Contents

Preface
Introduction

PART I
THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIAN UNITY
I. Do We Have Unity?

II. Spiritual Unity Not an Excuse for Division

III. How Divisions Arose

IV. Do We Want Christian Unity ?

V. Do We Need Christian Unity ?

VI Can We Have Christian Unity?

PART II
ATTEMPTED SOLUTIONS OF THE PROBLEM
OF CHRISTIAN UNITY
I. Some Old Methods
II. The Modern Way-Mergers

PART III
A SUGGESTED SOLUTION
I. The Fundamental Basis of Christian Unity
The Essential Nature of the Church
II. Ancient Precedent
III. Spiritual Disarmament
IV. Spiritual Demobilization
CONCLUSION
Objections Answered

PREFACE

When a man has toiled for many days and at last is ready to lay his work before the public he naturally feels desirous of saying some word which will make them favorably inclined toward the thing which his brain and heart and hands have fashioned. Here is what I would say:

Please notice that I have only tried to prove one thing: that the true basis of church membership is spiritual. I believe many other things besides that. I have hundreds of opinions which I have not expressed in this book.

Likewise I have hundreds of profound theological convictions which I have not written down here-not because I do not believe them; but because I had a sizable proposition to prove as it was, and I did not wish to weaken my case by trying to prove a number of other things at the same time.

It is easier to hold the ground at one point than to defend a hundred mile battle-line. I have simply tried to defend the ground-and possibly advance a bit-at one point. I have not tried to fight on a long battle-line.

While the physical preparation of the book has been done under pressure for time after busy days in an editorial office, the central thought of the book has been slowly wrought out in my soul more painfully than any other belief of my life.

Many young men have a crisis period of doubt and uncertainty about God and life's ideals which they must pass-if they are able to pass-with much suffering.

I also went through this experience; but for me the greatest doubt and perplexity was not in regard to the existence of God, but in regard to the nature of the church.

As a child I accepted what was told me upon this point; but upon re-examining the matter as a youth I was plunged into such a maze of uncertainty that my distress became at times intense mental anguish.

At last I reached the solution proposed in this book. It is not original with me, but the approach to the doctrine is my own, and the doctrine itself came to me with the force and clearness of an original discovery.

Since then I have found great peace of mind and heart on the subject of Christian unity; and a clear conviction of the method by which our holy Christianity may extricate itself from the mazes of division.

I feel disposed to adopt for myself the words penned by Sir Isaac Newton in 1686, in the introduction to his Principia "I heartily beg that what I have here done may be read with candor; and that the defects I have been guilty of upon this difficult subject may be not be much reprehended as kindly supplied, and investigated by new endeavors of my readers."

This work is hereby humbly committed to my fellow-believers everywhere, as members of His body, and to Christ, the Head of the church.

Yours in Christ,
Charles Ewing Brown

A New Approach to
Christian Unity
Charles E. Brown, D.D, 1931

INTRODUCTION

We live in a new age. Old patterns of thought are rapidly dissolving; new ways of living and thinking are revolutionizing the life of mankind. Men are more restless under ancient evils; more hopeful of finding the right solution to age-old riddles. In other days it was enough to say that a given custom had descended from the forefathers; or that the ancients had tried unsuccessfully to solve a certain problem. But to-day the spirit of man soars upward, and he will not allow the ghosts of the long-ago to block the road along which his aspirations and hopes take their march toward the achievement of his legitimate and worthy desires.

The heart of religion is still a sacred place-the sanctuary of God. In spite of the earthquakes and storms of science it ever stands inviolate, untouched by profane hand, undisturbed by the roar of an agitated world. Its holy altar fires are unfanned by the wild winds of controversy; the deluge of material ism dampens not the burning coals of its altar. No spear of science has ever thrust through its enveloping curtains. The test tubs and the microscope have never invaded its privacy. In religion's calm heart of mystery there is a silence as deep, a peace as serene as that which prevailed in the days when Abraham and Moses and Isaiah penetrated into the secret of divine fellowship; or when John and Paul and Stephen followed Jesus into the mystical experience of an intimate knowledge of God. Now as in the olden time, the foundation of God standeth sure.

