bringing other lives into the world. Its indissolubility should secure to the chUdren the continued care and love of both their parents, so long as they Hve, The State's obvious interest in the chUdren should lead it to preserve l8 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O the strictness of marriage law. On the other hand it is the purpose of God for themselves and for their chUdren that Christian parents should regard. On the feUowship begun in their union and widened into the feUowship of their home, they wUl buUd up their nation according to the purpose of God ; and not only the nation but also the Church ; for He, after Whom the carpenter's household ¦wiU ever be caUed the Holy FamUy, wUls to buUd every generation of His Church on holy famUies, We cannot forget how He Who was the centre of the Holy Family became afterwards the succourer and saviour of some of those who had strayed furthest away from the sanctities of home. He raises up in His Church from age to age compassionate spirits, who by His aid foUow the example of His winning com passion. Our Committee has touched upon this part of the Church's work, and urged the great need that is now felt for more helpers in it. We note ¦with interest how the spirit of feUowship is stirring here also, and how it is now agreed that the love and brightness of comradeship should surround those unhappy ones as they retrace their steps to a truer life. The relation of men one to another in industry or trade is another feUowship which God intended to exist and created to be good. Yet to-day we are confronted ¦with a Industry world-wide upheaval and embittered antagonism in and social relations, the course of which none can foresee. Commerce, -yvg seem to be involved in an internecine confUct between capital and labour in which each aims at an exclusive supremacy. Any such supremacy would be inconsistent with the Christian ideal of feUowship. And the Church insists that, in its essential nature, industry is not a conflict, but a feUowship. Again, every trade or profession ought to be producing something which men want and ought to want ; and so far each is doing ser^vice to the community. But in industrial Ufe aU such ser^vice depends on combined effort. It is rendered in co-operation. The message of Christianity in this matter is to make men see that here they can and must " in love serve one another." To all concerned, employer and employed, director and workman, investor of money and investor of brain or muscle — to aU alike the Church must say : " Put first your ser^vice to the community and your feUowship in that ser^vice. Do your work heartily, keenly, carefuUy as to God, because you are benefiting His chUdren. Have good ¦wiU, and expect others to have it. Rearrange your mutual relations, as men co-operating in feUowship, not competing in suspicion and hostUity." These are fundamental principles. Beyond them lies the whole region of practical appUcation. In the technical side of economics, which is a science for experts, ENCYCLICAL LETTER I9 the Church has no authority. But whenever in the working out of economic or of poUtical theory moral issues are directly involved, the Church has a duty to see that the requirements of righteousness are faced and fairly met. The Church wiU, for instance, maintain that feUowship is endangered if all who serve do not share equitably in the results of labour. For this is part of Christian justice. The Church wiU fearlessly claim that the human character of every worker is more sacred than his work ; that his worth as a chUd of God and member of the feUowship must not be forgotten, or imperUled by any form of industrial slavery. For this belongs to the spirit of Christian Uberty. In aU such things the Church wUl, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, proclaim its message of brotherhood and mutual ser^vice, founded on the Divine purpose for men, and wUl aid the community in giving active expression to it. But our hope throughout is in the Spirit of God. In no other way, as we beUeve, can society recover itself than by recovering the plan of God for its weU-being, and by reUance on His inspira tion for realizing that plan. Such are the principles and thoughts which underlie our Resolutions on Industrial and Social Problems. We pass on to the relation^ between nations. We cannot beUeve that the effect of the coming of the Kingdom of God upon earth wiU be to aboHsh nations. Holy Scripture Ijjjgj. emphasizes the value of national Hfe and indicates national its permanence. The sense of nationality seems to Relations, be a natural instinct. The love which Christ pours into the hearts that are His, makes men cease to hate each other because they belong to different nations. Within redeemed humanity nations wUl not cease to exist, but nationaUty itself wiU be redeemed. We need not despair of this consummation because of any wrongs which have been done in the name of nationality, however recent and however appaUing. Thus- the purpose of God for the nations, as we conceive it, is that they should form a feUowship, as of a brotherhood or a famUy. They are intended, as nations, by love to serve one another. They are intended to develop distinctive gifts and characters, and to contribute them to the common good. There is no place in this ideal for jealousy or hatred, for ruthless competition, and for the ambition to conquer and to enslave. Nor does the imposition of peace upon the world by fear of the strong arm bring this ideal much nearer. For this ideal is essentially an ideal of freedom, the freedom of brothers in a famUy, wherein the immature and the weak have carefuUy secured to them the chance to grow and to grow strong. We commend to aU Christian people the principles which underHe the League of Nations, the most promising and the most systematic attempt to advance towards the ideal of the famUy c 2 20 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O of nations which has ever been projected. It has deeply stirred the hopes of those who long for peace on earth and increase of feUowship. But if any such League is to have success it wiU need the enthusiastic and intelHgent support of mUlions of men and women. It is not enough that Governments should agree to it, or statesmen work for it. The hearts and minds of the people in aU countries must be behind it. In aU nations a great change is needed, and is needed now. War- weariness can not unite and is not uniting us. Neither the sufferings of some countries nor the ambitions of others are making much impression on a paralysed world. The world needs to recover feeling, but the feeling must be right and true. Before either peace or free dom can be established in security and joy, the fires of brother- love must leap up in the hearts of the nations. This great change requires a miracle, but it is a change that can be wrought by the one Spirit of fellowship, which is the Spirit of God. We must subject our wiUs and open our hearts to His influence, that He may work that miracle in the world. It wiU be naturaUy and rightly said that the great ideal of the brotherhood of nations involves for its fuU realization the thorough permeation of the nations with Christ's Spirit, The conversion of the nations is the only PtoM°m "^ ^^^ ^°.P^ ^°^ ^^^ ^°^^^- It is a curious coincidence that aU the most prominent problems in the Mission Field to-day are in some way connected with nationality. The Report of our Committee traverses the whole ground. We would here indicate only the salient points, " These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also." Many others besides the men of Thessalonica have recognized that Christianity is a revolutionary force. It cannot be otherwise. The preaching of the Kingdom of God is always, as it was at the first, also the preaching of a change of mind. It is certain to make people see that " the manner of life handed down from their fathers "is in some, or perhaps many, respects " vain." Whether missionaries emphasize this, or leave it to be inferred, they are sure to incur suspicion and arouse resentment. But to-day they are coming to see that some of this suspicion and resentment is due to their o^wn faulty conception of their object. They have been content to make disciples out of aU the nations. They have not remembered that their Master in fact commanded them to make aU the nations His disciples. In other words they have not taken due account of the value of nationaUty. The aim of missions is not only to make Christians, but to make Christian nations. The principle has consequences, both negative and positive, which are daUy becoming clearer. No community ENCYCLICAL LETTER 21 of Christians has a right to attempt to produce a replica of itself in a foreign country which it evangelizes. Neither forms of worship, nor methods of thought, nor social institutions belonging to one race ought to be imposed on another. Nor wUl evangelism or pastorate for longer than necessary be retained in foreign hands. Foreign missionaries should set before themselves one ideal, and one only : to plant the Catholic Church in every land. They must remember that the CathoHc Church needs the fulness of the nations. They must long to see national Hfe putting on Christ, and national thought interpreting His truth. The more they have valued their own nationality, the more they should respect the nationaUty of others. They do not go out to obliter ate other men's nationaUty, but to bring it near to Christ Who can exalt and complete it. They do not go out to propagate their national Church, but to add another national Church to the Church CathoHc, They carry with them warnings and lessons from the history of national Churches, They wiU be on their guard against that sectarian spirit which is the danger of national isolation. No foreigner can forecast, still less invent, the fines of national development in reUgion, The foreign missionary therefore must give his strength to making known Christ in the fulness of His Person, His work, and His revelation of the Father, together with the great inheritance of Catholic tradition and the glory of the feUowship of the CathoHc Church, He must leave to the converts the task of finding out their national response to the revelation of God in Christ, and their national way of walking in the fellowship of the Saints by the help of the One Spirit. Thus will the glory of the nations be brought into the Holy City, But not only does the Church need every nation to be evange- Hzed. It needs also the help of every nation in evangelization. It has been a consequence of the late war that missionaries of certain nations are forbidden to work in the greater part of the world. As Christians, we cannot acquiesce in this prohibition, except as a temporary measure. The command of Christ is obUgatory on those nations, as on our own. Nor can the missionary cause afford to lose their assistance. But if this claim, which we thus advance in the Name of Christ, is to com mand the attention of statesmen, the standard of missionary single-mindedness must be kept very high. No one can be a politician as weU as a missionary, without endangering the credit of Christian Missions as a whole. If missions are not to be at the mercy of measures of poUtical expediency, mission aries must be plainly seen to have no object or motive, no thought beyond the spreading of the Kingdom of God, We have devoted so much space to the relation of nations and the national spirit to missions, because that is the out- 22 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, 192O standing problem of the Mission Field to-day. But we would not be misunderstood. Each of us belongs by his birth to some one of the many nations of the world. But every Christian belongs by his second birth to one holy nation, which is God's own possession. When loyalty to his own nation comes into coniUct with loyalty to that holy nation of which Christ is King, a Christian can have no doubt which loyalty must give way. " He that loveth father and mother more than me," said Jesus Christ, " is not worthy of me," National loyalty has often led men into exclusiveness, jealousy and hatred, which are far from Christ's purpose. No selfishness in the world has been so persistent or so ruthless as national selfishness. It is to save men from such wickedness that Jesus Christ binds them together into one holy nation. In the feUowship of this great unity nationality finds its redemption : while national characteristics are preserved for noble use and mutual benefit. But the love of God encompasses aU and reconcUes both men and nations in the brotherhood of redeemed humanity. To a world fuU of trouble and perplexity, of fear and despair, of disconnected effort and aimless exertion, we present what we have been permitted to see of the purpose of God, Conclusion. It is enough to guide us. But, if it often seems that the message of religion is too general and its appUcation to detaUs too difficult, then it is our duty to recaU to ourselves that we have to do, not with a theory, but with a Person, God is working His purpose out. If in simplicity we give ourselves to Him, He will work with us beyond our understanding : and we shaU have contributed to the feUowship of man, because we have been working in fellowship with God, Signed on behalf of the Conference, RANDALL CANTUAR : Theodore Petriburg: ] H. H, Montgomery (Bishop) J G, K, A. Bell, Assistant Secretary. August 7th, 1920, NOTE. It may be -well to make clear the manner of our deliberations. The subjects proposed for consideration -were first brought before us in Sessions of the ¦whole Conference, lasting for six full days, from Monday, July 5th to Saturday, July loth. Having been there set forth in outline. ENCYCLICAL LETTER 23 they were then referred to large and carefully chosen Committees ; and the Reports of these Committees, with the Resolutions which they had prepared, were subsequently laid before the Conference, meeting again to consider them in full session from Monday, July 26th, to Saturday, August 7th. By this procedure we have been able to secure both the detailed study which is the especial task of a Committee (a study greatly aided by the essays. Reports and papers which had been prepared for us), and that weight of judgement which belongs to the decisions of an assembly gathered from all parts of the world and bringing to the pro cess of deliberation the manifold experience and knowledge acquired under -widely different conditions in widely sundered fields of labour. The judgement of the Conference is expressed in the Resolutions, eighty in number, appended to this Letter, These, and these alone, are affirmed by the Conference. The Reports, which are also printed here- ¦with, have been received by the Conference ; and the Conference has directed that they should be published; but the responsibility for the statements and opinions which they contain rests with the several Committees by whom they were prepared. RESOLUTIONS FORMALLY ADOPTED BY THE CONFERENCE OF 1920. Christianity and International Relations. 1. We rejoice that in these times of peril God is giving to His Church a fresh vision of His purpose to establish a Kingdom in which aU the nations of the earth shall be united as one famUy in righteousness and peace. We hold that this can only come through the acceptance of the sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His teaching, and through the application of the principles of brotherhood, justice, and unselfishness, to indi^viduals and nations aUke. 2. The Conference calls upon the citizens of aU nations to pro mote in every way the resumption of the efforts, interrupted by the War, to increase international comity and goodwUl, and to secure expression for these by an increased recognition of inter national law and custom, 3. The Conference, heartUy endorsing the views of its Com mittee as to the essentiaUy Christian basis of the League of Nations, is of opinion that steps should immediately be taken, whether by "co-operation or concurrent action, whereby the whole Church of Christ may be enabled with one voice to urge the principles of the League of Nations upon the peoples of the world. 4. We hold that the peace of the world, no less than Christian principle, demands the admission of Germany and other nations into the League of Nations at the earliest moment which the conditions render possible. 5. The Conference commends the Report of its Committee on International Relations to the careful consideration of the Churches of the AngUcan Communion, both in their Assemblies and in other ways, and urges upon aU Church members the importanceof supporting the League of Nations Union. 26 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O 6. It is the duty of all supporters of the League of Nations to set their face against injustice to the indigenous or native races, and particularly in regard to such matters as the tenure of land, forced labour, and the trade in intoxicating Hquors, and also the morphia traffic in China, and other abuses. 7. The Conference records its protest against the colour- prejudice among the different races of the world, which not only hinders intercourse, but gravely imperils the peace of the future. 8. The Conference, beUe'ving that nations no less than indi^viduals are members one of another, expresses its grave concern at the e-vidence as to the disease and distress from which the populations in large tracts of Europe and Asia are suffering. It therefore caUs upon aU Christian men and women to support by every means in their power the action which is being taken, both by Governments and by voluntary associations, for the relief of this suffering. Reunion of Christendom, 9. The Conference adopts and sends forth the foUo^wing Appeal to all Christian people : AN APPEAL TO ALL CHRISTIAN PEOPLE From the Bishops assembled in the Lambeth Conference OF 1920. We, Archbishops, Bishops MetropoUtan, and other Bishops of the Holy CathoHc Church in fuU communion with the Church of England, in Conference assembled, reaUzing the responsibUity which rests upon us at this time, and sensible of the sympathy and the prayers of many, both within and ¦without our o^wn Communion, make this appeal to aU Christian people. We acknowledge aU those who beheve in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have been baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity, as sharing ¦with us membership in the universal Church of Christ which is His Body. We beheve that the Holy Spirit has caUed us in a very solemn and special manner to associate our selves in penitence and prayer with aU those who deplore the di^visions of Christian people, and are inspired by the vision and hope of a ¦visible unity of the whole Church. RESOLUTIONS 27 I. We beUeve that God wiUs fellowship. By God's own act this feUowship was made in and through Jesus Christ, and its life is in His Spirit. We beUeve that it is God's purpose to manifest this feUowship, so far as this world is concerned, in an outward, ¦visible, and united society, holding one faith, having its own recognized officers, using God-given means of grace, and inspiring aU its members to the world-wide service of the Kingdom of God. This is what we mean by the CathoHc Church. II. This united fellowship is not visible in the world to-day. On the one hand there are other ancient episcopal Communions in East and West, to whom ours is bound by many ties of common faith and tradition. On the other hand there are the great non-episcopal Communions, standing for rich elements of truth, Uberty and life which might otherwise have been obscured or neglected. With them we are closely Hnked by many affinities, racial, historical and spiritual. We cherish the earnest hope that all these Communions, and our o^wn, may be led by the Spirit into the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, But in fact we are aU organized in different groups, each one keeping to itself gifts that rightly belong to the whole feUowship, and tending to Hve its own Hfe apart from the rest, III. The causes of di'vision He deep in the past, and are by no means simple or wholly blameworthy. Yet none can doubt that self-'wUl, ambition, and lack of charity among Christians have been principal factors in the mingled process, and that these, together with bUndness to the sin of disunion, are stiU mainly responsible for the breaches of Christendom, We acknowledge this condition of broken feUowship to be contrary to God's ¦wUl, and we desire frankly to confess our share in the guUt of thus crippling the Body of Christ and hindering the acti^vity of His Spirit. IV. The times caU us to a new outlook and new measures. The Faith cannot be adequately apprehended and the battle of the Kingdom cannot be worthily fought whUe the body is divided, and is thus unable to grow up into the fulness of the Hfe of Christ, The time has come, we beUeve, for all the separated groups of Christians to agree in forgetting the things which are behind and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited Catholic Church, The removal of the barriers which have arisen between them wiU only be brought about by a new comradeship of those whose faces are deflnitely set this way. The vision which rises before us is that of a Church, genu inely Catholic, loyal to all Truth, and gathering into its feUow ship all " who profess and call themselves Christians," within whose ¦visible unity all the treasures of faith and order, be queathed as a heritage by the past to the present, shall be 28 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O possessed in common, and made ser^viceable to the whole Body of Christ. Within this unity Christian Communions now separated from one another would retain much that has long been distinctive in their methods of worship and service. It is through a rich diversity of Hfe and devotion that the unity of the whole feUow ship wUl be fulfilled. V. This means an adventure of goodwill and stUl more of faith, for nothing less is required than a new discovery of the creative resources of God. To this adventure we are convinced that God is now calling aU the members of His Church. VI. We believe that the ¦visible unity of the Church wUl be found to involve the whole-hearted acceptance of : — The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revelation of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith ; and the Creed commonly caUed Nicene, cis the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, and either it or the Apostles' Creed as the Baptismal confession of beUef : The divinely instituted sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, as expressing for all the corporate Hfe of the whole feUowship in and with Christ : A ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body. VII. May we not reasonably claim that the Episcopate is the one means of providing such a ministry ? It is not that we caU in question for a moment the spiritual reality of the ministries of those Communions which do not possess the Episcopate. On the contrary we thankfuUy acknowledge that these ministries have been manifestly blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of grace. But we submit that considerations alike of history and of present experience justify the claim which we make on behalf of the Episcopate. Moreover, we would urge that it is now and will prove to be in the future the best instrument for maintaining the unity and continuity of the Church. But we greatly desire that the office of a Bishop should be ever3rwhere exercised in a representative and constitutional manner, and more truly express all that ought to be involved for the Ufe of the Christian FamUy in the title of Father-in-God. Nay more, we eagerly look forward to the day when through its acceptance in a united Church we may aU share in that grace which is pledged to the members of the whole body in the apostolic rite of the laying-on of hands, and in the joy and feUowship of a Eucharist in which as one FamUy we may together, without any doubt fulness of mind, offer to the one Lord our worship and service. VIII. We beheve that for aU, the truly equitable approach to union is by the way of mutual deference to one another's RESOLUTIONS 29 consciences. To this end, we who send forth this appeal would say that if the authorities of other Communions should so desire, we are persuaded that, terms of union having been other^wise satisfactorily adjusted. Bishops and clergy of our Communion would ¦wiUingly accept from these authorities a form of com mission or recognition which would commend our ministry to their congregations, as having its place in the one famUy Hfe. It is not in our power to know how far this suggestion may be accep table to those to whom we offer it. We can only say that we offer it in aU sincerity as a token of our longing that aU ministries of grace, theirs and ours, shall be avaUable for the service of our Lord in a united Church. It is our hope that the same motive would lead ministers who have not received it to accept a commission through episcopal ordination, as obtaining for them a ministry throughout the whole feUowship, In so acting no one of us could possibly be taken to repudiate his past ministry, God forbid that any man should repudiate a past experience rich in spiritual blessings for himself and others. Nor would any of us be dishonouring the Holy Spirit of God, Whose call led us aU to our several ministries, and Whose power enabled us to perform them. We shall be pubUcly and formaUy seeking additional recognition of a new caU to wider service in a reunited Church, and imploring for ourselves God's grace and strength to fulfU the same, IX. The spiritual leadership of the Catholic Church in days to come, for which the world is manifestly waiting, depends upon the readiness -with which each group is prepared to make sacriflces for the sake of a common feUowship, a common ministry, and a common ser^vice to the world. We place this ideal first and foremost before ourselves and our own people. We caU upon them to make the effort to meet the demands of a new age with a new outlook. To all other Christian people whom our words may reach we make the same appeal. We do not ask that any one Communion should consent to be absorbed in another. We do ask that aU should unite in a new and great endeavour to recover and to manifest to the world the unity of the Body of Christ for which He prayed. 10. The Conference recommends to the authorities of the Churches of the Anglican Communion that they should, in such ways and at such times as they think best, formaUy in^vite the authorities of other Churches within their areeis to confer with them concerning the possibiUty of taking definite steps to 30 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O co-operate in a common endeavour, on the fines set forth in the above Appeal, to restore the unity of the Church of Christ, 11. The Conference recognizes that the task of effecting union with other Christian Communions must be undertaken by the various national, regional, or provincial authorities of the Churches within the AngUcan Communion, and confidently commits to them the carrying out of this task on Hues that are in general harmony with the principles underlying its Appeal and Resolutions, 12. The Conference approves the foUo^wing statements as representing the counsel which it is prepared to give to the Bishops, Clergy and other members of our own Communion on various subjects which bear upon the problems of reunion. (A) In view of prospects and projects of reunion — (i) A Bishop is justified in giving occasional authorization to ministers, not episcopaUy ordained, who in his judgement are working towards an ideal of union such as is described in our Appeal, to preach in churches ¦within his Diocese, and to clergy of the Diocese to preach in the churches of such ministers : (u) The Bishops of the AngUcan Communion -wUl not question the action of any Bishop who, in the few years between the initiation and the completion of a definite scheme of union, shaU countenance the irregularity of admitting to Communion the baptized but unconfirmed Communicants of the non-episcopal congregations concerned in the scheme : (iu) The Conference gives its general approval to the sugges tions contained in the report of the Sub-Committee on Reunion ¦with Non-Episcopal Churches in reference to the status and work of ministers who may remain after union ¦without episcopal ordination (see pages 142 and 143.) [B) Believing, however, that certain lines of action might imperil both the attainment of its ideal and the unity of its own Communion, the Conference declares that — (i) It cannot approve of general schemes of intercommunion or exchange of pulpits : (u) In accordance ¦with the principle of Church order set forth in the Preface to the Ordinal attached to the Book of Common Prayer, it cannot appro^ve the celebration in AngUcan churches of the Holy Communion for members of the AngUcan Church by ministers who have not been episcopaUy ordained ; and that it should be regarded as the general rule of the Church that AngUcan communicants should receive Holy Communion only at the hands of ministers of their own Church, or of Churches in com munion therewith. RESOLUTIONS 3 1 (C) In view of doubts and varieties of practice which have caused difficulties in the past, the Conference declares that — (i) Nothing in these Resolutions is intended to indicate that the rule of Confirmation as conditioning admission to the Holy Communion must necessarily apply to the case of baptized persons who seek Communion under conditions which in the Bishop's judgement justify their admission thereto. (u) In cases in which it is impossible for the Bishop's judge ment to be obtained beforehand the priest should remember that he has no canonical authority to refuse Communion to any baptized person kneeUng before the Lord's Table (unless he be excommunicate by name, or, in the canonical sense of the term, a cause of scandal to the faithful) ; and that, if a question may properly be raised as to the future admission of any such person to Holy Communion, either because he has not been confirmed or for other reasons, the priest should refer the matter to the Bishop for counsel or direction. 13. The Conference recommends that, wherever it has not already been done, CouncUs representing all Christian Com munions should be formed within such areas as may be deemed most convenient, as centres of united effort to promote the physical, moral, and social welfare of the people, and the extension of the rule of Christ among all nations and over every region of human life. 14. It is important to the cause of reunion that every branch of the AngUcan Communion should develop the con stitutional government of the Church and should make a fuUer use of the capacities of its members for service. 15. The Conference urges on every branch of the AngUcan Communion that it should prepare its members for taking their part in the universal feUowship of the re-united Church, by setting before them the loyalty which they owe to the universal Church, and the charity and understanding which are required of the members of so inclusive a society. 16. We desire to express our profound thankfulness for the important movements towards unity which, during the last twelve years, have taken place in many parts of the world, and for the earnest desire for reunion which has been manifested both in our own Communion and among the Churches now separated from us. In particiUar, the Conference has heard -with sympathetic and hopeful interest of the preliminary meeting of the proposed 32 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, 192O World Conference on Faith and Order about to be held at Geneva, and earnestly prays that its deliberations may tend towards the reunion of the Christian Church. 17. We desire to express our deep sympathy with the Church of Russia in the terrible persecution which it has in many places suffered. We eamestiy trust that in the pro^vidence of God its difficulties may speedUy be removed, and that it may be enabled in renewed Hfe and strength so to carry on its work unhindered as to further, in the Hfe of the Russian people, whatsoever things are true and just, whatsoever things are lovely and of good report. 1 8 . The Conference heartUy thanks the CEcumenical Patriarch ate for the mission of the Metropolitan of Demotica and others to confer with its members on questions concerning the relations between the AngHcan and Eastern Churches, and expresses its grateful appreciation of the great help given to its Committee by the Delegation. 19. The Conference welcomes the appointment by the Arch bishop of Canterbury of an " Eastern Churches' Committee " on a permanent basis, in pursuance of Resolution 61 of the Conference of 1908 ; and looks forward hopefuUy to the work of that Com mittee, in conjunction ¦with simUar Committees appointed in Constantinople and Athens, as helping greatly to forward the cause of reunion with the Orthodox Church. 20. The Conference expresses its heartfelt sympathy with the Armenian, Assyrian, and Syrian Jacobite Christians in the persecutions which they have been caUed upon to endure, deplor ing ¦with indignation the terrible massacres that have taken place among them both before and during the Great War ; and earnestly prays that in the rearrangement of the poUtical affairs of the East they may be granted a righteous government and freedom from oppression for the future. 2 1 . The Conference has received with satisfaction its Com mittee's report of the investigations that have been made during the last twelve years with regard to the present doctrinal position of the Separated Churches of the East ; and, -without expressing an opinion as to the past, believes that- these investigations have gone far towards shewing that any errors as to the Incarnation of our Lord, which may at some period of their history have been attributed to them, have at any rate now passed away. RESOLUTIONS 33 22. The Conference repeats the proposal made by the Con ference of 1908 that, when any of the Separated Churches of the East desire closer relations with us, and wish for the estabhshment of occasional intercommunion, and give satisfactory assurances as to their faith, such relations should at once be estabUshed. 23. The Conference respectfully requests the Archbishop of Canterbury to take advantage of any opportunity that may arise to enter into friendly relations with these Churches, and to inform the authorities of the Orthodox Eastern Church of any steps that may be taken in the direction of intercommunion with them. SimUar action should be taken with regard tO in forming the MetropoUtans of our own Communion. 24. The Conference welcomes the Report of the Commission appointed after the last Conference entitled, " The Church of England and the Church of Sweden," and, accepting the con clusions there maintained on the succession of the Bishops of the Church of Sweden and the conception of the priesthood set forth in its standards, recommends that members of that Church, qualified to receive the Sacrament in their o^wn Church, should be admitted to Holy Communion in ours. It also recommends that on suitable occasions permission should be given to Swedish ecclesiastics to give addresses in our churches. If the authorities of any province of the AngUcan Com munion find local irregularities in the order or practice of the Church of Sweden outside that country, they may legitimately, within their own region, postpone any such action as is re commended in this Resolution untU they are satisfied that these irregularities have been removed. 25. We recommend further that in the event of an in^vitation being extended to an AngHcan Bishop or Bishops to take part in the consecration of a Swedish Bishop, the invitation should, if possible, be accepted, subject to the approval of the Metro poUtan. We also recommend that, in the first instance, as an evident token of the restoration of closer relations between the two Churches, if possible more than one of our Bishops should take part in the Consecration. 26. The Conference thanks the Old CathoHc Bishops for their explanation, in response to the letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury, of their action in consecrating the Rev. A. H. Mathew to the Episcopate in 1908, and repeats the desire expressed at previous Conferences to maintain and strengthen the friendly relations which exist between the Churches of the AngHcan Communion and the ancient Church of HoUand and D 34 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O the Old CathoUc Churches, especially in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. 27, We regret that on a review of aU the facts we are unable to regard the so-called Old CathoUc Church in Great Britain (under the late Bishop Mathew and his successors), anditsexten- sior»3 overseas, as a properly constituted Church, or to recognize the orders of its ministers, and we recommend that, in the event of any of its ministers desiring to join our communion, who are in other respects duly qualified, they should be ordained sub condition e in accordance ¦with the pro^visions suggested in the Report of our Committee. 28. The Conference recommends that the same course be foUowed, as occasion may require, in the case of persons claiming to have received consecration or ordination from any " episcopi vagantes," whose claims we are unable to recognize. 29. The Conference, whUe welcoming the Report of the Committee appointed by the Conference of 1908 on the Unitas Fratrum or Moravians, regrets that it is unable to recommend any such action being taken as is suggested in resolutions 70—72 of that Conference so long as the Unitas retains its practice of the administration of Confirmation and the celebration of Holy Communion by deacons, but hopes that, in the event of the Unitas changing its rules in these matters, negotiations ¦with indi^vidual Pro^vinces of the Unitas may be resumed, and beUeves that in this case there would be good prospect of such negotia tions being brought to a satisfactory conclusion. 30. We recommend ¦with a ¦view to this end that the Arch bishop of Canterbury be respectfuUy requested to reappoint with additional members the Committee appointed at the last Conference ; and we hope that, in the event of aU the remaining difficulties being removed to his satisfaction, ¦with the concurrence of the Central Consultative Body of the Lambeth Conference, the action suggested in the Resolutions of the Conference of 1908 may take place without further delay. 31. The Conference regrets that it is unable to recommend the acceptance of the proposals of the " Southern Synod " of the " Reformed Episcopal Church " in England for reunion ¦with the Church of England, and, whUe unable to ad-vise the acceptance of other proposals for corporate union -with the Reformed Episcopal Church, recommends that, if appHcations for admission RESOLUTIONS 35 into the English Church are made by individual ministers of that Communion, such appUcations should be sympatheti- caUy received, and the ministers, if in all respects equal to the standard and requirements of the Church of England, be ordained sub conditione. Missionary Problems. 32. The Conference declares its conviction that the present critical position of the world calls, as perhaps never before, for the presentation of Jesus Christ and His redemption to every race and indi^vidual ; and, in view of the urgent need for workers in many dioceses overseas, earnestly appeals to inen, both clerical and lay, and to women, to dedicate themselves to the service of the Church in those dioceses. 33. The normal method of missions is that in which the whole Church, within any area, acts as a missionary body ex pressly organized for that function, and the principle which underUes this method is capable of universal application. WhUe we humbly thank God for the work of the Missionary Societies, we consider that these Societies, where they exist, should not stand outside the one organization, but should be elements in it, co-ordinated, whether by a central ad^visory councU or otherwise, under the supreme Synodical Authority, but retaining severally such degrees of independence as the conditions of their efficiency demand. 34. The Conference thankfuUy recognizes the practical steps which Missionary Societies and Boards have taken towards the reaUzation of the ultimate aim of aU Mission work, namely, the estabhshment of seK-govemvng, self-supporting, and self-ex tending Churches, from which outside control has been ¦withdrawn at the earUest moment, so as to aUow the free expression of their national character. It would urge further that the caU for such action is in the present day more insistent than ever before, and beUeves that, generaUy speaking, the Societies and Boards can best achieve tiieir purpose by making their work centre from the first in the Church rather than in the mission organization, and in particular — (i) By the establishment of CouncUs which shall be fuUy representative of the congregations, and have real responsi- bUities of government ; D 2 36 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O (2) By substituting for committees and councUs represen tative chiefly of the mission and its subscribers, Diocesan Boards and Committees, and in general associating all their work with the Diocesan organization ; (3) By entrusting to these local bodies a real share in the financial control and general direction of the work of the Mission ; (4) By gi-ving the widest freedom to indigenous workers to develop the work in their own countries on fines in accordance with their national character. 35. The territorial Episcopate has been the normal develop ment in the Catholic Church, but we recognize that difference of race and language sometimes requires that pro^vision should be made in a Pro-vince for freedom of development of races side by side ; the solution in each case must be left with the Pro-vince, but we are clear that the ideal of the one Church should never be obscured. 36. WhUe maintaining the authority of the Book of Common Prayer as the Anglican standard of doctrine and pfactice, we consider that liturgical uniformity should not be regarded as a necessity throughout the Churches of the Anglican Communion. The conditions of the Church in many parts of the Mission Field render inappHcable the retention of that Book as the one fixed Hturgical model. 37. Although the inherent right of a Diocesan Bishop to put forth or sanction Hturgical forms is- subject to such limita tions as may be imposed by higher sjmodical authority, it is desirable that such authority should not be too rigidly exercised so long as those features are retained which are essential to the safeguarding of the unity of the AngHcan Communion, 38. The Conference recommends the appointment of a Com mittee of students of liturgical questions which would be ready to ad-vise any Diocese or Province on the Form and Matter of services proposed for adoption, and requests the Archbishop of Canterbury to take such steps as he deems best to give early effect to this Resolution. 39. It is of very real importance that the Marriage Law of the Church should be understood and administered as far as possible consistentiy, in aU parts of the AngHcan Communion, and the Conference commends to the consideration of the Church the suggestions of the Committee on Missionary Problems dealing with this subject which have been made after consultation with experts, and are contained in their Report. RESOLUTIONS 37 40. Whereas from time to time restrictions on Missionary Freedom have been imposed by Governments, we desire to reaffirm the duty which rests upon every Christian man and woman, of propagating the Faith of Christ, and to claim that any restrictions should be of a strictly temporary nature only, so that freedom of opportunity to fulfil this spiritual obUgation may be afforded to Christians of aU nationaUties. 41. On the subject of the relation of Governments and Govern ment officials to Christianity and other Faiths, the Conference gives its approval to the words used in paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 92 in the Report on Missionary Problems, and commends them to the careful consideration of aU concerned. 42. We gratefuUy acknowledge the valuable work done by British and American Missionary Conferences in safeguarding missionary interests, and beheve that such Conferences, both National and International, whUe claiming no coercive power, have a great part to play in fostering international understanding and goodwill, co-ordinating work, formulating common policies, and ser-ving as a practical medium of communication between Missions and Governments in matters of general Missionary concern. Development of Provinces. 