An eirenic itinerary; impressions of our tour, with addresses and papers on the unity of Christian churches

Front matter

Cibrarp of t:he ^theological gtmimry

PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY

An eirenic itinerary

Contents

Introduction ix

I. New York to Berlin 3

II. Russia 14

Chapter I New York To Berlin

OUR party — Dr. and Mrs. John R. Mott, the Secretaries, Messrs. Jenkins and Fields, Mrs. McBee and I — sailed from New York January 18, 1911, at 9 a.m., on the "Lusitania." The voyage proved a record-breaking one for the ship sailing eastward. It was quicker by one hour and twenty minutes than any former trip, in spite of two days of stormy weather, while her last day's run of 608 miles was seven miles faster than any former day, and only three less than the "Mauretania," that holds, at 611 miles, the record. The weather and the great ship combined to give us one of the most comfortable and delightful crossings in our experience. We also had on board the Secretary of the Continuation Committee of the Edinburgh Conference, Mr. Oldham, and Mrs. Oldham. With three members of that committee on the 3 ship — the Chairman, Dr. Mott, the Secretary, Mr. Oldham, and myself, there was ample occasion for full and frank discussion of the grave responsibilities and inspiring opportunities that the committee must face.

On Monday, January 23, the captain invited us to his room. After giving us the record for the trip, and that day 's run of 608 miles (it had not yet been posted), he asked us to tell him of our mission. Captain Charles listened with interest to our story, but with no signs of enthusiasm, till we reached the subject of united effort on the part of all the Churches of Christendom. That, he said, is the subject of the future. His whole manner changed as the whole manner of Christendom will change, when once the duty of bearing a united witness to the whole world is accepted and attempted. We took that incident as an earnest of our work for the coming months.

The anchor was cast at Fishguard at 3:30 p.m., and we were in our hotel in London before eleven that night. The next three days in London were full to overflowing, but they were days to be remembered. The weather was such as we have seldom seen there in winter, and

NEW YORK TO BERLIN 5 the company of men gathered for the various meetings for conference (there were no public meetings or speaking) is not often seen except at world gatherings. Not to mention Americans and Englishmen, Dr. Richter, the authoritative writer on Missions in India and the Near East, was there representing Germany on the Executive Committee of the Continuation Committee, and Count von Moltke, Chamberlain to the late King of Denmark, representing his country in the same capacity, while Dr. Karl Fries came from Sweden to attend a meeting of the Committee of the World Student Christian Federation.

Dr. Mott and I had a conference with the Archbishop of Canterbury covering two subjects — the work of the Continuation Committee and our tour. Archbishop Davidson gave his full and hearty sympathy and approval in both directions. His discussion of the Edinburgh Conference and its Continuation Committee was vigorous and courageous and hopeful. I never felt the elements of essential greatness in the Archbishop so strongly. It was more than advice, more than abstract and general approval. It was a clear outline of constructive policy looking to the steady development of better understanding, better feeling and better relations between Christian Churches everywhere.

Through the courtesy of Mr. Innes, first secretary of the British Embassy in Washington, who had served for years under him in Egypt? Lord Cromer invited me to his home and gave information that will be of value in Egypt and in all judgments of Egyptian affairs. With the understanding that the interview was not to be published, Lord Cromer spoke with a frankness he could not otherwise have done. His long and brilliant experience is of inestimable value without regard to whether one agrees or disagrees with his point of view. It was more than gratifying to hear his estimate of some American missionaries. Of the late Dr. Harvey and of Dr. Watson he spoke in strong terms. "Dr. Watson," he said, "has the confidence of everyone and will be of more help than I could be in your work."

At the Bible House I met Bishop Tucker, of Uganda, through the thoughtfulness of Dr. Ritson, secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The bishop left a committee

NEW YORK TO BERLIN 7 meeting and gave me time enough to feel the power and inspiration of his rare personality. He used stirring words about Mr. Roosevelt's visit to Uganda. There is no courage greater and no cheerfulness brighter or happier than that of a truly great missionary, and there is nothing strange about it. He is in will and deed working with God in Christ reconciling the world, and he knows it.

