Have we not

Was there not a shadow of truth in that remark? felt the spirit prayed for and spoken of by our dear brother who has just sat down? Is it not possible that the angels are hovering here, and wondering whether we, Christ's children, are willing to rise to our opportunities, and whether, in the grand work to be done for him, we are ready to co-operate ?

I have now great pleasure in introducing to the Conference one who has done much to teach us all in regard to this great subject, and who, I know, will be listened to with delight-Rev. Dr. Washington Gladden, of Columbus, Ohio.

NECESSITY OF CO-OPERATION IN

CHRISTIAN WORK.

ADDRESS BY REV. WASHINGTON GLADDEN, D. D., LL. D., OF COLUMBUS, O.

It seems to be universally acknowledged that the existing divisions in the Christian church are needless, wasteful and pernicious. Diversity of operation there might be, and must be; for, in grace as in nature the divine power works with manifold wisdom, producing a rich and beautiful variety of characters, activities, organizations. Uniformity of belief, of polity, of ritual, is neither attainable nor desirable. But diversity is one thing, and division is another. Oak and elm and pine and palm stand each in his own order, with a glory of his own, but among them is no schism; lily and larkspur, sumac and syringa, all have their own ways of proclaiming the beauty of the Lord, but they do not trample one another under foot, nor dispute with one another the claim to the sunniest places in his garden. Unlike these diversities in nature, the divisions in the church of Christ manifest, not variety merely, but also variance. It is not only the manifold wisdom of God that they display, but the multiform perversity of men.

The life of the Spirit might reveal itself in many forms of faith, in numberless methods of work; but it cannot be the life of the Spirit that finds expression in the tempers and the practices that are constantly displayed in the relations of these sects one to another. That the new commandment should govern congregations as well as individuals, that there should be mutual friendship and helpfulness among neighboring churches, seems to be evident enough on the face of it; but the churches are imperfectly Christianized; under the draperies of courtesy the weapons of a bitter and unscrupulous rivalry are often concealed.

That such divisions are scandalous, seems, I say, to be generally admitted; the matter is one that appears to be lying, of late, rather

heavily on the conscience of Christendom; and there is a great deal of talk about it, as to how it came to be, and who is to blame for it, and what can be done to make an end of it. For the cure of this malady, some of the ecclesiastical physicians prescribe organic unity. But it is evident to-day that such a formal consolidation of the churches under one government is yet a long way off. What changes the years may bring we cannot predict, but the conditions are not yet ripe for any attempt in this direction.

Another suggestion looks toward liturgical uniformity. It is urged that, if the people could be induced to sing the same hymns and pray the same prayers, a foundation would be laid for closer fellowship. But I apprehend that this proposition would meet with no more favor than the other. Some changes in the simple ritual of our non-Episcopal churches are already in progress-changes in the direction of congregational worship; but this movement has gone about as far as it will go; and the prejudice—if you please to call it by that name-against any fixed forms of worship is still inveterate in all these churches. If we must wait for Christian union till it comes as a result of liturgical uniformity, we shall have long to wait.

Another prescription for the malady of schism is an increase of sentimental unity-more frequent union meetings, in which we can tell one another how much we love one another, and thus manifest to the world the fact that we are really one. It is all very well, doubtless, for us to tell one another publicly that we love one another, if it is true; and we cannot too diligently manifest the fact that we are one, if it is a fact; but it is not edifying to tell one another untruths; and if there are suspicions of sham in our exhibit of fraternity, the world will not fail to make the most of them. In sad truth, however, we have said so much about Christian union and have done so little, that talk on this theme is discredited; there has been a tremendous over-issue of these verbal endearments, with the natural consequence of a great depreciation. The inflation of our religious phraseology is one of our common disorders; the product is what we call cant; and there is no part of our familiar religious speech that is more grievously inflated than that which relates to Christian union. We shall not mend matters, therefore, by increasing the wordy circulation, though that is the remedy generally resorted to in times of inflation. Profession would better halt until practice comes in sight.

Sentimental unity is nugatory; liturgical uniformity and consolidated government are impracticable. Is there any other remedy for this curse of schism within the reach of the churches? It seems to me that there is such a remedy; and that it is best described by the word which furnishes our theme for the morning— co-operation. Surely the possibility of co-operation and the duty of co-operation are beyond controversy. We may not all believe the same things; but we can agree that those who are seeking the kingdom of God and its righteousness should not hinder or obstruct one another; that they should seek to combine their efforts for the establishment of this kingdom.

To some extent these divided churches do already co-operate. Members go from one church to another, and are received into full fellowship; ministers pass from the service of one denomination to that of another, in some cases, with scarcely a word of comment; in most cases, with no serious loss of reputation among those from whom they are separated. This is practical co-operation. Such a free exchange of workers is helpful to the work. In the kingdom of heaven, as well as in the kingdom of industry, the mobility of labor is a matter of importance.

United efforts are sometimes made for the prosecution of evangelistic work. Sometimes these efforts appear to be successful; in the view of many they are highly desirable. Under wise management we might gather into the churches those who were before beyond their reach. But I am not inclined to value these efforts so highly, as some good men do, because I believe that the church is the strategic center of evangelistic effort; and that a movement which calls the people away from the churches, and undertakes, by means of services somewhat spectacular and sensational in rinks and theaters, to develop a sporadic and exceptional religious interest, is attended with so many drawbacks, and with so much demoralization in the life and work of the churches, that its net gains are small. The number of conversions in these meetings is always enormously exaggerated; and those who do profess conversion under such circumstances are with great difficulty brought into the churches. The attempt to evangelize a city by great union. meetings of this description is a little like the attempt to warm a city by a big bonfire in the public square. It is much better to warm the houses; and the houses can only be warmed by carrying the fire into them. Wholesale evangelization is not, according to

my observation, profitable business; the hand-to-hand work of the churches is far more productive in the long run. We have no arithmetic with which to compute or compare the intrinsic value of souls; but if by a soul you mean a man-and that is probably the most intelligible definition of the word-then it is safe to say that a man converted in a church is worth to the kingdom of heaven here on the earth, more than a man converted in a rink. Moreover, the abandonment of the regular work of the churches for a considerable period, and the resort to these outside assemblies, seems to be an admission of the truth of the gravest charge against the churches--that they are inadequate to the work of evangelization. I do not like to make this admission. What is still more important, the kind of doctrine, and especially of Biblical interpretation, to which we are treated in these evangelistic services, under such leadership as is generally secured, is rather hard to endure.. It often becomes a serious question with a conscientious pastor, how far he can countenance teachings which, although for the moment they may seem to be effective in exciting the emotions of ignorant people, are certain in the end to prove destructive to the Christian faith. For all these reasons, I do not expect to see these methods of wholesale evangelization growing in favor among the churches. I speak my own thought, and fully recognize the fact that many good men do not accept my estimate; but it is not, I think, in this direction that we shall wisely look for increasing co-operation in Christian work.

The thing to be aimed at is much less ambitious and demonstrative. It involves not the merging of the churches in some grand outside combination, but the strengthening of the churches, each in its owr field, for its own proper work. And to this end it is of the first importance that each church should have a field of its own, in which it shall not be intruded upon, and a definite work to do, for which it shall be held responsible. The co-operation, which is necessary and imperative, is that which shall prevent destructive competition, and which shall secure the prompt and certain occupation of all neglected fields. The phenomenon which now everywhere confronts us, is the overcrowding of most of the prosperous and promising neighborhoods, and the abandonment of those which are inhabited by the poor. In every booming town, and in the favorite residence portion of every city, you find twice as many churches as are needed; in many a rural district, and in