In other words, notwithstanding the assertions of skeptics, science has absolutely left untouched and unchanged the great fundamental truths of man's personal relation to God. I think proof of this statement is found in the fact that Copernicus, the founder of the modern Copernican system of astronomy, was a devout parish priest; Sir Isaac Newton, the discoverer of the law of gravitation and of the mighty laws of celestial mechanics-said to have been the greatest of all human minds-was a devout Christian, and a writer upon the Book of Revelation. Michael Faraday was one of the founders of modern physical science. Of him Professor Tyndall said: " Taking him for all and all, I think it will be conceded that Michael Faraday was the greatest experimental philosopher the world has ever seen." Michael Faraday was a member of a small religious society in London which practiced footwashing and the holy kiss. In fact he was an elder in that church. Coming down to modern times, the great electrical genius, Steinmetz, published only a short time before his death an account of his belief in God. Professor Millikan, the discoverer of the cosmic rays, is a religious man; and so are a number of other foremost scientific men today.

We are therefore able to say with assurance that modern science has not even remotely touched nor injured the great religious truths of man's spiritual relation to God. But it has tended to create a new attitude toward the business and social problems of the church. Science has done this in two ways: it has suggested that the business, i.e. the material business of the church, be conducted more expeditiously, economically, and efficiently; and by the examples of its own success in other fields it has encouraged the church to believe that by the use of a right method difficult and hitherto impossible things may be accomplished regardless of the fact that they have been [unsuccessfully attempted time out of mind. Working in the dispassionate and unprejudiced light of a progressive and achieving age men of the church are beginning to believe that somehow the problem of her disunity can be solved.

Chapter 1

DO WE HAVE UNITY?

First, however, let us examine the facts to determine whether we already have that which all Christians desire. It is the opinion of many good Christians that discussion of Christian unity is more or less futile; for, they say, we already have Christian unity. The unity of the church is spiritual; nothing can destroy it.

Early Protestantism was reproached by the Roman Catholics with having broken the age-long unity of the church. Protestant theologians felt the charge very keenly; and finally answered it by maintaining that the unity of the church is spiritual, and as such nothing can destroy it. Christians might be divided up into various denominations just as they are divided into different nations and cities. Organic unity is unnecessary and even undesirable.

This attitude of mind passed into a tradition in Protestantism. The following excerpt from the writing of Richard Baxter, famous Puritan divine of the seventeenth century, is fairly typical of the classical Protestant excuse for division in the church. He says:

"My next address is to them that are so solicitous to know which is the true church among all the par ties in the world that pretend to it. Silly souls! they are hearkening to that party, and to that party, and turn it may he to one, and to another, to find the true universal church. I speak not in contempt, but in compassion. You are in the wood, and cannot find it for trees; but you ask, 'Which of these sort of trees is the wood? Is it the oak, or the ash, or the elm, or poplar? Or is it the hawthorn, or the bramble? Why, it is all together. You are studying which of the members is the man: Is the hand the man? or is it the foot? or is it the eye? or the heart? or which is it? Why, it is the whole body and soul, in which all parts and faculties are comprised. You wisely ask, 'Which part is the whole? Why, no part is the whole. Which is the Catholic Church? Is it the Protestants, the Calvinists, or the Lutherans the Papists, the Greeks, the Aethiopians, or which is it? Why, it is never any one of them, but all together that are truly Christians. Good Lord! What a pitiful state is the poor church in, when we must look abroad and see such abundance running up and down the world, and asking which is the world? whether this country be the world, or that country be the world? They are as it were running up and down England to look for England, and ask, whether this town be England, or whether it be the other? They are as men running up and down London to inquire for London, and ask, whether this house be London, or that street be London? or some other? Thus they are in the midst of the church of Christ inquiring after the church, and asking, whether it be this party of Christians, or whether it be the other? Why, you doting wretches, it is all Christians in the world of what sort soever, that are truly so, that constitute the Catholic Church. "

There is much in what the old theologian says here which must engage the assent of all evangelical Christians; but it is quite evident that he means to liken the divisions of the church to the different countries of the world, the different houses of a town, and the different parts of the human body, thius justifying their existence in the body of Christ.