43. Whereas it is undesirable that Dioceses should remain indefinitely in isolation or attached only to a distant Province, the gradual creation of new Pro-vinces should be encouraged, and each newly founded Diocese should as soon as possible find its place as a constituent member in some neighbouring Pro-vince. The fact that Dioceses proposing to form a Province owe their origin to missions of different Branches of the AngUcan Com munion need be no bar to such action. {a) In the opinion of the Conference four is the minimum number of Dioceses suitable to form a Pro^vince. No nuraber should be considered too great to form a Province, so long as the Bishops and other representatives of the Diocese are able convenientiy to meet for mutual consultation and for the trans action of pro^vincial business. (h) In the initiation of any Pro^vince in the future, the organization which the Conference deems essential to provincial Ufe is a House or CoUege of Bishops to which the MetropoUtans or the Presiding Bishops concerned have conveyed their authority for the consecration of Bishops. It is desirable that when a 38 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, 192O new Province is formed the Bishops of the constituent Dioceses should transfer their aUegiance to the MetropoUtan of the Province or other authority constitutionaUy appointed to receive it, and thereafter aU Bishops consecrated for the service of the Pro^vince should take the oath of canonical obedience to the MetropoUtan or make a declaration of conformity to other authority before mentioned. (c) In newly established Provinces arrangements should be made whereby the Pro^vince should have some distinct voice in the election of its MetropoUtan. {d) As to the sedes of the MetropoHtan customs vary and the decision must depend on local circumstances. {e) UntU a Missionary Diocese becomes largely self-supporting and is self-governed by a Synod the appointment of its Bishop should rest with the Province to which it is attached, after consultation -with the Diocese and in such a way as the Province may decide. (/) A newly constituted Synod of Bishops shaU proceed as soon as possible to associate with itself in some official way the clergy and laity of the Province, pro^vided that in the case of Pro^vinces including Missionary Dioceses this procedure shall be subordinate to local circumstances. It is understood that each national and regional Church wUl determine its own con stitutional and canonical enactments. Consultative Body. 44. In order to prevent misapprehension the Conference declares that the Consultative Body, created by the Lambeth Conference of 1897 and consoHdated by the Conference of 1908, is a purely advisory Body. It is of the nature of a continuation Committee of the whole Conference and neither possesses nor claims any executive or administrative power. It is framed so as to represent aU branches of the Anglican Communion and it offers advice only when advice is asked for. (a) The existing Consultative Body shall be reconstructed on the foUowing plan of representation : — It shall consist of the Archbishop of Canterbury (ex-qfficio) and of representative Bishops appointed as foUows : Province of Canterbury i. Province of York i. Province of Wales i, the Church of Ireland i, the Episcopal Church in Scotland i, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America 4, the Church of England in Canada i, the Church of England in the Dioceses of AustraUa and Tasmania i, the Church of the Pro^vince of New Zealand i, the Church of the Province of the West Indies i, the Church of resolutions 39 the Pro^vince of South Africa i, the Church of the Pro^vince of India and Ceylon i, the Churches in China and Japan and the Diocese of Corea i, the Missionary and other extra-provincial Bishops under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury i. Total i8. {b) The Churches that appoint Representatives shall be free to fix the method of appointment, whether by the House of Bishops or by Sjmod or Convention. A representative Bishop shall be appointed for a definite term not exceeding six years, and need not be a member of the body which appoints him. Any vacancy by death, resignation, or other cause, during the term of office shall be filled by the Church in the representation of which the vacancy occurs. (c) For the purpose of appointing the Bishop who is to represent the body of missionary and other extra-provincial Bishops under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, each of those Bishops shall be requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury to nominate a Bishop to him. "The list of Bishops so nominated shall be then sent to aU the Bishops entitled to vote, and each of them shaU, if he thinks fit to vote, send to the Arch bishop the name of the one in that Hst for whom he votes. The largest number of votes shall carry the election. (d) The Central Consultative Body shall be prepared to consider questions referred to it by any Bishop, but shaU, before considering as weU as in considering them, have careful regard to any limitations upon such references as may be imposed by the regulations of Pro'vinces or of national or regional Churches. (e) The Consultative Body shaU not at any meeting come to a decision on any subject not named in the notice summoning the meeting. 45. The Consultative Body is asked to take into its considera tion the pro'visions of the Colonial Clergy Act with a view to their modification. The Position of Women in the Councils and Ministrations OF the Church. 46. Women should be admitted to those CouncUs of the Church towhich laymen are admitted, and on equal terms. Diocesan, Pro^vincial, or National Synods may decide when or how this principle is to be brought into effect. 47. The tune has come when, in the interests of the Church at large, and in particular of the development of the Ministry of 40 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Women, the Diaconate of Women should be restored formaUy and canonicaUy, and should be recognized throughout the Anglican Communion. 48. The Order of Deaconesses is for women the one and only Order of the Ministry which has the stamp of ApostoUc approval, and is for women the only Order of the Ministry which we can recommend that our Branch of the CathoUc Church should recognize and use. 49. The office of a Deaconess is primarily a ministry of suc cour, bodily and spiritual, especiaUy to women, and should foUow the lines of the primitive rather than of the modern Diaconate of men. It should be understood that the Deaconess dedicates herself to a Hfelong ser^vice, but that no vow or impHed promise of celibacy should be required as necessary for admission to the Order. Nevertheless, Deaconesses who desire to do so may legitimately pledge themselves either as members of a Community, or as individuals, to a ceUbate Hfe. 50. In every Branch of the AngHcan Communion there should be adopted a Form and Manner of Making of Deaconesses such as might fitiy find a place in the Book of Common Prayer, con taining in all cases pro^vision for : — (a) Prayer by the Bishop and the laying on of his hands ; (6) A formula gi-ving authority to execute the Office of a Deaconess in the Church of God ; (c) The deUvery of the New Testament by the Bishop to each candidate. 51. The Forms for the Making and Ordering of Deaconesses should be of the same general character, and as far as possible simUar in their most significant parts, though varjnng in less important detaUs in accordance with local needs, 52. The foUowing functions may be entrusted to the Deaconess, in addition to the ordinary duties which would naturally fall to her : — (a) To prepare candidates for Baptism and Confirmation ; (b) To assist at the administration of Holy Baptism ; and to be the administrant in cases of necessity in -virtue of her office ; (c) To pray with and to give counsel to such women as desire help in difficulties and perplexities. (d) With the approval of the Bishop and of the Parish Priest, and under such conditions as shall from time to time be laid down by the Bishop : (i) in Church to read Morning and Evening RESOLUTIONS 4I Prayer and the Litany, except such portions as are assigned to the Priest only ; (U) in Church also to lead in prayer and, under Ucence of the Bishop, to instruct and exhort the Congregation. [Note. — Clause d (u) was carried by 117 votes to 81.] 53. Opportunity should be given to women as to men (duly qualified and approved by the Bishop) to speak in consecrated or unconsecrated buUdings, and to lead in prayer, at other than the regular and appointed ser^vices of the Church, Such diocesan arrangements, both for men and for women, should wherever possible be subject to Provincial control and co ordination, 54. The Conference recommends that careful inquiry should be made in the several branches of the AngHcan Communion as to the position and recognition of women workers in the Church, the conditions of their employment, and the remuneration of those who receive salaries. Spiritualism, Christian Science, Theosophy. 55. We reaffirm our conviction that the revelation of God in Christ Jesus is the supreme and sufficient message given to aU mankind, whereby we may attain to eternal life. We recognize that modern movements of thought connected with SpirituaHsm, Christian Science, and Theosophy join with the Christian Church in protesting: agciinst a materialistic ¦view of the universe and at some points emphasize partiaUy neglected aspects of truth. At the same time, we feel bound to call attention to the fact that both in the underl5dng phUosophy and in cults and practices which have arisen out of these movements, the teaching given or implied either ignores or explains away or contradicts the unique and central fact of human history, namely, the Incarna tion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 56. We recognize that new phenomena of consciousness have been presented to us, which claim, and at the hands of competent psychologists have received, careful investigation, and, as far as possible, the appUcation of scientific method. But such scientific researches have confessedly not reached an advanced stage, and we are supported by the best psychologists in warning our people against accepting as final theories which further knowledge may disprove, and stiU more against the in discriminate and undiscipUned exercise of psychic powers, and^ the habit of recourse to sMnces, " seers," and mediums, 42 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Spiritualism. 57. The Conference, whUe prepared to expect and welcome new Hght from psychical research upon the powers and processes of the spirit of man, urges strongly that a larger place should be given in the teaching of the Church to the explanation of the true grounds of Christian behef in eternal life, and in immortaUty, and of the true content of belief in the Communion of Saints as involving real feUowship ¦with the departed through the love of God in Christ Jesus. 58. The Conference, whUe recognizing that the results of in vestigation have encouraged many people to find a spiritual meaning and purpose in human Hfe and led them to beUeve in sur^vival after death, sees grave dangers in the tendency to make a religion of spiritualism. The practice of spirituaUsm as a cult involves the subordination of the inteUigence and the wiU to un known forces or personalities and, to that extent, an abdication of the self-control to which God has caUed us. It tends to divert attention from the approach to God through the one Mediator, Jesus Christ, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ; to ignore the discipline of faith as the path of spiritual training ; and to depreciate the divinely ordained channds of grace and truth re vealed and given through Jesus Christ our Lord. Christian Science. 59. The Conference finds that whUe Christian Science fixes attention on the supremacy of spirit, yet in the teaching given there is a direct tendency [a] to pantheistic doctrine, and at the same time ib) to a false antithesis between spirit and matter, and (c) to the denial of the reahty of sin, and {d) to the denial of the reaUty of disease and suffering. Such teaching, therefore, cannot be reconcUed with the fundamental truths of the Christian Faith and the teaching of Scripture on atonement, penitence, for giveness, and feUowship in the sufferings of Christ. 60. The Conference reminds the Church that intimate com munion with God has been the privUege and joy of the Saints in every age. This communion, realised in union with Christ through the Holy Spuit, influences the whole personality of man, physical and spiritual, enabhng him to share his Lord's triumph over sin, disease and death. 61. We therefore urge upon the clergy of the Anglican Communion the duty of a more thorough study of the many- sided enterprise of prayer in order that they may become more efficient teachers and trainers of their people in this work, so RESOLUTIONS 43 that through the daily practice of prayer and meditation the corporate faith of the Church may be renewed, and the fruit of the Spirit may be more manifest in the daily lives of professing Christians, and the power of Christ to heal may be released. 62. We declare our thankfulness for the devoted labours of those engaged in scientific research and for the progress made in medicine, surgery, nursing, hygiene and sanitation. Believing that all these means of healing and preventing disease and remo^ving suffering are gifts that come from God, we acknowledge our duty to use them faithfuUy for the welfare of mankind. 63. For the general guidance of the Church the Conference re quests the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a Committee to consider and report as early as possible upon the use with prayer of the la5dng on of hands, of the unction of the sick and other spiritual means of healing, the findings of such a Committee to be reported forthwith to the authorities of the national, pro'vincial and regional Churches of the Anglican Communion. Theosophy. 64. The Conference, whUe recognizing that the three pubUcIy stated objects of the Theosophical Society (see Report, p. 126) do not in themselves appear to be inconsistent with loyal member ship of the Church, desires to express its conviction that there are cardinal elements in the positive teaching current in theosoph ical circles and Hterature which are irreconcilable with the Christian faith as to the Person and mission of Christ and with the missionary claim and duty of the Christian religion as the message of God to all mankind. The Conference warns Christian people who may be induced to make a study of theosophy by the seemingly Christian elements contained in it to be on their guard against the ultimate bearing of theosophiccd teaching, and urges them to examine strictly the character and creden tials of the teachers upon whose authority they are encouraged or compeUed to rely. 65. The Conference, beUeving that the attraction of Theosophy for some Christian people Hes largely in its pre sentation of Christian faith as a quest for knowledge, recom mends that in the current teaching of the Church due regard should be given to the mystical elements of faith and Ufe which underUe the historic beUef of Christendom, and on the other hand urges all thinking people to safeguard their Christian position by a f uUer study of the Bible, Creed, and Sacraments in the Hght of sound Christian scholarship and phUosophy. 44 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality. 66. Recognizing that to live a pure and chaste life before and after marriage is, for both sexes, the unchangeable Christian standard, attainable and attained through the help of the Holy Spirit by men and women in every age, the Conference desires to proclaim the universal obligation of this standard, and its vital importance as an essential condition of human happiness. 67. The Conference affirms as our Lord's principle and standard of marriage a life-long and indissoluble union, for better for worse, of one man -with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, and caUs on all Christian people to maintain and bear -witness to this standard. Nevertheless, the Conference admits the right of a national or regional Church within our Communion to deal with cases which fall within the exception mentioned in the record of our Lord's words in St. Matthew's Gospel, under provisions which such Church may lay down. The Conference, while fuUy recognizing the extreme difficulty of governments in framing marriage laws for citizens many of whom do not accept the Christian standard, expresses its firm beUef that in every country the Church should be free to bear witness to that standard through its powers of adminis tration and discipHne exercised in relation to its own members. 68. The Conference, whUe declining to lay down rules which wiU meet the needs of every abnormal case, regards with grave concern the spread in modern society of theories and practices hostUe to the family. We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers — physical, moral, and religious — thereby incurred, and against the e-vUs with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In oppo sition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of chUdren; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self- control. We desire solemnly to commend what we have said to Christian peopleVand to all who wiU hear. RESOLUTIONS 45 69. The Conference, moved by responsible statements from many nations as to the prevalence of venereal diseases, bringing suffering, paralysis, insanity, or death to many thousands of the innocent as well as the guUty, supports all efforts which are consistent with high moral stcftidards to check the causes of the diseases and to treat and, if possible, cure the victims. We impress upon the clergy and members of the Church the duty of joining with physicians and pubUc authorities in meeting this scourge, and urge the clergy to guide those who turn to them for advice with knowledge, sympathy, and directness. The Con ference must condemn the distribution or use, before exposure to infection, of so-called prophylactics, since these cannot but be regarded as an invitation to -vice. 70. The Conference urges the importance of enUsting the help of all high-principled men and women, whatever be their religious beliefs, in co-operation with or, if necessary, in bringing pressure to bear upon, authorities both national and local, for removing such incentives to vice as indecent Hterature, suggestive plays and films, the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels. 71. With regard to the education of the young in matters of sex, the Conference presses upon parents that the duty of giving right teaching on these subjects rests primarUy with them, and that it is the duty of aU persons giving such instruction to prepare themselves for this responsible task. Boys and girls should be guarded against the danger of acquiring knowledge of sexual subjects from -wrong persons and in wrong ways. 72. Bearing in remembrance the example of our Lord, and the prominent place that He gave in His ministry to protecting the weak and raising the faUen, the Conference deplores the common apathy of Church people in regard to Preventive and Rescue Work, and urges on Bishops, Clergy, and aU Christian people the duty of taking a more active share in this essential part of the Church's life. SocLiL AND Industrial Questions. 73, We desire to emphasize our con-viction that the pursuit of mere self-interest, whether indi-vidual or corporate, -wUl never bring healing to the wounds of Society, This conviction is at once exemplified and reinforced by what has happened in and since the War. Nor is this less true when that self-interest is 46 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O equipped -with every advantage of science and education. Our only hope Hes in reverent aUegiance to the Person of Christ, whose Law is the Law of Love, in acceptance of His principles, and reliance on His power. 74. An outstanding and pressing duty of the Church is to con vince its members of the necessity of nothing less than a funda mental change in the spirit and working of our economic life. This change can only be effected by accepting as the basis of industrial relations the principle of co-operation in service for the common good in place of unrestricted competition for private or sectional advantage, AU Christian people ought to take an active part in bringing about this change, by which alone we can hope to remove class dissensions and [resolve industrial discords, 75. The Church cannot in its corporate capacity be an advocate or partisan, " a judge or a di-vider," in poUtical or class disputes where moral issues are not at stake : nevertheless even in matters of economic and political controversy the Church is boimd to give its positive and active corporate witness to the Christian principles of justice, brotherhood, and the equal and infinite value of every human personaUty. 76. In obedience to Christ's teaching as to covetousness and self-seeking, the Conference calls upon aU members of His Church to be' foremost both by personal action and sacrifice in main taining the superiority of the claims of human Hfe to those of property. To this end it would emphasize the duty which is laid upon aU Christians of setting human values above di-vidends and profits in their conduct of business, of avoiding extravagance and waste, and^^ of upholding a high standard of honour and thoroughness in work. In a word, they must set an example in subordinating the claim for rights to the call of duty. 77. Members of the Church are bound to take an active part, by pubUc action and by personal service, in remo-ving those abuses which depress and ^impoverish human life. In company with other citizens and organizations they should work for reform, and particularly for such measures as wUI secure the better care of chUdren, including real opportunity for an adequate education ; protection of the workers against unemplojmaent ; and the provision of healthy homes, 78. The Church is bound to use its influence to remove inhu man or oppressive conditions of labour in aU parts of the world. RESOLUTIONS 47 especially among the weaker races, and to give its full support to those clauses in the League of Nations Covenant which aim at raising by international agreement the status of industrial workers in aU countries. 79. The Conference notes -with deep interest the prohibition by the -wiU of the people of the sale and manufacture of intoxicating drinks in the RepubUc of the United States of America, and of their sale in most of the Provinces of Canada, and commends this action to the earnest and sympathetic attention of the Christian Church throughout the world. The Conference urges members of the Church in other countries — (i) To support such legislation as -wUl lead to a speedy reduc tion in the use of intoxicants ; (2) To recognize the duty of combating the e-vU of intemperance by personal example and •wUling self-sacrifice. 80. If the Church is to ¦witness without reproach for justice and brotherhood in the world, it must shew itseU serious and insistent in reforming abuses •within its o^wn organization, and in promoting brotherhood among its o^wn members. Further, if Christian witness is to be fuUy effective it must be borne by nothing short of the whole body of Christian people. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES N.B.— TAe following Reports must be taken as having the authority only of the Committees by whom they were respectively prepared and presented. The Committees were not in every case unanimous in adopting the Reports. The Conference, as a whole, is responsible only for the formal Resolutions agreed to after discussion, and printed above, *^* An asterisk placed after the name of any Member of Committee denotes that he was unable to attend any of the Meetings of that Committee. No. I. Report of the CoMMiTTEEf Appointed to Consider and Report upon the Subject of Christianity and International Relations, especially the League of Nations. We are in no doubt as to the main tenor of our message. Humanity has suffered long years, and, for aU its expenditure of blood and treasure, has been " nothing bettered," but is rather grown worse, and is now feeUng dimly for the hem of His garment by whose power alone it may be made whole. One by one our human expedients have faUed. Defensive arma ments on the principle si vis pacem, para helium, alHances to secure the balance of power, the efforts of noble minded diplomatists through the concert of Europe, and the far-seeing pronouncements of experts in international law, aU have con tributed their quota, but the world's wound is not healed, and now the League of Nations^ — the latest and greatest of all human expedients — is painfuUy struggUng into Ufe. What is the moral of aU this ? The moral is that the social order for which humanity hungers is beyond the reach of merely human expedients. Nothing wUl estabUsh peace on the earth but a new creation from God in response to repentance and prayer. At the present moment there are two alternatives before the world. On the one hand we may relapse into the old conditions, with an attempted balance of power, and the piUng up of arma ments with their attendant expenditure, untU the world is ready for another and even more hideous war. On the other hand, we may work for the ideal for mankind which shines before us in the pages of the New Testament, guided by the principles which we have learnt from the Lord Jesus Christ. ¦j- Names of Members of the Committee : — ¦ Bishop of Aberdeen* Bishop of Mombasa* Bishop of Adelaide. Bishop of Natal. Bishop in Argentina. Bishop of New -Westminster, Bishop of Arizona. Bishop of North Carolina. Archbishop of Brisbane ifikairman). Bishop of Southern Rhodesia* Bishop of Connecticut. Archbishop of Nova Scotia, Bishop in Corea* Bishop Oluwole, Bishop of Durham. Bishop of Oxford, Bishop of George, Bishop Roach (Natal Assistant Bishop of Kalgoorlie* Bishop), Bishop of Kampala (Secretary). Bishop of Sodor and Man, Bishop of Kimberley, Bishop of Southwell, Bishop of Kwangsi. Bishop of -Washington. Bishop of Lichfield. Archbishop of ^West Indies. Bishop of Lincoln* Bishop of -Winchester, Bishop of Maryland. Bishop of -Worcester. Bishop of Massachusetts. Bishop of Zanzibar, 5' E2 52 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O I. The Di-vine Purpose. The ideal for human Hfe hangs before Christian eyes in the form of a perfect city through whose ever-open gates the nations and their rulers bring their several distinctive contributions of strength or beauty. The Vision of the Apocalypse sets before us the ultimate consummation in the mind of God of the spiritual development of the nations. In the City of God there is no merging of indi-viduaUty in a common impersonal existence. Not only the individual, but the nations, ¦wUl there reaUze themselves and achieve maturity. The glory of the Kingdom wiU be the sum total of the glory of the nations, not some new thing in which the nations wUl be submerged and disappear. " The kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." And, again, the nations of the earth wiU enter upon this fuU spiritual maturity in proportion as they rise out of the self- seeking, the pride, the avarice, the dishonesty which at present stain poUtical relations. " There shaU in no wise enter into it anything that defUeth or maketh a lie," This may seem an elusive conception, but it is essential that aU who are working for the world's progress — the statesmen, the teachers, the leaders of commerce — should take hold of the ideal, not as opportunists, but as master-buUders, working to a divine plan. The principles of true progress, imperfectly recognized in all higher morality, are brought into simpUcity, coherence and fulness in Jesus Christ. They are disclosed in His precepts, and embodied in His example : " "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." The law of unselfish human neighbourUness is expressly declared as fundamental. It gives the principle which must be appHed to aU human relations. Three appUcations of it stand out as germane to the subject before us. (i) First, there is the duty and dignity of service, and the consequent responsibiUty of the nations for the service of each other and of the whole, " He that is great " is to be " as he that doth serve." The Son of Man came as he that serveth. It foUows that a nation's chiefest claim to greatness is its con sciousness of a mission to humanity. Not in domination, but in service, not in wiU-to-power, but in wUl-to-help, not in exploita tion, but in trusteeship, lies the true objective of a great nation. (2) Closely connected with this is another cardinal principle expressed in the ApostoUc words : — " Ye are members one of another." It is our Christian duty to recognize that already all the nations, advanced or backward, chUd races or ancient civUizations, are each of them chUdren in the great f amUy of God. Statesmen thinking for their nation no less than indi^viduals must lay hold of the truth that we are members one of another, CHRISTUNITY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 53 and that no national poUcy can be Christian which ignores the needs and rightful claims of other nations. Neither markets nor territory nor cheap labour must in the future dictate national poUcy, but only the principles of justice, and the rights of aU. If we reaUy want peace we must set our faces decisively against the vested interests which have so often in the past stood behind governments, and vitiated their action. (3) A third principle is that which comes direct from our Lord's treatment of the chUd and of the little one. With even fierce emphasis He warns us against the misuse of strength. " Take heed that ye despise not one of these Httle ones ... It > were better for him that a miUstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the depths of the sea." This bears with unmistakeable clearness upon the relations of the stronger races to ;^; those that are weaker and more backward. And we note ¦with thankfulness that the trend of pubUc opinion has of late set strongly against the exploitation of the weaker races in the interests of the strong. But this responsibility of strong nations involves more than the mere pro^vision of safeguards against wrong : it includes the sympathetic encouragement of those instincts of nationhood which appear as soon as young nations emerge from infancy. The desire to escape from tutelage and to de elop individuality denotes a genuine growth towards a fuUer Ufe, and to oppose or ignore this instinct, is to incur danger : the road to inter- nationaUsm, as it has been weU said, " lies through nationalism." But it is weU to remember that as the consummation of individu- aUty is found in the corporate life, so the fuU development of nationhood is ."contingent upon the acceptance of international obligations. True nationaUsm and a keen sense of international responsibiUty are in truth indispensable correlatives. In these three appHcations of the law of love may be seen the duty of the nations in their progress towards the City of God ; and lest any should suppose that these ideas are Utopian, it is weU to point out that the ultimate force, in the last analysis, is not physical, but moral. We aU know the common belief that it is the big battaUons that have their way. No assertion can be more baseless. The progress of the world has usuaUy been in spite of big battaUons, and " nothing is ever settled untU it is settled right." We look forward to the day when war between nations wiU be unthinkable, precisely as duels have become unthinkable in civiUzed society, because public opinion wUl not tolerate these absurd and horrible ways of settUng disputes. Let us not forget the lesson of the last six years. The nation that had the best trained army in Europe has been defeated. The nation tfiat was richest in munitions of war has lost, because against her were the moral forces of ci^viUzation. 54 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O II. The League of Nations,* In the League of Nations we have an instrument in the application of these great principles, which aU Christians should welcome ¦with both hands. It is no fruit of a sudden unpulse : it is strictly in the line of historical development, and cro^wns the efforts of nations and statesmen from Hugo Grotius to the Hague Conference of 1907, Before we go. further, however, it is worth whUe to remark that its normal and fundamental purpose cannot be fuUUled tUl normal conditions are restored. It exists in tune of peace to prevent war ; but we do not yet Hve in times of peace. We may group the clauses of the Covenant of the League under two great heads — those which provide (to quote from the preamble of the Covenant) for the promotion of " international peace and security," and those which provide for " international co-operation " for the safe-guarding of the weak. It is obvious that both these great objectives are based upon the Christian principles already enunciated, (i) If the clauses aiming at the prevention of war are not to be a dead letter, we must preach ¦with aU our power, in season and out of season, in the dra-wing-room and in the market-place, in the workshop and in the club, the -wickedness of hatred. This at the moment is the most appaUing barrier in the way of the League of Nations. In every country at the present time the spirit of hatred is at work. Even among the most Christian of our people we find it active beneath the surface and colouring men's attitude. In many cases this spirit is naked and unashamed, and sings its songs of hatred in fierce defiance ; but it is most dangerous when it seems to those who entertain it to be the expression of righteous indignation. They are honestly afraid of ceasing to be angry from mere indolence and indifference. They remember the wickedness and cruelties, and fear lest the world should grow corrupt by loss of a righteous zeal against them. In some cases it is injuries done to other nations and not their own which they want not to forget. A great responsibiUty rests in this matter -with the Press ; for the maintenance or the discouragement of hatred lies mainly there. We must face the facts. If we -wish, whether nation or indi^vidual, to enjoy the luxury of hatred, we must pay the price, and the price is another and far more hideous war as soon as ever the nations have sufficiently recovered from their present exhaustion. The very horror of the thought should give us pause : * The American Bishops of the Committee are cordially agreed in the principle of a League of Nations, but feel obliged to -withhold their support of the existing Covenant without certain reservations. CHRISTIANITY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 55 one would think that the ine-vitable consequences would frighten men out of their hatred ; but we should prefer to take higher ground than this. The whole spirit is an utter denial of our Christian caUing. We must choose between the spirit of hatred and the spirit of the Lord's Prayer. Is Christendom reaUy so utterly bankrupt of the spirit of Christ ? As a practical example of our duty in this matter, it is in cumbent on aU Christian people to press for the admission of Germany and other nations into the League at the very earliest moment that the conditions render it possible. (2) In the mandatory clauses of the Covenant, we see not only an appUcation of Christ's injunction to safeguard the weak, but also a new instrument of unprecedented power for securing justice by international consent. Whatever be the difficulties in the way of effective operation on the political side, the League has already she-wn abundant promise in this matter of promoting common international interests, A conspicuous instance of this is the international labour organization in connection with the League. We understand on good authority that this body has accompHshed more in eight months for the regulation and betterment of industrial conditions than had been accomplished in years by the old methods of dealing with international affairs. This opens out vistas of hope in other directions. For instance, in China the old abuse of the opium traffic has of late been revived, though morphia is substituted for opium,* The sale of arms and Hquor to native races, and stUl more urgently, the White Slave traffic, have occupied and baffled the energies of philanthropists for years past. In all these great international moral interests any progress made has been mainly, if not entirely, * The importance of the subject of opium and other habit-forming drugs is e-videnced by the place it occupies in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and the text of the Treaty of Peace. Art. 23 (c) of the Covenant deals with it in common with the traffic in women and children. Art. 295 of the Treaty, referring to the Opium Convention of 191 2 and the Special Protocol of 1914, pro^vides that ratification of the Treaty involves ratifica tion of the Convention and Protocol. In the meantime, through failure specifically of Great Britain, the United States of America, and Japan, morphia, chiefly of European and American manufacture, is going into China in increasing quantity. The figures given by Dr. -VVu Lien-Teh in his article on the " Latest Phase of the Narcotic Problem," in the Peking and Tientsin Times of April 5th, 1920, are as follows : I9II 5j tons I9I2 7i .. I9I3 . iij I9I4 ¦ 14 I9I5 . 16 1916 . 16 I9I7 22^ I9I8 22I 1919 . 28 Immediate and drastic measures should be taken by the governments eoijcerned to bring to a speedy end so shameful a condition of afiairs. 56 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O due to the initiative and pressure of religious organizations. In the face of great inertia, conventions and conferences have been held, although,in consequence perhaps of inadequate method, they have not proved very effective. The organizations under the League wiU not only provide a vastly superior machinery, but the moral influence of the nations behind them ¦wUl be a guarantee that the findings of future conferences -wUl be effectively carried out. In one direction, especiaUy, we look to the future with eager hope, AU over the world, and especiaUy in South and East Africa, questions are arising through the conflicting interests of native races and white settlers. It is ob-vious to the Christian conscience that full justice must be done to the natives in regard to both the tenure of land and to any employment of their labour which involves -virtual slavery. We welcome in this connexion the clear statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the House of Lords on July 14th, 1920, that except for certain specified purposes of genuinely public utility, " it is iUegal to use force to procure labour in our East African possessions for any purpose whatever." Yet the temptation is stUl -with us to confiscate the land, and to enslave the labour of the native races. The principle of the League involves an absolutely equal claim to justice for the natives and omselves before the recognized tribunal, and, -with edl Christians whose consciences have been troubled by what we cannot help calUng the shifty policy of governments in these matters, we haU the League of Nations, with its mandatory principles, as the very aUy for which, in the past, we have looked and longed in vain. III. The Immediate Situation. We turn from the bright future to the situation of to-day. It is useless to shut our eyes to the fact that, judged by the measure of pubUc interest, the League of Nations is as yet only hovering on the verge of existence. The smaUer nations, it is true, shew eagerness ; but this can hardly be said of the govern ments of the great nations, either in Europe or elsewhere. Russia is stUl an unknown quantity ; America hesitates ; and Germany is stiU outside. WhUe individual statesmen are working with noble zeal and devotion, it is obvious that the task is too great for them, unless they can count upon the fuU support of the spiritual forces of civUization. How can we get to work ? First, we shall press for a fair trial of the League itself — for its practical inauguration to the fuUest extent. It is becoming clear, even to the outsider, that there are imperfections in the machinery of the Covenant ; and this lays the nations open to a natural temptation to ignore it and seek a solution of difficulties along other channels. Let us frankly face the possibUity that the machinery may require CHRISTIANITY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 57 amendment ; for nothing could be worse than the perpetuation of an instrument to which everyone would pay homage, but which in practice would only be a cover for decisions reached by other means. MeanwhUe our own immediate duty is to press for an active propaganda throughout the world. Everywhere we meet with much ignorance and indifference, and there is not a Httle reasoned scepticism. These obstacles must be overcome ; and the first necessity is a campaign of education throughout the British Commonwealth and the Republic of the United States, for which we must claim aU the coUective movements of our time making for genuine internationaUsm. (i) Ready to hand is the League of Nations Union, the recog nized organization for the propaganda of the League which should have in every place the Church's active co-operation and support. From this Union we shaU ask for Hterature of an educational kind, books on international questions for study circles, schemes of intercession, and administrative methods whereby branches shaU be systematicaUy formed throughout the world and their leaders kept in close touch ¦with headquarters. (2) We shaU claim in the next place the co-operation and prac tical abiUty of those who form in each free nation so large a section of the people, the organized workers themselves. " The project of the League of Nations," as one of their own leaders has just said, " is the keystone of the new social order that nations desire to build." In the International Labour Conference set up " in connexion with the League of Nations 41 nations are already represented. And already practical issues are ¦within sight. For instance, if the proposals of the Washington Con ference (November 1919) are carried into effect, the result -wiU be that in Japan chUd-labour below the age of 14 wUl be pro hibited, a weekly rest-day established, and the working-day reduced from 11 to 9 J hours. (3) Further organizations are the International Chamber of Commerce, and the Institute for International Affairs. In connexion with the first of these, representative business men from the leading nations are seeking to restore normal conditions, to obviate friction, to foster trade between the various nations. In the Institute is to be welcomed a valuable centre for the inter change of precise knowledge between leaders of public opinion, with a view to a constructive poUcy in international affairs. Beside those of a more political and economic character, we look with hope to two definitely spiritual movements. (4) The World AUiance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches is one of them. Though temporarily hindered by the war, this Alliance is now developing rapidly, and in the Conference to be held in Geneva in August 1920 the representa tives of twenty nations are expected : it may weU grow into a potent ally of the League of Nations Union on the spiritual side. 58 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O (5) The other movement is that world-^wide organisation of young men and women, the impressive significance of which is not yet, we beheve, sufficiently understood. The Student Christian Movement, touching, as it does, the students of all nations at an impressionable time, may become a mighty instrument for propagating the spirit of peace. Already the Universities and CoUeges of forty States are represented in it. The youth of the nations is streaming through its gates, and at any given moment the membership may be reckoned at 200,000. But in all propaganda we must clearly begin with ourselves. We must seek in ourselves and in our feUow Christians a re adjustment of our ideas for the extension of Christ's Kingdom, and leam to preach the cause of a worldwide good-wUl as we preach the cause of a world^wide gospel. In our Church Assem- bUes and CouncUs, whether National, Provincial, Diocesan or Parochial, internationaUsm must take its place as an integral part of the Kingdom of Christ which we stand to promote. The work of propaganda is comparatively easy. More difficult is it to meet the scepticism of practical men who see the undoubted dangers which must ever beset leadership in the cause of peace. There are those who say that in taking up mandates aU over the world the British Commonwealth is exposing herself in a score of ¦vulnerable places to the machina tions of dangerous goUtical agents. Again, they note that so far Britain is almost alone in the offering of men and money for the poUce work of the League ; and again there is a danger at home in the impatience of those who press for immediate disarmament ¦without reference to the facts of the situation. We do not in the least minimize these dangers, but we appeal to aU those who are held back by these or kindred scruples, to view the matter in the Christian way, and to have the courage of faith. If peace is to be achieved, risks must be taken. Most of us decided when the war broke out that it is not God's wUl that we should break up society by laying down our arms and refusing the responsibUities of war. But our ¦very decision should make us more alert to discern where risks should legitimately be taken. We believe that in supporting the League of Nations, we are caUed upon to take the risks involved in a frank and open policy of peace. We beheve that a bold venture of faith wiU rally to the League aU the unmeasured forces of goodwiU which are latent in the nations of the earth. There is, in our judgement, no other way. The course we urge is a course based upon repentance for the past and bold faith in the call of God's Spirit for the future. If penitence and faith be found in the earth, then the materials will be there for that new creation from God which is the one hope of a corrupt and stricken world. (Signed) St. CLAIR BRISBANE, Chairman, - No. IL Report of the CoMMiTTEEf Appointed to Consider the Opportunity and Duty of the Church in Regard to Industrial and Social Problems. The Opportunity. The difficulty of this present time is the measure of the Church's opportunity. It is part of the heritage of war that our social and industrial problems should press upon us with redoubled insistence. But the turmoU among the