Dr. Mott and I visited Sir Edward Grey at the Foreign Office. I had often seen and heard Sir Edward in the House of Commons. It is one thing to see from the gallery of the House and quite another to see face to face. The combination of charm and force in the man at once explains the respect in which the Foreign Office is held by men of all parties at home and abroad. For about forty minutes he entered into our plans and purposes and has taken steps that will be simply invaluable to the work in hand. Ambassador Bryce, he told us, had also written him at length and most sympathetically of our journeyings. When we were leaving Sir Edward asked that he be informed in advance of our return to London in May in order that he might arrange to hear a report of the tour.

There are others to whom we owe much but of whom it would be difficult to speak without being too personal, and a record of all our doings in those three days would outrun the limits of this correspondence.

Mr. Phillips, in charge of the American Embassy while Mr. Reid is in America, had not received President Taft's letter, which in some unaccountable way had miscarried, but did everything for us in his power. He even cabled the President and got the day we left England a cable from Mr. Taft repeating what he had written before we left New York. We were put under lasting obligations to Mr. Phillips, whose initiative did so much to set forward our work now and to prepare for that which is to come in May.

To President Taft, members of the Cabinet, and the British and German Ambassadors we are indebted for letters and other help that it would be futile to attempt to estimate.

One further matter commands attention. The night before leaving London I was invited to dinner by Baron von Hiigel, the distinguished layman of the Roman Catholic Church, and one of its great scholars. He is not a new friend.

NEW YORK TO BERLIN 9

His health has greatly improved since my visits to him last year and he seems a new man. That evening, January 25, 191 1, will remain a selfreviving memory. When the Abbe Bremond first gave me a letter to Baron von Hiigel he said, "You will find on his shoulders the most Teutonic head you have ever seen." My readers will readily believe I found what the Abbe described. When I arrived the Baron had only a few minutes before received a letter from the Bishop of Southwark thanking him for his congratulations on the bishop's translation to Winchester. The friendship between these two scholars and unflinchingly loyal Christians is a type, a very high and rare type I admit, of what is coming to pass in all parts of Christendom. The leaven is at work and all the powers of evil cannot withstand it. Von Hiigel may be persecuted, and that by honest men in his communion (it requires honest men to do persecution to perfection), but I venture nothing, nor will anyone else who reads his great book, "The Mystical Elements in Religion," when I say that the Roman Catholic Church probably never had a son more loyal to catholicity, nor a more unwaver-

AX EIRENIC ITIXERARY ing believer in Jesus Christ. Son of God and Son of Man.

In Holland. — From London we went vie Harwich and the Hook of Holland to meet the students of Holland and the Netherlands at Utrecht, on January 27.

When I reached Utrecht the selection of six students to represent Holland at Constantinople had been made, and I was invited to meet them with Dr. Mott. A sturdier body of men in mind and character it would be difficult to find. Dr. Rutgers had taken his D.D. in course before applying for ordination, and Mr. Gunning, whom I met at Edinburgh, has a reserve force combined with a patient enthusiasm that compels a sturdy faith and sure hope. And the others seemed cast in the same mould. Mr. Gunning has just graduated and has planned a campaign covering three years, in the confident expectation that he can organize a Laymen's Missionary Movement in Holland.

Edinburgh was a living influence in the lives of the men who came together at Utrecht.