The same sentiment was expressed by the great preacher, Henry Ward Beecher: "A physical union of all denominations is manifestly impossible. There can be no such union. Nor will identity of intellect (that is doctrinal sameness), or identity of instruments (that is ecclesiastical institutions), ever constitute a true union. That is to consist in the mass of men, of the same quality which makes each one of them a child of Christ-namely, the dominant spirit of a pure benevolence. You may attempt to bring churches together; but it is easier to weld iron that is cold than to unite churches by simply making them think and act alike .... The union of love is the only union which Christ sought to establish, or which is attainable in this world. "

Here, too, there is much in which we must all concur; but the burden of it all seems to be that organic unity is impossible and undesirable because we already have the only real unity of the church- the unity of the spirit.

The present writer is not working in any polemical spirit, therefore he can gladly acknowledge that there is a certain amount of truth in the claim that the church of to-day has a kind of unity, and that spiritual unity is a real unity. It is most certainly true that all genuine Christians are at one in acknowledging the lordship of Jesus Christ. They are one in their knowledge of him in his power to save. They are one in the blessed membership in his mystical body.

The fallacy in the argument of Baxter is in likening the towns of England to the denominational divisions in the Christian church. At a time when England was united under one government working in orderly fashion it would indeed be vain to ask which town is England; but if a rebellion should arise in which the different towns should side each with a separate government such a question might not be so silly.

Five years before the Civil War in America there was no occasion to ask whether a town in Virginia or Alabama is a part of the United States; but during the Civil War the question was not so absurd. During the Revolutionary War there was a tremendous debate whether or not the Thirteen Colonies belonged to England. Finally the Colonists won the debate in favor of the proposition that the Thirteen Colonies had no connection whatever with England but were absolutely and irrevocably independent.

Anybody who knows law and logic knows that the various denominations are just as independent of each other as England and America are at the present time. As a matter of fact there is a closer connection between England and the United States than there is between many of the Christian denominations to-day.

A man may signify to the American government that he wishes to visit England; the government will then issue him a passport which the British government is not indeed obliged to accept, but which it generally will accept. This man can stay in England for years, freely eating English food and following English customs; and at the end of his visit he can return to the United States with his citizenship in no wise impaired nor subject to question.

So rigid are the denominational walls that it seems absurd to the point of jesting even to suggest such an interchange of courtesy between denominations. It is a well known fact that such churches as practice close communion will not even permit a member of another denomination so much as to eat one crumb of bread with them at the table of the Lord. And a Christian of another denomination might visit inside the house of a sister denomination, but he could not visit inside the churchly fellowship without surrendering altogether his membership in his former denominational home.

Another fallacy in Baxter's reasoning is to liken the different denominations to the members of the human body. In the first place this analogy is not correct. The several members of the human body are intimately combined in one interacting organism. When the muscles on one side of a limb contract the opposite muscles relax. When the mouth wants something the eyes search for it and the legs bear the body to it and the hands secure it and transport it to the mouth. The stomach affords a capital of food and warmth to every member of the body.

It is simply a mere statement of fact to say that this is not the condition in the denominational field. To make the analogy true it would be necessary for the Seventh Day Adventists and the Episcopalians to run their publishing houses as one, or for the Nazarenes and the Presbyterians to operate a college or a mission station on a partnership basis. To complete the analogy it would be necessary for the other denominations to collect money for the Roman Catholic Church and then that church disburse the funds so collected to the Greek Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Nazarenes, and so forth, as they might have need. It does not require a microscope nor the exact methods of the laboratory to discern that this is not the case at the present time; and history affords authentic evidence that it never was so.

In the second place the assumption that the denominations are related to the body of Christ in the same way as the bodily organs are related to the human body is in opposition to the teaching of St. Paul. IIe says: "Now are ye the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers," etc. The individual persons, some of whom were teachers and office-bearers in the church, were the several members of the body of Christ-and not rival social organizations.

Besides this it is also true that the relation of the individual persons to Christ as members of his body is not a mere parable or figure of speech, but the description of an actual reality. If Christianity means what the Apostle understood it to mean individual Christians are not simply figuratively but really and actually members of the body of Christ: "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" ( Eph.. 5 :30) .