nations has opened to the Church a door of ¦witness and of service. (i) The war shewed us the inevitable result of the attempt to btuld up ci'vUization on selfishness and force. The doctrine that national power is an end in itself, and that self-interest t Names of Members of the Committee : — Bishop of Adelaide Bishop of Nebraska Bishop of Antigua Bishop of Newark Bishop of Auckland Bishop of Newcastle (N.S.W.) Bishop of Barking Bishop of North Queensland Bishop of Bradford Bishop of Olympia" Bishop of Buckingham Bishop of Ontario* Bishop of Calcutta* Bishop of Persia Bishop of Cashel Bishop of Peterborough Bishop of Chelmsford* Bishop of Riverina Bishop of Coventry Bishop of Rockhampton Bishop Crossley Bishop of St. Albans Bishop of Croydon Bishop of St, Andrews* Bishop of Dover Bishop of St, Edmundsbury Bishop of Fredericton Bishop of Sheffield Bishop Garland Bishop of South Carohna Bishop of Glasgow Bishop of Stepney {Secretary) Bishop of Huron Bishop of Swansea Bishop of Jarrow Bishop of Tasmania Bishop of Kansas* Bishop of Tennessee* Bishop of Lichfield {Chairman) Bishop of Toronto Bishop of Maine Bishop of Tuam Bishop of Michigan Bishop of -Warrington Bishop of Milwaukee Bishop of Willesden Bishop Nash (Capetown Coadjutor) Bishop of Woolwich 6o LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O is the ruling principle of political Hfe, could only lead to war. The great prophet of that false doctrine was Germany ; but who shaU say that it was whoUy repudiated by the other nations of the world ? Now a simUar doctrine has dominated a great part of our industrial system. It has been commonly held that (Afferent individuals, different sections or interests or classes, must pursue their own self-interest, and that the result of that pursuit would be the best possible condition of society as a whole. Experience has shewn that this doctrine is false. Where there has been a conffict of interests the issue has been determined by a mere trial of force, instead of by a consideration of what is just between man and man. The result has been a war spirit in industry corresponding to a war spirit among the nations. Our experience of the past five years has led us to the determination that this war spuit shaU be cast out. Such a spirit is equaUy disastrous in the capitalist, who is determined at aU costs to maintain the controUing power of capital, and in the disciple of Marx, who preaches " class war " and ¦wishes ¦violently to " ex propriate the expropriator." As we desire a League of Nations which shall unite the peoples in a feUowship for the common good, so we look for some means of co-operation ¦within the nation, which by ways of liberty and justice shall transcend aU class distinctions, and enable aU to make their contribution of ser^vice for the welfare of aU. (2) To such a union of goodwUl we looked forward when in the stress of war we were forming high hopes for a better and happier order in the days of peace. The sense of national unity against a common foe warranted the hope of a Hke unity of pur pose in making war on misery, poverty, and discord, the common foes of aU human Hfe. In the feUowship of the trenches men learned to recognize that no section of the community is whoUy bad or whoUy good, but that each possesses to a large extent the same good qualities and faiUngs. There was ground for hope that, in their appreciation of the value of feUowship, men would come to loathe the antagonisms of class warfare, and would do their utmost to remove the causes which led to it. Again, the spirit of self-sacrffice, shewn on so wide a scale and in so noble a way by rich and poor alike, taught us afresh that when the right appeal is made, the hearts of men -wiU respond to the call to venture life itself in the cause of justice. Can we beheve that the increase of these good fruits of co-operation, comradeship, and sacrifice has been choked by the poisonous aftermath of war ? May we not dare to hope that, given the right aim, they wUl even yet be found abundantly on the side of right in the effort to ameliorate the industrial conditions of our time ? With regard to our general outlook on the future, it may bejthat there was too much thought of merely material pros perity. But, in the main, our aspirations were sound and true. THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 6l If the Church is bound to contend that the first things, which are spUitual, must come first, its members must not forget that Our Lord, who won His victory in the spiritual sphere, intended that -victory to cover the whole of life : an appHed Christianity must shew the Gospel ever57where in action. If we keep the right aim in view we shaU seek to make the outward order of society an embodiment of Christian justice and love. No one could say that this is the character of the social and industrial state of Christendom to-day. (3) What then is the right aim ? The trial of these six years has helped us to the true answer. No self-regarding pur pose wiU suffice : a self-centred individual security or a Church- centred corporate selfishness is equaUy insufficient : the in dividual and the Church find themselves when they lose them selves in their ultimate aim, " Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness." Any definition of the Kingdom of God must assuredly contain the ideal of " human life according to God's intention," It must include the extension ever5rwhere of the knowledge of God's sovereignty of love, and the claim that His sovereign sway shaU govern every part of life : the former is the missionary work of the Church, the latter is the witness of the Church concerning social and industrial righteousness. We do not for a moment deny that the primary business of the Church is to deal ¦with the indi^vidual. Personal relationship with God in Christ is ¦vital religion, and without personal con version our labour wiU be vain. But we want the conversion to be real and complete. The converted Ufe is Christ-centred, not self-centred ; it means the acceptance of Christ as King. And if He is King anywhere. He must be King everywhere. He cannot be excluded from poUtics, or industry, or from any of our social relationships. His Kingdom is not of this world, but it finds its expression often in material things. No Christian ¦writer has pleaded more eamestiy than Bishop West cott for the supremacy of the spkitual. He warned us to distinguish between Hfe and the mere means of Having ; he declared that the Nineteenth century attached an unnatural and abnormal importance to material wealth. Yet he also ¦wrote, " every amelioration of the outward conditions of men's lives is the translation of a fragment of our Creed into action." We are convinced that the Gospel of the Kingdom includes a social message. Such a conviction must be borne in on all who consider Our Lord's Person, and study the record of His teaching and His work. When He, the etemal Son of God, took our complete human nature He shewed us that nothing human is alien to the mind of God. He entered into and shared all human experience — except the sin which He came to take away. He worked as a carpenter at Nazareth. When, during His ministry. 62 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O He went about doing good. He cared for the bodies as weU as the souls of men. He came that men might have Hfe and have it abundantly : life at its highest is the eternal Ufe which is feUowship with God, but all that belongs to man's best activities and truest .affections comes within the scope of His purpose. His teaching shews the large humanness of His sympathy. The farmer in his fields, the shepherd -with his flock, the housewife in her home, the business man with his trade in pearls, and the chUdren playing in the streets — He knew and cared for them aU. WhUe it would be unwise to press the detaUs of a parable, the story of the labourers in the vineyard, alluding as it does to the problems of unemployment, thoroughness in work and a li^ving wage, shews how sure was His touch on the labour questions of His day. Our Lord was much more than a social reformer, for He went down to the root of aU human life, and those who learn His measure of values, and foUow His path of service in the power of His Life, are the men who ¦wUl transform the world. Before we consider more fuUy the message of Christ and try to formulate the Church's duty in these matters, it ¦wUl be necessary to review some of the special features of the present situation. II. Special Features of the Situation. I. The Labour Movement. What shaU we say of the relation of the Church to the Labour Movement, which is one of the outstanding factors in the industrial world ? We cannot claim a good record ¦with regard to labour questions. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution only a minority of the members of our Church have insisted on the social appUcation of the Gospel. Now that the conscience of the Christian community has been stirred, we must be content to bear the accusation that we are only trying to make ourselves popular ¦with labour, because labour is now a dominant power. The accusation is not true. We are honestly trying to see and to speak the truth, and those who make that effort wUl not, in the long run, be popular ¦with any party. The question is not whether labour is friendly to the Church, or whether we can attract labour men to the Church, but whether the ideals of labour are sound and its claims just. No doubt there are strata in the labour movement, as in "the world" generally, which are secularist and materialistic. Certainly, also, there are labour men (though not so many in the EngUsh-speaking peoples as on the continent of Europe) who are advocates of ¦violent revolution. But we ought, in all fairness, the church AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 63 to judge the labour movement at its best, and to consider what is to be the relation of its idealism to the idealism of the Church. The purpose of the labour movement, at its best, is to secure fulness of Hfe, the opportunity of a complete development of their manhood and womanhood for those who labour ; it seeks to furnish a better world for people to Hve in. WhUe this is also the Church's aim, our supreme task must be to provide better people to Hve in the world. The labour movement can help the Church by bringing us into touch with actuaUties, and increasing our discontent with mere pious aspirations ; and assuredly the Church can help the labour movement by pointing the way to that spiritual power which alone can bring the law of righteous ness and love into permanent action. " He who can spiritualize democracy," said Mazzini, " wiU save the world." It must not be inferred from these references to the labour movement that we faU to recognize other efforts for the promotion of a better social order. There are many men and women in all classes of society whose self-sacrificing service is bearing good fruit. And there are captains of industry who are prepared to welcome a complete change in the existing scheme, Mr. W. L. Hichens (chairman of CammeU, Laird and Co,) has said : "No tinkering scheme of piecemeal reform wiU avaU to cure our Uls ; the Hght must be let in on all dark places at once ; the muddy pools of class selfishness must be cleansed ; the self-sacrifice of our soldiers and saUors must find its counter part in our industrial Hfe." 2. International Aspects. It is of the utmost importance that the international aspects of the industrial question should be constantly remembered. Industrial and social conditions in different parts of Africa and the East, including the exploitation of coloured labour and the labour of children, deUver a clear challenge to our Christian ci^viUzation. We are aware that difficult questions are involved: we may take South Africa as an illustration of the intricacy of the problem. As regards South Africa, the Committee recognizes the com plexity of the problem where the most highly skiUed European labour is found side by side with a great mass of coloured, native, and Indian labour ranging from skiUed to the roughest degree of unskilled capacity. It further acknowledges that in the development of a new country, ¦with people whose wants are few and whose way of life is primitive, a lower rate of pay is for a time legitimate than would be reasonable or possible for ci^vUized workers. But we consider that there are two dangers to be avoided. On the one hand there is the temptation to employers to reduce wages towards a level which woiUd be acceptable to the 64 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O less developed race, but insufficient and unfair to the more civihzed. On the other hand there is the greater danger of deUberate effort on the part of white men|to check that advance of the natives and coloured people which^missionary enterprise, education, and contact with civUization are graduaUy producing ; and to exclude them by artificial barriers from a share in skilled employments, A mere " colour-bar " is, in our opinion, both economically and poUticaUy unsound, and reUgiously and moraUy indefensible. The Cape Province poUcy of " equal right for all ci'vUized men " is the one which we hope to see extended through out South Africa, and we welcome the recent repudiation by the Prime Minister, General Smuts, of any intention unjustly to exploit the native races. The main issue is clear. First of all, we are bound to bring the principles of the Gospel to bear on inhuman and oppressive conditions of labour, whether they obtain at home or in the remote regions of the earth : secondly, we have to act upon the knowledge that the whole world is one and that the estabhsh ment of proper conditions of labour anywhere can only be secured on an international basis. We therefore cordially wel come the provisions of the Treaty of Peace which relate to labour, and the conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference of the League of Nations at its first annual meeting. It is to be hoped that the process of international agreement thus begun may be carried to a complete fulfilment. 3. Women in Industry. An important feature in the world of labour is the steady increase in the number of women engaged in industry. During the war, especiaUy in the later years, the increase was very large, but that it was not merely temporary is shewn by the fact that there are stUl in England about three-quarters of a mUHon more women in industry than in 1914. In the future the numbers -wUl probably tend stiU further to increase (allowing for fluctuations in trade) from the foUowing causes : — I. The newly-acquired capacity of women for aU kinds of work, together with the tendency to " standardize," so that any one individual has only to learn to do quite a smaU part of the whole. 2. The fact that many women have tasted the joy of taking their part in the nation's life of industry, with a new sense of comradeship and independence. 3. The increase in the need of additioned labour through the extension of industry.- THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 65 It is most important at the present moment for all to give their most careful study and thought to the very difficult problems which are now confronting women in industry in their natural and legitimate claim for fair remuneration, and in their desire to maintain the highest ideals of famUy Hfe (which must always form some part of a woman's Ufe). Speaking generally the Church ought to insist that for married women the primary work is the work of the home. Put briefly the main problem is this : — I. Should the whole old system of " protected " women's work be restored ? The difficulty of answering this question is Ulustrated by the fate of the clauses concerning " two shifts" in the BiU recently introduced into the House of Commons. 2. Should the aim be to have perfect equality of wages and of conditions of work with men ? And with regard to the second question : — Should there be complete fusion of men's and women's work ? Or shoiUd women aim at confining themselves to the specializa tion of such work as would utUize women's particular gifts ? AU women are puzzled over these problems, and at present they have no decided line of poHcy ; it is the duty of the Church, therefore, to give much time and thought and sympathy to them in their difficulties. 4. The Drink Question. Christian people wUI not be slow to recognize that moral e-vUs He at the root of our social disorders. If the devUs of greed and selfishness were cast out, the battle would soon be won. There are also three specific e^vUs which cause infinite harm to society — sexual impurity, gambling and intemperance. Sexual impurity, the most disastrous of the three, is dealt with by another Committee. On gambHng we have nothing new to say. The evU is always with us, and we can only reiterate that the desire to get something for nothing, and the passion for excitement which it nourishes, are always demoralizing, and in their worst forms lead to utter corruption of character. The whole instinct of gambUng is selfish and anti-social. The third e^vU, owing to recent developments, calls for more special treatment. That an enormous amount of loss in efficiency in the industrial world, and of injury and suffering in our social life, is caused by drink is proved by an overwhelming amount of evidence. To this we eamestiy caU attention. Immediate and adequate action is required. 66 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, 1 9^0 In the Report of the Lambeth Conference of 1888 on In temperance (which was signed by Archbishop Temple) it is asserted that " if the whole Church had been thoroughly aUve to the extent and nature of the mischief, much might have been done by more earnest efforts both of the Clergy and Laity in the ordinary course of the Church's work." These words may emphaticaUy be repeated to-day. In some directions much has been done. The RepubUc of the United States, after ha-ving tried prohibition for years in several indi'vidual states, has finally adopted the poHcy through out its entire area. Representatives from the United States offer ample evidence that this poHcy has already resulted in a marked decrease in the population of penal and charitable institutions, in the number of cases coming before the poUce and criminal courts, and in the demand upon rescue work. There is also an im provement in economic and industrial conditions, and above aU in the stabUity of the home, the integrity of the famUy, and the welfare of chUdren, The question is being so seriously con sidered in the Dominion of Canada that, with the exception of Quebec, all the provinces are at present under prohibitory law. In New Zealand, Dominion prohibition was lost at a recent poU by a small majority. There is a strong feeUng in that country that the elimination of the drink traffic would contribute to the efficiency and morality of the Dominion. It is a significant fact that no area in which prohibition has been carried on the three- fifths majority basis has gone back from its pre^vious decision. In respect to the native races, we urge that the poUcy of prohibiting the importation of Hquor should be strongly enforced, and that all social customs leading to the formation or increase of the drink habit amongst the natives be condemned as being especially dangerous to them. The trade in Hquor with these defenceless people is one of the most disastrous instances of the exploiting of the weaker for the financial benefit of the stronger. We earnestly hope that paragraph 5, Article XXII., of the Covenant of the League of Nations referring "to the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic, and the Hquor traffic," wiU be expanded into definite pro^visions and speedUy put into operation both as regards mandatory and general areas. In regard to the United Kingdom, the Committee contents itself ¦with a quotation from the Report of the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws : — " It is undeniable that a gigantic e^vil remains to be remedied, and hardly any sacrifice would be too great which would result in a marked diminution of this national degradation." That no adequate sacrifice has yet been made is e-videnced by the fact that last year £386,600,000 was spent in the United THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 67 Kingdom on strong drink. Under the restrictions imposed by the Board of Control during the war, the situation greatly im proved. Since these have been in part removed, there has been a distinct relapse. In the United Kingdom one of the chief hindrances to progress is the inabUity of those who are most earnest in promoting tem perance reform to come to an agreement as to the best line of advance. AU the English bishops on this committee are agreed on the desirabiUty, for the United Kingdom, of fuUer State control, of local option, and of the reform of public-houses : as regards State-purchase and prohibition there is difference of opinion among them. In conclusion, we desire, with all the strength and earnestness which we possess, to urge upon our feUow Churchmen in every part of the world the imperative importance of gi-ving the gravest consideration to the entire question of intemperance. We would add fmlher that, whUst all are not agreed upon the duty of total abstinence from intoxicating Hquor as a beverage, there is no room for doubt that such abstinence for the sake of others, and as a contribution to the stabiHty of our industrial and social Ufe, is a splendid privUege of Christian service. III. Our Primary Duty. The primary duty of the Church (by which we mean the whole society of Christian men) is to witness to the principles of Christ and His Kingdom. The work of this Committee in setjting forth those principles is greatly Hghtened by the recent pulaUcation of the Report of the Archbishops' Committee on Christianity and Industrial Problems (S.P.C.K. 1918). With the opinions and suggestions of that Report this Committee finds it self substantially in agreement. They would, however, desire to emphasize the fact that whUe individual members of, or special groups -within, the Church may rightly advocate some specific pro gramme or poUcy, the Church shoxUd never, as a Body, concern itself ¦with a poUtical issue unless it involves a clear moral issue, and then only in the interest of morals and righteousness, and not in the interest of parties. On many industrial questions there is need for frank co-operation with the economist, and it is hardly necessary to state that, if material wealth is regarded not as an end but as a means, we must submit ourselves to scientffic investiga tion of the processes that govern the production of wealth and fiie methods which guide us in its distribution. But we cannot accept the theory, which indeed is repudiated by modem economists, that man is to be regarded as a merely acquisitive anunal. We desire to re-affirm the finding of the 1897 Committee : " Christian F 2 68 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O opinion ought to condemn the behef that economic conditions are to be left to the action of material causes and mechanical laws, un- controUed by any moral responsibiUty." There is indeed a constant need for students of economy who wUl investigate these problems scientificaUy from a Christian standpoint. It wUl frequently be found that scientific economics require reinforce ment by Christian ethics. Two iUustrations may be given. (i) The great economic need of the present time is more production. It is for the economist to shew the disastrous faUacy of Umitation of output. But the workman needs to be assured first that the right things are produced — things which contribute to beauty or to use, not superfluous futihties — and secondly, that the wealth which is produced wiU be justly distributed and de voted to the public good. If the workman is asked to sacrifice the interests of his class to the interests of the whole community, he needs to be convinced that the whole community is really going to reap the benefit of his labour. It is clear that bare economics wUl not take us to the goal. Mr. Hoover was right when he said that something Hke a spiritual re^vival is required if the industrial problem of production is to be solved. (2) There is no economic question more important than that of the nature and function of capital. But it is an unreal ab straction which treats capital as possessing laws and movements of its own apart from the people who control it. For the use of capital, persons are responsible, and, if they are Christians, they cannot be satisfied ¦with mere consideration of security and profit. So long as the materialistic point of view is paramount, class war is inevitable. If there is to be industrial peace we need the outlook and the motive which are suppUed by our Christian Faith. We turn then to those great principles which represent the Christian law of righteousness and love. (i) Human Value. — As God is our Father, and as the Eternal Son of God took our whole human nature upon Him, every son and daughter of God is of infinite and equcil value. There are wide differences in capacity, but such differences do not warrant any loss of Uberty or any faUure to give to all the chUdren of God the opportunity of a fuU human life. Life must always coimt for more than property, the possession of which ought always to answer to some function duly performed. Therefore we are bound to condemn any system which regards men or women as mere instruments for the production of wealth. Ob^viously in any organized system there must be discipUne : but that dis cipHne should be the discipline of free men, arising from the common mind, and embodying the common wiU. If a man is THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 69 always expressing the ideals of others, with never a chance to express his own, his personaUty is denied its fuU development. Whether or no the demand for the fuU " democratizing of in dustry " is practicable or even reasonable, it is at least clear that the workers in an industry ought to have an adequate share in the control of the conditions under which their work — a large portion of their life — is carried on. As a means of attaining this reasonable control, perfect free dom of organization on the part of workers, -with leaders and spokesmen of their own choosing, must be upheld. Although this principle is accepted in England as an accomplished fact, it is e-vident that in some countries represented in this Conference there is need to bear ¦witness to its reasonableness. If Trade- Unionism is liable to abuse — a danger which inheres in the exer cise of all new-found power — it involves a valuable process of education. We invoke the principle of mutual respect, and the God-given grace of good-^wUl, for managers of industry and Hke- wise for the army of workers, that their separate organizations, through the wUlingness to look not only on their o^wn things, but also on the things of others, may in God's time and in His own way be transcended in a larger fellowship. This principle of human value also has a direct bearing on the vast subject of education. Our boys and girls should be trained not merely to be efficient producers of wealth, but to be thek true selves, completely developed in body, mind, and spirit, so that they may give their fiUl ser-vice to God and their feUows. Seeing that such education needs a Hfetime for its fulfUment, we must warmly welcome every plan for its continuance, and aim not merely at a " ladder " for a few fortunate boys and girls, but at a highway which wiU open the best education in the country to aU who are capable of profiting by it. With regard to adult education, such efforts as those of the Workers' Educational Association deserve the most earnest support. Among the manifold tasks which this Conference has taken in hand it has been found impossible to include any special report on the subject of religious education — a subject which was dealt with very fuUy at the last Conference. AU the more, therefore, do we feel constrained, in any treatment of the social duty of the Church, to insist that it must refuse to rest content untU genuine reUgious teaching is recognized as a ¦vital part of education. (2) The principle of human value, ¦with its insistence on the worth of the indi^vidual, needs for its complement the principle of human brotherhood, which teaches us that we are members one of another. The Incarnation broke down the ancient barriers. Differences of race, of class, of sex, are transcended : " we are one man in Christ Jesus." The coroUary of this principle of brotherhood, in relation to our industrial system, is that we must regard industry, not chiefly as a 70 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O means of private profit or class advantage, but as an opportunity of service " for the glory of God and the good of man's estate." To quote Mr. W. L. Hichens : " Unless industry is reaUy recog nized as primarUy a national ser-vice, in which each individual is fulfUHng his function to the best of his abUity for the sake of the community, in which private gain is subordinated to pubUc good, in which, in a word, we carry out our duty towards our neighbour— unless we buUd on this foundation, there is no hope of creating the House Beautiful. If each man thinks of making his pUe by aU the means that economic indi-viduahsm aUows, if class bands itself against class, trade union against employers' federation, firm against firm, to secure the greatest share of the world's goods in unrestricted competition, social life must in evitably break down and anarchy reign supreme." Now, so long as the present wage system lasts, there are certain lines of reform which, by almost universal confession, ought to be foUowed. (a) Security against Unemployment. It is beyond our compass to discuss methods of sol-ving this troublesome problem. The difficulties are notoriously great, but it is certain that nothing is more fruitful of unrest than a haunting sense of insecurity in the mind of the workers: it cannot be right that a workman should be regarded as a mere tool to be scrapped when not required for another's use, and it is an offence to the conscience of a Christian community that men who are able and ¦wUling to work should be forced into idleness. (b) Reasonable Leisure. The constant subdivision of labour and the increasing use of machinery are an inevitable cause of wearisome monotony in the labour of many industrial workers. " The idea of the leisured classes and the toiUng masses is monstrous : it is just the toiUng drudge who needs leisure most — ^leisure for recreation and refreshment, leisure for education — above all, leisure for education." * In some countries, however, where there is a large increase in the amount of leisure enjoyed by the worker, there is need of real help in ensuring that such leisure may be used for the happiness and good of aU concerned, and such help may weU be offered by the Church. (c) A Living Wage. rinciple commended i Christian Church, ¦( * Mr. W. L. Hichens, " Some Problems of Modern Industry." We reaffiim the principle commended in an appendix to the 1908 Report. "The Christian Church, which holds that the THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 7I individual Hfe is sacred, must teach that it is intolerable to it that any part of our industry should be organised upon the foundation of the misery and want of the labourer. The funda mental Christian principle of the remuneration of labour is that the first charge upon any industry must be the proper mainte nance of the labourer — an idea which it has been sought to ex press in popular language by the phrase ' the li-ving wage,' " This must not be interpreted as a bare subsistence wage. There must be sufficient to Hve a decent and complete, a cleaSy and noble Hfe. (d) Safeguards to Life and Health. " The Church should also urge upon its members the moral, as distinct from the legal, obligation of pro^viding and making efficient whatever in the way of apparatus or arrangements is necessary to safeguard the life and health of the worker." But there is a further question which has to be faced. WhUe it is our immediate duty to remove, so far as may be, everything in the existing system which is an offence against Hberty and brotherhood, we are also forced to ask whether the present system is compatible ¦with the law of Christ. Bishop Westcott said quite plainly : " Wage labour, though it appears to be an inevitable step in the evolution of society, is as Httie fitted to represent finally or adequately the connection of man with man in the production of wealth as, in earUer times, slavery or serfdom," Two characteristics of the order to which the wage system belongs are the pursuit of self-interest and the prevalence of unrestricted competition. Now self-interest has a legitimate, though always a subordinate, place in Christian ethics ; and competition, not for mere gain but for the fulfUment of duty in the best possible way, is a reasonable incentive to efficiency. It is fooHsh to despise indi^vidual enterprise and unduly to fetter indi^vidual Uberty. But the dominant principle in a rightly ordered society wUl be co-operation for the common good rather than competition for private advantage. It cannot be said that this principle rules our present system. No doubt it wUl be urged that if the motives which support the present order are removed, the whole industrial system is in danger of coUapsing. But as Christians we cannot accept the assumption that men wUl only be induced to work by the incentive of laige gain or by the stimulus of imminent personal want. It was a higher motive that led men and women to offer theur devoted ser^vice, often at the cost of sacrificing Hfe itself, during the years of war. Is it whoUy incredible that such motives may be forthcoming in time of peace ? It certainly would seem that the principle laid down by Dr. Headlam (in the course of a trenchant criticism of the Report 72 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O of the Archbishops' Committee on " Christianity and Industrial Problems "), "the substitution of a strong spirit of brotherhood for a spirit of competition or rivalry," must lead us to a profound dissatisfaction with the existing order ; nor do we dispute his warning " to meddle as Httle as possible, as a Church, with definite poUtical or economic issues," if it is rightly interpreted. It is, in fact, not our business to pronounce on the respective merits of rival methods for creating a better order, e.g., " Nation- aUzation," or " GuUd Socialism," or " Labour co-partnership." Nor again do we for a moment utter any general condemnation of the captains of industry who have had the main responsibiUty for working our present system. It is superfluous to say that many of them have been and are men of the highest integrity and honour, whose chief motive has not been mere pursuit of gain, but who have sought to render good service to the community, and, in rendering it, to exercise the most scrupulous care for the welfare of the employees. But we repeat that co-operation for the common good is the goal towards which the industrial journey of society should be directed. That goal can never be reached by violent revolution. Mr, Bertrand RusseU (himself not adverse to communism) has written: " The damage to civUization done by revolution in one country may be repaid by the influence of another, in which there has been no revolution, but in a universal cataclysm civiUza- tion might go under for 1,000 years." Perhaps we shaU not be transgressing our limitations if we suggest that the next Hne of advance towards the expression of brotherhood in industry is to be found in those industrial parUa- ments, where employers and employed meet on absolutely equal terms, of which the English buUding trade affords a notable example. The condition of their success is open confidence, frank goodwill, and the determination, on both sides, to keep aU promises and fulfU all undertakings. (3) From the principle of human brotherhood we pass to that of human responsibility. God trusts us. We are responsible for the right use of our capacities and endowments, and we are responsible for one another. AU that belongs to us is held in trust : no property can be our absolute and unconditional pos session. This is true also of our powers and faculties of body and mind. These powers are entrusted to us by God in order that we may use them for His ser'vice and the good of our fellows : the duty of honest work, to the uttermost of our abUity, is binding upon aU, and we cannot, without moral deterioration, rest con tent with less than our best work. The idler or the shirker, to whatever class of society he belongs, is false to his trust. It is true that a labourer is worthy of his hire ; it is equally true that the worker ought to do an honest day's work : the THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 73 poUcy of • ca' canny ' or • go slow ' cannot be morally justified : on the other hand, those whose work is " unproductive " of material wealth are specially bound to give good value to society in return for the benefits which society confers on them. The principle of responsibUity covers our relation to each other. A man is his ' brother's keeper " ; the pubUc is re sponsible for industrial conditions, and the selfishness of the consumer is at least as pronounced as the selfishness of the producer ; moreover, in our complex ci^viHzation, the whole community is responsible for the conditions under which any section of it is compeUed to live. It is true enough that in the abnormal conditions of our time problems Hke that of housing may baffle even the most resolute efforts. But it is a reproach to our Christian ci^viUzation that we have tolerated, both in town and country, slums and unsanitary dweUings which have caused an appaUing mortality among little children, and have been plague spots of disease and moral evU. " Overcrowding," said Sir Charles Booth, " is the most fruitful cause of drunkenness and -vice." Even where the worst features of the slum have been absent, we have allowed our industrial towns to become a mean wUderness of hideous streets. Almost ever5rwhere the miserably inadequate supply of houses leads to the gravest moral difficulty and danger. The way of remedy is hard to find, but our conscience cannot be easy untU we have found it. Before we pass to the suggestion of various lines of action in the Church to-day, we may briefly sum up the position at which we have arrived. Because God is our Father, aU His children are of inflnite value. To each of His chUdren should be given the best possible opportunity of a full human life : life must count for more than property, and no human being ought ever to be used for less than a human purpose. Because aU men are brothers of Jesus Christ, all artificial barriers must be broken down. Where there is true brotherhood men wiU work together in service for the common good : they wiU cease to strive one against another for mere private advantage. Because God trusts us, we are responsible for aU that we possess, and we are responsible for the care of each other. " If one member suffer, aU the members suffer -with it." The reform of evU conditions — such as bad housing — is the business of the whole body. The fulfUment of these principles must lead to something better than a " tinkering scheme of piecemeal reform." Yet it is not by -violent revolution, but by a complete change of mind and wiU that a better order can be reached. So far as the im mediate future is concerned, it is possible to take steps -without 74 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O delay to meet the evUs of unemployment, and to secure for all workers a living wage, reasonable leisure, and a share in the control of the conditions in which their working^iife is spent. IV. How TO Fulfil our Duty. (i) The bare statement of these principles shews us the truth in Mr. Chesterton's dictum, " Christianity has been found difficult and has not been tried." Most of us have grave cause for repentance. We have faUed to give faithful witness in our teaching : we have faUed even more signaUy to give witness by our life. Here, surely, is our first duty. It was the life of the early Christians which won victories for Christ. It is the life of Christians which wUl do most to further His Kingdom in the society of to-day. Members of the Christian Church must repudiate the standards of the world. They must "take heed and beware of covetousness." It ought not to be possible to say that many of them are as unscrupulous as any pagan in exploiting their o-wn economic advantage. A Christian wUl repudiate the maxim that " business is business " — the equivalent in industry of the Prussian maxim, " war is war." His sense of honour wUl be as keen in his commercial dealings as in his personal inter course : he wiU think about his duties before he thinks about his rights : he wUl be courteous, considerate, and kindly towards aU, whether they are supposed to belong to a " higher " or " lower" grade in society : he wUl be scrupiUously careful about the nature of his investments, and wUl avoid expenditure which merely tends to -vulgar display or selfish indulgence : he -wiU honour a man, not for his success in making money, but for his ser-vice to the common good : his ambition for himself and his chUdren wiU be the contribution of useful service to the community, not the attainment of wealth or social position. The -witness of his life wiU, in a word, be the witness of one who tries to foUow the Christian law of love. (2) The witness of the individual vidU be reinforced if the whole Church is, what it ought to be, a warm-hearted brotherly fellowship. In the New Testament " phUadelphia," love for members of the Christian community, was the necessary precursor of " agape," love of all men for Christ's sake. It was not in irony that the heathen said, " see how these Christians love one another." In the early Church it was recognized that a brother must be helped to find employment. If he was unable to work he was provided -with support. If he would not work " neither should he eat." Class distinctions were no barrier : the man of noble birth believed in and acted on his brotherhood with the despised slave at whose side he had received his communion. THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 75 No one can pretend that this is true of the Church to-day. Class consciousness is rampant in every grade of society. In many of our churches the arrangement of " sittings " would incur the condemnation of St. James. Can we not determine to get rid once for aU of unbrotherly aloofness, and to abolish the mis interpretation of the Church Catechism which represents " my betters " as meaning " social superiors." There are signs of improvement. For example, men and women of all classes are taking their places in our various Church CouncUs. But we need to make careful pro-vision to open the door wide for representatives of the industrial class. We may be thankful, also, that we are weU on the road to carry out some recommendations of the " Moral Witness" Com mittee of the 1908 Conference : — " It is of the greatest importance, therefore . . . that the Church of Christ, if it is to win the confidence of the democracy, should show its readiness to set its own house in order ; to model its own system of government on a sound, representative, and democratic basis ; to restore the ministry of the laity to its legitimate place and power in Church government and discipline ; to exhibit such business capabilities in the administration of Church finance as shall at least pro-vide adequate stipends and pensions for its clergy, reapportion and readjust where necessary existing resources for this purpose, furnish sufficient funds for the upkeep of Church fabrics and for the organisation of the charitable and philanthropic institutions of the Church ; and, above all, to make impossible the abuses too often connected with Church patronage." It may be added that we ought to do our utmost to further the efforts already made to enable men of all classes, whose vocation and capacity are proved, to receive the necessary train ing for the Ministry of the Church. Experience in connection with Service Candidates is fuU of encouragement. (3) Another recommendation of pre-vious Conferences has been only partiaUy foUowed, -viz.. Association within the Anglican Communion for study and for practical social work. It is greatly to be desired that a Social Service Committee shoiUd be estab Ushed in each diocese, with branches, if possible, in every con gregation, and other parts of the Church might weU foUow the example of Canada and the U.S.A by forming a CouncU which should act for the whole Church and watch for special social needs and opportunities. As regards England, reference may here be made to the work of the Christian Social Union and the In dustrial Christian FeUowship, which have now been fused into one society, the purpose of which is to further the Kingdom of God in social and industrial Hfe, and, in its presentation of the Gospel message to those engaged in industry, to shew the fuU application of Christianity to social life and practice. (4) But there is need for wider association with other Christians in social witness and service. It belongs to another Committee 76 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O to deal with the anxious problems of reunion among Christians ; but, whatever be the delays in the restoration of communion upon doctrinal and sacramental grounds, we believe that there are no principles at stake which can rightiy be held to hinder aU de nominations of Christians from beginning without any delay to act as if they were whoUy one body in the department of pubUc, moral, and social witness. We dare, further, to affirm that nothing serves better to promote the deeper sort of union than the mutual knowledge engendered by working closely to gether in social service ; and also that, short of the witness of fuU sacramental union, there can be no more impressive witness for Christianity than the spectacle of a Christendom re-united so far as to be able to stand together for the appUcation of the principles of justice and brotherhood in society and uidustry. We ought to add that we are thinking not only or chiefly of Central Committees, of conspicuous religious leaders in great capital cities, but local councUs gathering in each centre of population the representatives of aU the Christian congregations of the locality. Already considerable progress has been made in many towns of the British Empire and the U.S.A. Q-vic guUds or social ser-vice councUs or community centres have been formed for the purpose of detecting abuses which need reform, of focus ing a sound public opinion, of supporting the municipal authorities in the pursuit not of sectional interests, but of the common good, and of furthering every kind of useful social work. The Christian Social Crusade in England, and corresponding organizations in other countries, have done much to promote this purpose. In many cases the inter-denominational guUd has formed close alliances -with Labour and other movements, which aim at a better social order. (5) The Church should be a reservoir of social service. There is a large and almost infinitely varied field of service both for men and women who -wUl find the vocation of their Hfe in social ministry, and for those who are able only to devote their leisure to it. Welfare work of all kinds, after-care com mittees for school-chUdren, club work, study circles, and other efforts to promote feUowship and utUize leisure — these are only specimens of an enormous choice of opportunities.