same denomination, in its relief work? Moreover, in some denominations the rich abound; in others, the poor. And add to it all the vast numbers of unchurched, members not in good standing and excommunicated. Who will care for these? But, further than this, I doubt if anything so militates against true relief by encouraging hypocrisy, or at least a shiftiness of opinion fatal to manly stamina, as this condition that to be relieved one must be a member. If one realizes the sin of the present divided state of Christendom, one must hesitate to add to it by setting a premium upon betrayal of faith and by emphasizing the bitterness of actual rivalry. How can we expect honesty in the man when the child can get a Baptist, a Methodist and an Episcopalian Christmas tree simply by being adroit? And once again what of the great mass who are too honest to claim affiliation with any church merely for the sake of the loaves and fishes the honest unchurched? Is our duty not toward them? This difficulty is far more serious than men realize. If we realized its gravity thoroughly we should be more ready to establish some kind of coöperation between churches. The ends to be sought are these: (a) a system of reference by which a church may certainly have an opportunity to care for a family claiming affiliation with it, which also affords a check upon the duplication of aid by different churches; (b) the equalization of the burden of caring for the unchurched, with the certainty that they will be cared for; (c) the sharing of the burden of caring for those families which claim affiliation, but whose parish church cannot afford to aid them. Now the accomplishment of these objects demands a central committee of the churches (or more than one) which shall also be a bureau of registration and meet at stated intervals; a division of territory, each church assuming responsibility for the unchurched within given boundaries. All applications for aid can then be referred to the church in charge of the district in which the applicant lives. And, finally, to a family whose parish church is unable to help it, aid can then be granted by the coöperation of all the churches in committee. Thus

the three objects will be gained and the difficulties arising from denominational rivalry and prejudice will be removed. But I realize that such a complete coöperation is a dream of the future. The best we can do is to come as near to it as possible. In other words, can we not have some coöperation even though it be scarcely more than an armed neutrality? Cannot a city be divided by agreement in such a way as to give to each church the care of the unchurched in a certain district? This will not wholly remove the rivalry, though it will lessen it by removing the unchurched from the field of battle; and though the plan will not remove the inducements offered to be a hypocrite (for a man can still claim affiliation with a dozen churches and be helped by all), still it will at least provide certainly for the unchurched and also lessen the number of cases in which aid can be duplicated. Thus a territorial division seems to be more in accord with scientific relief-giving than the extension of aid by a church to all who apply to it.

III. The third difficulty I named was the lack of trained volunteer workers and inability to pay a sufficient corps. Undoubtedly the ideal method of administering church charity is through volunteers. The advantages of this method are many. Chief among them is the reaction upon the workers themselves. There is nothing so calculated to induce sympathy, patience, self-sacrifice and genuine love of mankind as the knowledge at first hand of "how the other half lives." There is also nothing so calculated to bring about the kingdom of God on earth as the establishment of friendly relations between rich and poor. But unfortunately the duty of friendly visiting is one not fully realized as yet. It is also true that in some cases a lack of natural tact or love makes it unwise to attempt it, though I believe such cases to be less numerous than is often supposed. But speaking as a pastor, I have found it difficult to get more than a small percentage of parishoners to do this work, and with some of these it has meant simply the engaging of paid substitutes. But further than this, the volunteer worker is ignorant of the method and often of the