That this is something more than a careless figure of speech is shown by the fact that the same idea was repeated by the Apostle again and again. For instance, he says: "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?" (I Cor. 6: 15). This shows that he was not referring to social organizations but to individual persons. And when he said " . . . your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost . . . " (vs. 19) he indicated a relationship with Christ which is more than a mere figure of speech.

The same thought is expressed by our blessed Lord when he likened the individual members of the church to the branches of a vine. He said: "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit" (John 15:5). Here we have the same thought: obviously one cannot distinguish between the vine and the branches. It takes the branches to complete the vine. They are a part of the vine.

Just as Christians are said by St. Paul to be members of Christ's body, and temples of the Holy Ghost " . . . for the temple of Cod is holy, which temple ye are" (I Cor. 3 :17), so here Christ says they are members of himself as a holy vine.

It is often said that Christ here had reference to the various denominational organizations of the world. This is palpably incorrect; for there was not a denomination of the present day in existence then. Besides, Christ made his meaning as plain as a grammatical arrangement of words can make it. He said: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch" (John 15: 6). Not a church, nor a denomination, is named, but a man. Chapter 2

SPIRITUAL UNITY NOT AN EXCUSE FOR DIVISION

That there is no organic unity of the whole church of Christ to-day, in the ordinary use of the words, is so patent a fact that I have not undertaken to prove it. lt must be conceded by every reasonable man. And it is so conceded by every reasonable man. lend it is so conceded by the various attempts at ecclesiastical mergers and by the present-day church federations; and also by the great world conferences held since the War, namely: that on Life and Work held at Stockholm, Sweden, in 1925; and that on Faith and Order held in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1927.

Fortunately for the cause of Christ there is not longer manifest the extreme rancor and bitterness of theological debate which embroiled the various schools of religious thought in the past. That is to say there is improvement, but not yet an ideal condition by any means. Nevertheless so long as we have six or eight different churches in a town of five hundred people, and immense city churches facing each other directly across the street, when there are other districts of the city comprising tens of thousands of people quite destitute of churches; so long as we have great heathen cities containing fifteen or twenty different denominations, when many rural districts are destitute of any missionary work; it is vain to say that we have literal organic unity.

In the examination of the arguments of Baxter I think we have shown that we do not have even a formal nominal unity. It must certainly sound ironical to infidels and the heathen when we sing:

"Like a mighty army
Moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading
Where the saints have trod;
We are not divided,
All one body we;
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity."

It is at this point that we are always forced to fall back upon the indissoluble spiritual unity of the church-the church is one in spirit in spite of her divisions. Therein consists her unity, all the unity she need care anything about. In the words of Beecher quoted above, "The union of love is the only union which Christ sought to establish, or which is attainable in this world."

Here we come back under the pall of hopeless division which has hung so long over evangelical Christianity. We are again in the old rut of despair. Since the case is hopeless we say, "Why look for correction of present conditions" But in thus tacitly assuming that the inevitable fruit of spiritual unity is organic division we are nowadays going against the most enlightened opinion in the Christian church. The progressive and forward looking men of the Christian world everywhere are anxiously looking for a way out of the maze of sectarian division into which the flock of Christ has wandered. Witness the writings of such men as- merely taking them at random-Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, Walter Van Kirk, Prof. Edmund Soper, Prof. Doremus Hayes, Bishop Charles H. Brent, Dr. E. Y. Mullins, President Southern Baptist Seminary-really, the task grows too monotonous, I find I should have to copy a list of about five hundred names of the delegates to the Lausanne Conference on Faith and Order consisting of the most distinguished members and leaders of more than nineteen of the largest denominations of the world, representing nearly every prominent branch of the Christian faith except the Roman Catholic.

So much for the opinion of those who ought to know, as being specialists in theology and practical church administration. Now let us examine the popular view as trenchantly expressed in a recent novel, God and the Groceryman:: "Our one great defense against the rapidly increasing immorality of our nation, and the consequent drain upon the strength of the people, is Christianity. Enormous sums are given to this holy cause, and the waste of this money by the preachers and managers of the church in perpetuating their denominational differences-which the church as a whole agrees are of no importance-is the greatest economical crime of the age. The spiritual and moral consequences are disastrous beyond calculation.

