21 JANUARY 1944, Page 12

CHRISTIAN UNITY

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Sta,—Like many people, I have read and listened to numerous appeals for Christian unity, most of which were as sentimental and inconclusive as that of Mr. R. T. Rees in last week's Spectator. The " in- fluential business man" who rebuked Canon Raven for " hypocrisy," because Christian societies fail to meet and collaborate in Liverpool, was, after the fashion of.too many influential business men, drivelling on a subject of which he was manifestly ignorant. Christian people do meet and do collaborate increasingly in those forms of activity where meeting and collaboration are possible, but it is absurd to expect them to " unite" on doctrines because they are agreed on the need for better housing and snore main drainage, or to scrap their dearest beliefs in favour of some vague and probably unprincipled entity, to be called " a United Church of Christ." In such 3 church, no man would recite his creed lest he should annoy his next-door neighbour. None of the appeals for unity that I have ever read or listened to, included a hint of how the unity was to be achieved. Each appeal was made on the assumption that " unity," by which, presumably, is meant identity of belief, is desirable. But is it? In My Father's house are many mansions, and they are not all of the same size or shape.

How is this unity to be brought about? The Vatican has a simple and drastic scheme: it is that all other sects of Christians shall humbly confess their sins before the Pope, acknowledge their errancy to be evil, and submit as abjectly as possible to papal authority. On no other terms will the Roman Catholic Church consider unity. But even if it were willing to modify its demands for unconditional surrender by non- Catholics, how is it possible for those who believe in the doctrines of Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and The Infallibility of the Pope to unite with those who regard all these doc- trines as signs of superstition? Would Mr. Rees, in their lifetime, have undertaken to reconcile Loisy and Tyrrell to Rome? Or even Baron von Hiigel, who claimed to be a good Papist, or Lord Acton?

That is not the end of the problem of unity. Who will make Unitarians agree with Trinitarians? Can we persuade the Society of Friends to believe in the Apostolic Succession or induce Rome to acknowledge the validity of Anglican orders, or, for that matter, induce a High Anglican to say that a Presbyterian minister has any right to exercise his minis- terial function? The Salvationist will not tolerate any sacraments, nor, I believe, will the Society of Friends. Is Mr. Rees ready to arbitrate between them and the Romans? Vast numbers of good men and women believe that infant baptism is essential to salvation, and are horrified by the Baptist belief in adult baptism. Who will unite them? Can anyone hope to make a Plymouth Brother believe that any others than his own sectarians will inhabit Heaven? I am a devout disciple of Pelagius, whose doctrines are regarded as pernicious by Dr. Temple. flow will Mr. Rees make the Archbishop and me see eye to eye about that? Has he thought of a means of inducing the members of the English Church Union to amalgamate with the members of the Modern Churchman's Union? Can be tell us how he would have persuaded that interesting monk, the late Dr. Frere, the Bishop of Truro, to hobnob doctrinally with Dr. Barnes, the present Bishop of Birmingham, or to make Dr. Headlam, the Bishop of Gloucester, associate, without a murmur of dissent, with Dr. Blunt, the Bishop of Bradford? Who will induce the Dean of St. Paul's to repeat with hearty assent every word that issues from the mouth of the Dean of Winchester? Is it possible to make the Rev. R. J. Campbell, now Canon of Chichester Cathedral, confirm the opinions of the former minister of the City Temple and author of The New Theology? What have the two ablest Anglican journalists in Great Britain today, Dr. Major and Mr. Sidney Dark, in common? May we not, indeed, believe that it is their freedom to dissent from one another which enables so many Christians to meet and collaborate in other than credal affairs? Car- dinal Hinsley, whose death was a calamity for his country, was able to work with men of other creeds while retaining a tight hold of his own. The differences between his belief and Dr. Temple's did not prevent the Archbishop from praying for the Cardinal Archbishop, as the latter lay dying.

Is unity desirable? That, sir, depends entirely on what is meant by unity. Variety is the order of the universe. Music is made by assemb- ling dissimilar, and even discordant, notes. If Mr. Rees means only that it is desirable that Christian peoples should work together for the general good, we may share his wish, while wondering why he has not observed how often and how extensively they do what he desires. But why does he restrict this excellent ambition to Christians? Is it any harder for agnostics and Christians, for Jews. Moslems and Buddhists, to meet for such vaguely good purposes than it is for those who regard the Mass as the pivotal point of Christian ceremony and.those who regard it as survival of pagan rites? I contend that there is no hope of unity of belief in a world where belief is often a matter of temperament and, in most cases, due to the accident of birth, if that can be called an accident; and I contend further, that unity of belief, if it could be achieved, would be a disaster. There may be only one Truth, but it can be approached by many different paths. Does it matter how it is approached, so long as it is reached?—Yours sincerely,

't ST. JOHN ERVINE.

Honey Ditches, Seaton, Devon.