* Special refer ence may here be made to the work of the Church Army for Hfting up those who are do-wn. WhUe there is great need of men and * It is hardly necessary to add that any form of social service deserves to be taken seriously with a full sense of its responsibility, and careful training is required. We would urge that in any scheme of training in economics, theology should find a place, in order that its true motive- power for the work may be given. Most of the Universities have now agreed to accept Theology as one of their optional subjects. ¦Very useful suggestions are given in " The Church and Social Service," Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee (S.P.C.K,, 1920). THE CHURCH AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS 77 women who -wUl give themselves to the distinctively pastoraljand evangelistic lay ministry of the Church, it should be emphasized that aU work of social welfare, undertaken from the right motive and in the right spirit, is " Church work." The Recruiting Campaign for Service in the Kingdom of God has laid stress on the close con nection between Missionary and Social Service, It is eamestiy to be hoped that the splendid devotion shewn by countless men and women during the war may find a new and even greater op portunity, in working along different but converging roads to wards the establishment of righteousness, iellowship, and love between the nations and -within the nations of the world. The Root of the Matter. We have suggested various lines of action which, we feel assured, it is our duty to foUow, if we are to arrive at that better social and industrial order which we beheve to be in accordance with God's wiU. But we desire to affirm, with unwavering con- ¦viction, that no outward adjustments can, by themselves, bring us near to the Kingdom of God. The love which conquers selfishness, and the passion for righteousness which drives out greed, are gifts from above, and, unless selfishness and greed are vanquished, the most perfectly devised co-operative common wealth wiU perish in ignoble ruin. There is doubtless a narrow other-worldliness which seeks a selfish security in another Hfe, but the principles and powers of the other world offer the only hope of redemption for the individual and for society. Man has an eternal destiny, and his whole nature is therefore of infinite worth. To uplift humanity, and to redeem every chUd of man, the Son of God came into this world. By His Incarnation He gave us the complete revelation of human duty. By His Cross and Passion He taught us the true value of life and death, and opened that way of feUowship with God, without which there can be no real feUowship of man with man. By the power of His Resurrection and the Uving inspiration of His Spirit, the ultimate victory wiU be won : and the Church which is His Body can go forward, with confident hope, to fulffl by prayer and work and witness its Mission of seeking that Kingdom of love and righteousness which He wiU one day reveal in its perfect beauty. (Signed) J. A. LICHFIELD. Chairman. No. III. Report of the Committee f Appointed to Consider and Report upon the Subject of the De-velopment of Provinces in the Anglican Communion^ "If the Anglican Communion is to render that service to the varied needs of mankind to which the Church of our day is specially called, regard must be had both to the just freedom of its several parts, and to the just claims of the whole Communion upon its every part." It is in the spirit of these words, quoted from the Encyclical Letter of the Lambeth Conference of 1908, that your Committee on the " Development of Pro-vinces in the AngHcan Communion " has tried to act, and to make some suggestions. It recognizes the fact that in the Lambeth Con ference of 1867 the system of pro-vincial organization was primarily laid do^wn. It recognizes, too, that on the principles of the system then laid do^wn such organization has been carried out in various parts of the world. It feels consequently that its special work this year is to deal ¦with the development of that system, in the Church as it exists to-day, with the ¦view of making that organization more complete and effective. t Names of Members of the Committee : — Bishop of Accra Bishop of Massachusetts Bishop of Ballarat* Archbishop of Melbourne* Bishop Hamilton Baynes {Secre- Bishop of Newfoundland tary) ' Bishop of New Jersey Bishop of Brechin (Primus)* Bishop in North China Archbishop of Brisbane Bishop of Northern Rhodesia Bishop of Bunbury Archbishop of Nova Scotia Archbishop of Capetown {Chairman) Bishop of Ohio Bishop of Chekiang Bishop of Oklahoma Bishop of Christchurch Bishop of Osaka Bishop of Colombo Bishop Osborne Bishop of George Bishop of Richmond Bishop of Gibraltar Bishop of Rochester Bishop of Goulburn Archbishop of Rupert's Land Bishop of Grantham Bishop of St. Helena Bishop of Honduras Bishop in Shantung Bishop of Jamaica Bishop of Uganda* Bishop of 'KalgoorUe Archbishop of the West Indies Bishop of Lagos Bishop of Worcester Bishop of Manchester Bishop of Zanzibar 78 THE DE-VELOPMENT OF PROVINCES 79 In the first place your Committee has learnt that a considerable number of Dioceses, now amounting to 31, have been estabUshed in many parts of the world, which are not as yet included in any sort of pro^vincial organization of their own.* This is a sign of gro-wth for which there is cause for much thankfulness : but at the same time it is evident that if these Dioceses were grouped into provincial organizations such grouping would tend to the health and strength not only of -those Dioceses immediately concerned but of the Church in general. Your Committee therefore suggests that whenever and wherever it may be possible, new Pro^vinces be created, and that Dioceses now working in isolation be encouraged to attach themselves to some existing Province or to form a new Pro^vince. Your Committee is aware that many of these Dioceses are of a purely missionary character, and consequently it seems necessary to point out that the one organization which is essential to pro'vincial Ufe is a House or CoUege of Bishops. Your Com mittee suggests that it is ad'visable in any newly-constituted Pro^vincial S5mod for the Bishops to associate with themselves the Clergy and Laity of the Pro^vince as soon as may be. When, however, local circumstances make such association impracticable, this need be no hindrance to the initiation of a provincial organization. In such cases each National or Regional Church or Province would necessarily determine its own constitutional and canonical enactments. Its Bishops would take an oath of Canonical obedience to the new MetropoUtan of the Province or of con formity to such other Authority as may be constitutionally appointed. This would refer to aU Bishops, both those already working in the newly-constituted Province and those who shall be thereafter consecrated for work in any See ¦within the pro-vincial area. In order to comply with the Canonical rule for the con secration of a Bishop ¦within the Province, your Committee suggests that in the formation of a new Province a minimum of four Dioceses shaU be required. Questions relating to the appointment of Bishops must be left to the newly-constituted Province to decide, but the Com mittee suggests that in the election of a MetropoUtan, the Province as weU as the Diocese should have a real and distinct voice. In respect to problems of race and language, which have been brought before it, the Committee feels that these are * Your Committee is glad to learn that there would seem to be an immediate prospect of the branches of our Communion in China and Japan obtaining full advantage of any rights attaching to provincial organiza tion, and further of the possible formation of new Pro^vinces among the Dioceses of East and West Africa. 8o LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O matters which must be left to the various Provinces or Regional Churches to settle, but it would lay down one distinct principle, namely, that in every Province there can be but one Church and one Authority. Your Committee is of opinion that the position of the Con sultative Body of the Lambeth Conference should be strengthened. It consequently expresses the hope, first, that aU parts of the Anglican Communion may see their way to nominate representa tives on that Body, so that it may be representative of the whole Church ; secondly, that this Consultative Body may be increas ingly regarded as a real H^ving Body, to which any question of Faith and Order may be referred, as an authority of great moral weight, providing a voluntary nexus for the whole of the AngHcan Communion though possessing no power to enforce its decisions. That this was the intention of the establishment of the Con sultative Body there cannot be a doubt, and your Committee feels that it may help towards this end if its constitution and functions are reasserted at this Conference. It also suggests that whUe the manner of appointment of members of this Body must be left to the various Provinces or Churches, members should be appointed for a period of not more than five years. As one question of ¦wide concern which the Consultative Body might profitably consider the Committee suggests the Colonial Clergy Act and its possible modification. Note. — In the foregoing Report the Conference has had chiefly in view the formation of Provinces by the synthesis of isolated Dioceses, not by the sub-di^vision of National Churches as in the United States of America. (Signed) WILLIAM M. CAPETOWN, Chairman. No. IV. Report of the Committee f Appointed to Consider and Report upon " Missionary Problems " : (a) Missions and GO-VERNMENTS ; (6) MISSIONS AND GROWING CHURCHES ; (c) Liturgical Variations ; {d) Marriage Questions, The Missionary Call. Our Blessed Lord has made it the duty of every one of His people no less than of the Church at large or her leaders, to see that His Kingdom is extended by making disciples of all nations, and estabUshed by training them in His laws. The buUding up in holiness of existing congregations, and the winning of new ones, are two parts of one task, never to be separated. Each is necessary to the other. The older Church must be purified and qmckened, if it is to be capable of its evangeUstic function ; t Names of Members of the Committee : — . Bishop of Antigua. Bishop of Athabasca. Bishop of Auckland. Bishop of Bendigo. Bishop of Buckingham. Bishop of Calcutta {Chairman). Archbishop of Capetown. Bishop of Carpentaria. Bishop of Chekiang. Bishop of Clogher. Bishop Copleston. Bishop in Corea. Bishop of Dornakal. Bishop of Exeter Bishop of Falkland Isles, Bishop of Fukien. Bishop of Gippsland. Bishop of Grantham. Bishop of Hankow. Bishop of Honan. Bishop of Honduras. Bishop Ingham. Bishop of Kimberley. Bishop King. Bishop of Kwangsi. Bishop of Lagos. Bishop of Long Island. Bishop of Mackenzie River. Bishop of Moosonee. Bishop of Newark. Bishop of New Guinea. Bishop of New Mexico. Bishop in North China. Bishop of North Queensland. Bishop of Northern Rhodesia. Bishop of North Texas. Bishop of Nyasaland {Secretary). Bishop Oluwole. Bishop in Persia. Bishop Price. Bishop Roach (Natal Assistant Bishop). Bishop of St. John's. Bishop of Saskatchewan. Bishop of Singapore. Bishop of Southern Rhodesia. Bishop in South Tokyo. Bishop in Tinnevelly. Bishop of Tokyo, Bishop of Western China. Bishop of West Missouri, Bishop of Zululand, 82 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O and the exercise of that function is a condition of its health. It is always found that the Church or the Parish in which the missionary spirit is most active is the most abundantiy enriched with aU spiritual blessings. There is no question here of a Home Department and a Foreign Department, This is not a counsel of perfection. It is impHcit in discipleship itself ; it cannot rightiy be evaded. Yet we confess with shame that the prayers and efforts which belong to the missionary spirit stiU fall far short — in spite of real and increasing improvement — of what loyalty and love to Christ demand. Bishops and Parish Priests must preach this duty more constantly : the pubUc prayers must be fuU of it : in every councU of the Church, from the Parish to the General Synod, it must hold a conspicuous place among the Agenda : it must be among the cherished aims of every Christian home, of every Christian heart. For it is unreasonable that men should claim a place in the feUowship of the Church unless they are ready to share this obUgation, which the Lord laid upon all disciples, at aU times, in aU places, amid aU ordinary occupa tions as weU as by direct evangeUzation, to be witnesses for Him. The aim that all His members must set before themselves may be quite simply stated thus : World--wide -witness to the Lord. This does not necessarily mean immediate world con version ; but it does mean adding to the Church daUy such as are being saved. We aim immediately at the planting of Church Hfe and order in aU lands, at the formation of Churches, not only the conversion of indi-viduals ; Churches which from the very first shaU be active centres of evangeUzation ; at extending not the AngUcan Church -with its special characteristics, but the Holy CathoUc Church in its essentials, which each new Church, as it grows up, may exhibit under characteristics of its o-wn. Ultimately, we aim at aU that is hoped for in the coming of the Kingdom of God. Home Organization, We enquire then what are the methods actuaUy in use, in our dioceses and congregations, to raUy all hearts to prayer and self-sacrifice, to kindle in the whole Body this missionary temper, and to secure its fuUest expression and efficiency as a missionary force. We find, to speak generally, two distinct, but not quite incompatible, methods : one, that which the newer Churches have almost universally adopted, as in itself the normal way, and arising out of the nature of the Church ; namely, the method by which the whole Body is so " organized for Missions," that one current of enthusiasm and acti-vity flows through and out of every member, every group and every indi-vidual ; the other. MISSIONARY PROBLEMS 83 that in which, as the gradual result of various circumstances in the older Churches, certain great chartered Societies, and other Associations of Churchmen, have acted as specialized channels, through which the energy of the Body has found itself flowing. In the Churches which are organized for Missions (for instance, in the United States and in Canada), the whole Body is one missionary organ : great decisions are made in fuU Synod, and the immediate executive is in the hands of a Board or Committee, over which the S5Tiod or Convention is ultimately supreme. In some cases the financial obligation is distributed by the central authority among dioceses and parishes, by a system of apportionment or assessment : this method of assessment, though it is not everj^where at first popular, is on the whole, we are told, effective. This organization for Missions, to which the large EngUsh-speaking Churches have come completely or in part, is being adopted spontaneously and, so to speak, instinctively by the indigenous Churches of other races ; in the dioceses, for instance, of Uganda, of Nigeria, of Dornakal ; in the Churches of our Communion in Japan and China (the Nippon Sei Kokwai and the Chung-hua Sheng Kung Hui). Sometimes the diocese, sometimes the Pro-vince, is the unit, but in all such cases the initiative and the control are synodical. The system which we have called the nonnal method is probably admitted on aU hands to be in itself the better ; but it is not to be expected, or even to be desired, that it should be suddenly adopted by aU. Where the method of Society organiza tion exists, we recommend that it should be used to the fuU. We beheve that it can be used to the fuU within a Church which is itseff, as a Church, conscious of its own corporate mission. Societies are already working in co-operation with Synods, or in subordination to them. A central Ad-visory CouncU may guide, or wisely influence, all the agencies by which zeal is aroused, funds coUected, and workers recruited, and may direct their associated energies to the needs of the enterprises, which from time to time are seen to be most urgent or most hopeful. In England, some such co-ordination of agencies has been aimed at — ^but on a small scale, and tentatively — ^by the Central Board of Missions. That Board exists in order to represent and express the mind of the Church in respect to its work over seas. Its constitution is framed with the view of giving to Missions overseas their rightfiU place as a primary activity of the whole Church, and in its present form it was formaUy adopted by the Convocations of Canterbury and York and by the Houses of Laymen of both Pro-vinces — these bodies themselves aU meeting together in what was the Representative Church CouncU. The creation of the National Assembly of the Church of England with statutory powers, able to give expression to the voice of G 2 84 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O the Church on all matters which concern it, has produced a new condition. If the National Assembly is to fulfil its purpose, it must give an important place to that which is accepted as a primary activity of the Church, and must make itself responsible for ex pressing the mind of the Church in aU that belongs to its overseas work. With this in view, it is desirable that the Central Board of Missions should be brought under the control of the National Assembly, from which it should receive its authority, and that the National Assembly should give in its dehberations a definite place to the Report of the Board — a place at least equal in importance to that of the other matters with which it deals. The decisions, recommendations and appeals would go forth as those not of a Board but of the Church itself. We urge that it is of the utmost importance that this task should be taken up by the National Assembly from its first inception ; that it should be assumed as one of its normal and most precious functions ; that the Assembly should claim, from the first, and as a whole, to be the supreme missionary authority, superseding none but embracing and co-ordinating all. Our Umits do not allow us to deal with those essential parts of the Home Church's work, for the sake of which the organiza tions we have been treating of exist. Of financial methods and necessities, we can here say nothing. In reference to the supply of workers, we note with thankfulness what has been done or set going in EngUsh dioceses by " the Recruiting Campaign." Besides men and women already recruited and sent to dioceses overseas, a large number of the Clergy have been enroUed as recognizing the principle of the oneness of the Ministry whether overseas or at home, and as pledging themselves to give equal consideration to calls which may come to them from either part of the One Field. The need of clergy is urgent in some Colonial Dioceses whose large districts are being rapidly peopled, and the Conference should earnestly appeal to men in Great Britain to volunteer for pioneer work as weU as to the men of the Churches in those lands to give themselves to the service of God in their own country. We cannot leave unmentioned the paramount .importance of missionary Study ; and in particular we desire to emphasize the value of information coUected and brought -within the reach of aU, concerning what each separate agency is doing or planning. Such information should include the work of missionaries of other communions than our own. Finally, we acknowledge — sure that such acknowledgements can never be mere platitudes — that the One Agent of all missionary operations is the Holy ¦Spirit of God, and that the largest contribution any man or woman can make to this Cause is that which is made by loving, faithfiU and persevering Prayer ; he who truly gives this 'wUl not long keep back anything that he has. missionary problems 85 Missions and Growing Churches. In re-viewing the development of Missions into indigenous self-governing Churches in non-Christian lands, we are confronted with so much diversity, that it is extremely difficult to generalize. Some Dioceses have from the first developed their organization on the fines recommended below ; others have of late years been taking steps in a simUar direction. At the outset we wish to place on record our appreciation of the work of Missionary Societies and Boards of Missions. Their great progress has made their aim of estabUshing self- governing, self-supporting, and self-extending Churches, and themselves withdrawing from control and pushing their work further afield, possible in many mission fields at the present time. The Committee therefore makes the following suggestions as to the immediate steps which should be taken to achieve this object. Development of Local Churches. I. There is in many missions a tendency to make the work centre in the Mission organization rather than in the Church. We would therefore urge that from the Very beginning, the Mission staff should develop the Church consciousness of their people by the creation of consultative and executive councUs in parish and district : and further, that such councUs shoiUd as soon as possible find their place in a definite Diocesan system. It is moreover important that all missionary committees and councUs should as soon as possible be thoroughly representa tive of the congregations whose affairs they administer, instead of being, as is sometimes the case, predominantly representative of the subscribers to the mission alone : and further that care should be taken to avoid over-centralization of authority, or over-refinement of rules and procedure, both of which have been shewn by experience to retard the development of the corporate Ufe of local churches. IL The question of the management of the finances which the Missionary Societies supply to the local Church is one of some delicacy. The principle that the provision of funds by a Society at home carries with it an inherent right to fuU control in the Mission has now been largely abandoned. But on the other hand, the Missionary Societies and Boards not unnaturaUy claim that they cannot be deprived of aU share in the regulation of the work to which they contribute. The exact adjustment of the two claims -wUl Vary according to. the progress of the Church which receives help. But we deske to express our conviction that an increasing share in the management of finance 86 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O wiU call forth increased gifts from the indigenous churches, and wUl do more than anything else to strengthen their sense of responsibUity and power of self-government. We therefore urge the Missionary Societies and Boards to review their organization with a -view to developing as generous a financial policy as possible. And we confidently appeal to the indigenous churches to respond with self-sacrifice and zealous work, in the matter of the support of their own parishes as weU as in the wider work of the Church. III. The Committee cannot but view with concern the widespread reluctance of those who should be the natural leaders of the churches abroad, to find their fife's work in the ministries of the Church. From many mission lands we hear the testimony that the organization of Mission and Church is conceived on lines so foreign, and the opportunities for a life of such service as shall be the natural and fuU expression of national gifts are so limited, that the best men are fain to turn to other walks of Hfe. We feel that the fault too often lies in the system which cannot find a congenial sphere for such men. They are conscious of membership in the Body of Christ, but they find scant oppor tunity of bringing their best to the service of the Body. We would strongly urge that both Missions and Dioceses should do their utmost so to organize their work that the widest freedom may be given for the development of the national and individual gifts of all who are called to the ser-vice of God and of His Church. IV. Among the many problems which arise in carr37ing out any large transference of the centre of authority from the Mission to the Diocese, one stands out as peculiarly difficult : the settle ment of a Diocese in which Europeans and indigenous congrega tions exist side by side in one area. We are clear that Catholic principle traditionally demands the territorial bishopric. But in such cases we must recognize that the marked differences of ideal and discipline, language and mentality demand that pro-vision should be made in the one Synod or Pro-vince for the utmost freedom of development of the races side by side. In -view of possible difficulties which may arise in securing this freedom whUe never losing sight of the ideal of the one CathoHc Church, the Committee would call attention to Resolutions 24 of 1897 and 22 of 1908, The solution in each case must be left ¦with the Pro-vince, but, whatever interim measures be adopted, we are clear that the ideal of the one Church must never be abandoned. Missionary Societies Still Indispensable. V. But when aU has been said in favour of the transfer of responsibiUties to the local Churches, the need of the work of missionary societies remains as urgent as ever. Large areas of MISSIONARY PROBLEMS 87 the world are stUl unevangeUzed ; the British Empire and America are taking ever-increasing responsibUities for the care of the backward races, and this is no time for a relaxation of the missionary effort of the home Churches : in the partiaUy evange- Uzed fields also, we may mention three departments where ever- increasing help from the Missionary Societies is indispensable. (i) Evangelistic work, both in the districts where a large influx of new converts stiU requires the fostering care of the mission, and in the large outiying districts in which local Churches have not at present the means to undertake the work. (2) Institutional work, such as coUeges, schools and hospitals. These are too costly for the local Churches whoUy to maintain, and in them the experience and devotion of the foreign missionary are urgentiy needed. (3) Women's work. The Mission Churches owe more than can be adequately expressed to the devoted service of women missionaries, and it is essential that this help should, be continued and extended. Special circumstances in some Oriental lands make an early transfer of women's work to the indigenous Churches impossible, and the organization of the Missions must be maintained. Their work should however be more closely related to the local Church organization, and women can at least by means of Diocesan boards and councUs be given their due place in the control of their own work which has its peculiar problems. Liturgical Variations. Pre-vious Lambeth Conferences have recognized* the need for the adaptation and enrichment of the ser-vices of the " Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the Use of the Church of England " to meet the needs and conditions of races and countries overseas. But with the development of self-consciousness in the indigenous Churches a widespread demand has arisen throughout the Mission Field not only for some adaptation and enrichment of the existing book of Common Prayer, but for forms and ser-vices constructed otherwise than those in that Book. The principle of uniformity expounded in the Preface to the EngUsh Prayer Book, (which Preface was not drawn up in the Ught of conditions such as now exist in the Mission Field,) is neither appHcable to Dioceses and Provinces in the Mission Field, nor in itself necessary as a bond of union between Churches which have unity of faith. * Resolutions viii (1867), 10 (1888), 45 (1897), 24 and 27 (1908). 88 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O The essential elements in Hturgical forms are few and simple. But over and above these indispensable elements, there is much that is common to the authorized Prayer Books of our Com munion which it is desirable and convenient to preserve in any service-books that may be independently constructed, both on grounds of intrinsic and general merit, and as serving to maintain continuity and to promote corporate feehng between the faithful in different parts of our Communion. We therefore recommend that : — (i) Rigid Hturgical uniformity is not to be regarded as 'a necessity throughout the Churches of the AngHcan Communion in the Mission Field, (U) It should be recognized that fuU Hberty belongs to Diocesan Bishops not only for the adaptations and additions aUuded to above but also for the adoption of other uses. (ui) In the exercise of this Hberty care should always be taken : — (a) To maintain a Scriptural and CathoHc balance of Tmth, (b) To give due consideration to the precedents of the early Church, (c) To observe such limitations as may be imposed by higher synodical authority, {d) To remember with brotherly consideration the possible effect their action may have on other Pro-vinces and Branches of the AngHcan Communion. The preparation of forms of service, and especiaUy of an Order for the celebration of the Holy Communion, calls for the highest liturgical skiU and knowledge, such as is not always avaUable in every Pro-vince, and we beheve that the best interests of the Church wUl be served by the appointment of a permanent Committee of experts in liturgical studies to which, when engaged in such tasks, the various Dioceses and Pro-vinces might turn for ad-vice. Holy Matrimony. To avoid confusion we state at once that we regard Christian marriage as the marriage of Christians ; that such a marriage can only be made by the mutual consent before ¦witnesses of both parties to an exclusive, Hfelong union ; that it is for local eccle siastical authorities to state pubUcly what can be accepted as sufficient evidence of this consent ; that in ordinary circum stances in countries where the State has made laws on this sub ject (i.e., on what constitutes such evidence), it is desirable that missionary PROBLEMS 89 the Church should accept them when possible ; that whUe the presence or absence of the Church's blessing does not affect the vahdity of marriage it is the plain duty of all Christians to seek the blessing of the Church on their marriage. That the marriages of non-Christian persons, though not of necessity exclusive or lifelong, are states of Ufe in which they can and do live without sin, and that where both parties to such a marriage become Christians, the marriage is raised by Baptism to the level of Christian marriage, and must be reckoned as exclusive and Hfelong. With regard to marriages contracted by non-Christians, good in the non-Christian Law, but contrary to Christian Law, we re-affirm the resolution of the Lambeth Conference of 1888 : Resolution 5. — " That it is the opinion of this Conference that persons living in polygamy he not admitted to baptism, hut that they he accepted as candidates and kept under Christian in struction until such time as they shall he in a position to accept the law of Christ." " That the wives of polygamists may, in the opinion of this Conference, he admitted in some cases to baptism, hut that it must he left to the local authorities to decide under what circumstances they may he baptised." We are of opinion that if a polygamist -wishes to separate from his ¦wives and be baptized, care must be taken that he make proper arrangements for the separated wives before he can be accepted. We suggest that where the local authorities decide against the baptism of such persons, they may weU be associated in some form of guUd pro'vided for them, so as to keep them in touch with Christian life. A person married as a non-Christian to a person whose re lationship to him or her is within the degrees prohibited by the Christian Church, cannot be baptized so long as that partner Uves, unless they separate after due arrangement made for the future of the ¦wife. A marriage, although potentiaUy polygamous, or potentiaUy dissoluble, should be regarded as a good marriage, capable of becoming exclusive and Hfelong, in virtue of the baptism of both parties to it, and ipso facto becoming so if the baptism takes place. In such cases the parties should not be re-marned after baptism, but it is desirable that the fact of the mamage should be publicly acknowledged, and the parties to it should receive the Church's marriage blessing before being admitted to Holy Communion. It is not intended by this to imply that -where one party only is baptized, that party should be excluded from Communion untU both have been so, but that after the baptism go LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O of the second, they should receive the blessing on their marriage, now fuUy Christian, and then as Christian man and wife receive Holy Communion together. A marriage potentially polygamous or potentiaUy dissoluble is not raised to the level of Christian marriage by the baptism of one party. If after such baptism the Christian partner be deserted by the non-Christian, the Christian partner is free under the " privUegium PauHnum " to regard the existing marriage as dissolved and to marry again with any baptized Christian. It should be made clear under this head that the pri-vUege only appHes when the Christian partner has been deserted by the non-Christian. If the Christian drive away the non-Christian, he cannot claim it. Since serious difficulties arise in places where Christian marriages are impossible, from the fact that no Christian partner is available, or from other grave reasons, and that in certain dioceses dispensations have in fact been issued in such cases, we consider that in the present state of the Church, the Bishop of a diocese, after due consultation, and subject to any rule of his Province, should, if he think fit, grant dispensation in such cases. Such dispensation should be strictly limited to an individual case. If a Christian be united to a non-Christian by non-Christian rites -without dispensation, it should be left to the Bishop to decide on the actual vahdity of the marriage in the eyes of the Church, and the nature of the discipUne, if any, to be imposed. We do not say that such a marriage is necessarily invalid in every case. If such a marriage be declared valid, it is consequently indissoluble on the side of the Christian. (If the non-Christian be eventually baptized, the parties to it should not be re-married, but the marriage should be blessed.) In this case the Christian, who being such had married a non-Christian, has no claim to the " Pri-vUegium Paulinum " which appHes solely to cases in which a married heathen becomes a Christian. The marriage of a Christian with a Catechumen stands on a special footing, and must be treated in each Pro-vince in accordance with the status which is recognized in that Province as belonging to the Catechumenate. Holy Baptism. Our reference includes " other practical questions " besides marriage. Two such subjects have been referred to us ; the fUst is the question of the baptism of Ulegitunate chUdren. We prefer to regard this as one appUcation of a -wider principle, and to say that it is undesirable that infants should be baptized MISSIONARY PROBLEMS 91 unless there is good assurance of their Christian upbringing, but that where this is given, baptism should not ordinarUy be refused on other grounds. That what should be accepted and considered such good assurance should be left to the authori ties of the local Church. The second is the case of persons alleged to have been baptized with little or no preparation or instruction. When there is a doubt whether they were baptized at aU the case is met by conditional baptism, but when the persons in question are troubled with doubts because of their lack of instruction and faith, we recommend that when the matter and form of their baptism have been duly verified, the opportunity of confirmation be taken to supply what has been lacking and to aUay anxiety. In aU cases of difficulty the Bishop would be the right person to decide. Missions and Governments. Freedom to preach the Gospel of Christ in every country is a right which must be claimed by Christians of every race and nationaUty as being essential to their own spiritual life and the fulfilment of their reUgious obUgations. The readiness with which this right -wiU be conceded -wiU depend largely upon the confidence in their " bona fides " which the missionaries can inspire. It must be recognized, on the one hand, that govern ments have responsibiUties which they must fulfil, and on the other, that missionaries, though they cannot divest themselves of nationaUty, are bound to make it plain that they place their aUegiance to Christ above every other aUegiance and that they wiU not jeopardize the extension of His Kingdom by abusing the position which the recognition of the principle of reUgious freedom has secured for them. The War had in certain cases sapped the foundations of this confidence, and the imposition of some temporary restrictions on the freedom of missionaries was inevitable. In laying down the conditions on which missionaries of ahen nationalities shall be at liberty to exercise their calUng within the British Empire, the Government has freely acknowledged the value of the work done by Missions in the past, and cordiaUy welcomed their co-operation in the future, and has invoked the assistance of National Missionary organizations to safeguard the interests which it is bound to protect. We are glad to share in rendering this assistance, beheving that in this way we can help to restore confidence, and hasten the time when we may reasonably claim complete freedom for Missionary enterprise. For a time German Missionaries have been excluded from many fields tiU confidence can be restored. We do not question the necessity of this, but we feel deeply the loss which the 92 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O missionary cause has sustained by their removal from the field of their labours, and the spiritual loss both to them and the world at large which their enforced abstention from much of their missionary work must entaU. We recognize it as a duty in cumbent upon ourselves and them aUke to work for the removal of those causes of mistrust to which this exclusion owes its origin. We cannot faU to recognize the serious influence which this action of the British Government may exercise upon othef governments and would emphasize the fact that it is only as a temporary measure that we are required to submit to these restrictions : to accept them as permanent Umitations of reUgious freedom would come perilously near to the repudiation of our primary Christian obligation. In deaUng with the large number of persons in their colonies and dependencies who profess different faiths, the poHcy of the British and American Governments has always been that of strict religious neutrality. We heartily endorse this policy, having no desire to see any kind of poHtical influence brought to bear upon people to induce them to change their religion. But we cannot faU to notice that in certain instances the ferment produced among primitive races who have received the Gospel of Christ has led to hindrances being placed in the way of mission aries in the prosecution of their work, and to a preference being shewn for other faiths. The Church would be faUing in her work if the acceptance of the truths did not awaken in her converts a higher sense of their dignity as human beings, of their rights as weU as their duties, and any government which has the real inter est of subject races at heart wiU be glad of such awakening even though, in civU Hfe, it raises new problems to be solved. We hold it to be the duty of missionaries to look at their work from the Government point of view, as weU as from their o-wn, and to adapt their methods, as far as is consistent -with Christian morality and justice and -with the Faith and Order of the Church, to the policy which the Government is foUo-wing in dealing with such peoples. On the other hand, we claim that no discrimination should be shewn against the Christian Faith, and that the greatest care should be taken by public officials, lest they be betrayed into doing or saying anything which is bound to be interpreted by the people in a sense which does dishonour to our Lord. Further, we feel it is necessary to urge that the religious sentiments of Christians are entitled to be treated with the same consideration that is so markedly, and rightly, she-wn to those of men professing other faiths. In the present state of international relations there is a real danger that missionaries may be tempted to forward the commercial and political aims of their own nation, and we emphatically declare that such action lies entirely outside the scope of their proper functions. MISSIONARY PROBLEMS 93 The insistent demand on the part of subject races for self- government is one of the outstanding features of the times, and missionaries wiU sympathize strongly with the desire for self-expression which inspires it. The advisabihty or otherwise of giving public expression to this feeUng wiU depend upon local conditions, but in no case should a missionary involve himself in the party politics which are inseparable from the pursuit of such an aim. In seeking to secure the removal of some great moral evU, the missionary may feel caUed upon to support the poUtical party which has espoused this cause, but in doing so should make it clear that it is the moral and not the political issue at stake which has claimed his support. The opium traffic in China is such a moral question, and one which at the present time caUs for the earnest attention of the Church. The Committee on International Relations has dealt with this subject, and accordingly we but refer to it by way of iUustration. In Eastern Countries as in the West, the Church has led the way in education, and in some lands stUl leads ; there is a growing tendency, however, throughout the world for the State to claim the training of its future citizens as its own special function, and, being in some cases desirous to impress upon its subjects the stamp of its own peculiar culture, it has been reluc tant to aUow missionaries of other nationaUties to take any part in this work. Christian missionaries, whatever their nationaUty may be, should recognize the duty of loyalty to the ruling power and its right to claim their co-operation in the development of the spirit of true citizenship. Christianity, as the universal reUgion, can find outward expression in various types of ciUture, whUe inspiring aU -with the same spirit. The assumption of the work of education by the State with the national resources at its disposal, must render it difficult for Missions, if largely dependent, as they usuaUy are, upon voluntary offerings, to maintain an equal standard of efficiency in an extensive system of schools, but we maintain that the Church has an ideal of education which it is bound to set forth, and the power of developing a type of manhood which no purely secular system can produce, and with which no State can afford to dis pense. In the face of this changing situation, the need of shaping afresh the educational poUcy of missions is imperative, and for the ascertaining of the necessary data on which it may be based and the determination of the poUcy itself, the co-operation of Christians of aU lands is essential. Isolated action is to be eamestiy deprecated, for the true solution of a local problem is frequently only to be found when it is studied in relation to the whole problem of which it forms a part, and wrong action in one case may have a widespread influence, prejudicial to the general cause of education. For concerted action some organization, both National and 94 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O International, is necessary, which whUe leaving untouched the independence of Missionary Societies wUl co-ordinate their thinking and activities. Such organizations can only work effectively so long as they enjoy the complete confidence of the Societies for whose assistance they exist, and herein Hes the safeguard against then: attempting to assume any coercive jurisdiction. Most valuable service was rendered by the Con ference of Missionary Societies of the United Kingdom, and by the Foreign Missions Conference of North America during the War and at the Peace Conference, in safeguarding missionary freedom and saving German mission property from aUenation to secular purposes. There is stUl work to be done in the councUs of the nations, which can only be undertaken effectively by some central authority, and the League of Nations should find its counterpart in an International Missionary Conference. Such a Conference, as we have already indicated, would not confine its attention to safeguarding missionary freedom, but would help in shaping missionary poUcy. " Every soUd question," a great thinker has said, " has at least four sides," and there is great gain in enUsting the best missionary minds from different nations for a joint endeavour to solve the problems which face the Church as it seeks to commend the Gospel to every Nation. In conclusion we desire gratefuUy to acknowledge the great assistance we have received from : The Rev. Dr. W. H. Frere, Rev. Dr. DarweU Stone, Rev. Dr. F. E. Brightman, Rev. O, D, Watkins, Rev, Dr, Weitbrecht Stanton, the Rev. Father PuUer, the Bishops of Moray and Ross, Vermont, Western New York, N,W. Australia, and Zanzibar, and J, H, Oldham, Esq., who either by personal com munication or written statement contributed valuable information, and tendered -wise counsel concerning several of the subjects dealt -with in our report, (Signed) F, CALCUTTA, Chairman. No. V. Report of the Committee f Appointed to Consider and Report upon the Position of Women in the Councils AND Ministrations of the Church. We, appointed as your Committee to consider and report on the " position of Women in the CouncUs and Ministrations of the Church," have drawn up the foUowing Report with a deep sense both of the difficulty and of the importance of the subject entrusted to us. The questions connected with the position of women in the Ufe and in the work of the Church, through the events of the last few years, have had a new emphasis laid on them ; and they must be considered afresh in their new context. We are profoundly conscious that the Holy Spirit teaches Christian people by those age-long precedents which we believe to be the outcome of His guidance. But sometimes it becomes our duty, faithfuUy retaining the lessons of the sacred past, in a very special sense to trust ourselves to His inspiration in that present which is our time of opportunity, in order that He may lead us into whatsoever fresh truth of thought or of action is in accordance with the -wUl of God. For the Holy .Spirit is -with us and with our generation no whit less than He was with our elder brethren in Christ in the first days of the Gospel. The foundation of a right and stable view of the whole t Names of Members of the Committee :- Bishop of Aberdeen Bishop of Arizona Bishop of Ballarat Bishop of Barbados Bishop of Chester Bishop of Columbia Bishop of Coventry Bishop of Edinburgh Bishop of Ely {Chairman) Bishop of Gippsland Bishop of Grafton Bishop of Hull (Secretary) Bishop of Jamaica Bishop of Kingston-on-Thames Bishop of Leicester Bishop of Lincoln Bishop of Liverpool Bishop of Lucknow Bishop of New York Bishop of Ossory Bishop of Peterborough Bishop Remington (South Dakota Suffragan) Bishop of Riode Island Bishop of Sheffield Bishop of Southern Florida Bishop of Swansea Archbishop of Sydney Bishop of Tokyo Bishop of Toronto Bishop of Truro Bishop of Uganda Bishop of Western Michigan 96 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O subject must be laid in a review of the witness of that creative epoch in which first of aU our Lord Himself lived on earth and taught, and in which later His Spirit was most conspicuously directing the thought and action of the Christian society. With deep reverence we recognize that the supreme ministry of redemp tion was wrought out by One Who was a man,* (dv7?p) Jesus Christ our Lord. It is certain that the Aposties were men ; almost as certain that the Seventy were men. On the other hand a woman was chosen to be the handmaid of the Lord in the Incarna tion of the Son of God. In our judgement there is nothing to prevent our believing that the Apostolic commission recorded in St. John XX. 19-23 was delivered to women as well as to men. In the paraUel history (St. Luke xxiv. 33) we read that the two who came from Emmaus " found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them." It seems impossible to argue that the last words (rovs avv afiroTs) were meant to exclude women. In Acts i. 14 " the women and Mary, the mother of Jesus " are named as having part in the fellowship of the upper room. With Bishop Westcott and Dr. Hort we venture to think that the great commission was given to those who were representatives of the whole Church ; and among those representatives we have every reason to think that women had a place. Again, we are led to conclude that the evangelistic charge (St. Matt, xxviii. 