Chapter 3

HOW DIVISIONS AROSE

The members of the Apostolic church were "of one heart and of one BODY,' (Acts 4: 32). On the day of Pentecost "they were all with one accord in one place." Perfect unity of spirit flowered into complete organic unity in that glorious era which has always and rightly been esteemed as the church's golden age.

Inasmuch as many Christians believe that divisions are so necessarily inevitable as to make them practically the will of God, judging from the standpoint of his providence in history, it will be worth our while to glance briefly at the origin of divisions in the historic church in order to observe how really unnecessary they actually were-or at least how unnecessary they would have been granted only a reasonable desire to preserve the unity of Christ's flock in the bonds of peace.

The student of church history is likely to be puzzled with such a profusion of sects and heresies as actually to bewilder him and create the impression that division and not unity is the root and principle of the Christian spirit. This is largely surface manifestation, however. In ancient times the heresies were not nearly so conspicuous as their prominence in history would seem to indicate. They occupy a large space in history on the same theory that robbery and murder hold a large place in the newspaper-because they were the unusual. The newspapers in a large city may devote very much space to a murder; but one would be a poor judge of appearances who should suppose therefore that the large majority of the population are murderers.

The apostolic church retained its primitive, visible unity for upwards of three hundred years. It is possible to make this statement in spite of the fact that there were many heresies as these heresies were not divisions among the Christian churches and believers but radical and subversive departures from the essence of the Christian faith. On this point we have the witness of the great church historian, Dr. Philip Schaff, who says: " The chief ante-Nicene heresies were undoubtedly radical perversions of Christian truth and admitted of no kind of compromise. Ebionism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism were essentially anti-Christian. The church could not tolerate that medley of pagan sense and nonsense without endangering its very existence" (History of the Christian Church, vol. II, p. 515).

While the church has been like an army marching through history assailed on its flank and sides by almost constant attacks of heresy and schism, it is a simple matter of fact to say that the first grand division in historic Christianity came between the two communions which at the present time stress their descent from the Apostolic church and likewise their orthodoxy and catholicity, that is, the Eastern Orthodox Church, officially known as the Holy Oriental Orthodox Apostolic Church, on the one hand, and the Roman Catholic Church on the other.

Roman Catholic apologists lay the charge against Protestantism of breaking the historic unity of the church; therefore it needs to be well known that it was these two ancient organizations which first rent asunder the structure of historic Christianity between them.

There were many causes of irritation which gradually accumulated between these communions throughout the ages. Each remonstrated against the abuses of the other and poured crimination and recrimination on each other's heads. But the principal cause of their division was a bitter quarrel over the use of the word "filioque," which is a Latin word meaning "and the Son."

Under the stress of their violent reaction against the unitarianism of the Arians, who denied the deity of the Christ, the Western church had gradually added the words "and from the Son" to that part of the Nicene Creed which declares the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father. The quarrel over this one word in the creed raged for centuries. Finally on July 16,1054, the Papal legates placed upon the altar of the Greek cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople the sentence of excommunication against the heads of the Oriental church: "Let them be Anathema Maranatha, with Simoniacs, Valerians, Donatists, Nicolaitans, Leverians, Pneumatomchi, Manichus, and Nazarenes, and with all heretics: yea, with the devil and his angels: Amen, Amen, Amen. " The Christians upon whom this terrible imprecation was pronounced did not at all lose heart but officially responded in like spirit: " The devil be with you; the Lord is with us. "

The evil and divisive effects of the ecclesiastical creeds are well illustrated by this historic example. The whole of organic Christendom was divided and rended utterly asunder by the one word "filioque" added to the creed by the Western church. It will be said that there is a deep philosophical and theological meaning lying behind that little word. This I am well aware of through long years of acquaintance with the controversy; but I maintain that that controversy centers upon a point not clearly revealed by the Word of God. It concerns a delicate spiritual factor entirely beyond the reach of the most refined intellectual methods and instruments. It is a question not fundamental to Christianity about which Christians may differ in opinion or concerning which they may be indifferent; or even change their opinion.

