The principles of evolution—­principles which we find underlying modern thought—­are freely called upon to explain this movement and justify its consequences.  Our millennial-minded doctors and preachers are celebrating already the apotheosis of the Universal Church of the future.

And what does the Catholic Church think of Church-Union?  What is its point of view on this “Movement” which has now such hold on the Protestant denominations?  As the Catholic Church is in itself the largest Christian body, it is but natural to presume that all Christians will be interested in knowing Her views on this vital subject.  For is She not that Church which Gladstone himself calls, “the most famous of Christian communions, and the one within which the largest numbers of Christian souls find their spiritual food!” (Gladstone to Acton, Nov., 1869.)

The Catholic Church sees in this movement of Church-Union the complete disintegration of Protestantism and the open condemnation of its fundamental principles.  Those who are not of the “Fold” will perhaps resent, but not be astonished at this sweeping statement.  We would only ask them to follow our argument and then judge for themselves.

Union—­and therefore unity—­will not and cannot be the result of the present Inter-Church Movement.  This statement involves a question of fact and of right. In facto.—­Let us examine first the question of fact.  Union, as now promoted, is either “co-operative” or “organic.” Co-operative union ignores differences of creed or form of worship; organic union suppresses them or merges them into a neutral mixture.

Co-operative Union,—­as a basis of religious unity affecting the religion of the individual, can be at once dismissed.  For, what religious action,—­i.e., action prompted and guided by a principle, a religious doctrine,—­is possible without that principle, that doctrine?  Moral action,—­and Religion is at the same time the foundation and the highest expression of the moral order,—­pre-supposes immutable and recognized principles.  “The mental attitude defined on paper as ‘undenominational,’ Miss M. Fletcher says rightly, has no existence in the human mind.  Below all sustained enthusiasms lie strong convictions.”—­Therefore to ignore the directing principles of their various denominations in a common religious action, and yet to pretend to keep their denominational identity, involves, on the part of the Churches, an absolute impossibility.  Because doctrine is the very foundation, the “raison d’etre” of intelligent Christian action.  Diversity of opinion is bound to bring, in religious matters, diversity of action; for, to be consequent one must act according to his belief.  Baptism, for instance, is necessary or not necessary for salvation.  On this doctrinal point will necessarily hinge a diversity of action in the mission field alloted to this or to that denomination.  The position is quite different when common action is confined to merely social work.  But “social service,” stripped of all its Christian principles and reduced to pure philanthropy, is not Christianity; it is mere naturalism or neo-paganism.