In Germany. — A night's travel brought us to Berlin, where another interesting body of

NEW YORK TO BERLIN n students and scholars had gathered for conference. Prince Bernadotte, of Sweden, the Admiral of the Swedish Navy, came to our hotel in Berlin for a short visit. He is a great influence in the Christian life of Sweden, and is a member of the World's Committee of the Y. M. C. A. On Sunday night we visited at Potsdam Dr. Lepsrus, the director of the Orient Mission, which is devoting itself almost exclusively to work among Moselms in Turkey, Bulgaria, Persia and southern Europe. He is recognized here as one of the foremost authorities on questions pertaining to Moslem missions. Certainly he is a stimulating thinker and his institution for training missionaries is in many ways unique. On Monday night, Dr. Mott left Berlin of necessity in order to keep engagements in Switzerland which could not be delayed. On Tuesday evening I had a long and neverto-be-forgotten talk with His Excellency, Dr. Dryander, the court preacher and one of the great preachers in Germany. In his striking figure, tall and commanding, he is not unlike von Hiigel. He is more erect and direct in thought and speech because he is primarily a preacher, while von Hiigel is essentially a scholar, and sees life in long perspective. The two belong together. They are nearer than when I last saw Dryander, and God and time are on the side of their growing closer together.

On Wednesday night February i I attended > the Court Ball having been honoured with an invitation from the Emperor and Empress with the notice that the American Ambassador would present me to the Emperor. President Taft had, because of his profound interest in our mission, requested Dr. Hill to ask for an audience for our deputation. Our stay was too short to make a private audience possible, and so the invitation came for the Court Ball. Dr. Mott would have received the same invitation if he had been in Berlin. Presentations are not generally made at Court Balls and the unusual exception showed the Kaiser's readiness to comply with Ambassador Hill's report of the President's wishes. The Emperor promptly and most interestedly granted our request, and has entrusted us with a message to the conference at Constantinople.

Of the Ball itself I may only say that it was difficult to realize that military efficiency could lend itself to a drama of grace and infinitely

NEW YORK TO BERLIN varied colour without the loss of simplicity and dignity and order. There was not a suggestion of the inflexible law of the soldier. Clothed in his wondrous new garb as President of the Senate of Scholars lately created by the Emperor, I scarcely recognized Harnack. He was wandering about alone avoiding the crowd when I spoke to him. He remembered me at once and entered into a stimulating talk on unity. His parting words were, "All good wishes in your work."

Chapter II

We left Berlin on February 2, at 1:26 p.m., and crossed the Russian border about noon on the third, arriving at St. Petersburg at 8:45 a.m. on the fourth, which was Saturday. There is one thing about my going to Russia to be noted here, because it is the key to what followed and explains a unique experience. It was at the suggestion of the Russian Archbishop of North America that I decided to make this visit in connection with our tour in the Near East. It had been my privilege to meet Archbishop Platon last fall. A short acquaintance indeed, but the circumstances under which it was made freed the acquaintance from dependence on time for its maturity. It was a discussion of unity as effected by the Orthodox Eastern Churches with Professor Johnson, at the Quill Club in October last, that led the professor to introduce me to the Archbishop. His Grace's ideals, and his definite faith in their slow but 14 sure application to the conditions of divided Christendom was as impressive as the holding of such ideals with a definite purpose to put them into practice seemed surprising in an Archbishop of the Russian Church. I felt at once the value of such statesmanship in our midst, and now that I have been in Russia, I know that the Archbishop does not stand alone, but that he is a prophet to us of his own Communion, and that with our frank co-operation he may become a prophet of our Communion to the Russ;an Church.

Archbishop Platon imposed one condition — namely, that I should go with his letters of introduction and with no others to the Russian Church. I went, therefore, under his patronage and became in effect his guest in the Russian Church, and I was made to feel the hospitality of his own people. I appreciated the significance of such an invitation at the time it was given, but its fuller meaning has been growing upon me ever since. The Emperor himself congratulated me on being in Russia under such unique conditions and expressed the hope that every advantage would be given me in the studies that I was making. This inner relation and the frankness that followed from it enabled me to see things as they are to an extent that would hardly have been possible otherwise. Something of what is meant will appear later. This is, I know, a poor expression of what Archbishop Platon did in helping to a better insight into his own Communion and his own people, but he will understand more than I would venture to say, or than he would have me say, just here. Officially and personally I owe him more than I would attempt to express, and if I do not make full use in the future of what he made it possible for me to learn, to feel and to believe, it will be my own fault or incapacity.