The famous Roman Catholic theologian, Dr. Dollinger, of Munich, once the ablest advocate of Roman Catholicism in Europe, was by virtue of his denominational affiliations, a believer in the "filioque" of the Roman Catholic Church; but when in 1870 the Vatican Council sanctioned the doctrine of papal infallibility, Dr. Dollinger protested so forcibly that he was excommunicated. Five years later he presided over the Old Catholic conference in Bonn which denied the doctrine of " filioque. " Dr. Dollinger was a great scholar; but it is very doubtful if he ever felt sure enough of his ground to reach an independent judgment of his own on the subject. He could declare for it or against it, just as his confreres might wish, with perfect indifference, knowing that the allwise God would not condemn a man for an involuntary error, or rather a lack of knowledge on such an obscure question as that.

Personally I have known godly persons very much used of the Holy Spirit in his great work of healing the souls of men who never in their lives once heard of the "filioque" controversy; and who would not be able to give an opinion as to whether the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father "and the Son" or only from the Father; or even whether he "proceeds" from either in the metaphysical sense signified by the ancient creeds. Upon such a far-fetched and trifling quibble does the major division in Christendom depend!

Doubtless it will be said that there were grave abuses on both sides which mutually justified division. Granted that both these old communions harbored grave abuses, yet the fact remains that the division never cured any of them. It must always be so when Christians write a denominational creed to protect the truth which it is the business of the Word and the Spirit of God to pro. sect, the effect is divisive of true Christians; and the tendency is exclusive and sectarian instead of generous and brotherly.

In Second Samuel the sixth chapter we read of how the Israelites were moving the ark, "And when they came to Nachon's threshing-floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah:; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died" (vss. 6 and 7).

Often have stumbled the poor, clumsy oxen whose business it is to draw God's cart through this world, bearing the precious ark of the Christian faith. But the zealous Uzzahs of Christendom have been even more anxious and unbelieving than he; for they have even foreseen that the oxen would stumble and have placed the cold, dead hands of ancient bishops and theologians upon it forever to hold it from falling, as they suppose, but in reality forever to hold it from going forward and also forever to profane by human authority that which is alone the prerogative of the omnipotent Head of the church.

The sixteenth century is preeminently the age of division. In spite of the sacredness of Christian unity I think that Luther and the reformers were fully justified in breaking from the ancient church. So many insufferable abuses had grown up that a condition had developed-as is sometimes possible- which made division imperative for the sake of the higher spiritual values. Strictly speaking the unity of the Roman Church, being a corporate human organization union merely, had ceased actually to be the unity of the body of Christ; and therefore to violate it was not only excusable but meritorious.

Nevertheless there was much confusion of thought upon this point among the reformers; so that they finally came to neglect if not despise the value of organic unity in the Christian church.

Casual readers of the reformation story are liable to overlook the fact that the Reformation had two widely different aspects. There was first the official and political group which received the sanction of the princes and the magistrates, and drew to itself the so-called better class, socially, of the people. This is the group we read most about, the class to which Luther and Melanchthon in Germany, and Zwingli and Calvin in Switzerland, belonged.

But there was another aspect. Everywhere there sprang up earnest souls from among the common people who yearned to see a restoration of the apostolic church. These were mostly working people from the lower walks of life; although they were often joined by the best scholars of the age. But they neither had nor sought the approval of the princes; and as a result they were dubbed with the opprobrious name of Ana-baptists and persecuted even by the Protestants with a merciless rigor absolutely appalling. The princely party martyred these humble servants of Christ first and then blackened their memory with despicable falsehoods.

Doubtless it is quite true that many fanatics and extremists sprang up in that stormy age; but it is quite correct to say that there was a sober element very widespread who passionately desired to go all the. way back to New Testament Christianity. Both in Switzerland and in Germany the aristocratic party among the Protestants refused to take this extreme step. Wantonly and needlessly they divided from these lowly servants of Christ everywhere; and not content with violating the precious unity of the faith they went further and violated the principles of humanity and mercy by vigorous persecution.

