The Living Church Annual and Churchman's Year Book formerly two publications, will appear as one in a consolidated volume. It will therefore be the residuary of the three Church Almanacs that were formerly made. The contents include the usual varied material which goes to make up a complete Church Almanac. The Annual Cyclopedia for 1921 is unusually complete. The PORTRAITS OF BISHOPS include all those consecrated within the year. The GENERAL, DIOCESAN AND PAROCHIAL information is carefully corrected. The LECTIONARY is that set forth by the Joint Commission for use during 1922. Owing to delays caused by the Printers' Strike, publication is deferred to the Last of December The same reason also compels a slight increase in price, as follows: Postage east of Colorado, about 15 cts. NOW READY The Desk Kalendar Comprising the Kalendar and Lectionary pages from the above MOREHOUSE PUBLISHING COMPANY CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS NUMBER The Rt. Rev. James DeWolf Perry, D.D., is the Bishop of Rhode Island. E. Donald Robb is a Boston architect of the firm of Frohman, Robb & Little. The Rev. Hamilton Schuyler is the Rector of Trinity Church, Trenton, N. J. The Rev. Frederick Sherman Arnold lives in Poughkeepsie, N. Y. The Rev. John Edwards Le Bosquet is the minister of the First Congregational Church, Fall River, Mass. The Rev. Duncan Convers is a priest of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Boston. Monthly A Magazine of comment, criticism and review dealing with questions confronting the Anglican Communion and more especially the Church in the United States TEMPLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION 1-3 Peace St., New Brunswick, N. J. President: GEORGE A. ARMOUR, Princeton, N. J. Secretary: THE REV. CHARLES C. EDMUNDS, D.D., 6 Chelsea Square, New York The Differences Which Divide Us TO men of the world the differences which separate one Christian body from another seem largely concerned with non-essentials. Therefore they cannot understand why Christians of different names should not more effectively coalesce. Practical business and professional men often entirely lose interest in religion because of their impatience with Christians who disagree over such petty details. We must confess to some degree of sympathy with such men of the world. Their criticism is largely true. Why should Congregationalists refuse to amalgamate with Presbyterians, merely because they believe each congrega tion should be independent? Why should Baptists stand out for baptism by immersion against the ancient traditional usage of all the rest of Christendom? What is the trivial difference that prevents the Free Methodists from uniting with the Methodists? Did not one of the largest Russian sects split off from the Orthodox Church because they believed the sign of the cross should be made with the fourth and fifth fingers joined to the thumb, rather than the first three fingers? There is, however, a line of cleavage which marks a real divergence of principle among modern Christians. It is a legitimate wall of separation because it cuts between two distinct kinds of religion, Catholicism and Protestantism. Those two forms of Christianity are almost as different from one another as Mohammedanism and Buddhism. Sooner or later all Christians must declare themselves and definitely take their stand in one group or the other. The Anglo-Catholic movement in the Anglican Communion, the Free Catholic movement among English non-Conformists, and the High Church movement among the Lutherans of Germany, indicate that this line of cleavage between Catholicism and Protestantism is dividing all groups of Christians into these two camps. There is not the remotest possibility that these two camps will dwell amicably together within the lifetime of those now living. They hold radically opposite beliefs on the sacraments, the ministry, worship, authority, the Bible, the Church, the life hereafter, and often on Christology and the Being and Nature of God. All other differences-those which divide the various groups of Protestants as well as those which keep apart the three main divisions of Catholics-are trivial in comparison. Would it not be wise practical politics to work immediately for two great Churches-the Protestant and the Catholic-rather than for one? Then if the Anglican Church puts itself in the Protestant group, Anglo-Catholics can transfer their allegiance to the Catholic group. If on the other hand the Anglican communion officially decides to remain with the Catholic group, then Anglo-Protestants can transfer their allegiance to the Protestant group. This no doubt would cause divisions in families. It would not be the first time that a man's foes were they of his own household. Our friend, Dr. Le Bosquet, in his interesting article in this issue, has called attention to an important truth, namely, that the causes which divide us now are not the same as caused the divisions in the first place. They are rather to be found in fundamental differences of taste and temperament. But schism cannot be justified by mere difference in taste. A religious proposition is either in accord with Catholic truth or it is not. If it is, we must accept it, whether it suits our taste or not. Moreover in the middle ages, when Christendom was one, all these different tastes and temperaments found their fruition and satisfaction in the Catholic Church. They can do so again, when all wandering disciples of Jesus Christ return to their true spiritual home. The Limits of Individual Toleration IT T is a grave ethical question what are the limits of toleration beyond which the individual cannot go and still remain in the Church. For toleration concerns the attitude of the individual toward the Church quite as much as that of the Church toward the individual. Here is a man for instance who does not believe in married priests, in surpliced women choirs, or in morning prayer as the chief act of worship. He feels that we can |