St. Petersburg. — The Monastery of Alexander Nevsky. — On the afternoon of Saturday I called on Bishop Tikhon, and presented my first letter from Archbishop Platon. His Grace appeared at once, having heard at greater length from the Archbishop himself, and for two hours gave himself to the discussion of my visit and the work for which I had come. His secretary, who had been in charge of the music in the Russian cathedral in New York during the years of Archbishop i7

Tikhon's official residence there, together with our valued friend, the former Consul-General in New York, Mr. — now the Honourable — Nicholas N. de Lodygensky, aided the Archbishop in mapping out a plan for a part of my stay. On Sunday morning we attended the celebration at the Cathedral of the Monastery, his Grace being the celebrant, and for the first time heard a great Russian choir. This choir contests with the Cathedral of the Assumption in Moscow the honour of being the finest choir in Russia. By special invitation I stood "in the altar." The singing at the monastery differs from that at the Assumption in Moscow in several ways, but the most striking difference is that one entire side of the choir is occupied by the monks, whose singing is magnificent. The service was of special interest because of the ordination of a priest. It was made more intelligible by the secretary, Mr. Greofsky, who never left my side and was constantly interpreting and explaining the service and the music. A rare musician himself, he sang much of the service, and under the spell of his leading I was able to sing parts of it myself. I used

an English translation, called the Service Book,

18 AN EIREXIC ITIXERARY by an American, Miss Hapgood, which book was presented to me as a memento of the occasion. The music came as a sort of awakening both in kind and degree. Of course I had heard voices without instruments, but never such voices, blending and moving with a grace and power that reminded one of the waves of the sea. Here was a great organ of human voices. What need had they of the imitation?

In the Russian Church surely the organ has no place. Their choirs — we heard later the Assumption choir at Moscow and many others in both cities — seem the ideal for their voices and their worship. Again I cannot think that their Church music would ever be taken for anything other than that of worship. The music of their litanies might at times seem terrible, if it were pessimistic, but it is not. It carries a solemn expectation in keeping with their rendering of the Eucharist. Of their worship, as a whole, no one should feel competent to speak without opportunity to enter into the spirit, the power, the imagination, the faith, the mystical element and all those qualities that have combined to create the genius of this great people, with its even greater problems.

Each nation, as each race and each individual, is entitled to its individuality. This right is as absolute as the obligation upon every nation, race, and individual to fulfil their relation to the whole of humanity in the whole world is absolute. None can be justified, either individually or collectively, in pursuing a course of individualism which isolates it from the whole. None can be justified in a socialism or an institutionalism that deprives nations, races, and individuals of their individuality in performing their individual part in the work of the whole. Even with my brief experience I venture to express my profound conviction that the Russian Church seems normal in its worship in the setting in which it is found, and that it must develop and reform under its own conditions. And as profoundly I believe it has within it the power to make contributions to the catholicity of Christendom when once the claims of all the Communions of Christendom are fully recognized in the catholic claims of Him Who died and rose again for the saving of the whole world. Unity will never come in the adjustment of the claims of Russian, Roman, Anglican, or any other Communion by way of covenant or agreement or adjustment among themselves. They must work together till all recognize the primary and infinitely superior claims of Christ upon the loyalty of those who work in His name, and that loyalty must be expressed in One Universal Church. The primary, fundamental issue is not our claim but Christ's claim for the unity of His disciples in order that the world may know that the Father sent Him into the world. Finally, it is a happiness to be constrained to say that while I found many who, with entire frankness, refused to see the obligation to put this principle into practice, even they were unable to controvert the principle. But more than this I found in high places among ecclesiastics as well as among laymen, among scholars and among men of average information, an assent not only to the principle, but the acceptance of a pressing obligation to apply it in life.