object. Training is essential and training is a difficult thing to accomplish. On the other hand, there are few churches which can afford a sufficient number of paid visitors. And if one adds. to this the difficulty of getting paid visitors who will work for something besides their salary, one must hesitate. Some denominations supply this need by consecrated sisters or deaconesses; but these are insufficient in number to meet the demand. One way out of the difficulty is for each church to gather a band of volunteers, as many as possible, and one paid trained visitor who can make the first investigation which is so important, and then instruct and advise the volunteers to whom she hands the cases for friendly visiting. If the pastor can do this work thoroughly and scientifically, so much the better; the friendly paid visitor can then possibly be dispensed with. But few pastors have the time to do this. Therefore for the individual church the corps of volunteers with the paid head seems best. But supposing a coöperation of churches, with a central committee and a division of territory, there is another solution. That is to have a trained man as chairman of the committee; to have trained visitors paid by all the churches to investigate and also to teach the volunteers. The burden of support would thus be lessened for the individual church and the weak would be helped by the strong. To sum up: the Church should undertake the care of needy families, but at present it must be with recognized limitations. The one thing needful to its doing so completely, is a perfect coöperation between churches. The nearer we approach to this, the nearer shall we be to a complete fulfillment of our duty to our neighbor.

With our proposition so stated we may go on to consider briefly methods for the individual church. There are two considerations which must guide us in these: First, the ultimate aim of all the Church's work must be the betterment of the whole man, body, soul and spirit; second, for such advancement, sympathetic relations between Church and man are essential. The question is often asked, "Should the economic condition of the family be

separated in its treatment from ministration to its spiritual needs?" This seems to savor of the distinction which the church member who was noted for his sharp dealings made between religion and business. I do not see how, if the Church is administering relief, the two can be separated. One cannot comfort a hungry family with Scripture. Christ fed the multitude as well as taught them. I believe the one must complete the other. But I also believe that if the Church stops at the material, it is stopping short of its end. It is undoubtedly true that as the old philosophies and religions contained truth which prepared the way for Christ, so every refining influence, a picture, a book, cleanliness, prepares a soil in which spiritual truth may be sown. As to the time for each, each case must determine that. Sometimes the body must be relieved and the mind set straight before a word of spiritual significance is spoken; at others, the two may be combined. It must not be forgotten, too, that in separating the two ministrations and looking at the family entirely from an economic view-point, the danger of regarding it purely as a case (mechanically) is far greater than if one keeps a spiritual end in view. And finally, as to such agencies as the day-nursery, workrooms, penny provident funds, employment bureaus, etc.- to my mind all these come within the scope of the Church's methods. And for these reasons: because all tend toward the elevation of the whole man, and also toward the establishment of sympathetic relations between Church and family, without which the Church cannot hope to do spiritual good.

I may perhaps be pardoned if I conclude by citing as an illustration the method we are using in Buffalo. The church district plan is familiar to you. Each church has a district and all cases of unchurched destitution in that district are referred to it by the district committee of the Charity Organization Society. These committees are made up of volunteers and a paid agent of the Society. The plan is working well and gives promise of even greater success. It has brought about more coöperation between

churches than any other force, and has also been the means of awakening the churches to their own negligence. But the adapting of this plan to the ideal system from the point of view I have taken in this paper would involve some changes, viz.: First, corporate support of the Charity Organization Society by the churches as a branch of their own organization; Second, representatives of each church in a district on the district committee; Third, the attendance of volunteer visitors upon committee meetings for mutual help and instruction; Fourth, a greater coöperation of the churches to bring this about, shown also by a greater willingness to share expenses and to aid each other. Instead of the churches coöperating with the Charity Organization Society, we thus have them coöperating with each other through the Society, their agent. This is more than a mere juggling with words; it is putting the responsibility of poor relief where it belongs. Professionalism, the mechanical atmosphere which hangs about the work of a society such as this, is avoided by the introduction of a distinctly spiritual end; multiplication of distinct organizations with the same object is avoided; power is gained by a concentration of effort. The time when this shall be possible is one to work and pray for when the Church, again one body, at least in practice, shall undertake and do the duty which, because she was ignorant and neglectful, such agencies as the Charity Organization Society have assumed and have shown her scientific methods of doing.

DISCUSSION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO DEPENDENT FAMILIES.

The discussion was opened by Rev. Alexander P. Doyle, Editor of the Catholic World Magazine, New York City.

FATHER DOYLE.— I have listened with not a little interest, to Mr. Davis' paper, and as he went along with it I said to myself, If he would only affirm some policy or state some principles