16-20) was delivered to a company which included women. The words of the Evangelist are : " But the eleven disciples went away into GaHlee, into the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him they worshipped Him ; 01 8e eSto-Tao-av." The natural meaning of the last words is " but others doubted." Others then, we infer, beside the eleven were present ; and if others, then we may say with great probabUity that women were among them. This probabUity is immensely increased if we identify, as there is strong reason for identif5dng, this appearance of the risen Lord with that of which St. Paul tells us (i Cor. xv. 6), the appearance to above 500 brethren at once. Demonstration in these as in so many other important matters is beyond our reach. But at least the strong probabUity is that women were among the recipients of the great commission and of the evangelistic charge, as afterwards they were of the gift of Pentecost. We turn now to St. Paul. Two passages must be briefly considered, (a) In Gal. iii. 26-28 the Apostle wrote : " For ye are aU sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female : for ye are all one * Compare St. Luke xxiv. 19 ; Acts ii. 22, xvii. 31. What is said in the text above does not exclude the belief that in our Lord's human character there were manifested traits which are commonly feminine. POSITION OF WOMEN 97 man in Christ Jesus." The passage quoted begins with the assertion of the potential universality of sonship. It ends with the assertion of the oneness of the body ( (h io-ri). But quite obviously the oneness of the body allows, indeed impUes, diversity of function. The passage does not touch the question of the character of woman's functions in the Church. It does not in the least suggest that the functions of women are the same as the functions of men. It simply asserts that membership in the one body is not restricted by race or by social status or by sex. (b) It is often said that in his first Epistle to Corinth St. Paul is inconsistent, and various expedients are resorted to in order to reconcUe him with himself. Let us look at the passages themselves. In xi. 5 the Apostle writes : " Every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveUed dis- honoureth her head." Here St. Paul assumes that there is nothing wrong in a woman praying or prophesying ; and prophesying impHes the presence of others. He takes it for granted that women wiU do this. The great Pentecostal prophecy itself foretold that " your daughters " as weU as " your sons " " shall prophesy " ; and it is added that " upon my handmaidens " -wUl I " in those days pour forth of my Spirit." But in chapter xiv. the context is whoUy different. St. Paul is there speaking of the iKKXrja-iai, the public assemblies of the Church. " Let the women keep sUence in the assembUes ... it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly" (compare i Tim. U. 12). In the assembly St. Paul contemplated the whole Christian society in Corinth being gathered together (v. 23) ; and, what is far more important for our purpose, he expected that persons ignorant of the faith and even that unbelievers — heathen men — would find their way in. Those who were converts from the worship of idols and those who stUl worshipped idols alike knew only too weU the shameful position which women took in the heathen temples and their rites. Corinth was a very bye-word for ¦vice. The Greeks coined a word " to corinthianize," meaning thereby " to play the harlot." The female temple slaves were simply prostitutes. At Corinth then in the Christian assemblies, with their doors thrown open to all comers, St. Paul sternly said that it was " shameful for a woman to speak." Here women must set an example such as no one could question (to use the words of the Pastoral Epistle) of " shamefastness and sobriety." Further, what shaU we say of St. Paul's words in this passage about the " subjection " of women ? In our belief, as we have already said, St. Paul asserted the spiritual equality of men and women ; neither is afore or after the other. This spiritual equality wUl be realized without let or hindrance in the spiritual world which is to come. But in this present world of action between these equals, man and woman, man has a priority, and in the last resort authority belongs to him. As the world in which we live H 98 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O becomes more Hke the world to come, this qualification becomes less and less operative, just as the stronger races assert then- power in diminishing degree over their spiritual equals, the weaker races. In times such as that in which St. Paul wrote the necessary quaUfication became a predominating influence, and in this matter, as in the case of slavery, St. Paul's teaching was conditioned by the existing circumstances of the -world around him. He stooped to it that he might raise it. The statement then of what we beheve to be the truth in regard to the human relations between men and women, as (we reverently say) in regard to the divine relations between the Persons within the Godhead, must needs take the form of a paradox. Difference of function between man and woman in the Church, as in the world, and the relative subordination of the woman in no way imply an inferiority of woman in regard to man. Our firm conviction is that the precise form which St. Paul's discipUnary directions took was relative to the time and to the place which he actually had in mind, but that these directions embody an abiding principle. To transfer with slavish literalness the Apostle's injunctions to our own time and to all parts of our own world would be to renounce aUke our inalienable responsi biUty of judgement and the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. On the other hand it is our duty to endeavour clearly to discern the abiding law which underlay St. Paul's stringent temporary and local rules. We believe it to be this. Human nature being what it is, the Christian Church, v/hose duty and desire is to keep itself unspotted from the world, and to be Hke a home of brethren and sisters at unity with each other, must exercise unsleeping vigUance that in its regulations for worship in the congregation there lurk no occasion for evU or even for suspicion of e-vU ; no occasion for confusion or strife ; nothing which faUs below the purest and strictest ideal of peace and seemliness and order. It wUl be observed that in our terms of reference nothing is said about reUgious communities of women. That great subject therefore with its special problems lies outside our purview. But we cannot refrain from expressing our sense of the notable services they have rendered to the Church and to the world, and our hope and belief that God wUl be pleased to perfect that which He has begun in them and by them. We may be aUowed to add one remark suggested to us by our sUght contact with the subject. We believe that much good would result by a closer relationship between a community and the Bishop of the Diocese and by the creation of central advisory bodies, containing an ample representation of the communities themselves, which would promote co-ordination and mutual communication between the several communities. ' POSITION OF WOMEN 99 Before we pass to our proper task of dealing with the position of women in the Church first in relation to its Councils and then in relation to its Ministrations, there are two matters on which we desire to lay stress. In the first place, the AngHcan Communion is spread through out the world. It has many parts, and these parts are very diverse in character and that in many respects. A Missionary Diocese is utterly different from a diocese which looks back over a continuous history of many centuries. One Church is established ; another hasr no relation to the State which differentiates it from all other reUgious bodies. The poHtical and social conditions which surround one Church are in marked contrast to those which surround another. Hence we give the advice, which as a Committee we are appointed to give, with the fuU consciousness not only that, if we may be forgiven for stating a truism, each constituent part of the Anglican Communion is absolutely at Hberty to accept or to reject our counsel, but also that, even if it is accepted by all as essentially wise and right, yet all cannot equally and at once translate it into action. It is in this sense that we submit our conclusions to our brethren in the Conference and to the wider cUcle of aU those throughout the world who are joined -with us in the feUowship of the Anglican Communion. Again, when we contemplate the position of women in the Church in the two relations indicated, we are led to believe that there are reasons for change in the custom of the Church, and that on the other hand there are reasons for caution. When we survey at any rate the recent history of some, if not all, parts of the Anglican Communion, we are obUged to confess that the Church has failed to treat women workers with gene rosity or even with justice. It is a platitude to say that some of the very best work of the Church has been done, with singiUar patience and conscientiousness, with singular vigour and abUity, with singular devotion to our Lord, by women. But the women to whom we owe this great debt have received but scanty acknow ledgement from the Church in the way either of actual salary or of recognition or of a responsible share in directing the activities or the poHcy of the Church either centraUy or parochiaUy. It is now, we beUeve, generaUy, if not universaUy, recognized that the future must be different from the past. The education of women has advanced in a way which would have seemed incredible to our fathers. Witness the place which women take in the new and even in the ancient universities. Again, in most parts of our Communion the Church is in a new environ ment of social Ufe which it is impossible for us to neglect. Women sit in legislative and in municipal assemblies. They speak at public meetings on aU manner of questions social, economic, poHtical ; and that with a grasp of their subject of which the H 2 100 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I920 women of a former generation would have been incapable. We may see dangers in this revolution, but we cannot ignore it or refuse to aUow it a practical influence on our judgement. And, further, -within the Church we have seen an advance, great, though not commensurate with that in secular matters. Within the last few years many of us have watched the work of the PUgiims of Prayer and of the Women Messengers. We have noted how these movements have stirred especially country parishes, and have won in a remarkable degree general confidence. They have shewn, past possibility of doubt, that women possess a won derful evangelistic gift. In their addresses cor ad cor loquitur. Women also of mature judgement have spoken at mixed meetings of men and women on the difficult and delicate subject of sexual sin, its prevention and the rescue of its •victims, with sympathy, -with power, with restraint. These are facts ; and we are convinced that, if the recognition of these facts is grudging and inadequate, at least two evU results wiU ensue. We run a grave risk of wasting a great power for spiritual good, which, as many are profoundly convinced, it is the wUl of God that we should use for His better service. We also run the grave risk of alienating from the Church, and even from Christianity, not a few of those able and high-minded women before whom, if they turn to social or educational work, there open out careers of great and increasing responsibUity, On the other hand there are reasons for caution. We dare not forget elementary facts of human nature. Women have the power of moving men. By effective speech on reUgious truths and experiences strong emotions are caUed into play. On strong emotions possible perils wait. And, especiaUy in a generation which seems sometimes even contemptuously and recklessly to brush aside what a very few years ago were regarded as wise and indeed necessary restraints, the Church must be above suspicion and must not fear to be watchful. Again, there is a deep wisdom in the words of the New Testament which say of a faithful Christian woman " she shaU be saved through her chUd bearing." The Church, whUe fuUy acknow ledging that some women are called to a life of celibacy, yet in these days of a falHng birth-rate and of aU that that sinister phenomenon impUes, must not do anything which obscures or renders difficult woman's fulfilment of her characteristic function in human life. Again, looking at the whole position from another point of -view, we reahze how hea-vy a responsibiUty rests on the whole of our own Communion, and especially on its nUers, to avoid any action which might retard the growth of mutual recognition and regard between om-selves and other historic branches of the Catholic Church. Lastiy, while a real advance as to the position of women is, we believe, not only ad^visable but even necessary, we feel that the Church owes a duty POSITION OF WOMEN lOI to aU classes of its members, to those who are (as some may think) slow of movement as well as to those who are (as others may think) ambitious of revolutionary speed, We now turn to details. And here we wish to record our gratitude for the assistance which we have received from memoranda placed in our hands, from interviews with certain representative women, from the Report (as yet unpublished) of a Committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider questions relating to the office of Deaconess, the Cliair- man of which was the Bishop of Chester, and from The Ministry of Women (a Report by a Committee appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and presided over by Bishop Ryle, the Dean of Westminster) , We have entirely relied upon this last named book, a work of wide research and learning, for information as to the facts of history. (i) The position of women in the Councils of the Church. — In quite recent times there has been a very considerable advance in regard to the share assigned to women in the CouncUs of the Church. We may instance in England the " Rules for the Representation of the Laity " (under the " Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act "), which, after enumerating the various Assemblies — Parochial, Ruri-decanal, Diocesan, and the House of Laity in the National Church Assembly — adds the compre hensive direction " AU representatives may be of either sex." But the advance made has not been uniform throughout the AngUcan Communion. Indeed, considering the great variety of conditions to which we have already cdluded, such uniformity is impossible. We have endeavoured carefuUy to consider the whole question, and we are strongly of opinion that to whatever Assemblies of the Church laymen are admitted, women should be admitted to the same on equal terms. For the sake of clearness we add that in making this recommendation we have in mind provincial or central Assemblies as well as those which are diocesan or parochial. When this recommendation is acted on we have but one fear. We are conscious that there is a danger lest Churchmen should shirk their responsibUities and leave too heavy a share in the counsels of the Church to Churchwomen, as they have already too often done in the work of the Church. In regard to the conduct of the business of the Church and to the determination of its policy we lay the utmost stress on the ideal of co-operation of Churchmen and Churchwomen ; and we believe that the attainment of this ideal, if only there is a conscientious respon,?e to the caU of plain duty, lies well within the limits of what is possible. 102 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O (2) Deaconesses. — For the history of Deaconesses in the early cen-turies of the Church's life and for an account of their functions we must refer to the Ministry of Women. It is now about sixty years since, in the Anglican Communion, an effort arose to restore this ancient ministry. But this restoration has been carried out not on the authority of the several churches of our Com munion, but rather on that of indi-vidual Bishops. The Church in the IJnited States of America is an honourable exception to this statement ; for there among the Canons there is a section entitled " Of Deaconesses." The result of this general informaUty of action is that a large measure of uncertainty prevaUs as to the status of a Deaconess and as to the conditions under which she exercises her functions. Is a Deaconess set apart for a religious office ? Or is she in the fuU sense of the word Ordained so that she possesses Holy Orders ? Again, can she lay down her office and thereby cease to be a Deaconess ? Or does she receive a " character " which is permanent ? Again, is a Deaconess at Hberty to marry ? Or is she by a somewhat indefinite under standing pledged to celibacy ? We beheve that the fact that it is not possible to give a clear and authoritative answer to these and other Hke questions has seriously retarded the growth of the diaconate of women among us ; for many of the best and ablest women, as we believe, shrink from joining a body the position of which is so Ul-defined and precarious. We are persuaded that this period of tentative and pro-visional action ought now to come to an end, and that the time has arrived when in the interests of the Church at large and, in particular, of the Ministry of Women, the Diaconate (the revival of which ancient office was haUed with thankfulness by the Lambeth Conference of 1897) should be canonicaUy and formaUy recognized in the several Provinces ; and our ad-vice is that, so far as possible, the proper steps should be ever3rwhere taken to secure the restoration of the Order of Deaconesses. We lay stress on the word restoration : for what we recommend is not in any sense the creation of a new, but the constitutional restoration of an ancient. Ministry. We pass to the fundamental question of the status of a Deaconess and of the nature of her ordination. In our judgement the ordination of a Deaconess confers on her Holy Orders. In ordination she receives the " character " of a Deaconess in the Church of God ; and, therefore, the status of a woman ordained to the Diaconate has the permanence which belongs to Holy Orders. She dedicates herself to a Hfelong ser-vice. But here at once there arises the grave question of the possibUity of a Deaconess marrying. We are weU aware that opinions on this subject differ, and many who hold the office of Deaconess desire that, though they have taken no vow of celibacy, marriage should be regarded as whoUy out of the question for POSITION OF WOMEN IO3 them. We have given the question our anxious consideration. And we record our deliberate belief that it ought plainly to be understood that no promise of celibacy is required for admission to the Order of Deaconesses. We recognize that a Deaconess who is married is likely to possess as a married woman a peculiar power by prayer and counsel to help married women ; and, that being so, we do not think that Deaconesses should be pre cluded from marrying. A married Deaconess might, especiaUy during the earUer years of her married Hfe, be compeUed to ask the Bishop to aUow her to suspend the actual exercise of some, if not aU, of her functions. But she would retain the status of a Deaconess and, after an interval, would in most cases be able to resume her active work. We desire to see in use in every branch of the Anglican Com munion a Form and Manner of making of Deaconesses, such as might be fitly included in the Ordinal. We assume that aU such Forms of Ordination would be of the same general type, and so far as possible simUar in their most significant parts, though var5dng in less important detaUs in accordance with local needs and desires. In all of them there should be included provision for (i) Prayer by the Bishop -with the laying on of his hands ; (2) A form of words to be said by the Bishop giving authority to execute the office of a Deaconess in the Church of God ; (3) The delivery of the New Testament by the Bishop to each candidate. Letters of Orders should be given to each Deaconess by the Bishop during or immediately after the ordination, and the names of those who are ordained should be duly entered by the Bishop's Registrar or Secretary in the Diocesan roll in like manner as the names of those who are ordained Priests and Deacons. We lay great stress on the requirement that each candidate should pass through a course of appropriate training, devotional, practical, and inteUectual. Special attention should be paid to the study of the Bible, Christian doctrine, the Book of Common Prayer, and the history of the Church. It wiU be important to maintain a high standard in inteUectual attainments. Each candidate should be examined by persons weU qualified for the work and appointed by the Bishop himself. There is a considerable divergence of opinion as to the right age for admission to the Order of Deaconesses. On the one hand it is pointed out that women who have taken a degree at a University -wiU desire as soon as possible after graduation to enter on the full exercise of the office to which they hope to dedicate their Uves. On the other hand it is urged that the office of Deaconess requires a certain maturity in experience and character and is rather a goal of a term of service than of necessity its 104 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O beginning. On the whole we think that the determining con ditions will vary in the different parts of the Anglican Communion, and that the question of age is a subject best left for inde pendent determination. We spent much time and careful thought on the definition of the duties of a Deaconess. We are of opinion that the foUowing functions may rightly be entrusted to the Deaconess : — (i) To prepare candidates for Baptism and Confirmation ; (2) To assist at the administration of Holy Baptism, and by virtue of her office to be the administrant of that Sacrament in cases of necessity ; (3) Under such conditions as shaU from time to time be laid down by the Bishop, and with the approval of the Parish Priest, (i) to render assistance at the administration of the Holy Communion to sick persons ; (ii) to read Morning and Evening Prayer and the Litany in Church, excepting such portions as are assigned to the Priest only ; (iii) in Church also to lead in prayer and, under licence of the Bishop, to instruct and exhort the Congregation ; (4) To pray with and to give counsel to such women as desire help in difficulties and perplexities. Further, we are anxious that the office of Deaconess should be a standing witness that the Church welcomes workers of many kinds, and believes that a pure Christian intention hallows labours which are often regarded as secular. We therefore urge that, whUe a sufficient training in devotion and in doctrine must ever be considered as an indispensable element in the preparation of a Deaconess, Deaconesses and women looking forward to the Diaconate should be encouraged to qualify themselves for, and to take part in, work for public welfare, e.g., educational, medical, or social. We should rejoice to see a Deaconess devoting much of her time to social or ci-vic activities, provided she undertook those duties as part of her share in the great work of forwarding the Kingdom of God, and performed them in the name of Christ. The attachment to the office of Deaconess of the functions which we have specified, so sacred, so intimately human, so conspicuously important, so wide in their range, is a sufficient indication that we regard, as we earnestly hope that Church- people generaUy will increasingly regard, that office as one to be held in reverence and honour. Circumstances may arise, such as family reasons to which we alluded above, which would cause a Deaconess to desire to resign the exercise of her functions, at least for a time, though by that suspension of her activities she would not forfeit her status as a Deaconess. In such a case she shoiUd in our judgement apply to the Bishop of the Diocese in which she has been licensed. Further, we recommend that the Bishop of the Diocese in which POSITION OF WOMEN I05 a Deaconess is ser-ving shall have power to suspend her from the exercise of her office and for grave reason to deprive her of her Orders as a Deaconess, the right of appeal in the latter case being duly safeguarded. We are conscious that many other matters must be deter mined, if the Order of Deaconesses is to make its fuU contribution to the life of the Church. But we think that we have dealt with the great principles which are of universal application. Other questions must be determined in the several Dioceses and Provinces of the Anglican Communion. We desire to call attention to one further matter before we turn from the subject of the restoration of the Order of Deaconesses in the Anglican Communion. The question wiU certainly be asked whether we have any ulterior object in the proposals which we have made. We have not. We beheve that for Women the Order of Deaconesses is the one and only Order of the Ministry which has the stamp of Apostolic approval (Rom. x-vi. I, I Tim. Ui, 11) ; and for Women it is the one and only Order which we can recommend that our Branch of the CathoUc Church should recognize and use. (3) Laywomen. — In the last place we have endeavoured to give careful consideration to the question of the ministrations of lay- women, that is, of women other than Deaconesses, We desire to lay do-wn the principle that with regard to lay people speaking both in consecrated and in unconsecrated buUdings the same opportunities under the same conditions should be given to women as to men. We also think that in Churches as well as elsewhere at services other than the regular and appointed services of the Church la5rwomen should have the opportunity of leading in prayer. We reaUze that in carrying out in practice the recommenda tion which we have just formulated there wUl be some necessary variation under the very different conditions prevaUing in the several parts of the Anglican Communion. We assume that everywhere women wiU exercise the ministries which we have above assigned to them with the approval of the Bishop of the Diocese and of the Parish Priest, and under such conditions as shaU from time to time be laid down by the Bishop. We have above equated the opportunities of speaking in consecrated buildings offered to laymen and to laywomen. Among men the habitual exercise of this function is practically confined to those who have been admitted to the office of Readers. An analogy therefore is bound to grow up between the Lay Readers who are men and the women who are entrusted with simUar duties. In this context therefore we venture to put on record our opinion that the time has come when the regulations as to Lay Readers (whose devoted work we gratefully acknowledge) I06 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O should everywhere be made more definite and precise ; and in particular that it is urgently needful that everywhere the standard required of men who are to be admitted to the office of Lay Reader should be raised. We think it our duty to ern- phasize the importance of carrying out as soon as possible this reform, so essential to the spiritual efficiency of the ministry of lay people. As we are bidden to make recommendations which shaU apply to aU parts of the Anglican Communion, we find it impossible effectively to deal with the more general acti-vities of women workers in the Church. Such acti-vities are caUed out by local needs and are shaped by local circumstances. We cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing our sense of the great blessing such work has brought to multitudes of our people. What however at this moment we feel bound to note is, that women so working are always in danger of becoming isolated and of losing the strength and the larger -vision which are the out come of a -wider recognition than that of a Parish, We believe that the security against these possible evils and defects lies in Diocesan organization ; and that this security would be provided by a recommendation we put forward which deals -with the whole range of women's work in the Church and -with which we con clude our Report, We submit that in every Diocese there ought to exist a Board of Women's Work, including among its members men as well as women. This Board would endeavour both to inspire and to direct women workers of aU kinds within the Diocese. AU approved women workers would be placed upon its roll. It would be ready to give them counsel. It would arrange for Retreats and Quiet days, and take other measures for building up the spiritual life of those who bear a hea-vy strain of work and difficulty and sometimes of disappointment. It would advise and encourage those younger women who are considering the caU to Church work. But among its other func tions this Board would always include these two. It woiUd draw up and carry out a scheme whereby certificates of ascertained fitness and competence, recognized at least throughout the Diocese, woiUd be given to women workers qualified in various departments of work. And in the second place it would from time to time consider the questions relating to the training of aU women workers in the Church and the conditions of their employ ment and also to the remuneration of paid women workers in the Church, By such an organization we are persuaded that their position would be raised and rendered more honourable, and that their efficiency, on which so much depends in the coming years, would be made more uniform and more stable. (Signed) F. H. ELY, Chairman. No, VI. Report of the CoMMiTTEEt Appointed to Consider and Report upon Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality, Your Committee appointed to consider " Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality " begs leave to report as follows : In approaching the great problems of Marriage, Birth Control, and Sexual Purity we are conscious that we are called upon to deal with subjects of immeasurable importance to the human race, and concerning which nations and individuals look with longing desire for the help and guidance of the Christian Church, We are moved by a sympathy which comes from the knowledge that the temptations to sexual sin are probably the most uni versal in the world, and by the con-viction of our own experience that it is the example and power of our blessed Lord's perfect humanity, with the gift of His Holy Spirit, which enables men to stand firm in hours of trial. Therefore, in submitting our Report and the accompanying Resolutions, our hope is that our recommendations may be re garded not as the outcome of cold ecclesiasticism, but as the warmhearted effort of experience to guide and to sustain alike those who work for souls, those who long to see nations fit for their ¦j- Names of Members of the Committee : — Bishop of Bangor Bishop of Rangoon Bishop of Birmingham Bishop of Riverina* Bishop of Derry Bishop of Sacramento Bishop of Dover Bishop of St. Edmondsbury and Bishop of Duluth* Ipswich Bishop of Edmonton Bishop of Singapore Bishop of Guildford (Secretary) Bishop of Sodor and Man Bishop Howells Bishop of Southampton Bishop of Huron Bishop of Southwell Bishop of Kansas Bishop of Texas Bishop in Khartoum* Bishop of Thetford Bishop of Lewes Bishop of Vermont Bishop of Llandaff Bishop of Victoria, Hong Kong Bishop of London (Chairman) Bishop of Western Massachusetts Bishop of Nagpur Bishop of Western Missouri Bishop of Nassau Bishop of Western Nebraska Bishop of North-West Australia Bishop of Willochra Bishop of Norwich Bishop of Zululand* Bishop of Ottawa I08 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O great world responsibUities, and those "who know that they cannot fulfU God's purpose unless they have learned, whether in married or in single Ufe, to be straight and clean before God and man. The Christian Church has a code of morals as imperious in its claims as the rule of faith given in the Creeds. The Clergy are commissioned to teach the Christian Religion, which is to guide and hallow men's lives. To bear witness to the Divine Will, and to work for the fulfilment of that Will in the elevation and perfection of human life, is the very purpose of the Church's existence in the world. If the Church is to leaven human society, it must faithfuUy uphold this standard at any cost, both by its teaching and by the exercise of discipHne, refusing the privUeges of the Church to those who transgress the divine command ment. This -witness is the duty not only of Bishops and Priests, or of the Church coUectively in synod or convention, but of individual Christian people. Laws to be enforced, whether ecclesiastical or civil, must have a background of public opinion. Hence the great importance of being rightly informed as to the Christian law in this as in other matters, as well as of faithfulness and courage in bearing witness to it, AU will agree that there can be no subjects of graver im portance than those connected with the sacredness of the f amUy, The famUy is God's first institution upon earth, the cradle alike of Church and State, and marriage is the foundation of the family. Where family life is dishonoured, wedded unfaithfulness lightly regarded, parental responsibility neglected, fUial respect and obedience slighted, there, we may be sure, society is rotten at the core. We tremble for the future of a state or nation where lax theories concerning domestic life gain ground. Even laxer practice will certainly prevail. There is sad evidence at the present time of a widespread lowering of moral conditions. The increased number of illegitimate births, accompanied by a lowered total birth-rate ; the multiplication of divorces, among the consequences of which the breaking up of homes for the chUdren is not the least disastrous ; the widespread existence of venereal diseases, acquired or congenital, affecting a large percentage of the population ; these all sound a note of serious alarm and warning. It is easy in this, as in other matters, to throw blame upon the war. To a large extent, and with some aggravations, the war probably disclosed conditions already existing, to which people generaUy were accustomed to shut their eyes. We are persuaded that a great deal of the evU in ques tion is due to ignorance, both of natural laws and of Christian teaching on the subject. And for this the Church must take PROBLEMS OF MARRIAGE IO9 its fuU share of blame in having faUed to give plain teaching about Cmarriage, and, before this, about purity. Our young people and chUdren must be taught the virtue of purity in the right and reverent treatment of their own bodies and in the relation of the sexes one to the other. Purity should be taught not in a merely negative aspect as a refraining from wrongful indulgence, but as a positive virtue, shewn in the use of our nature, and its every part, for its intended purpose. What ever there may have been to say in the past in favour of a poUcy of silence on such subjects, the time for such a policy is now gone. As a matter of fact, knowledge and discussion of matters of sex are far more widely spread than people generaUy recognize. Children often in early years learn evil in all sorts of ways, GuUty knowledge ought to be anticipated by wholesome training, in which modesty and reserve are carefully guarded. It is a duty and pri-vUege of fathers and mothers to give such instruc tion to their boys and girls. This parental teaching should be supplemented by guardians, godparents, teachers- — ordinarily of their own sex — and clerg5mien. These must qualify themselves for gi-ving such guidance and instruction, whether individually or in the class or congregation. Each of these methods has its proper place. Educational authorities should be urged to interest themselves in the matter, and to use as may be found possible the influence and capacity of the teachers. In all such instruction care should be taken to train the character of the chUd as weU as to give information in regard to these subjects. The dignity of purity, of a clean upright life, and the possibUity of its preservation by the help of God through prayer and the sacraments, must be put before the young. In connexion with the prescribed preliminaries of marriage, the Committee strongly urges that every effort should be made to impress upon those who are going to be married the importance of the step they are taking and its solemnity. Courtship should be Ufted to a higher level, and in particular betrothal should be presented to young people as a sacred matter. We feel that it is incumbent upon the clergy in every possible case to -visit the betrothed persons, and to press upon them the responsibilities of marriage, and the sacredness of the union for which they are preparing. The Clergy are urged, as a part of their regular instruction in the Christian reUgion, to give to their people plain teaching and explanation about marriage, concerning which many are lamentably ignorant. For instance, they should insist on such fundamental principles as these : (i) The law of marriage. Marriage according to God's design, to which we are recaUed by our Lord Jesus Christ, is the no LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O lifelong union of one man ¦with one woman, to the exclusion of aU others on either side. It is the union of two persons for the whole and every part of their Hfe which justifies and haUows their physical union, (2) WhUe the essence of marriage consists in the consent before others of the man and woman to live permanently one with another as husband and -wife, the Christian Church solemnizes the contract made in the presence of its minister with appro priate prayers and blessing, (3) The conditions of marriage laid down by the ci^vU authority must be complied with before the Church can solemnize a mar riage. The Church may impose further conditions for its sanction and benediction, (4) The purposes of marriage. Marriage is intended for the haUo-wing and control of natural sexual instincts ; for the pro creation of chUdren, and their nurture and training ; and for the mutual companionship and support of husband and wife in good and evU estate. To ignore or defeat any of these purposes is a violation of God's institution. Clergymen often find their own judgement and experience quite inadequate for answering some of the questions, or for dealing with some of the cases, with which they may be faced in the course of their pastoral work. Much harm may be done by men of the best intentions through lack of knowledge as to the principles upon which their counsel should be based, or the way in which it should be given. The systematic study of Moral Theology ought to be regarded as an indispensable part of training for the Clergy, in order that they may have for their guidance, in the application of Christian principles to particular problems, the formulated experience of those who have given most consideration to the difficulties involved. It is greatly to be hoped that some standard work on this subject may be compUed by Anglican writers which ¦wiU be accepted as embodying the Church's teaching in the Hght of present-day needs. With regard to the permanence of marriage, our Lord's teaching, recaUing men to God's original design for marriage, is given by St. Mark, " From the beginning of the creation male and female made He them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shaU cleave to his wife ; and the two shaU become one flesh ; so that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder, . , , Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her : and if she herself shaU put away her husband and marry another she committeth adultery." (St. Mark x. 6-12. Cf, St, Luke xvi. 18; i Cor. vii. PROBLEMS OF MARRIAGE III 10, II.) This has been generally recognized as the principle and standard which the Church of Jesus Christ is bound to maintain. Although there has been from early times a difference of opinion as to the meaning of our Lord's words as recorded in St. Matthew (v. 32 and xix. 9), and as to the lawfulness of remarriage after divorce for the cause of adultery, the Committee would earnestly urge that the only true standard of marriage, which should be steadfastly upheld, is a Hfelong union, for better for worse, not shutting out the possibiUty of penitence and reconcihation even after grievous offences. Nevertheless, we admit the right of a National Church to deal with the excepted case