[2] In the last Lambeth Conference—­1920—­the Church of England has again reduced this minimum by implicitly recognizing the Nonconformist ministry and abandoning its claim to reunion through the absorption of all sects in the Anglican communion.  It has so shifted from its former position that it has openly expressed in the Bishops’ manifesto the desire to place itself on some “no man’s land” where all the dissident Churches may safely meet and unite.

[3] Canon E. W. Barnes, of Westminster Abbey, in a sermon to the members of the British Association, at their meeting at Cardiff, Aug. 29, 1920, declared that, to harmonize Christian Doctrine with modern science, particularly with the theory of evolution, he found it necessary to abandon the doctrine of the Fall of Man and arguments deduced from it by theologians, from St. Paul onward.

[4] Father Leslie Walker, S.J., in a recent work on “The Problem of Reunion,” suggests we should enquire rather how we came to differ than what we differ about.

CHAPTER VI.

“THEM ALSO I MUST BRING”

(Jo.  X, 16)

The Apostolate to Non-Catholics—­Its Obligation. 
  What have we done?  What can we do?

The spiritual influence of a Christian is commensurate with his appreciation of responsibility.  The breadth and depth of vision give to this moral feeling its field of action.  The circle of our influence ceases with the limits of our spiritual outlook.  The boundless and clear visions of all the Great Apostles in the Church of God give us the key to the generosity and artfulness of their zeal.  Just as the narrowness of our views explains the restrictiveness of our charity and the limitations of its activities.  This is particularly noticeable in our dealings with the spiritual needs of those outside the Fold.  The claims of our non-Catholic brethren to our charity do not seem to affect us, because our spiritual outlook has not the proportions of that of the Master.  With Him we do not stand on those heights from which we could see beyond our own green pastures, “Other sheep that are not of His Fold and which we must also bring.”  This explains how the claim—­“Oportet” . . . “We must bring”—­awakens in us no sense of responsibility and meets with no answer in the ordinary activities of our life.  Every one seems more or less contented with the lines of denominational demarcation as he finds them around him in the community.  Not to discuss religion, not to busy oneself with the other man’s belief, to be very frequently rather reticent about our own, is a policy generally accepted in the West.  This habit of evasiveness is not Christian and often leads to the sacrifice of Catholic principles.  Far from us be the idea of advocating rash obtrusiveness, of untimely aggressive and inconsiderate zeal.  But between this excess and that of a “laissez faire” policy there is a golden mean.  What is then wrong, our method or our zeal?