A Visit to the Metropolitan. — From the cathedral I was taken immediately to the Palace of the Metropolitan, who was ill and was not receiving visitors. The call was intended to be formal and for the purpose of leaving a card. To our surprise the Metropolitan received me,

THE METROPOLITAN OF ST. PETERSBURGH apologizing for not being in his official dress. He stood, though it was pain to do so, and spoke with a calm dignity and force becoming his great office, and evidently growing out of a great experience. He showed a depth and breadth of sympathy which seem generally possible only to those of increased years, whose "wisdom increases with their years." He gave me his blessing and added his best wishes for what I was trying to do. As we were leaving Mr. Lodygensky told him that I was going to the Holy Land. The Metropolitan, looking me steadily in the face, said with simplicity and emotion: "When you stand at our Lord's tomb, pray for me."

Address to the Theological Students of the Academy. — Before leaving the subject of this monastery, with its great foundation, its churches, and its wealth of associations, it is well to record another and last visit there. My readers will not be more surprised to hear of an invitation to address the theological students of this "High Church" Academy, than I was to receive it. The spirit that prompted the invitation was as gracious as it was stimulating. I hesitated to seize the opportunity, having no possible time for preparation, but it was urged, "go and speak out your mind and heart frankly and unreservedly." We approached the monastery at 8:30 p.m., with the thermometer below zero, to find the great gateway closed. The impressiveness of the entrance through a side door into that great court, as we walked past the cathedral and the famous cemetery suggestive of the solemn, silent scene surrounding us, will remain always. In the inner court of the Academy members of the faculty and students awaited us and conducted us to the hall where the principal, a bishop in full brown habit, received us. I was immediately introduced to the body of students, all standing during the exercises. I stood between the bishop and Mr. Lodygensky, who acted as interpreter. The faculty and the student body stood in a semi-circle about us, pressing eagerly forward to hear every word. I spoke first of the word "Protestant," because I had been introduced as a member of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and because I knew that the word carried a meaning in Russia different, at least to a degree, if not in kind, from that put upon it in any other country, not excepting those under the influence of the Roman Communion. To many here Protestant is synonymous with infidel or sceptic, or enemy of historic Christianity. It was no time for argument nor explanation. I did not feel the need of it. I stated, without reserve, that Protestant was not a characteristic, essential and permanent, of our conception of Catholicity. The protest was an accident and an incident in the historic struggle for the purity of the Church's order and doctrine and life. I think I surprised both faculty and students by stating that we were so sure of our historical position that we did not seek either from the East or the West a confirmation of the validity of our Orders in order to make us more sure. But we were coming to believe what many in all Communions were coming to believe, that our separation and isolation as historic Churches was a standing witness against the effectiveness of Catholic Christianity because our divided witness contradicted the prayer of Our Lord that His disciples should unite in bearing witness to Him throughout the world. I then gave the actual situation in plain facts as to the millions who had never heard the Gospel and in all

AX EIREXIC ITIXERARY probability could never hear it under the present conditions of a separated and isolated Christianity. The effect of these statistics was striking, but I think not more striking than when the Laymen's Movement first used them at home and later in England, and as I have used them frequently on the continent.

Taking advantage of their living interest in the condition of the world and the divided state of Christendom which was instinct in evenface before me, I insisted that it was the duty of our Communions to know each other better in order to understand the common ground on which we stood as well as intelligently to appreciate the character of the things in which we differ, and further that to understand one another it was necessary that we should do something in common, no matter how small the beginning might be. For students a beginning could be made in a common study of the history of Christianity in the light of the condition of the world which actually faced them. Then if we began to do things together, and to feel things together, and to think out things together, we would become the more competent to realize how incalculably precious and fundamental are the things on which we are agreed, and also we should, without sacrificing those individual characteristics which made them Russian and us American — made them members of the Russian and us members of the American Church — we should be able to put these lesser things in their true perspective without sacrificing them simply because they were different in the two Churches. I told them that I knew no place where this work should be done more earnestly and more persistently than by students who are in preparation for Holy Orders, that such work was being done in our country and that I was persuaded from the manner in which they had received what I had said they would make it a study of the first importance in their Academy.