recorded in St. Matthew under such safe guards and discipHnary provisions as such Church may lay down. Recognition of a single exception to the rule of indissoluble marriage, " for the cause of adultery," with the disallow ance of any other causes that may be considered analogous to this, rests on the fact that sexual unfaithfulness stands in a different position from any other suggested ground of divorce, since it is the perversion of a special and singular relation which has no proper place outside the marriage tie. This is not to make little of the spiritual aspects of marriage of which the physical union is a pledge and expression. Our Lord's words in St. Matthew cannot be taken as giving only one sample out of many sufficient causes for the dissolution of marriage, since none other, however deplorable, touches the root of marriage itself. No compassion for present hardships in particular cases can justify the lowering for aU of the standard of Christ, which alone insures the welfare of society and of the race. Discrepancy between ci^vU law, made by and for persons of all beUefs or of none, and that of the Christian Church, is often the cause of difficulty as to the solemnization by the Church of a marriage, which, though aUowed by the State, is not in accordance ¦with the Church's law, and concerning the admission of the parties thus married to the Sacraments and privUeges of the Church. If aUowance is not made for such discrepancy, the acceptance of universal civil marriage, foUowed, where this is sought, by the Church's benediction, might have to be contemplated. For no Christian Minister can suffer himself to be regarded simply as a State official bound to perform or recognize any marriage which the ci^vU law aUows. But this would not be, as is sometimes supposed, an easy means of escaping from aU complications. The Church's treatment of persons only civUly married would raise innumerable questions of great perplexity. The Church is better able to make its voice heard in this whole matter in some parts of the world than in others, and the acquiescence of the Church in civU marriage in any of the Home countries might react unfavourably in the mission field. In aU cases of civU marriage 112 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O it is desirable that the ceremony should be performed in a manner befitting the solemnity of the act. The Committee deems it very important that marriage preliminaries, whether ecclesias tical or ci^vU, should be made more satisfactory than they are in many places at the present time. The preliminaries are supposed to insure delay, caution and pubUcity, but it is more than doubtful whether, generaUy speaking, they achieve their end. With regard to the right use of marriage, difficult questions are forced upon our consideration. The purposes for which marriage is ordained have already been stated. It is not for us to deal with the strictly medical discussions on the subject, though these have engaged our careful attention. We recog nize that the physical union of husband and wife has a sacra mental value by which is expressed and strengthened the love that the one ought to have for the other. At the same time we urge the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control and we feel called upon to utter an earnest warning against the use of any unnatural means by which con ception is frustrated. We are aware that many persons of un doubted sincerity, whose opinions are entitled to respect, do not share this view, considering the whole matter as chiefiy a question of expediency to be determined on medical, financial and social grounds. This contention we cannot admit, as we believe that the question cannot be separated from the moral and religious issues involved. The appaUing statistics concerning the -wide spread of venereal disease, reaching in its effect far beyond the person of the offender, forbid us to be silent on the subject. WhUe moved by the most earnest desire to stop the disease, to cure those who have sinned, and in particular to protect the innocent from suffering, the Committee must condemn the distribution, or use before exposure to infection, of so-caUed prophylactics, since these cannot but be regarded as an invitation to vice. Subsequent treatment of those who have unhappUy fallen is an entirely different matter, and should be encouraged and supported. The Committee would urge that everywhere relentless war fare should be waged on brothels and on aU who are directly or indirectly responsible for them ; and Ukewise feels bound to pro test against ¦vice being in any way legalized, regulated or arranged for. In these matters the woman's side is to be considered as weU as the man's. Women must not be sacrificed for the supposed benefit of men ; whUe for men we contend that such provision is neither necessary nor allowable. From the exhaustive re search by Mr. Abraham Flexner it is manifest that even the object aimed at, of making vice safe, is not attained by licence and PROBLEMS OF MARRIAGE II3 regulation, since under this system the evU with its consequences of disease is increased rather than diminished. The wise and firm administration of laws relating to street solicitation, by men or women, should be insisted on. Parks and places of public recreation should be guarded for their proper use and preserved from becoming centres of demoralizing indecency. The employment of women police has in many places been found of great value and deserves the warm support of the Church. In the matter of seduction the age of consent should nowhere be lower than 18 years. All such repression of wrong, it must be continually re membered, wUl be of Httle effect without a heightened pubUc opinion penetrated by reUgious motives. The fear of God, whose displeasure at sins of impurity is constantly manifested in our experience, as weU as recorded in Holy Scripture ; personal devotion to our Lord Jesus Christ, the model of true manhood ; and trust in the renewing power of the Holy Spirit — are needed to enable men and women to withstand the lusts of the flesh and to present their bodies to God a reasonable, holy and Uving sacrifice. Along with these higher motives we may plead with men for a chivalrous treatment of all women as of their own mothers, sisters and daughters, and with women for such self- respecting care in matters of dress and behaviour as -wiU claim the respect of men and avoid any putting of stumbUng-blocks in their way. AU right-minded persons should be urged to unite in the suppression of pernicious Hterature and of plays, pictures and fUms suggestive of evU. Complaints have been made of the low moral tone of Euro peans and Americans which sometimes exist with regard to the treatment of Asiatic women and those of other races. There are places where immoral relations with them on the part of foreigners are too commonly regarded as allowable, whUe with white women they would be severely censured. No such distinction of race or colour can be tolerated by the Christian Church. One law must be maintained of purity and respect for all. At the same time the Committee recognizes the severe temptations to which young men employed in Eastern and tropical countries are exposed, at a distance from their famiUes. We would urge, among other ameliorative measures, the reconsideration, in view of these moral dangers, of unduly severe restrictions some times imposed on their marriage. Sad ignorance and apathy exist among Church people con cerning Preventive and Rescue Work. Even in some of our congregations, where missionary interest is keen, the rescue work of the Church is never mentioned. The clergy themselves often- 114 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O times manifest a strange ignorance of actual conditions and a lack of sympathy with the efforts being made. What a contrast this to the mind of Christ as expressed in the Gospels ! In wit nessing for purity, and in restoring those who have faUen victims to sins of impurity, there is an urgent need for enUsting fresh forces. A larger number of educated women endowed ¦with power of discernment and with wide sympathies is called for. In con nexion with efficient workers there is need of central Homes for speciahzed training for this department of work to be carried on, both at home and in the mission field. The aid of a trained woman worker for advice and for organization has been found of the greatest value in a large number of dioceses, and is recommended for wider adoption. In the care of those who have sinned methods of repression are largely discredited. It is recognized that the beauty and happiness of a Christian Hfe should be put before them, and represented in the cheerful surroundings of the Home and in a living Christian feUowship, along ¦with the discipHne which is needed for buUding the character. For wise treatment greater classification is necessary. Young and old offenders cannot be helpfuUy gathered together in one Home. The feeble-minded need separate care. Maternity cases must be provided for, ¦with the after-care of mother and chUd. AU this involves a large out lay, but not more than offerings of love and penitence ought without difficulty to provide. Hitherto the emphasis has been put chiefly on the resiUts of immorality, and that mostly on the women's side. More thought should be given to the buUding up of pure manhood and woman hood, whereby both God wUl be glorified and the commonwealth be served. There has been too general an acquiescence in the degrading he that chastity is not to be expected in boys and men. The single standard for both sexes, before and after marriage, must be constantly insisted upon. It can be triumphantly pointed to as reaUzed in the Uves of multitudes of men and women. The aid of men of good and disciplined character is needed for the help of boys and young men, and in combating horrible temptations to which they are often exposed from elders of their own sex. The Committee is compelled to notice the prevalence in some quarters of unnatural ¦vice. The strengthening of general sentiment in abhorrence of such practices is of the greatest importance. We fear that the pubUc conscience is not sufficiently alive to this terrible mischief, GUIs and boys are frequently drawn astray through the lone- Uness and dulness of their Hves, As preventive measures, healthy amusements ought to be provided and opportunities afforded for friendly intercourse. We urge that by every kind PROBLEM OF MARRIAGE I15 of social effort men and women will strive to turn the loneliness of many lives into the brightness which should belong to Christian feUowship. In the whole matter of combating impurity the co-operation of civic authorities should be sought as weU as of medical men. While preventive and rescue work must be done as a rule on denominational lines, we strongly urge that for the preservation of public morals and raising the standard in a community, all religious denominations, and indeed aU men of goodwill, should be invited to unite. Such unity and co-operation increases immensely the force of a moral protest, and by experience it has been found that few moral evils can stand for long before real united action. It is clear, moreover, that a councU which repre sents aU right-minded citizens has far more power in prosecuting the pubUshers and vendors of indecent literature, in clearing parks and open spaces of undesirable characters, and in attacking the at present unchecked scandal of the open sale in some places of contraceptives. It is hoped that some form of Public Morality CouncU, by whatever name it may be caUed, may be estabUshed in every large city, with local branches to deal with the ever- varying loc^ forms of evU. A Social Service CouncU in each country or state, such as exists in Canada, would be of great value in bringing the combined pressure of different religious bodies to bear upon legislative and administrative measures affecting moral interests. It is only by the creation of a healthy public opinion that we can hope to get rid of many temptations which unnecessarily beset the path of our young people, and it is the duty of the Church to lead and foster such healthy pubHc opinion throughout the world. (Signed) A. F. LONDON: Chaij'man. I 2 No, VII. Report of the Committee f Appointed to Consider and Report upon the Christian Faith in Relation to (a) Spiritualism; (b) Christian Science; and (c) Theosophy. It has been our task to consider the relation of the Christian Faith and the duty of the Church towards those, movements of thought and practice which are associated at the present time with Spiritualism, Christian Science and Theosophy. Many of us have for some time studied much of the Hterature on one or aU of the subjects ; the published Hterature has formed the basis of this report ; some of us have also taken opportunities of discussion with those who have special knowledge. It need not be said that our first aim is to be able to understand them at their best, to make sure that we have not overlooked or mis represented important or saUent features. At the same time it is exceedingly difficult to achieve this end. The literature itself is voluminous : and at the same time it is not easy to find authoritative statements to enable us to define precisely the marks which distinguish the teaching and practice to be accepted by adherents. We are told that Theosophy is a body of truths, but that members of the Theosophical Society are not bound to accept any particular statement of them. It is true that Christian Scientists are provided with a book which defines the content of their beliefs : but here again it is difficult to be sure that we appreciate correctly their use of the terms employed ; for instance, are we meaning the same thing, or anything Hke the same thing, when we discuss the terms " reality," " error," " material," " spirit " or " the Christ " ? t Names of Members of the Committee : — Archbishop of Armagh Bishop Nash (Capetown Coadjutor) Bishop of Ashe^ville Bishop of Newcastle Bishop in Assam Archbishop of Nova Scotia Bishop of Barrow (Secretary) Bishop of Ossory Bishop of Barbados* Bishop of Ottawa Bishop of Derby Bishop of Quincy Bishop of Exeter Bishop of Oxford (Chairman) Bishop of George* Bishop of Sierra Leone Bishop of Glasgow Bishop of Southwark Bishop of Goulburn Bishop of Stafford Bishop of Grafton* Bishop Stearly (Newark Coadjutor) Bishop of Grahamstown Bishop of Tuam Bishop of Jarrow Bishop of Victoria, Hong Kong Bishop of Kensington* Bishop of Virginia Bishop of Knaresborough Bishop of Wakefield Bishop of Kootenay Bishop of Western New York Bishop of Lincoln* Bishop of West Virginia Bishop of Llandaff Bishop of Wyoming Bishop of Madras spiritualism 117 However, we are able to appreciate characteristics common to all three subjects; First, they protest against materialism and a materiaUstic basis of human Hfe. As in previous periods of human thought, so now this protest is the natural outcome of an epoch of ferment and unrest, and of immense material expansion accompanied by increasing facUities of communication, and by the rapid dissemination of ideas. In the Nineteenth century the development and the range of scientific discovery were stupendous : this tended at first to rivet popular attention upon the application of discoveries to promoting the material facihties and conveniences of life, and at the same time to encourage the belief that aU the mysteries of life were discover able and could be explained by theories derived from and verified by sense-observation. There foUowed inevitably the recognition of limitation and a sense of dissatisfaction, and it would be true to say that all departments of human speculation have been turned more and more in the direction of relating man and the world in which he lives to God, of recognizing the reahty of the unseen, and of a deep longing for some revelation of it. Upon all this has come the catastrophe and shock of the War and the desolating, bewUdering questions which such an experience raises. It is easy to understand the appeal which in times like our own the Spiritualist, the Christian Scientist and the Theosophist make, especiaUy to those who may have been indifferent to the spiritual claim of religion and religious motives or absorbed in material interests. Secondly, aU three movements draw much of their strength from a new knowledge of the extent of psychic powers with which human nature is endowed. It seems that these powers are as real as, though less general than, our physical powers, and further, that the use or abuse of them depends in the same way upon spiritual control and direction. This is plainly shewn by the use and abuse of psychic gifts in the Bible story. In discriminate exercise of them is often just as fatal to the indi-vidual and to society as uncontroUed use of physical powers. UntU it becomes clearer how such psychic powers may be rightly used and controUed, the Church is supported by psychologists in ad-vising the greatest caution and restraint. Thirdly, each of the three movements claims to supply something which the teaching and practice of the Church fail to give, whether in directness and correspondence with human needs of to-day or in comprehensiveness. Here they make their appeal to professed members of " the Church who, for whatever reason, are left unsatisfied by the normal teaching and discipline offered to them. Fourthly, there is nothing essentiaUy new in these particular movements, either in the circumstances which have stimulated them, or in the ideas which they express, or in the teaching which Il8 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O is given. It is not difficult, for instance, to recognize a re-vival of the doctrines, sometimes couched in the same terms, of the Gnostics and the Neo-Platonists, -with the same developments of spiritualistic practice and the same distortions of it by the ignorant or the unscrupulous. Fifthly, none of these movements finds its centre in the central revelation of the Christian Faith, namely the In carnation of our Lord as the unique fact of human history and the means as well as the manifestation of redemption. SpirituaUsm practised as a religious cult appears generally to be independent of it : Christian Science seems to allegorize it or to allow it to fade into a false mysticism : Theosophy loses sight of it in a fusion of various religious systems. We are therefore chaUenged now as in previous ages to fulfU as guardians of the Faith our natural office. We do not mean that we have merely to repeat time-honoured formulae. We have to state, and to state in terms which are real and convincing to the mind of our time, the fundamental truths of the Christian revelation, and foUowing from them the purpose of our Hfe here, its discipUne, its hope, and its bearing upon a life beyond. Let it be said that one condition on which these truths become con-vincing is that the statement of them should be enriched by aU the knowledge avaUable. As has been said of Origen, so it must always be said of guardians of the Faith, " his faith was catholic and therefore he welcomed every kind of knowledge as tributary to its fulness." We are able wholeheartedly and without shrinking to welcome research, criticism, scientific investigation : we are ready to accept conclusions to the extent and within the limits which scientific reasoning and methods authorize. We have to safeguard ourselves and others against the inevitable tendency to aUow the imagination to be caught by theories, and to translate them into practice, before we are sure of the grounds upon which they rest. Above all it is only by keeping firm hold of the cardinal truths upon which Christian faith and practice are established that new knowledge can be given its right setting. The Christian Faith in relation to (a) — SPIRITUALISM . It seems that in dealing -with this subject on behalf of the Conference we have to address ourselves to two distinct questions : (i) What have we to say to the investigations of the phenomena of human consciousness and the results of those investigations conducted for a period of years, beginning in 1876, when Sir W. Barrett brought the subject of thought-transference or telepathy before the British Association, and carried on notably by the Society of Psychical Research ? (2) What have we to say to SPIRITUALISM 119 the reUgious cults and practices which have been created on the basis of what is beUeved to have been so far discovered and is known as Spiritualism ? In answering the first question we say without hesitation that we welcome scientific investigation : we recognize the patience and the skUl with which members of the Psychical Research Society examine the mass of evidence of aU kinds submitted to them, and above aU the unmistakeable desire to safeguard the inquiry against Ulusion or fraud, to arrive at truths, and to interpret scientific facts correctly. It is not for us to decide whether the scientific methods applied to these particular phenomena are appropriate, i.e. whether the methods of physical science can be applied to psychical phenomena. Our desire is to understand what conclusions have been reached along these lines of research. These have been stated as follows : (i) There is a con-viction of the reahty of telepathy, or communication between li-ving beings by means which appear to be independent of the normal sense-organs. (2) There is also a conviction of the reahty of a subconscious ness which may operate -without the control of the normal consciousness and -wiU {e.g. in dreams). (3) This does not necessarily imply communication with beings no longer Hmited by the conditions of bodily existence as we know it here ; but there are phenomena which appear to support that hypothesis. (4) In investigating such phenomena great difficulties arise owing to the play, very imperfectly understood, of the sub conscious self in the medium employed and in the inquirer. Mrs. Henry Sidgwick writes : " Before we can convince the world we not only want more cases giving e-vidence of the fact of personal sur'vival but we want them solidly based on more knowledge of the subliminal self and the way it works, more knowledge of the conditions and process of telepathy, more understanding of the Hmitations under which communication with the dead occurs." The outcome of these conclusions from the scientific side would seem to be : — (i) To give a serious warning against unregulated and undue exercise of an element of human consciousness which acts independently of the reason and the wUl, and against allo-wing reason and vnU to abdicate in its favour. (2) To insist upon an outlook upon life which refuses to accept materiaUsm as a sufficient account of phenomena, and to en courage beUef in a spiritual explanation. We welcome inquiry conducted in this reverent and scrupulous spirit. 120 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O In answering the second question we enter on our main and proper function, which is to consider the religious cult and prac tice of what is caUed Spiritualism. We have evidence that, especially under the stress of the horrors and anxieties of the war, particularly in our crowded areas, Spiritualism has affected in some instances even regular Church-goers, -withdra-wing them from the Church. But it has mainly laid hold of that large class amongst us who have been casual in religious observance, and have never grasped or made their own the Christian teaching which rests upon the revelation graduaUy unfolded in the Bible, summed up in the Creed, and reaUzed for us here in Sacraments. It deals with man's fellowship with God, and therefore with immortality, etemal Hfe and the life we share with those who have passed from us. Many have felt and expressed dissatisfac tion with the consolations offered by the Church, have mis represented — no doubt unconsciously — what the Church holds and teaches, and have imagined that Spiritualist doctrine sup- pUes something which the Church lacks and which the spirit of man needs to strengthen and uplift it. This shews that we have faUed to teach clearly enough or fiUly enough the great simple Christian truths about the supernatural, and the grounds upon which those truths are based. We think there is real need now and in the immediate future to use the opportunities pro vided abundantly by the Press as weU as in other ways to make clear and definite statements of what Christianity holds and hands on about the Hfe of the world beyond and our relation to it during our Hfe here. Any such statement wiU insist that our view of Hfe essentiaUy centres in God ; that the purpose of man's Hfe here, or hereafter, is to attain fuller knowledge of God, a deeper, richer love of God, and a closer union with His Being ; that Jesus Christ is not only Himself Eternal God but also the one Mediator, through His Incarnation and Redemption, by whom man can reach God : that by His life in us, and by our Hfe in Him we become sons of God : that the Sacraments convey to us the grace of God : that revelation through the prophets is the unfolding to us of the Wisdom of God : that the Eucharist is the method by which, through union with Jesus Christ, we may arise to God. Our duty and relation to one another rests upon the dependence of all of us upon God. The whole faith, strength, hope, acti-vity of a Chris tian centres in the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit to comfort and support us ; and God's Love holds together in constant fellowship those who share that Love here and those who have passed beyond. Spiritualistic religion and practice throw a whoUy different emphasis upon the motive power of man's life : immortaUty is there concerned with the survival of human persons more than with God ; the life beyond is represented largely as an extension SPIRITUALISM 121 of what is experienced here and now ; and the fact is overlooked that sur-vival is not necessarily immortality, stiU less eternal life. But, further, the Christian Faith declares that the life in Christ after death is an advance towards a more perfect feUow ship -with God for those who have been seekers after God and have not alienated themselves from feUowship with Him. That fellowship we may enjoy imperfectly here through the eternal Hfe on which we have entered and in virtue of which by the grace of God we are enabled to respond to Him. We insist that conduct and the working out of character in the ordeal of life here is of vital importance in determining the condition under which we may enjoy feUowship -with God hereafter. In its doctrine of the Communion of Saints the Church insists that we can and do have Communion with the departed through the Love of God which is in Christ Jesus. The media tion of Christ is the only medium which we recognize as the means by which we approach God : and it foUows that aU who strive and use the means to live in Christ are united to one another in Him — " neither death, nor life " can separate them. We are content to leave in His hands all who have passed from our Ufe here, knowing that our communion -with them through Him is intensely real. This may be fuUy accepted by Spiritualistic teachers and yet they might urge that such communion does not conflict -with definite communication : indeed might not definite com munication serve to make the fact of the spiritual world and our fellowship -with it more real ? To this we should answer that the constant search for definite communication as practised by spirituaUstic teachers does, in fact, arrest the development of faith, diverting us from the need and also from the means of our spiritual education to an interest in experiments to determine whether communication is possible or real and to the desire to escape from the discipUne of faith. The " eye of holiness " and notlung less than hoUness is required for the -vision of the unseen world ; the pure in heart see God the more completely as they grow in purity. Moreover, many practices by which such communication is sought lead to a loss of true communion through the Love of God in Christ Jesus, because in them the subconscious self is released from the control of our wiUs, and no moral struggle for purity is made. Our whole personaUty is not raised to the realm of spiritual being, but one element is aUowed to become dominant, and that element manifestly the least regulated and regulative of our faculties, and, therefore, the most exposed to Ulusion and deception. The Christian Scriptures undoubtedly declare the existence of unseen beings who influence men for good or evU. We cannot, therefore, dismiss the possi bUity of communications from such beings of either nature. Such possibility wUl for Christians form an additional reason 122 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O for precaution when they are in-vited to seek intercourse with the spirits of the departed. We cannot insist too strongly upon the known fact that the indiscriminate and undisciplined indulgence of subconscious activity may gravely injure character, and that the habit of recourse to siances and " seers " leads to no spiritual benefit. It is possible that we may be on the threshold of a new Science, which wUl by another method of approach confirm us in the assurance of a world behind and beyond the world we see, and of something within us by which we are in contact with it. We could never presume to set a Hmit to means which God may use to bring man to the realization of spiritual life. But there is nothing in the cult erected on this Science which enhances, there is, indeed, much which obscures, the meaning of that other world and our relation to it as unfolded in the Gospel of Christ and the teaching of the Church, and which depreciates the means given to us of attaining and abiding in feUowship with that world. (J) — CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. We desire to acknowledge the debt we owe to the Lambeth Conference of 1908 for the Report on Ministries of Healing, and to record our general agreement -with that Report. Twelve years have passed since that Report was issued. These have been years of active research and the war has pro-vided manifold experience in aU branches of healing. It is therefore natural that some advance should now be made towards definite conclusions upon questions that were left open by the last Conference and that certain fundamental truths should be re-emphasized in their bearing upon present problems. It appears to the Committee that too much emphasis has been laid in many quarters upon the distinction between what are caUed spiritual means of healing, and what are called physical means of heaUng. Wherever this distinction is wrongly made it is fatal to truth. The promise of Christ to His Church is that His Spirit shall guide His people into all the truth. In view of that promise we are justified in claiming as due to the operation of the Di-vine Spirit all progress in the knowledge of the physical world, particularly such knowledge as is being constantly brought into the service of love through the relief of human suffering. Thus we claim as due to the Spirit of the Incarnate Christ all the devoted and self-sacrificing labour in scientific research and in the appUcation of the results of that research in medicine, surgery, nursing, hygiene and sanitation. FuU account must also be taken of the great progress which has been made since the last report was issued in psychothera peutics or psychiatry in all its branches. Side by side with these we recognize that both in study and in practice there CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 123 has been notable development in the direction of healing with prayer accompanied by laying-on of hands or of anointing. In these three departments of heaUng considered under the heads of physical science, psychology, and religion, without making a claim to exact analysis, we seem to find some corres pondence with the threefold division of Man's nature into body, mind, and spirit, and we look forward confidently to an orderly movement towards the adjustment and co-ordination of these three aspects of the work of healing. In an age of specialized study we have constantly to be upon our guard against over emphasizing one aspect of the subject- matter. To ignore or exaggerate one aspect of healing must result in failure to achieve the full purpose of God's gifts. We believe that no one of these aspects of healing can possibly be excluded from the scope of the term spiritual. Physical means of healing can only be regarded as unspiritual when men deliberately shut their eyes to the truth that these means are the creation and gift of God. It is the task of the Church to remind and persuade aU concerned in this ministry of healing, patients no less than physicians, nurses, and others, of the spiritual nature of their undertaking and to affirm our faith that in the Hvely sense of this lies the best hope of success. And here we are bound with penitence to acknowledge that there has often been a grave deficiency in our Church's faith and teaching. Not sufficiently have we emphasized our Lord's revelation of the Fatherhood of God, of the fulness of His Love, of His loving care of body as well as of soul, which in-vites us to cast all our care upon Him. The Gospel lesson of " God-Faith " and the inward joy and peace, of which the best Christian experience is the -witness, have been allowed too often to lose their supremacy. Christians safeguard that supremacy not by ignoring or denjnng the fact of suffering, but by transfiguring it through the teaching, example and power of our Lord. This neglect on our part to enforce certain aspects of the Christian faith has led inevitably to reaction. The Movement known as Christian Science for instance has undoubtedly helped to call attention to the importance of spiritual forces in the work of healing and in the promotion of happiness and general weU-being. This movement has, however, tended, often with grave results both to chUdren and to adults, to disparage all physical methods of healing and God's gift of scientific research and knowledge which is intended to be received and used with thanksgi-ving. Under the influence of this pseudo-spirituality Christian Science has developed doctrines which, so far as we can gather from its text-book, appear to be in direct conflict with _ the Christian faith. We need only dweU upon one or two of these points. 124 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O (i) Christian Science emphasizes the Oneness of God and of the Universe in a way that does not in fact escape from pantheism. Oneness is regarded as undifferentiated Oneness in which no real place is left for distinctions or for variety. Personal terms are used of God but are at the same time declared to be synony mous with impersonal Principle, As against this we would urge the fulness of the teaching of the CathoUc Faith concerning the Personal Being of God as revealed in the doctrines of the Incarnation and of the Blessed Trinity. (2) Christian Science in fact revives the old dualism of matter and Spirit : matter is whoUy Ulusory, the source of nothing but error and therefore evil. As against this the Catholic Faith teaches that whUe Spirit is supreme, matter is a vehicle through which Spirit finds expression : the whole world is sacramental : we touch here a conviction that is fundamental to the Christian faith. If matter, as Christian Science maintains, is non-existent and cannot enter into the consciousness of God, the Incarnation of the Son of God in human nature is impossible, and Scriptural teaching upon the redemption of man and of creation becomes meaningless. (3) In the presentation of our Lord a distinction is made between Christ the ideal Truth and Jesus the human prophet of GalUee. Jesus becomes the man who more than any other man proved the Principle which heals the sick and casts out error to be di-vine. There is no essential distinction between our Saviour and aU other men — though a difference in the degree of possession of the Christ Ideal is fully emphasized. There is no conception at aU of grace coming to men through Jesus Christ ; we are only invited to follow in His steps as of one who is the Wayshower. (4) The denial of the reality of sin empties the Atonement of its usual Christian content. In the Hght of what has been said we would urge the foUo-wing practical recommendations : — There should be — (i) Clearer and more constant teaching as weU as study of the fuU doctrine of the Church in its bearing upon true spirituaUty. (2) Teaching about Prayer and Holy Communion ; special efficacy is promised to the " prayer of faith " ; this prayer may be offered by individuals, by congregations in Church, and by prayer-circles formed of those who desire to forward the work of heaUng. In Holy Communion also the thought of our Saviour's care of the body has its place ; in the words of administration the preservation of the body is mentioned side by side -with the preservation of the soul. CHRISTIAN SCIENCE 125 (3) We would urge the recognition of the Ministry and gifts of healing in the Church, and that these should be exercised under due licence and authority. This, in our opinion, -wiU involve : — (a) Instruction both of clergy and laity so that the corporate faith of the Church may be stimulated and the power to heal may be released. (h) Training : we feel that it is important that Candidates for Holy Orders should be equipped by training in psychology, and be given some acquaintance with methods and principles of healing. Only so wUl the clergy be enabled rightly to direct the thought of their people on the subject and to discriminate between truth and error. (c) Re-vision of the Office of the Visitation of the Sick ; or the pro-vision, under due authority from National or Provincial Churches, of an alternative office containing recommendations and regulations for laying-on of hands with prayer for recovery with or -without unction as may be desired. (d) Authorization : all who are Ucensed under due authority for this work should be persons who are loyal to the Church's Faith and Sacraments, who are wUling to work in f uU co-operation -with the Medical profession, and who are wiUing to work also in loyal co-operation with the parochial clergy. In conclusion, whUe unable to dweU upon the many problems which the whole subject raises, relating to the mystery of pain and suffering, we may say that whUe disease is a part of the lack of harmony with the perfect will of God, and thus that aU healing powers are an expression of God's wUl and power to heal, yet pain and suffering in themselves also bear witness to the working of God's laws in nature in this present order. The ordeal of Hfe here is the education of the human spirit in fuU obedience to God and trust in Him ; suffering, therefore, may be overruled by God for blessing, and is, within our experience, constantly so over ruled, becoming thus a means of true spiritual growth and of intimate feUowship with our Saviour. " Who learned obedience by the things which He suffered ; and being made perfect, became the author of eternal salvation unto aU them that obey Him." (c) — THEOSOPHY. The Theosophical Society represents a vigorous revival of earUer mystical and occult philosophies. The rediscovery of the teaching of Asiatic religions, the realization of latent psychical powers in human nature, the revolt against exclusivism and traditionalism in some current forms of Christian theology, the recognition of the continuity and unity of human evolution, aU these factors combined to create a demand for a more complete 126 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O synthesis of aU human knowledge and belief. Modern Theosophy offers to supply this demand. It is however extremely difficult to determine what Theosophy is. Representative English theosophists insist that the Theosophical Society stands only for its three stated objects, viz. (i) " to form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity -without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour," (2) " to encourage the study of comparative religion, phUosophy and science," (3) " to investigate the unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man." The Society disclaims any authoritative or obligatory body of teaching or any official identification with the views propounded by its leaders. It consists of " students belonging to any religion in the world or to none," and " their bond of union is not the profession of a common behef but a common search and aspiration for Truth," Your Committee, whUe accepting these statements, cannot but regard the Theosophical Society as incurring a certain measure of responsibUity by the pubUcation and circulation of theosophical Hterature, In a booklet entitled " Theosophy and the Mission of the Theosophical Society," published by the Society and lately sent to members of the Lambeth Conference, it is stated that " Theosophy is the body of truths which forms the basis of aU religions and which cannot be claimed as the exclusive possession of any." " The immanence of God, the soUdarity of man, such are the basic truths of Theosophy." " Its secondary teachings are those which are the common teachings of all religions, li-ving or dead." Among these are reincarnation, karma, and " the existence of di-vine Teachers, superhuman Men, often called the White Brother hood." And "it is the mission of the Theosophical Society as a whole to spread these truths in every land." Your committee desire to point out that the Hterature of the Society contains a large amount of common positive teaching embodying a definite and distinctive view of the universe, which we are therefore justified in regarding and describing in this report under the title of Theosophy. The Committee recognize frankly that there is nothing in the Christian faith which precludes sympathy with the pursuit of the three stated objects of the Theosophical Society. The methods and aUeged results of theosophical study are quite another question. Theosophical leaders and teachers claim to impart knowledge derived from occult sources. They claim to be in communication with a brotherhood of pioneers of the human race who have reached the goal of their own evolution and now control and guide the evolution of their race by opera tions in the unseen world or by reincarnation on earth. They claim also that they have themselves by a process of mystical self-discipline developed latent powers of consciousness which enable them to read occult traces left in the etheric records of THEOSOPHY 127 the universe by past events and experiences. We regret that the occult methods of theosophists are not made avaUable for scientific investigation, especiaUy in view of the fact that their theory of different organs and planes of human consciousness, for example, is stated to be " a matter not of speculation but of observation and experiment." The Christian Church has nothing to fear from established conclusions of sound psychical research, for the Christian faith is not identified -with or dependent on any particular theory of the constituents of human conscious ness. But we cannot resist the impression that the methods of theosophical occultism are not free from psychical conditions of a morbid and demoralizing tendency. The secrecy of an esoteric section pledged not to reveal its methods and experience is in any case not a healthy atmosphere for the search after divine truth. The theosophical conception of God is too elusive for precise analysis. In the West it appears to be a nebulous theism, but significantly enough in India it assumes somewhat of a panthe istic or even polytheistic form. Everywhere it tends to exag gerate the affinity between human and divine spirit into identity, and its real inwardness is evident in the theosophical presentation of Christ. It is in the twin doctrines of reincarnation and karma that Theosophy begins to come into more or less direct conflict with the Christian faith. The doctrine of reincarnation appears to us both phUosophically and scientificaUy unsound. But our concern is rather to insist that this doctrine, which theosophists preach as a lost element of true Christianity, can only be found in the New Testament by an arbitrary and artificial exegesis ; that in its theoretical explanation it leaves apparently no place for conscious contimuty of personaUty or of personal relation ships ; that in its practical working it tends to destroy both perseverance and sympathy. The doctrine of karma or the law of consequence, namely, that the quantitative karma or re sult of a man's conduct must be worked off graduaUy in this or some future existence, evacuates forgiveness of aU spiritual reality. A doctrine which drives its exponents to 'describe Christ's absolution of the penitent as a mere announcement that his karma was exhausted is the very negation of any conception of di-vine forgiveness. The conffict between Theosophy and the Christian faith becomes irreconcUable when we reach the central fact of Christ ianity, the Person of Christ. Theosophy teaches that " the Jesus Christ of the Churches " is a fusion of three distinct elements — ^historical, mythical and mystical. " The historical Christ is a glorious being belonging to the great spiritual hierarchy that giddes the spiritual evolution of humanity, who used for three years the human body of the disciple Jesus." This Jesus was a Jew born 105 b.c. and trained in the occult lore of the 128 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O East in Egyptian and Essene brotherhoods untU the time came for him to lend his body for the incarnation of a supreme Teacher. Afterwards, whUe the Christ " visited His disciples for something over fifty years in His subtle spiritual body . . . training them in a knowledge of occult truths," the man Jesus " perfected his human evolution " and " became the Lord and Master of the Church founded by the Christ." At the present time Jesus, " clothed in a body he has taken from Syria, is waiting the time for his reappearance in the open life of men," MeanwhUe he " Hves mostly in the mountains of Lebanon," Instead of the one Jesus Christ, God and man, we are here given two persons : a Christ who is di-vine but not God, and a Jesus promoted from humanity to quasi-divinity. " The mythical Christ " means that the cardinal facts em bodied in Christian creeds and holy days were not historical facts but myths attached to " the Christ of the Church " as they had been attached to simUar beings in earUer religions. " The mystical Christ " is the truth symboHzed by the myth. The Christ -myth represents the descent of the divine Word into matter in creation, and the birth and ascent of the human Christ, This indwelUng Christ is the higher self of man, a self- evolution of the higher nature of man, typified by the gospel allegory but independent of any historical Christ. It is sufficient here to point out that this triple Christ of theosophical research, presented to us on the authority of " the occult records " is not the Christ of the New Testament. It is a flagrant contra diction of the Gospels. It is a subtler but no less radical contradiction of the Christian mysticism of St. Paul, for whom the Christ-life in man is always dependent upon the reaUty both of the redemption wrought by the Incarnation and of the present activity of the ascended Christ. The uniqueness of the Person of Christ involves the univer sality of His mission and message. Theosophy in denying the uniqueness of the Person of Christ denies the universality of the Christian reUgion. It teaches that beneath the exoteric form of aU reUgions there lay and stiU lies the same esoteric body of essential truths — ^that the Christianity of the Churches is only the exoteric form of the Christian reUgion — and that the mission of Theosophy is to reveal and restore the lost esoteric truths of this and every religion, Theosophy therefore con sistently discounts and discourages the missionary claim of Christianity, for it denies that Christianity has anything essential to give wiiich is not already contained in the esoteric truths of other religions. Theosophy here represents the extreme recoU of modern thought from the older view which saw Utile or no truth in non-Christian religions. That view is foreign to the Christian faith and has long ceased to dominate Christian missionary thought. The Christian Church stands for the belief THEOSOPHY 129 that truth and Ufe in religion everwhere come through the Word working in the world, and that what all races and peoples need now is the fuUer Ufe and truth which can only come from conscious knowledge of the Word made flesh, the historical Christ who was and is the Son of God. The Committee, while acknowledging that there is nothing in the avowed objects of the Theosophical Society which is in itself incompatible -with loyal membership of the Church, desire to impress urgently upon the members of the Church the necessity of the greatest caution in pursuing the study of Theosophy. Theosophists use the language of Christian adoration but in senses which are not those of the Christian faith ; and their language is so Christian in sound that their disciples faU to reaUze how far they are being carried away from the Christian position. We urge Cliristian people therefore to examine very carefuUy every stage of the teaching offered them in the name of Theosophy. The need of such examination is already evident in the case of theosophical teaching with regard to Jesus Christ. It is seen vividly too in the case of the Order of the Star in the East, an Order founded in India in 1911 " to draw together those who whether inside or outside the Theosophical Society believe in the near coming of a gi'eat Spiritual Teacher for the helping of the world." The stated principles of the Order contain much that is in harmony with Christian self -discipline. But we feel bound to warn Church people against aUowing themselves to be drawn unthinkingly into the Order by their expectation of the coming of Christ. The current expositions of the work of the coming Teacher appear to us to ignore the teaching mission of the Holy Spirit, and in other ways also to misinterpret the New Testament, which represents the future Advent of Christ not as a second ministry of sowing but as a harvest of results — not as a new gospel but as a judgement. But there is a far graver danger in the fact that the Order in India, its birth place and headquarters, is associated with positive teaching to the effect that the coming Christ is identical with the Lord Maitreya of Buddhist mythology, and is to be incarnate in the body of a TamU youth now li-ving, named Krishnamurti. We urge Church people attracted by the apparently or potentiaUy Christian character and outlook of the Order to consider seriously whether they can reconcUe this teaching with their own faith in Christ. Secondly, we urge Christian people to remember that in view of the fact that most students of Theosophy are necessarUy dependent upon the teaching and guidance of a few members of the esoteric section, it is of -vital importance to examine the character and credentials of the exponents of Theosophy upon whose authority they are encouraged almost blindly to rely. We urge them to bear constantly in mind St. John's warningK 130 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O to Christians beset by an earher stage of Theosophy — " Believe not every spirit, but try the spUits whether they are of God." The Committee desUe to close their report ¦with a positive note of recommendation. The attraction of Theosophy for many thoughtful Christian minds lies largely in its presentation of Christian faith and life as a quest. Christian faith is indeed a quest for truth yet to be revealed no less than a grasp of truth already revealed. The pastoral care of the Church for the common needs of aU souls requires simple and deflnite doctrinal statement, such as the Church has always provided. At the same time we must admit that different schools of thought within the Church are alike in danger of falling into a stereo typed Hne of teaching, into a narrow dogmatism and traditional ism forgetful of the needs of such souls as are deeply conscious of the mystery into which all known truths shade off and of the fascinating and perplexing questions on which Bible and Creed alike leave speciUation free. Responsible teachers of the Church therefore — and the clergy are called to be teachers no less than preachers — ¦wiU do well to remember both of the lines on which the great early Christian teachers met and answered gnostic theosophy of their day. Like TertuUian and Irenaeus we must insist on the plain meaning of Scripture and the unity and continuity of traditional Christian belief. But also like Clement and Origen we may claim all Ufe and learning as food for Christian thought, developing what might be caUed a true Christian theosophy, embracing the spiritual experiences of poets, saints and mystics, and reverently speculating beyond the borders of revelation, so long as we hold fast to the historic facts of the Creed and to the sacramental communion of the Church. The Committee, whUe pleading for a larger place to be given in the teaching of the Church to the mystical elements of faith and Hfe, desire earnestly to ad-vise aU thinking people to safe guard their Christian position by making the fuUest study and use of the treasures of knowledge and thought to be found in Bible, Creed and Sacrament as they have been interpreted by sound Christian scholarship and phUosophy. The Committee in this connexion welcome the forward movement of the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge in the way of pro viding Christian literature of the first rank, and commend the efforts made by various agencies and associations within the Church for the higher religious education of the faithful laity. (Signed) HUBERT M. OXON : Chairman. No. VIII. Report of the Committee t Appointed to Consider Relation TO and Reunion wrrn Other Churches— (a) Episcopal Churches ; (b) Non-Episcopal Churches, with Questions AS to (i) Recognition of Ministers ; (U) " Validity " of Sacraments; (ui) Suggested Transitional Steps. The Committee appointed to consider and report upon relation to and reunion with other Churches divided itself into two sub-committees deaUng -with the two main divisions of the subject submitted for thek consideration, namely (a) Episcopal Churches, and (&) Non-Episcopal Churches. Of these two sub-committees, the former was presided over by the Bishop of Gloucester, and the second by the chairman of the whole Com mittee. , r The whole Committee is responsible for the first part ot the Report, including the Appeal, and Resolutions which foUow this part. Each Sub-Committee is responsible for its own Report and for the Resolutions founded upon it. -j- Names of Members of the Committee : — Bishop-of Aberdeen Bishop of Hankow Archbishop of Algoma Bishop of Harrisburg (a) Bishop of Argyll (a) Bishop in Jerusalem (a) (Secretary) Archbishop of Armagh Bishop Johnson (Missouri Coadjutor) Bishop of Atlanta Bishop Joscelyne Bishop of Bath and Wells* Bishop in Khartoum (a) Bishop Hamilton Baynes Bishop King (a) Bishop of Bethlehem Bishop of Kootenay Bishop of Bombay (Secretary) Bishop of Kyushu Bishop of Brechin (Primus) Bishop of Madras Archbishop of Brisbane Bishop of Manchester Bishop of Bristol (Secretary) Bishop of Massachusetts Bishop of Chelmsford Bishop of Meath Bishop of Chichester Archbishop of Melbourne Bishop of Columbia Bishop of Mombasa Bishop of Derby Bishop of Montreal Bishop of Derry Bishop of Moray and Ross (a) Bishop of Dornakal Bishop of Nassa,u Bishop of Down Bishop of Norwich Bishop Du MouUn (Ohio Coadjutor) Bishop of Olympia Bishop of Durham Bishop of Ontario Bishop of Ely Bishop of Pennsylvania Bishop of Gibraltar (a) Bishop of Peterborough Bishop of Gloucester (a) Bishop of Pretoria (a) Members of Sub-Committee on Episcopal Churches. The remainder formed the Sub-Committee on Non-Episcopal Churches. 131 K 2 132 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Part I. Report of the Whole Committee. The reunion of the separated congregations of Christ's flock is fundamental to aU the subjects dealt with by the Lambeth Conference. For the manifold ¦witness of the Church would be intensified and extended beyond all measure if it came from an undivided Society of Jesus Christ. To restore the unity of this Society, therefore, would be to increase the effective force of this witness in every part of the world to a degree which in these days can be scarcely imagined. No one who is not blind to the signs which abound on every hand can doubt that the Spirit of God is moving in this direction in a way which must bring home to the authorities of aU Christian Communions a deep sense of responsibUity in the face of an opportunity which is almost without paraUel in the history of the Church. It was with a full, and indeed an overwhelming, sense of this responsibUity that the members of this Committee entered upon the task committed to it. In spite of the differences of opinion which we brought with us to the consideration of our subject we seemed to be guided towards an ideal of Christian unity which we have endeavoured to express in the Appeal which we place in the forefront of our resolutions. It appeared to us that we could best fulffi the duty laid upon us at this present time by placing this ifieal before all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, in the hope that, if it be in accordance with God's wUl, it may by His blessing serve to inspire and guide a new and united movement towards the fulfilment of His purpose for the unity of His Church. Names of Members of the Committee — continued. Archbishop of Rupert's Land Bishop in Tinnevelly Bishop of St. Albans Bishop of Truro (a) (Secretary) Bishop of St, Andrews Bishop of Uganda Bishop of St. David's Bishop of Waiapu Bishop of St, John's (a) Bishop of Warrington Bishop of Salisbury Bishop of Western New York Bishop of Southern Brazil Bishop of Willesden (a) Bishop of South Carolina Bishop Mott Williams* (a) Bishop of Southern Ohio (a) Bishop of Willochra Bishoj) in South Tokyo Bishop of Winchester Archbishop of Sydney Archbishop of York (Chairman) Bishop of Tennessee Bishop of Zanzibar (a) Members of Sub-Committee on Episcopal Churches. The remainder formed the Sub-Committee on Non-Episcopal Churches. REUNION 133 We therefore venture to recommend that the Conference should adopt and send forth the foUowing Appeal to aU Christian people. AN APPEAL TO ALL CHRISTIAN PEOPLE From the Bishops assembled in the Lambeth Conference OF 1920. We, Archbishops, Bishops Metropolitan, and other Bishops of tiie Holy Catholic Church in fuU communion with the Church of England, in Conference assembled, reaUzing the responsibility which rests upon us at this time, and sensible of the sympathy and the prayers of many, both within and without our own Com munion, make this appeal to aU Christian people. We acknowledge aU those who beUeve in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have been baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity, as sharing ¦with us membership in the universal Church of Christ which is His Body. We beheve that the Holy Spirit has called us in a very solemn and special manner to associate our selves in penitence and prayer ¦with aU those who deplore the divisions of Christian people, and are inspired by the vision and hope of a visible unity of the whole Church. I. We beheve that God wiUs feUowship. By God's own act this feUowship was made in and through Jesus Christ, and its Ufe is in His Spirit. We believe that it is God's purpose to manifest this feUowship, so far as this world is concerned, in an outward, ¦visible, and united society, holding one faith, having its own recognized officers, using God-given means of grace, and inspiring aU its members to the world-wide ser-vice of the Kingdom of God. This is what we mean by the Catholic Church. II. This united feUowship is not ¦visible in the world to-day. On the one hand there are other ancient episcopal Communions in East and West, to whom ours is bound by many ties of common faith and tradition. On the other hand there are the great non-episcopal Communions, standing for rich elements of truth, Hberty and life which might otherwise have been obscured or neglected. With them we are closely Hnked by many affinities — racial, historical and spiritual. We cherish the earnest hope that aU these Communions, and our own, may be led by the Spirit into the unity of the Faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. But in fact we are aU organized in different groups, each one keeping to itself gifts that rightiy belong to the whole feUowship, and tending to Hve its own life apart from the rest. III. The causes of division He deep in the past, and are by no means sunple or whoUy blameworthy. Yet none can doubt that self-^wUl, ambition, and lack of charity among Christians 134 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O have been principal factors in the mingled process, and that these, together ¦with bhndness to the sin of disunion, are stUl mainly responsible for the breaches of Christendom. We acknowledge this condition of broken feUowship to be contrary to God's wUl, and we desire frankly to confess our share in the guilt of thus crippling the Body of Christ and hindering the activity of His Spirit. IV, The times caU us to a new outlook and new measures. The Faith cannot be adequately apprehended and the battie of the Kingdom cannot be worthily fought while the body is di-vided, and is thus unable to grow up into the fulness of the Ufe of Christ, The time has come, we beheve, for aU the separated groups of Christians to agree in forgetting the things which are behind and reaching out towards the goal of a reunited Catholic Church, The removal of the barriers which have arisen between them wiU only be brought about by a new comradeship of those whose faces are definitely set this way. The ¦vision which rises before us is that of a Church, genuinely Catholic, loyal to aU Truth, and gathering into its fellowship aU " who profess and caU themselves Christians," ¦within whose ¦visible unity aU the treasures of faith and order, bequeathed as a heritage by the past to the present, shaU be possessed in common, and made serviceable to the whole body of Christ. Within this unity Christian Communions now separated from one another would retain much that has long been distinctive in their methods of worship and service. It is through a rich diversity of Ufe and devotion that the unity of the whole feUow ship wUl be fulfiUed, V, This means an adventure of goodwiU and stiU more of faith, for nothing less is required than a new discovery of the creative resources of God, To this adventure we are,con^vinced that God is now caUing all the members of His Church. VI, We believe that the visible unity of the Church wiU be found to involve the whole-hearted acceptance of : — The Holy Scriptures, as the record of God's revelation of Himself to man, and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith ; and the Creed commonly caUed Nicene, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith, and either it or the Apostles' Creed as the Baptismal confession of behef : The divinely instituted sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, as expressing for all the corporate Ufe of the whole feUowship in and ¦with Christ : A ministry acknowledged by every part of the Church as possessing not only the inward call of the Spirit, but also the commission of Christ and the authority of the whole body. VII. May we not reasonably claim that the Episcopate is the one means of pro^viding such a ministry ? It is not that we reunion 135 call in question for a moment the spiritual reaUty of the ministries of those Communions which do not possess the Episcopate. On the contrary we thankfuUy acknowledge that these ministries have been manifestiy blessed and owned by the Holy Spirit as effective means of gi-ace. But we submit that considerations ahke of history and of present "experience justify the claim which we niake on behalf of the Episcopate, Moreover, we would urge that it is now and wUl prove to be in the future the best instrument for maintaining the unity and continuity of the Church. But we greatiy desire that the office of a Bishop should be everywhere exercised in a representative and constitutional manner, and more truly express all that ou^ht to be involved for the Hfe of the Christian FamUy in the title of Father-in-God, Nay more, we eagerly look forward to the day when through its acceptance in a united Church we may all share in that grace which is pledged to the members of the whole body in the apostolic rite of the laying-on of hands, and in the joy and feUowship of a Eucharist in which as one FamUy we may together, without any doubt fulness of mind, offer to the one Lord our worship and ser^vice, VIII. We beUeve that for aU the truly equitable approach to union is by the way of mutual deference to one another's con sciences. To this end, we who send forth this appeal would say that if the authorities of other Communions should so desire, we are persuaded that, terms of union ha-ving been otherwise satisfactorUy adjusted, Bishops and clergy of our Communion would wiUingly accept from these authorities a form of com mission or recognition which would commend our ministry to their congregations, as ha-ving its place in the one famUy life. It is not in our power to know how far this suggestion may be accept able to those to whom we offer it. We can only say tliat we offer it in all sincerity as a token of our longing that aU ministries of grace, theirs and ours, shall be avaUable for the service of our Lord in a united Church. It is our hope that the same motive would lead ministers who have not received it to accept a commission through episcopal ordination, as obtaining for them a ministry throughout the whole feUowship. In so acting no one of us could possibly be taken to repudiate his past ministry. God forbid that any man should repudiate a past experience rich in spiritual blessings for himself and others. Nor would any of us be dishonouring the Holy Spirit of God, Whose caU led us all to our several ministries, and Whose power enabled us to perform them. We shaU be pubUcly and formaUy seeking additional recognition of a new caU to -wider ser-vice in a reunited Church, and imploring for ourselves God's grace and strength to fulfil the same. IX. The spiritual leadership of the CathoUc Church in days to come, for which the world is manifestiy waiting, depends 136 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O upon the readiness with which each group is prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of a common feUowship, a common ministry, and a common service to the world. We place this ideal furst and foremost before ourselves and our own people. We caU upon them to make the effort to meet the demands of a new age with a new outiook. To aU other Christian people whom our words may reach we make the same appeal. We do not ask that any one Communion should consent to be absorbed in another. We do ask them to unite with us in a new and great endeavour to recover and to manifest to the world the unity of the Body of Christ for which He prayed. The Lambeth Conference of 1908 passed the foUowing resolu tion (No. 78) " The constituted authorities of the various Churches of the Anglican Communion should, as opportunity offers, arrange conferences with representatives of other Christian Churches, and meetings for common acknowledgement of the sins of division, and for intercession for the growth of unity," In another part of this Report it is shewn that in many coun tries, particularly in the United States of America, in India, and in Africa, this course has been very largely foUowed, But the urgency of the present world situation, and the wide and deep longing for unity which these Conferences have revealed, and which fiUs the hearts of Christian people throughout the world, seem to us to call for further and more responsible action. We ask the Conference to recommend that the authorities of the Churches of the Anglican Communion should, in such ways and at such times as they think best, formally invite the authorities of other Churches within their areas to confer with them as to the posssibiUty of taking definite steps to co-operate in a common endeavour, on the lines set forth in the Appeal, to restore the unity of the Church of Christ, It may be that these approaches wUl meet with some rebuffs and disappointments. Special circumstances may be urged as she-wing that such conferences would be premature. Some doors seem for the present to be shut. But many doors in aU parts of the world are open. There are already movements in progress for a closer union of Communions separated from us and from one another. With the spirit and hopes of these movements we would associate ourselves, heartUy desiring their success and trusting that they may forward the cause of the ultimate union of the universal Church. Yet the historical traditions and the spiritual sympathies of the AngHcan Church seem to lay upon us a special duty, which at this present time we ought to accept as a definite call of God. May He in His mercy forgive and take from us any spirit of self-satisfaction ! We have need frankly to acknowledge and humbly to confess our manifold sins and shortcomings as a Church. In all our approaches to our fellow Christians of other Churches we shall REUNION 137 try to make it plain that we only desire to be permitted to take our part with them in a cause to which the Lord Whom we serve is at this time most manifestly caUing aU the members of His Church. Here it wUl not be out of place to draw the attention of our feUow-churchmen to some important results of the extension and development of the Anglican Communion, and the bearing of these upon the question of reunion and upon our attitude and duty towards it. At the date of the first Lambeth Conference, 1867, this Communion had taken the form of a federation of self-governing Churches, held together for the most part without legal sanctions by a common reverence for the same traditions and a common use of a Prayer Book which, in spite of some local variations, was virtuaUy the same. Our missionary workers were then planting churches among nations very different from the Anglo-Saxon race and from one another, but as yet these had shewn but Httle growth. In the interval between tliat time and the present there have grovra up indigenous Churches in China, in Japan, in East and West Africa, in each of which the English members are but a handful of strangers and sojourners, some engaged in missionary work, some in secular business. In India the Church includes large numbers both of British and of Indian members : the emergence of a National Church, claiming freedom to regulate its o-wn affairs, is only a matter of time. Consequently the Anglican Communion of to-day is a federation of Churches, some national, some regional, but no longer predominantly Anglo-Saxon in race, nor can it be expected that it wiU attach special value to Anglo- Saxon traditions. The blessing which has rested upon its work has brought it to a new point of view. MeanwhUe, it might also be said that its centre of gravity is shifting. It already presents an example on a smaU scale of the problems which attach to the unity of a Universal Church. As the years go on, its ideals must become less AngHcan and more CathoHc. It cannot look to any bonds of union holding it together, other than those which should hold together the Catholic Church itself. While this development has been going on, another has kept pace with it. Our Communion has taken into itself, tried, and found valuable many elements which were not to be found in any effective condition in the Church of England one hundred or even fifty years ago. The bearing of these on the problem of reunion is so important that we deem it worth whUe to notice here some examples. In most parts of our Communion the Episcopate does not even present the appearance of autocracy or prelacy. Various arrangements have been adopted by which the Bishop is elected by the Diocese over which he is to preside. The affairs of the Diocese are managed by the Bishop in conjunction with a Diocesan Synod or CouncU. The Bishops and 138 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O their Dioceses are further correlated in Provincial and General Synods, Conventions or Assemblies. Thus, Episcopacy among us has generaUy become constitutional, and the clergy and laity have attained to a share in the government of tlie Church. Again, in many parts of our Communion systems of patronage have been adopted which recognize the right of congregations to take part in the selection of their ministers. We draw attention to these matters as evidencing our recognition, not only in word but in deed, of the value of some of those elements of Church life which those now separated from us have developed with marked success. We would urge further on our own fellow- churchmen that it is one of the most pressing and most important steps towards reunion that they should develop in every place, according to its own circumstances and the genius of its people, the weU-tried principles of constitutionaUsm in the government of the Church, and of the fuU emplo5mient of every member in its life, and the Committee venture to submit a Resolution to this effect to the Conference. There are other signs of simUar expansion from within, which have made our Communion more representative of the varying phases of Christia.n Hfe and devotion. The development of mission services and missions of many kinds, the use of various additional forms of prayer, of ex tempore prayer, of silent prayer, and again of various kinds of ceremonial and elaboration of liturgical worship, testify, quite apart from the merits of any of them, to the increasing recognition of the diversity of the temperaments of men and of the duty of the Church to make them all feel at home in the famUy of God. We welcome the spirit of that expansion which has brought one part or another of our Communion nearer to those who are separated from us. We look forward hopefuUy to the far greater variety in the expres sion of the one faith and of devotion to the one Lord, which must necessarily ensue when the Churches of men who are strangers in blood, though brothers in Christ, come to fuUer age and to more characteristic development. We call upon our fellow-churchmen in every branch of our Communion to accept ever more fiUly the standard of the universal Church and its necessary inclusive- ness, so that they wUl not feel strange when they are caUed upon to live in the feUowship of the re-united universal Church. MeanwhUe, the needs of the whole world lay upon Christian men and women everjrwhere the obligation to manifest the fellowship which they already possess as behevers in the one Lord, and as the soldiers and servants of His Kingdom, by praying and working together for the vindication of the Christian Faith and the extension of the rule of Christ among aU nations and over every region of human life. We therefore recommend that. REUNION 139 where it has not already been done, CouncUs representing all Christian Communions should be formed within such areas as may be deemed most convenient, as centres of united effort to promote the physical, moral and social welfare of the people and the spread of the Kingdom of God and of His righteousness among men. Such co-operation -wiU, we are confident, both strengthen the desUe and prepare the way for a fuller spiritual union of life and worship. Part II Report of the Sub-Committee (b) on Relation to and Reunion -with Non-Episcopal Churches. [Note. — In view of the fact that the report of Sub-Committee (b) on Non-Episcopal Churches is specially based upon the Appeal to all Christian People, and repeatedly refers to it, it is here placed before the report of Sub-Committee (a) on Episcopal Churches^ We first pass in review the movements towards reunion in which the AngHcan Churches have recently been involved. The character of the movement towards reunion with non- episcopal Churches since the last Lambeth Conference has been dramatic and impressive. This is notably true of the movement in the American Church in 1910, resulting in the proposals for a World Conference on Questions of Faith and Order, which shaU represent all Christians and which has already secured the interest and co-operation of many Christian bodies throughout the world. Further, in almost every section of the Anglican Communion conferences -with other Churches have been held, in not a few cases definite proposals have been made, and in others actual schemes set forth. Of this we have received striking iUustrations. They range from simple conferences where differences have been discussed and lines of agreement indicated, to definite proposals where substantial agreement has been obtained. In the first category are to be found the important first and second Interim Reports of the EngHsh Joint Sub-Committee appointed in connexion with the World Conference on Faith and Order, to which our Appeal, as set forth above, is greatly indebted. In addition to these, conferences between leading members of our Church and leaders of non-episcopal Churches have been held at Oxford and elsewhere ; by chaplains and Y.M.C.A. workers in France ; and by the Bishop of London with members of the Wesleyan Church ; whUe the Convocations of both Canterbury and York have had under consideration certain proposals relating to united feUowship and worship. 140 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O AU these -witness to the deep and earnest longing in the hearts of all Christian men to draw nearer to each other, and, if possible, to find some solution of the difficulties which now stand in the way of visible union. Moreover, they all reveal a far greater measure of agreement, as to both faitli and order, than is generaUy supposed to exist. It is, however, in the more defined and official proposals for union that we perceive how great is the progress which has been attained. Of these proposals the foUowing have been speciaUy brought before us for consideration. In the United States of America a Concordat has been pro posed by members of the Protestant Episcopal Church and Ministers of Congregational Churches. These proposals were presented to the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church at Detroit in October, 1919. A series of resolutions was concurred in by both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops, and a proposed canon has been drawn up. The whole matter is to be considered at the next General Convention which meets in 1922, In South India a proposed union of the Anglican Church with the South India United Church (which includes five separate non-episcopal missions) has reached a stage at which the proposals may shortly be brought before the Episcopal Synod of the Province of India and Ceylon, In East Africa a Constitution of an AUiance of Missionary Societies has been a.dopted, and the Members of the AlUance declare that they " pledge themselves not to rest untU they can aU share one Ministry." In Australia proposals, having as their object a union with the Presbyterians, have been under consideration, and several conferences have been held with representatives of other non- Episcopal churches. Much -wiU depend upon the decisions of this Conference as to the possibUity of further progress in this region. We have also received communications from Canada and China indicating the earnest desire of the Churches in both these parts of the world that definite steps in the cause of reunion may be taken. The information which we have thus briefly summarized shews most impressively the strength of the tide which is every where setting towards a new Christian feUowship, but with equal impressiveness it shews the widely differing problems which the Churches of the Anglican Communion throughout the world are caUed to face; The conditions of national and .religious Hfe in regions so diverse as, for example, India, China, East Africa, Australia, the United States of America, Canada, Scotland and England, are obviously whoUy different. There must be a corresponding variety in the ways along which union among REUNION 141 Christian people in these countries can be either approached or carried through. We therefore unanimously submit to the Conference the two foUowing Resolutions :— That this Conference desires to express its profound thank fulness for the important movements towards Unity, which during the last twelve years have taken place in many parts of the world, and for the earnest desire for Reunion which lias been manifested both in our own Communion and among the Churches now separated from us. That this Conference confidently commits to the various authorities of the Churches within the Anglican Communion the task of effecting union with other Christian Communions on lines that are in general harmony with the principles underlying its proposals and resolutions. We cannot insist too strongly that the resolutions which we now submit must be read and understood in the Ught of the ideal and principles of union which are set forth in the appeal which we have asked the Conference to issue. Taken by themselves they would inevitably misrepresent the warmth of desire and strength of hope by which we are animated. They must be regarded as counsels which the Conference may rightly be expected to give to the authorities of Churches in the Anglican Communion who desire to be guided aright in their efforts to set forward the cause of Christian Unity. We consider that when men set their faces steadUy towards the ideal of our appeal, and speciaUy when negotiations for organic reunion are in progress or again when a scheme of union has in any place been adopted, situations -will arise in which we shoiUd all agree that new lines of action may be foUowed. In regard to such situations, we submit to the Conference the following Resolutions : — That a Bishop is justified in giving occasional authorization to ministers, not episcopaUy ordained, who in his judgement are working towards an ideal of union such as is described in our Appeal, to preach in churches within his Diocese, and to clergy of the Diocese to preach in the churches of such ministers. That Bishops of the Anglican Communion wUl not question the action of any Bishop who, in the few years during which a definite scheme of union is maturing, shall countenance the irregularity of admitting to Communion the baptized but un confirmed Communicants of the non-episcopal congregations concerned in the scheme. Further, we deem it necessary in order that negotiations for union shaU be steps towards and not away from our ideal, to express our dissent from certain proposals which have been, or might be, made, and which seem to us Ukely to obscure our ideal 142 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O or to hinder its fulfilment. Moreover, we deprecate such pro posals as likely to prevent the members of our own Communion from forwarding the work of reunion with that enthusiastic unanimity with which it ought to be pursued. In these con nexions we submit to the Conference the following Resolutions : — That this Conference cannot approve of general schemes of intercommunion or exchange of pulpits. That in accordance with the principle of Church order set forth in the Preface to the Ordinal attached to the Book of Common Prayer the Conference cannot approve the Celebration in AngUcan churches of the Holy Communion for members of the AngUcan Church by ministers who have not been episcopaUy ordained, and declares that the same principle requires that it should be regarded as the general rule of the Church that Anglican communicants should receive Holy Communion only at the hands of ministers of their own Church, or of Churches in communion therewith. The general subject of the admission to Holy Communion of persons who do not belong to any Church in communion with us has been confused by certain doubts and varieties of practice on which we deem it desirable that this Conference should express its opinion. In this regard we submit to the Conference the foUowing Resolutions which we believe to be applicable at all times, and not only in -view of the approach of reunion: — That no priest has canonical authority to refuse Communion to any baptized person kneeling before the Lord's Table, unless he be excommunicate by name, or, in the canonical sense of the term, a cause of scandal to the faithful. Nothing in these Resolutions is intended to indicate that the rule of Confirmation as conditioning admission to the Holy Communion must necessarUy apply to the case of baptized persons who seek Communion under conditions which in the Bishop's judgement justify their admission thereto. It is plainly impossible to draft Resolutions which would meet every case that might arise anywhere in the course of negotiations for union or to suggest terms of union to meet every contingency. Great freedom must be left to the local negotiators, though in the exercise of it they must remember that simUar negotiations in other places wUl be affected by what they do. Too great independence of action in one place may compromise action already taken elsewhere in stricter conformity -with the words of the foregoing resolutions. No Communion, whether our own or another, conducting negotiations in several places, wUl consent to seriously divergent treatment of points which it counts fundamental. With these considerations in mind we offer suggestions on REUNION 143 one case, at the request of some of our number. Some Provinces of our Communion, whUe agreeing to unite with a non-episcopal Communion on the basis of the acceptance of Episcopacy for the future, might be faced with the necessity of providing for the contingency that many ministers who at the time of the union were working in the non-episcopal Communion, would remain after the union without episcopal ordination. The foUowing suggestions appear to us to satisfy the conditions of local freedom explained above : — {a) Ministers of both the uniting Communions should be at once recognized as of equal status in all Synods and CouncUs of the United Church. (b) The terms of union should not confer on non-episcopaUy ordained ministers the right to administer the Holy Communion to those congregations which already possess an episcopal ministry, but they shoiUd include the right to conduct other services and to preach in such churches, if licensed thereto by the Bishop. (c) All other matters might weU be left to the decision of the Pro-vincial or General Synods of the United Church, in full confidence that these Synods wiU take care not to endanger that feUowship with the universal Church which is our common lUtimate aim. The Committee asks the Conference to pass a Resolution of general approval of these suggestions. Our brethren who have the responsibUity of carrying through any such negotiations may be assured of our confidence in their loyalty, and of the support of the contimUng prayer and sympathy which wUl follow them in their venture. In concluding our Report we think it only right to state at the request of some of our number that, with regard to the precise phrasing and practical effect of some of the Resolutions which we have submitted to the Conference, there was considerable difference of opinion. They were finally accepted as repre senting the measure of general agreement which in the present circumstances we judged to be attainable in our Communion as a whole and on which alone counsel could fitly be based for the guidance of Bishops in the exercise of their own responsibUity. But this very pressure of inevitable differences and difficulties called out among men -widely sundered in opinion a spirit of patience, consideration, and unity for which we desire reverently to offer our thanksgiving to Him from Whom cometh down every good and perfect gift. 144 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O Part III. Report of the Sub-Committee (a) on Relation to and Reunion with Episcopal Churches. The Latin Communion. Your Committee feels that it is impossible to make any Report on Reunion with Episcopal Churches without some reference to the Church of Rome, even though it has no resolution to propose upon the subject. We cannot do better than make our own the words of the Report of 1908, which reminds us of " the fact that there can be no fulfUment of the Di-vine purpose in any scheme of reunion which does not ultimately include the great Latin Church of the West, with which our liistory has been so closely associated in the past, and to which we are stUl bound by many ties of common faith and tradition." But we realize that — to continue the quotation — " any advance in this direction is at present barred by difficulties which we have not ourselves created, and which we cannot of ourselves remove." Should, however, the Church of Rome at any time desire to discuss conditions of reunion we shall be ready to welcome such dis cussions. We desire, moreover, very briefly to indicate that there are movements going on in the Church of Rome which may be fruitful in the future. There have been discussions in strict Roman Catholic circles in France as to the possibUity of setting up an independent GalUcan Church. The estabUsh- ment of Houses of several of the Religious Orders at Oxford, and the part taken by their members in the discussions of theological societies there, together with their readiness to lecture at the " Summer School of Theology " which is entirely interdenominational, bear striking witness to the far greater freedom -with which they enter into the inteUectual life and interests of the Universities than formerly ; while the appear ance of a work entitled " The Problem of Reunion," by a former Professor of Stonyhurst, is not without significance, A few years ago there would have been no " Problem " ; and though the writer maintains the traditional Roman position, he shews a marked difference, in tone and temperament, from what we have been accustomed to. They are also ready to join -with us on a common platform in social and ci-vic matters. Further, in spite of the official attitude taken by the Roman Church to our own with regard to rehgious ministrations during the war — an attitude which we greatly deplore — the personal relations, which obtained between their Chaplains and ours in France and else- REUNION 145 where, were often of the pleasantest character and led to a greatiy increased knowledge and understanding of each other's position. It is ob-vious that no forward step can be taken yet ; but the facts thus referred to may help to create in the future a very different position. In what follows we desire to say how greatly we are indebted to the work of the last Lambeth Conference, and to the Reports of the several Committees appointed after its close. Lines of advance in various directions were then laid down, and along these fines the Committees made real progress. It would have been quite impossible for us in the time at our disposal to fulfil the task imposed upon us had it not been for this. We have for the most part taken up the work at the point at which they were compeUed to leave it. We have not attempted to go behind their conclusions, or examine afresh the evidence upon which they based them ; but, accepting them, we have worked upon them and have thus endeavoured to carry matters forward a stage nearer to the goal at which we are aiming. The