Any attempt at a recital of the details of this division would lead us far afield, and into many controversies, as the historical matters involved touch on questions bitterly fought over in the past. It is much easier to trace the division between the leaders of the aristocratic party. Surely it would seem they ought to be able to work in unity. But such was not the case.

The division in official Protestantism arose over questions concerning the Lord's Supper. The ancient Roman Church had taught the doctrine of the real Presence in the elements of the eucharist, that is, that the whole substance of the bread and of the wine are changed by the priest's act of consecration into the actual body and blood, and soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ.

Zwingli swung clear away from this view to the position that the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper are merely symbols of the presence of Christ. Luther could not go so far as the Roman Church. He paused about half way between its doctrine and that of the Swiss reformers, holding that there is " A real and substantial presence of the very body and blood of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered on the cross, in, with, and under, the elements of bread and wine, and the oral manducation of both substances by all communicants, unworthy and unbelieving, as well as worthy and believing, though with opposite effects" (History Christian Church, Schaff, vol. VI, pp. 669-670). This presence of Christ in the emblems of the supper was described as " a sacramental, supernatural, incomprehensible union" (idem).

The present writer has no intention to try to explain an incomprehensible doctrine at all, nor to take side with persons who debate matters admittedly far above human understanding. lie would say, however, that it seems too bad, even after the passage of four hundred years, that the foremost leaders of the reformation should have violently split asunder over an incomprehensible doctrine.

Unquestionably, however, they did just that. In the autumn of 1529, on invitation of Philip Land of Hesse,, Luther and Zwingli, with their associates and friends on both sides, met at Marburg for a discussion of their differences. The colloquy continued many days, during which the breach seemed to widen. At last Philip, the layman, strove as many laymen have since, to bring peace and unity between the leaders of the church. " The landgrave toiled earnestly at the union . . . He invited the theologians one after another into his closet; he pressed, entreated, warned, exhorted, and conjured them. 'Think,' said he, 'of the salvation of the Christian republic, and remove all discord from its bosom." Never had general at the head of an army taken such pains to win a battle" (D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, vol. IV, p. 107). Finally "Zwingli," bursting into tears, in the presence of the prince, the courtiers, and divines, . . . approached Luther, and held out his hand. The two families of the Reformation were about to be united; long quarrels were about to be stifled in their cradle; but Luther rejected the hand that was offered him: 'You have a different spirit than ours,,' said he. These words communicated to the Swiss as it were an electric shock. Their hearts sunk each time Luther repeated them, and he did so frequently. He himself is our informant" (idem, p. 108).

Thus were divided the Reformed and Lutheran communions in Europe, and finally throughout the world. If a Lutheran missionary and a Reformed missionary in Africa or in China four hundred years later seek each to organize heathen converts into rival and opposing factions of Christianity, it is because in the dim long ago Luther refused to take Zwingli's hand.

I cannot emphasize too deeply that Luther and Zwingli were great saints of the church of Jesus, and great servants of the cause of human progress; but they had their human failings. Let us strive to imitate their good points, their courage and steadfastness, but why build everlasting monuments to their weaknesses and faults? Why limp to-day just because certain great and good men were lame in some respects four hundred years ago?

Thus the leaven of division has worked among us inheritors of the fair vineyard of Christ. We who preach unity and peace have torn the seamless robe of Christ and exposed his mystic body to shame by trivial and childish divisions over matters that are of no importance. And even if important, they cannot be maintained by denominational organization.

In old Europe at the beginning of the Reformation the principle was adopted that the land should follow the religion of the prince. Consequently in an age when travel was infrequent there were many people who lived all their lives without having the divisions of denominationalism brought home to them in any direct way. Travelers and the educated knew of the divisions. Many of the common people were unaware of what was going on in other countries. But to-day, as these different denominations from all countries of Europe have been brought from across the seas and set down in the same town, while in addition there are the many divisions of the home-grown variety, the simplest minds are confronted with the insoluble puzzle: how Christians can obey the will of Christ who prayed that his people might all be one and at the same time perpetuate so many rival and antagonistic divisions. Ought we not to be charitable with them if they find the problem hard to solve ?

