that the whole plan shows that these good and learned men are not living in the twentieth century at all, and as a result there is an air of unreality about the whole scheme which vitiates an unquestioned worthy motive.

What better reply could be made to it than the answer of the Rev. Francis G. Peabody? * "What seems to the bishops an open road confronts the great majority of their Protestant brethren with the sign 'private way.' In fact, the movement of united Protestantism has already advanced a considerable distance in quite another direction, toward a unity of spirit and a religion of practical discipleship of Jesus Christ; and the question of the transmission of the Episcopate already appears to those who are on the way to this spiritual unity to belong to a past era, when questions of ecclesiastical authority were of real interest, and the world had not been summoned to the weightier matters of co-operation, sacrifice, and service."

But it is not the impracticability of the plan which is so distressing as the confusion which it reveals in the minds of the representatives of the Anglican communion. Are they or are they not in sympathy with the churches of the sixteenth century? They cannot have it both ways. The real question which the Episcopal churches must face and answer before they can speak with authority to their religious brethren is far deeper than any question of orders; it goes down to the very foundation of religion itself. Does the Episcopal Church believe in "magical" or spiritual religion? That is the real question. The Roman Catholic Church does believe in magical religion. The Protestant churches do not. Where does the Anglican Church stand? The world has a right to know. Do its leaders know? I am inclined to believe that they do not. They are by training and inheritance free men, who believe in a desire to die in the "comfort of a reasonable, religious, and holy hope," but at the same time they are drawn to a magical * See the Hibbert Journal, January, 1921.

religion against which our Saviour was the first Christian Protestant.* Till they are clear in their own minds where they stand on this fundamental question, it would seem to be the part of modesty to cease these suggestions for church unity to men who are quite clear that whatever may be the advantage of the Episcopate as a working order, or the glory of the liturgy as an expression of the church's continuous life, or of doctrine which perpetuates the faith of old, if the result is that men are "to be entangled again in the yoke of bondage" from which Christ has set them free, they will prefer to sacrifice all these treasures of historic inheritance in order to rejoice in the liberty of the children of God.

There is to-day a crisis which menaces all the churches, but that of the Episcopal Church is the most acute. When it has made the great decision, its duty will be plaineither to return from its wanderings to the mother church and admit that they and their fathers have sinned in tearing the seamless robe of our Lord, or else say plainly: "We are seeking a better country and have no desire to return." Till it does that its proclamations will have but academic interest, and the world is in too dreadful a condition to listen to unreal and futile schemes which fail to understand the signs of the times. This has been bluntly but none too bluntly set forth by the outspoken dean of St. Paul's:

"We do not sufficiently realize how completely the path to various church reforms is barred by those who refuse to consent to any change which would be an obstacle in the way of submission to Rome. . . . It is the ignis fatuus of reunion with Rome which blocks the way to reunion with our Protestant brethren. And I maintain that we cannot allow the road to be permanently blocked in this way. We may think it right to exercise patience for the sake of internal peace; but we must push steadily See below, Chapter XV.

*

against this absurd barrier till it breaks. We must show by actions as well as by words that we do not unchurch our brethren, that we wish to acknowledge them and the societies to which they belong. I repeat that it is recognition, not complete fusion, which we have to aim at. Let me conclude by quoting the words of Field-Marshal Lord Haig:

"Now that the ordeal of war is over, I believe that the churches, if they will but act together, have a great and unequalled opportunity to secure and preserve for all time to the lasting advantage of our race that capacity for common effort, spirit of fellowship, and community of ideals which by their teaching and example they did so much to foster in the war.'” *

See The Churchman, March 5, 1921.

CHAPTER VIII

SPIRITUAL UNITY

IF what has been said in the foregoing chapters be true, then there inevitably follow certain conclusions which must affect our thought of Christian unity, and also the steps which should be taken to effect it. There can be no unity between organizations. Unity is a spiritual experience and can be nothing less than the unity of persons. If the various churches are persons, they may unite in a spiritual entity; if they be not persons, they cannot so unite. Unity, then, if it is ever to be attained, must be the unity among those individuals who are associated together in the various groups which we call churches-Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist-what you will. The recognition of this truth might lead us to realize the unity which now exists, rather than to seek means for bringing about a unity which never did and, indeed, never can exist. This will not readily be admitted; it may be said that "as there is unity among states, so may there be unity among churches. Our own federal union is an example of that which seems here to have been denied." But it was a true instinct which led the framers of the Constitution to begin with the statement: "We, the people of these United States." It was the individual citizens who could unite and not the "States." The same is true of the church. The various churches cannot unite, though they may cooperate and associate themselves for more effective work. "Ye," says St. Paul, "are the body of Christ and members in particular."

If church unity is an impossibility as at present conceived, and yet it is evident that without some closer association the churches are impotent, what remains? I

answer: Fellowship. Whether there can be such an association of the churches as would reveal a complete manifestation of the indwelling spirit of God, which is really the desire of many earnest men, we need not now consider. It would be largely in the nature of prophecy, to which we do not pretend. This, however, will, I believe, be acknowledged by all reasonable men, that any such association must be preceded by a spiritual unity, which is what we mean by fellowship.

The pathway to fellowship is in some respects the same as that which the "Catholic" so much insists upon. It is the path which has already been traced by the feet of the saints of old. It is also in harmony with the devout spirit of the "Protestant," who insists that the appeal to history shall be carried back to the beginning of the history of the church, when the influence of Jesus was predominant in the lives of his disciples.

Let us begin with the first. The Catholic who affirms that no progress is possible for those who overlook the fact that there was once a single church, and that in the New Testament it is stated in terms which cannot be mistaken that there can by no possibility be more than one, is, I believe, on sure ground. "There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Nothing can be clearer than that there can be but one church. But when we ask ourselves with which of the existing ecclesiastical organizations this one church is to be identified, our difficulties begin. Has any one of the churches succeeded in emancipating itself wholly from the mediaval spirit? It is to be doubted. Now, one characteristic of the medieval mind was that it began with a dogma, and then sought for facts to buttress it. If we have determined that the church shall have certain characteristics or "notes" and none other, then inevitably we shall be led