Orthodox Eastern Church. We wiU begin by speaking about the Church of Russia. During the earlier years after the last Lambeth Conference our relations with this Church were probably closer than with any other branch of the Eastern Church, nor were they interfered with in the first years of the War, and after the Revolution in 1917 it was hoped that the internal reforms which the Russian Church — set free froiri State dominance, and adapting itself to the new conditions of life — was endeavouring to introduce, might bring about stiU closer relations with us. This hope seemed to be confirmed by the fact that one of the last acts of the " Great Sobor " (CouncU) summoned by the Holy Synod was in September, 1918, to pass a resolution, welcoming " the sincere efforts of the Old CathoHcs and Anghcans towards union with the Orthodox Church," and caUing on the sacred Synod " to organize a permanent commission with departments in Russia and abroad for the further study of Old Catholic and AngHcan difficulties in the way of union, and for the furthering, as much as possible, of the speedy attainment of the final aim." Scarcely was this resolution passed before the Church in Russia was subjected to a renewed persecution, the horrors of which have hardly ever been exceeded. This is not the place to dweU on the martyrdoms of sixty bishops and hundreds of priests and other L 146 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O persons. The memory of these things is in all our minds ; nor can we forget the way in which the Russian Church then turned to England, or the pathetic appeals addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury for help and protection. The Conference wiU, we beUeve, desire to pass a resolution expressing its intense sympathy -with the Russian Church in the terrible trials to which it has been and apparently stiU is being subjected. We there fore append one to this Report. Even now the position in Russia is far from clear. Information fUters through but slowly. But one thing seems to stand out as certain, viz., that in the wreck and ruin of all other institutions, the Church, albeit stripped and despoUed, alone has survived, though sorely ham pered and hindered in the performance of its work, and we believe that when the opportunity for reconstructing its proper organization is given to it, it -will once again look to estabUsh the friendliest relations with the Anglican Church, relations which we trust and pray may be more intimate than ever. With the Church of Serbia we must also express our deep sympathy, in -view of the calamities and special difficulties which the War brought upon it. In its hour of trial it turned to England for help which was readUy extended, and it has been a particular pri-vUege for Church people in England to assist in the reconstruction of the Serbian Church. The entire body of Serbian students for Holy Orders were at one time receiving their education under the auspices of the Church of England at Oxford, Cuddesdon, and elsewhere, whUe every care was taken to maintain fuU loyalty to the Serbian Church. Thus the closest relations were estabhshed between members of the two Churches, largely through the instrumentahty of Father Nicholai Velimiro-vic, now Bishop of Zicha. At the present moment a number of Serbian students for Holy Orders are recei-ving their training in America, and the same cordial relationships are in existence there. These things mark a stage in the direction of reunion, the fuU results of which ¦wiU be increasingly manifest in years to come. In Greece also, and indeed in all parts of the East, the War has profoundly affected our relations with the Orthodox Church. It has brought the AngUcan and Eastern Churches much nearer to each other. We hear from many different places df ' remarkable instances of what we may caU informal acts of interoommuriion in emergencies which would have been quite impossible a few years ago, and which shew the close sympathy there is .between- the tv^o Churches. The War has changed the attitude of ±he East to Western Christendom. We are told that there is a great turning to England and America, and a desire to ,'kno.w mbre about us and our Communion, about which there is stUl too Httle known in the East generally. But partly because ol the position of England in the War, and because of behef in its power, there has been a real 'stretchings out Of haiids and a desire reunion 147 shewn in more than one quarter to leam and make advances towards us. It is well understood by this time in the East that we have no ulterior aims in seeking closer relations with them, and we are free from the suspicion of any attempt to proselytize, an attempt which naturally they woiUd bitterlj^. resent. During these last few years we have had several -visits to our shores from distinguished Eastern prelates, and important Conferences have been held both in this country and in America for the discussion of doctrinal questions. We note also the cordial reception accorded to the Bishop of London and others in their visits to the East, and in particular the position assigned at the Liturgy to the Bishop of Gibraltar and the Bishop of Harrisburg, which seems to have ^one beyond the extension of ordinary courtesies. These things wUl bear fruit in years to come. Another welcome sign of East and West drawing closer together is found in the letter from the Locum tenens of the (Ecumenical Patriarchate at Constantinople " unto all the Churches of Christ wheresoever they be," which was sent from the Phanar to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Chief in importance, however, has been the visit of a special delegation from the CEcumenical Patriarchate to London, for purposes of consultation with Bishops attending the Lambeth Conference on relations between the Orthodox and AngHcan Communions. This -visit was the result of a formal in-vitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Locum tenens of the CEcumenical Patriarchate at Constantinople. To this visit we have reason to attach the greatest importance. The delegation, consisting of PhUaretos the Metropolitan of Demotica, Professor Komninos of Halki, the Archimandrite Pagonis of London, and the Archpriest CaUinicos of Manchester, was welcomed by the President in fuU session of the Conference, and your Committee has had the advantage of more than one conference vnth it, at which important questions, doctrinal and practical, were discussed and fuU consideration given to the matters specified in the letter from the Phanar referred to above, in which letter we would call special attention to the desire expressed for immediate co operation in matters of social reform. Along the lines here briefly indicated we beheve that we are steadUy moving towards the goal of ultimate reunion. But there is much stiU to be done before this is reached, and our progress wUl be not less sure because it is slow. We stiU require to gain greater knowledge and understanding of each other's position. Explanations are needed on both sides, and it is clear that when the day comes for definite proposals of formal intercommunion to be made, they wiU have to be based on a large-hearted tolerance on both sides, and a readiness on the part of each Church to be content -with holding its own uses and practices -without attempting to ask for conformity to them on the part of the other. L 2 148 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, 192O MeanwhUe, we look for much from the Eastern Churches' Committee recently appointed on a permanent basis by the Archbishop of Canterbury in pursuance of Resolution 61 of the last Lambeth Conference. We are glad to learn that this action has been met by the appointment of somewhat sunUar Com mittees both at Constantinople and at Athens. The American Church has also appointed a permanent Commission to confer with the Eastern Churches. We believe that through the action of these Committees further important steps towards reunion may be taken, partly by the free discussion of doctrinal matters, e.g., the meaning of the FUioque clause, as not involving any belief on our part in more than one alrla in the Godhead, our doctrine of holy orders, the position of the XXXIX Articles, on aU of which matters the Easterns are asking for information, and partly also by conference on practical matters of moment, such as the better regulation of mixed marriages, the reciprocal administration of the Sacraments in cases of emergency, a uniform Kalendar, possibly invoMng the appointment of a fixed Easter, and other questions raised in the letter from the Phanar. We need at the present time not only or chiefly to afford to the Easterns historical evidence of the handing down of our ministry, but also to explain the doctrinal position held by our Communion. It is in particular of the first importance, in order to remove Oriental misconceptions, to make it clear from our formularies that we regard Ordination as conferring grace, and not only as a mere setting apart to an ecclesiastical office. It woiUd also (though in a lesser degree) be a help, as weU as a good thing in itself, to restore the true text of the " Nicene " Creed, as it is used in aU parts of the East and West, except in our Communion, by replacing the word " Holy " before " Catholic and Apostolic Church." If some members of the Eastern Churches' Committee could visit Athens or Constantinople for conferences to be held there, such as those already held in this country and in America, we believe that they would not only meet with a cordial welcome, but also be able to do much to remove misconceptions, and to prepare the way for the ultimate reunion which both Churches ahke so earnestly desire, and for which they make their constant prayer. II. The Separated Churches of the East. Since the last Lambeth Conference further steps have been taken towards a better understanding of, and in some cases a nearer relation to, those Ancient Churches of the East which by reunion 149 reason mainly of the Christological dissensions of the Fifth century have been separated from the rest of Christianity. But the persecutions which many of them, notably the Armenians, Nestoriaris, and Sj^ian Jacobites, have been called upon to suffer, both before and during the Great War, and the terrible massacres that have taken place among them, have prevented as great progress being made as might have been hoped. That they have so greatly suffered for the Christian faith and have refused to apostatize from it under persecution is a fact which must caU for our deepest sympathy and respect. These Churches have all at some period of their history been accused of theological error -with regard to the Incarnation, and it is, therefore, necessary that we should examine with some care their doctrinal position at the present time. The Lambeth Conference of 1908 desired the formation of Commissions to do this, and "to prepare some carefuUy framed statement of the faith as to our Lord's Person, in the simplest possible terms, which should be submitted to each of such Churches where feasible, in order to ascertain whether it represents their belief with substantial accuracy." Further, the Conference suggested that if such a statement were found to be acceptable to any such Church occasional intercommunion might be advantageously pro-vided for. A Commission was formed, and proceeded to take action with reference to the East Syrian, Assyrian, or Nestorian Church ; and it resolved that the statement of Catholic doctrine to be submitted to this Church, or to any other that lay under analogous suspicion of error as to the Incarnation, should be the Christological- versicles of the Quicunque Vult. The Commission also resolved to ask the East Syrian Church to explain in what sense it used the term " Mother of Christ " as its technical description of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to this effect to the now deceased Patriarch Benjamin Mar Shimun, CathoHcos of the East, who, after consultation -with his bishops, and with their assent, returned answer under date June 13th, 1911, entirely accepting the statement of faith propounded to him, as expressing the belief of that Church, and giving an explanation of the use of the term " Mother of Christ " which was considered entirely satis factory by the Commission. With this judgement your present Committee agree. It was, however, more important stiU that a careful examina tion of the East Syrian voluminous liturgical books should be made. This has been done, with the result that it is seen that they contain much that is incompatible with real Nestorianism, together ¦with some things that might be interpreted either in an orthodox or in a Nestorian sense ; it is suggested that the latter must be judged by the former. The watchword Theotokos is absent from their ser^vice books, and in one place is repudiated ; 150 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O on the other hand, its equivalent in other words is several times found, and strong instances of the language kno-wn as com- fnunicatio idiomatum occur. One phrase, which has caused some perplexity, is that which asserts that there are in Christ one parsopa {wpoa-ixiirov) , two Qnome, and two natures. The word Qnoma is equivalent to " hypostasis," and if used in the later sense of that word, i.e. as meaning " person," it would imply real Nestorianism ; but research has made it plain that it is used in the earher sense of " hypostasis," namely, " substance," and this makes the phrase, if redundant, at least perfectly orthodox. It should be added that the East Syrians accept the decrees of Chalcedon, whUe rejecting those of Ephesus. Your Committee agree ¦with the Commission in thinking that we need not insist on the East Syrian Church ceasing to mention in their services the names of those whom it has hitherto revered. They suggest that if the Archbishop of Canterbury finds that the present East Syrian authorities adhere to the answer given in 1911, there is no reason why occasional intercommunion should not be estabhshed. They also think that opportunity should be taken to inform the authorities of the Eastern Orthodox Churches about these proposals. The Jacobites or West Syrians. — Since the last Lambeth Conference the Jacobite Patriarch, Mar Ignatius AbduUah II, has ¦visited this country. His interview with the late Bishop of SaUsbury (Dr. J. Wordsworth) at the end of 1908 gives us much information as to the doctrinal position of his Church ; in parti cular he called attention to the Statement of Faith, or Creed, of which an EngUsh translation was pubUshed by the Syrian Patriarchate Education Committee in 1908, and by Dr. Words worth in 1909, as being a very ancient and authoritative docu ment by which his Church was solemnly bound. This Statement of Faith denies that the di-vine nature of our Lord was com mingled -with the human nature, or that the two natures became commixed and changed so as to give rise to a third nature, and asserts that the two natures became united in indissoluble union without confusion, mixture, or transmutation, and that they re mained two natures in an unalterable unity (§ 12). The State ment of Faith is quite free from Monophysitism, and contains the emphatic assertion that the Trisagion as recited by the Jacobites, with the addition of " who wast crucified for us " — an addition long looked on as a strong mark of error — is addressed, not to the Holy Trinity, but solely " to the only-begotten Son, the Word, who was pleased to be born of the Holy Virgin Mary and became flesh "(§22). Your Committee regretf uUy recognize that the present moment, when under the draft Turkish Treaty the West Syrians remain under Turkish rule, is not speciaUy suitable for endeavouring to estabUsh closer relations with them ; but suggest that the REUNION 151 recently appointed Eastern Churches Committee should watch for any suitable opportunity for doing so, and that when such opportunity arises, the above considerations -wiU greatly diminish any doctrinal difficulties. In the meantime a great desideratum is a better knowledge of the Jacobite liturgical books, which are mostly in manuscript. Copts and Abyssinians. — ^The above-mentioned Patriarch, Mar Ignatius Abdullah, stated that there is free intercourse be tween West Sjnrians, Aimenians, Copts, and Abyssinians. In -view of this fact any problems as to nearer relations between them and ourselves would be greatly simpHfied. At any moment opportunities of closer official relations with the Copts may arise, and in view of them your Committee suggest the desirability of a more thorough examination of their service books than has yet been made. The Armenians. — ^This great and much-suffering Church has always repudiated charges of Eutychianism or of Monophysitism, and it is probable that their refusal to accept the decrees of Chalcedon is due to their ha-ving been prevented by political causes from being present at that CouncU, and to its decisions ha-ving reached them in a faulty version. Your Committee would express the hope that by the speedy development of mutual intercourse and investigation, closer relations may be established between them and ourselves, and that the Eastern Churches Committee should be asked to take notice of any suitable opportunity in this direction. The Christians of St. Thomas in Malabar. — In so far as these Christians give allegiance to the West or East S5nians, the remarks made about those Churches apply here. In another part of this report reference is made to a large scheme of reunion which is being discussed in Southern India, and is intended to include some at least of these Christians. Your Committee would suggest that it is not necessary, even if it were possible, to determine how far the Separated Churches of the East have been in the past reallyTimplicated in the errors which have been attributed to them \^i but they think that the investigations of the last twelve years have gone a great way to shew that they have at any rate grown out of any errors they may have held on the Person and Natures of our Lord. The more this is made clear, the more it -wUl appear to be possible to arrive at occasional intercommunion, at the least. But it is desirable that an endeavour shotUd be made, as we move forward step by step in this direction, to explain our attitude carefully to the authorities of the Orthodox Eastern Church, that aU misconceptions -with regard to the subject on the part of that great Communion may be removed, ft Indeed, we have good reason to believe that such action as is here indicated would in no ways prejudice our relations with the Orthodox. 152 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O III. The Church of Sweden. In consequence of Resolution 74 of the last Lambeth Con ference a Commission was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1909 under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Winchester (Dr. Ryle) to correspond with the Swedish Church on the possibUity suggested by the Archbishop of Upsala (Dr. Ekman) of an " aUiance of some sort " between the Swedish and AngUcan Churches. In the autumn of the same year the Com mission -visited Sweden and held an important Conference -with distinguished representatives of the Swedish Church. At this Conference explanations were given -with regard to the Episcopal succession in both countries and -with regard to other matters which required elucidation, and a Committee was appointed by the Archbishop of Upsala to act with him for the purpose of continuing if necessary the discussions initiated in the Con ference. In the following year Bishop John Wordsworth delivered his memorable " Hale Lectures " (pubUshed in 1911) on "The National Church of Sweden." In the same year was also pubUshed a learned work by another member of the AngUcan Commission, viz.. Bishop Mott WiUiams (then Bishop of Marquette), on "The Church of Sweden and the AngUcan Communion." These two volumes dealt fuUy -with the question of the succession of Swedish orders, and did much to remove the doubts pre-viously felt on this subject in some quarters. In the course of the next year (1911) the Archbishop's Commission made its formal report, in which it stated the foUowing conclusions, arrived at after full consideration of the e-vidence laid before it : — " (i) That the succession of bishops has been maintained un broken by the Church of Sweden, and that it has a true conception of the episcopal office . . . and (2) that the office of priest is also rightly conceived as a divinely instituted instrument for the ministry of Word and Sacraments, and that it has been in intention handed on throughout the whole history of the Church of Sweden." Accepting these conclusions, they based on them a recommen dation that a resolution should be proposed, simUar to that which was adopted by the Lambeth Conference of 1888 in reference to the Old Catholics of Germany, Austria, and S-witzer- land, under which members of the National Church of Sweden, other-wise qualified to receive the Sacrament in their own Church, might be admitted to Communion in ours. They also suggested that " permission might with advantage occasionally be given to Swedish ecclesiastics to give addresses in our churches," and that " notice should be sent to the Archbishop of Upsala of important events or appointments within the Church of England, REUNION 153 and that we should welcome simUar information on his part " — a suggestion which, we understand, has been already to some extent acted upon. Further, they said that " as regards facihties for the use of churches for marriages, burials, and the Uke where Swedish churches are not avaUable, we believe that concession on this head is within the competence of any diocesan bishop, and we trust that such facihties may be generally granted." We accept the conclusions arrived at by the learned men who formed this Commission, on the unbroken succession of the Episco pate in Sweden, and on the conception of the office of priest held by that Church ; and we recommend to the Conference the adoption of the defimte recommendations cited above. We also hold that the time has come when, in the event of an invitation to an Anglican bishop or bishops to take part in the consecration of a Swedish bishop, it might properly be accepted. Such an invitation was, we understand, actuaUy made in the year 1914, but it was then thought that the time had not come for such action, as the Report of the Commission had not been then before the Lambeth Conference. This reason no longer exists, and in the event of our resolutions based on this Report being approved, we beUeve that there need be hesitation no longer. OiUy we would add the recommendation that the acceptance of any such in-vitation should be subject to the approval of the Metropolitan of the Pro-vince, so that the invitation might be considered as one made from Church to Church, and not simply as a personal matter. We think also that in the first instance, as an e-vident token of the restoration of close relations between the two Churches, it is desirable that more than one of our bishops shoiUd take part in the action. We ought not to conclude this section of our Report without stating that we are fully aware that in regard to the Diaconate and the administration of Confirmation the Swedish Church does not conform to the practice required -within the Anglican Communion. But we have come to the conclusion that this fact ought not to be aUowed to be a bar to such more intimate relations as we recommend. We express a hope, however, that as a result of the closer intimacy which we desire to be estabUshed, an intimacy which is.happUy encouraged and fostered by the presence of many Swedish students in this country, the Swedish Church may be led to consider the restoration of the Diaconate, and also of the lajdng-on of hands as an outward sign of grace given in Confirmation.* "¦ The subjects of the diaconate and Confirmation were considered at the Conference at Upsala in 1909, See the Report of the Commission, pp, 10, II, Reference may also be made to Bishop "Wordsworth's Hale Lectures, pp. 354-55, and 417-18, and Bishop Mott Williams' TAe Church of Sweden and the AngUcan Communion, pp. 66-8 j. 154 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O We have said nothing in this Report, of the other Scandinavian Churches, viz. those of Denmark, Norway, and Finland ; not from any lack of sympathy or of desire for closer relations with them, but because the problem in their case is different from that in the case of the Church of Sweden, and because we beheve that the time has not yet come for such negotiations to be entered into with them as are now proceeding with the Swedish Church. We hold, therefore, that at present it is -wise to be content with aiming at closer aUiance with the last-named Church alone. IV. The Old Catholics. The " friendly relations " vrith the Old Catholics referred to in Resolution 68 of the last Lambeth Conference were steadUy carried on, untU the outbreak of the War in 1914 rendered communications and intercourse with them very difficult, and in some places quite impossible. Even now, although hostUities have ceased for more than a year and a half, the disturbed and unsettled condition of a large pait of Europe remains a great hindrance to intercourse. We look forward, however, hopefuUy to a resumption in the near future of such happy relations as existed before the war, and it is a hopeful sign that the Old CathoUc Bishops have quite recently been able for the first time for several years to meet together in Conference. Mention should also be made here of the remarkable rise of the Mariaviten Church in Poland, which has naturaUy suffered greatly during the War, and of the recent movement for reforms of various kinds within the Roman CathoHc Church in Czecho-Slovakia, a movement the course of which we shall watch with interest. In Resolution 69 of 1908 the Conference deprecated " the setting up of a new organised body in regions where a Church with apostoHc ministry and Catholic doctrine offers reUgious pri-vUeges without the imposition of uncathoHc terms of com munion." The occasion which caUed forth this resolution was the consecration, at Utrecht on AprU 28th, 1908, of the Rev. A. H. Mathew by the Old CathoHc Bishops for work in this country ; and the resolution was at the request of the Conference com municated to the Archbishop of Utrecht by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Your Committee note with thankfulness that, in reply to this, explanations were offered by the Archbishop of Utrecht, and a promise made that in future they " would take care not to make trouble by encroaching on the order of a friendly Church." This statement has quite recently been foUowed upVby a formal pronouncement by the Old CathoHc REUNION 155 Bishops assembled at Utrecht on April 28th and 29th, 1920, in which they state categorically that the episcopal consecration of the Re-v. A. H. Mathew " was surreptitiously secured by the production of false testimony, and would never have taken place had the consecrators known that the conditions stated in the questionable documents and required by our Episcopate were non-existent." They also state that on the discovery of the facts they " broke off intercourse -with him," and " without entering on the question whether an ordination obtained by sacrilegious fraud can be valid " declare that they " have no ecclesiastical relations " with those persons who claim to have received ordination or consecration from the aforesaid person. In these circumstances your Committee have had to consider most carefuUy what shovUd be the attitude of the Anglican Com munion to those persons who claim to exercise priestly or episcopal functions wdth a succession derived from Bishop Mathew per sonally, or from those who claim to be his successors in the Episcopate ; and on a review of all the facts they are driven to the conclusion that it is not possible to regard the so-called " Old CathoHc Church in Great Britain," disclaimed as it is by the Old CathoHcs on the Continent, as a properly constituted branch of the Church, or to recognize the orders of its ministers. The circumstances of Bishop Mathew's consecration are so uncertain, and his subsequent isolation is so complete, that, without casting any sort of reflection on the valicUty of Old Catholic orders, or discussing the theological question of abstract " vahdity," we feel that as a matter of practice, in the event of any persons ordained by him or by his successors desiring to come over to the Anglican Church, and exercise their ministry in communion with it, the only proper course would be for them (if in all respects suitable) to be ordained sub conditione.* We recommend therefore that this course should be foUowed, and that, in order to make the position perfectly clear, the condition should be definitely stated in a document subscribed both by the Bishop ordaining and by the person to be ordained, and further that it shoiUd be expressed in the Letters of Orders, somewhat after the precedent set by Archbishop BramhaU in the case of some Presbyterians ordained by him in the Seventeenth century.f '* A Memorandum on " Conditional Ordination " was prepared by the Bishop of Gloucester for the use of the Conference, and will shortly be published. t The f oUo-wing is the form used by BramhaU : — ¦" Non annihilant es priores ordines (si quos habuit) nee invaliditatem eorundem determinantes, multo minus omnes ordines sacros ecclesiarum forinsecarum condemnantes, quos proprio Judici reUnquimus, sed solummodo supplentes quicquid prius defuit per canones ecclesias AngUcanae requisitum, et pro vi dent os paci ecclesiae,S,ut schismatis tollatur occasio, et conscientiis fidelium satisfiat nee uUi dubitent de ejus ordinatione, aut actus suos presbyteriales tanquam invalidos avefsentur." — Bramhall's Works, vol. i., p. 37. 156 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, 192O , A simUar course we recommend to be foUowed in the case of persons ordained by Bishop Vernon Herford, " Bishop of Mercia " (who claims to have received consecration from " Mar BasiUus, MetropoHtan of India, &c."), or by other " episcopi vagantes," whose consecration and status we are unable to recognize. But before action is taken in this way by any individual Bishop we recommend that, after he has satisfied himself that the case is one in which it is desirable to proceed (a most necessary pre caution), he should consult the Metropolitan of the Province, and place the case fuUy before him. the unitas fratrum or MORAVIANS. The question of the position of the Mora-vians was first referred to in the Lambeth Conference so far back as 1878 ; but nothing of importance was done untU in 1897 the Conference passed the two foUowing resolutions : — " 37, That this Conference, not possessing sufficient information to warrant the expression of a decided opinion upon the question of the orders of the Unitas Fratrum or Moravians, must content itself -with expressing a hearty desire for such relations with them as wiU aid the cause of Christian Unity, and vrith recommending that there should be on the part of the Anglican Communion further consideration of the whole subject, in the hope of estabUshing closer relations between the Unitas Fratrum and the Churches represented in this Conference," " 38, That the Archbishop of Canterbury be requested to appoint a Committee to conduct the further investi gation of the subject, and for such purpose to confer -with the authorities or representatives of the Unitas Fratrum." In accordance with this resolution a Committee was appointed in 1906 by the Archbishop of Canterbury which entered on a thorough investigation of the question of the succession of Moravian Bishops, the result of which was that in their opinion, though " a succession of regularly constituted noinisters has beyond question been maintained in that community from the year 1467 to the present time," it is " a matter of grave doubt whether the ministry so maintained is in the strict sense an episcopal ministry," The Committee, which issued its Report in 1907, most regretfuUy arrived at this conclusion, viz. that " the way to immediate intercommunion with the Unity as a Sister Church seems to be at present barred by the great uncertainty of its possessing the historic Episcopate," This conclusion was received -with great disappointment by the authorities of the Moravians, who, as was perhaps natural, could not agree with the verdict on the historical question, but frankly REUNION 157 recognized that any further negotiations on the part of the Anglican Church could only be carried on on the basis of that Report. They were, however, desirous that the next Lambeth Conference might take the matter up again, and asked that we should consider the possibUity of such participation on our side in Moravian consecrations as would put Moravian orders for the future into a position satisfactory to Anglicans, Accordingly the matter came up again at the Conference of 1908 ; and the following resolutions were adopted : — "70, For the sake of unity, and as a particular expression of brotherly affection, we recommend that any official request of the Unitas Fratrum for the participation of Anglican Bishops in the consecration of Bishops of the Unitas should be accepted, provided that " (i) Such Anglican Bishops should be not less than three in number, and should participate both in the sajdng of the Prayers of Consecration and in the laying on of hands, and that the rite itself is judged to be sufficient by the Bishops of the Church of our Communion to which the invited Bishops belong ; " (ii) The Synods of the Unitas (a) are able to give sufficient assurance of doctrinal agreement -with ourselves in aU essentials (as we believe that they -wiU be ¦wilHng and able to do) ; and (b) are wiUing to explain its position as that of a religious com munity or missionary body in close aUiance with the Anglican Communion ; and (c) are -wUUng to accord a due recognition to the position of our Bishops vsithin AngUcan Dioceses and jurisdictions ; and (d) are wiUing to adopt a rule as to the administration of Confirmation more akin to our own, "71. After the conditions prescribed in the preceding Resolution have been complied with, and a Bishop has been consecrated in accordance with them, corresponding in-vitations from any Bishop of the Unitas Fratrum to an Anglican Bishop and his Presbyters to participate in the Ordination of a Moravian Presbyter should be accepted, provided that the Anglican Bishop should participate both in the saying of the Prayers of Ordination and in the laying-on of hands, and that the rite itself is judged to be sufficient by the Bishops of the Church of our Communion to which the in-vited Bishop belongs. " 72. Any Bishop or Presbjd;er so consecrated or ordained should be free to minister in the Anglican Communion with due episcopal licence ; and, in the event of the above proposals, i.e. Resolutions i and 2, being accepted and acted upon by the S5mods of the Unitas, during the period of transition some permission to preach in our churches might on special occasions be extended to Moravian Ministers by Bishops of our Com munion. "73. We reconunend that the Archbishop of Canterbury be respectfuUy ¦ requested to name a Committee to communicate. 158 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O as need arises, with representatives of the Unitas, and also to direct that the decisions of the present Conference be communi cated to the Secretarius Unitatis." This last resolution was promptly carried out. A Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Durham (Dr. Moule) and negotiations were entered upon with the Unitas. The course of these negotiations and the explanations offered by the Moravians are fuUy described in the Report of the Committee which was prepared in 1913, and in which they state that the " conditions contained in Resolution 70 (i) and (ii) have now been satisfied." Since then, however, questions have arisen as to the completeness of the fulfilment of the conditions on the part of the Unitas, especially in regard to provisions (b) and (c), and even more in regard to (d), as it now appears that the Unitas permits deacons to celebrate Holy Communion, and also to administer Confirmation. This fact was unknown to the Committee when it made its report early in 1913. Since then the subject has been on two occasions brought before the Central Consultative Body of the Lambeth Conference (in July, 1913, and again in 1914), and that body came to the conclusion that it "did not feel itself justffied in saying that in its judgement the conditions laid down in 70 (ii) of the Lambeth Conference have been so completely and satisfactorUy met as to enable the participating action to be carried out," and it "recommended that the fuU Lambeth Conference at its next meeting should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion." From this time tUl now negotiations have been practically in abeyance, though quite recently informal communications have taken place between one or more members of the Committee and the Mora-vians. In these circumstances your Committee has had to consider the matter most carefuUy, and we have been greatly helped by a conference with Bishop Mumford, the President of the Provincial Board of the Mora-vian Church in Great Britain and Ireland, The time at our disposal has been too short for us to go into the questions at issue as fuUy as we would -wish to have done. We are agreed, however, that condition (a) in 70 (U) is satisfied ; but there is stUl some uncertainty as to (b) and (c) ; and it is in our opinion im possible for any such action to take place as is contemplated in the resolution so long as the present practice of the Mora-vians in regard to the celebration of the Holy Communion and the administration of Confirmation by deacons remains unchanged. It might be possible, we think, for the fact of Confirmation by a Presbyter to be regarded as no bar to the measure of inter communion proposed, provided that it were distinctly laid down that authority for such action on the part of Presb5H;ers Wcis directly delegated to them by the Bishop, there being precedents for this both in East and West. And if the Unitas Fratrum REUNION 159 can see its way to meet our requirements in these matters we think that negotiations with them might weU be resumed, and we hope that the result would be that any remaining uncertainty as to 70 (ii) (i) and (c) would be removed. Should this happy consummation be arrived at we believe that they might then, through the Archbishop of Canterbury, in-vite AngHcan Bishops to participate in a consecration -without fear of refusal. The existing difficulties have already been brought before the authorities of the Unitas, and we are encouraged by statements made to us to hope that such a change of rule on its part is not out of the question. We therefore suggest that the Committee appointed after the last Lambeth Conference should be continued in existence, and strengthened by the addition of two members to supply the place of the late Bishop of Durham and Bishop Mitchinson ; and that this Committee should be ready, whenever the proper time comes, to re-enter upon negotiations ¦with the Unitas ; and we further recommend that if the difficulties described above can be removed to the satisfaction of the Archbishop of Canterbury with the concurrence of the Consultative Body, there woiUd then be no need to wait for another Lambeth Conference before action was taken. It should be added that in making these recommendations we have directly in ¦view only the branch of the Unitas Fratrum in the British Isles. We are given to understand that as " a full Province " it has complete liberty to act by itself in this matter. But if the negotiations with the Unitas in the British Pro-vince can be carried to a successful issue, a valuable precedent wiU have been set, which may well be foUowed in other Pro-vinces, and thus lead ultimately to complete intercommunion between the AngUcan Communion and the Unitas in all parts of the world. VI. " The Reformed Episcopal Church." This body hasnow about twenty-five congregations or churches in England served by thirty or forty ministers. It was intro duced into this country from America, where it originated in 1866, and where there are stiU a certain number of its congregations. We are called on to consider it here because its "Southern Ssmod " has passed "by a large majority," and forwarded to the authorities of the English Church, the foUo^wing resolution : — " This Synod, being desirous, so far as in it Hes, of maintaining unity among aU Christian people, would be prepared to consider the question of the Union of the Reformed Episcopal Church with l60 LAMBETH CONFERENCE, I92O the Estabhshed Church of England, pro^vided that the ministers of the Reformed Episcopal Church are received as clergj^ duly ordained in accordance with the Articles of that Church, and that it is aUowed to retain its Declaration of Principles unaltered with its Doctrine, DiscipUne, and Worship, as set forth in its Constitution, Canons, and Prayer Book." Less formal proposals of a somewhat different character have also been received, suggesting that " the clergy should be re-ordained by the AngHcan Bishops (or by one Bishop acting for the rest) and be permitted to minister to the congregations that they are at present ser^ving, and that the congregations should be admitted to union with the Church of England under the provisions of an approved trust deed, which would secure the. maintenance of the Evangehcal character of their work." Your Committee has had before it fuU particiUars not only of the organization, worship, and principles of this body, but also of the origin of its ministry, and its claim to an Episcopal succession.* The members of the Committee find themselves quite unable to recommend the Conference to accept that claim. On this ground, therefore, they are compeUed to recommend the Conference to decHne to enter into negotiations with the Sjmod on the basis of the proposals made by it. With regard to the less formal proposal, they feel it necessary to point out that e^vidence has been before them that the standard of quahfications for the ministry in the Reformed Episcopal Church is such that it would not be easy for us to take any action with regard to the body corporately. Difficulties would arise in indi'vidual cases which in so small a body might assume serious proportions. There are also matters such as the nature of their trust deeds and the character of their Prayer Book, which might easUy lead to compHcations. We think therefore that it is not desirable to enter into negotia tions ¦with the body as a whole. But, as the experience of the last few years has shewn that a tendency exists in both ministers and congregations of the Reformed Episcopal Church to apply for reunion with the Church of England, we recommend that such appUcations shoiUd be, wherever possible, sjmipathetically treated, and that if the minister satisfies our standards intel- lectuaUy as weU as in other ways, he should be ordained sub conditione ; and that if the practical difficulties in the way of * The origin of the Reformed Episcopal Church is explained in " A State ment in regard to Ordinations or Consecrations performed by Dr. Cummins, or others claiming Ordination or Consecration from him, prepared by the Presiding Bishop of the American Church, the Right. Rev. John Williams, D.D. ,LL.D.," which was submitted to the Lambeth Conference of 1888! The chief facts stated in this document are apparently not denied, though the conclusions drawn from them are traversed in The Origin, Orders, Organisation, and Worship of the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United Kingdom, by Philip X. Eldridge, D.D., Presiding Bishop (1910). REUNION l6l congregations joimng us can be overcome they should be received on the condition that as loyal English Church people they accept the Book of Common Prayer in place of the book now in use in the Reformed Episcopal Church. Part IV. Conclusion. It is impossible for those who have worked point by point over the difficult ground covered by this Report to judge what impression it wiU make upon those who come to it freshly and as a whole. Some ¦wUl probably find in it at some points laxity in the enforcement of principle : others may charge it with rigidity. To some it vdU seem to move too rashly : others -wiU com plain that it moves so Httle. Yet most earnestly do we hope that there may be real VcQue found in what has been arrived at with so large a measure of unity, and with a sense of constraint towards agreement which surprised ourselves, and seemed, as we reverently beheve, to be of the Spirit's guidance. The wounds of the Church of Christ are very deep and very stiff with time and controversy. They caimot be quickly healed. Rather wiU they have to be first more deeply probed, and the measure of the contrast between men's doings and God's purpose more fuUy understood. Certainly the sense of being drawn together and drawn upward was never so strong or so upUfting as when we were moved to look beyond smaUer ideals and Hmited agreements to the vision of the One Holy Catholic Church of the Divine Redeemer, into which all the ivided groups of His faithful people must bring what they have of glory and honour, and which cannot be made perfect tUl all its parts are drawn together in Him. If there is any value in this Report it comes from the inspiration of that only true and di-vine ideal. (Signed) COSMO EBOR : Chairmant PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN B^y R. CLAY AND SONS, LTD., BRUNSWICK STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E. i, AND BDNGAY, SUFFOLK. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08837 7594