Chapter 4

DO WE WANT CHRISTIAN UNITY?

When a family starts in to buy a car they usually consider the question of whether they want it, before they take up the question of whether they can have it. Perhaps that is not the logical order; possibly they should have considered first whether it is possible to obtain it. But life is larger than logic; and there is not very much interest in inquiring whether we can have something which we do not want. Often we find that when we want a thing bad enough it is possible to devise a way to have it.

At the outset then let us frankly face the feet that there are good religious people who do not desire organic Christian unity. Even if we desired to do so-which we do not-there would be no use in calling them names. All we can do is honestly to examine their objections and see if they have enough weight to overbalance the age-long yearning of the church and the invincible prayer of Christ.

Some people do not like Christian unity because of some of its friends. One of the strongest protagonists in the cause of Christian unity is the Roman Catholic Church. There is no reason why any earnest evangelical Christian should be prejudiced against Christian unity simply because the Catholic Church is striving for a principle which it calls by the same name. Most Protestant advocates of Christian unity would be appalled at the idea of giving up all the advancement in Christian truth made by the Sixteenth Century Reformation and subsequent development, and going back four hundred years under the supreme headship of the bishop of Rome.

At the same time the truth is the truth, regardless of who says it; and I think that we ought not to flout everything which Roman Catholic writers have said in favor of Christian unity simply because we do not favor their method of attaining it, and are unwilling to sacrifice what we consider-rightly I think-to be essential truths in order to obtain the unity they urge upon us.

The Episcopalian Church has been a leader among Protestant bodies in the discussion of Christian unity. Occasionally other Protestant bodies have taken them at their word and met together with them to discuss the question. It is not impugning the good faith and good will of our Episcopalian brethren to state as a mere matter of historic fact that these conferences have generally been disappointing.

In a sense it has been nearly as hard to come to an agreement with the Episcopalians as with the Roman Catholics. The Catholics have said that the other side must leave their denominations and come bodily into the Catholic Church, accepting all of its creed and dogmas without any alteration or modification.

The Episcopalians have practically said the same thing, except that the Episcopalians have been willing to remodel the house and get new furniture if enough new guests will come to make it worth while.

The Catholics have said that in order to obtain Christian unity all the Protestants and dissenters must come into the Roman Catholic Church just as it is. The Episcopalians have said that in order to have Christian unity everybody must come into the Episcopalian Church-but they are willing to make any kind of changes necessary to make the new guests feel at home, provided the essential features of the Episcopal Church are retained. Doubtless they would be willing to change even the name of the institution; but they insist that it must have a line of bishops descending in direct succession from the apostolic age. And the ministers of the church must all be ordained by bishops having the so-called apostolic succession.

This requirement has been an insuperable barrier to unity of the kind which they desire. Protestant ministers with a long, honorable, and successful career behind them do not like to cast aspersions upon their past ministry and the good men who preceded them, as well as the converts and parishioners who have been served by their ministry by acknowledging-or seeming to acknowledge-in submitting to reordination, that their first ordination was spurious and vain. This has long been an obstacle toward realizing the kind of unity in which our Episcopal brethren believe; and if I thought that was the only way to Christian unity I would not trouble to write this book, as I regard the accomplishment of unity by that method as impossible.

There are a number of little sects who preach Christian unity even to the point of making a hobby of it-apparently from the standpoint of the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians. They remind one of the old story of the man and woman who were being joined in matrimony by the minister. Solemnly he pronounced them one. "Which ones" quickly queried the young bride. Her question was and remains a pertinent one. If we are going to be joined together in one with a group of people who emphasize Christian unity we are within our rights to ask which one it is to be.

That question used to bother me a great deal-not with regard to matrimony but with regard to the state of being one in Christ. But I got light upon it by reflecting upon the normal Christian married state. I know there are many persons who consider that the "one" of the marriage unity is the man. Doubtless there are wives who would say it is-or ought to be -the woman. As a matter of fact that "one" is not the man nor the woman, but "they twain shall be one flesh," says the Word of God.

[ Continued...See Link Below... ]