When I had finished a member of the student body stepped forward and in English, with a good accent, made the following response which, at my request, he wrote out afterwards:

"Most Honourable Mr. McBee:

" In behalf of the students of the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg, I have the honour of greeting you on your visit to our Academy. We sincerely thank you for your kind words and kind opinions of the Russian students, and while opening before you the gates of the Academy we throw wide open also our hearts. Greeting your Honour, we greet not only a most welcome guest, but also a highly esteemed worker and representative of the Episcopal world, the world that keeps in its depths the real tendency and faith and the union of the Churches. The importance of this wide world question needs no commentary. Especially we students of the Theological Schools are to comprehend it. Our Church prays for this union, and it is required in us that all be gathered in one body — the Body of our Lord. Therefore it is our sincere hope and faith that the time is really coming when all are to say there is one flock and one Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ. Concluding these few words, we must pray you to accept our warm farewell on your further journey. May God bestow upon you all His blessings and encrown your mission with love and peace and success.

"(Signed)

" The Students of the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg."

It developed later that this Russian student had been born in San Francisco, hence the ease with which he spoke in our language. The principal followed in a few earnest words, and among other things said that being only a bishop and not in higher authority he could take no liberties. Therefore, as an Orthodox bishop, he could not give his blessing to one who is not an Orthodox, but he said he would pray for the success of my mission, and that they were grateful for my coming to them, and he wished me all good things on our journey. I valued this discrimination because it showed plainly that their hospitality was not getting the better of their convictions. It was only one of many evidences I had in Russia of a frank statement of their position and the necessary consequences to those holding it.

Officials of the Holy Synod. — I was received by the Over-Procurator, by the Vice- Procurator and the Ex-Procurator of the Holy Synod. There was less of sympathy and of faith in any approach toward unity in these three laymen than from any other source. The Over-Procurator is a man, I am told, of rare scientific attainment and I can well believe it, because of the ease with which he puts the situation into a syllogism. Put with ability and easy dignity the sum total of his first statement was practically this: It was necessary to be Orthodox; they were Orthodox, and there was nothing for them to do unless others became Orthodox. I am putting the matter, of course, in a few words. It was stimulating to find such frankness and it was encouraging to see that even a scientific mind had to modify a position of such finality. He had not, I think, realized the real issue. Possibly he thought I was only another person seeking recognition of my Communion at the hands of the Russian Church, as though we were not certain of our position and needed to have ourselves validated by an Orthodox Church. I have not the remotest idea that his view of Orthodoxy underwent any change, but I do think he came to realize that the question at issue was greater than the claims of the Russian Church or any other branch of the Christian Church. The Vice-Procurator was not scientific so much as literary, and he was really concerned about the historical status of our Communion. He seemed surprised that even we believed in our Orders. He said, "I am more than an ordinary man and have had more than ordinary experience, and if I do not know, what must be the attitude of the average member of the Russian Church?" I replied by saying, "The Pope is a man of more than average intelligence and has had rare opportunities for wide observation" (it was as interesting as it was a revelation of his own frankness to see the amusement in his face when he saw what was coming), "and yet should the Pope deny the validity of your Orders, would that settle finally the question of the validity of your Orders?" He was quick to say "No;" and so I insisted that, though he and the Russian Church and the whole world should rise to deny it, we were convinced of the validity of our Orders and desired careful examination of the historic basis upon which they rested; that my point was that all of us were too near an average intelligence and too full of theological strife and prejudice and had too far departed from the fundamental Christian idea of one family of God, to be in a position to pass judgment finally, each upon the other; and that what I was in Russia for was to urge fuller understanding, more active co-operation, in order that we might produce an ecumenical Christianity which was an essential condition of ecumenical decisions and definitions. He seized my hand as we were leaving and said, "It is a great ideal, and with all my heart I will pray for its realization."