If I have

for ourselves the sphere of our activities. to interfere in small matters, if I have to seem to check zeal and curb enthusiasm, if I have to ask my clergy to pause and think about the relation of their own particular position to the whole Church, it is because such things are necessary, not because I take pleasure in doing them.

But I would say this. I do not wish to command so much as to persuade. I wish to induce people to see themselves as others see them; to regard what they are doing in reference to its far-off effects on the consciences of others; to cultivate a truer sense of the proportion of things; to deal more with ideas than with the clothing of ideas; to pay more attention to the reason of a thing than to its antiquity; to remember that the chief danger which besets those who are pursuing a high object is to confuse means with ends; to examine themselves very fully lest they confuse Christian zeal with the desire to have their own way, which is the characteristic of the purely natural man.

I do not like to speak about myself. But we have reached a point when some one must be responsible for leading; and a leader must be trusted. There is no leader possible save the Bishop. So I ask you all, clergy and laity alike, to trust me, and to follow me as far as you possibly can; and then I hope that in a little time, with a little patience and goodwill, we shall fall into line; suspicions will be banished, our services will not, it is true, be uniform-no one wishes thatbut we shall all understand what we are all doing; and we shall combine our forces for the great work

which our Master has committed to us-a work which is sadly hampered by our dissensions. Alas! behind the smoke of controversy float the sad faces of the sinful and the miserable, whose melancholy eyes look down upon us with reproach, "What, do you leave me helpless, do you show me that in the best there is so little good, that they can quarrel about the way to goodness as angrily and as furiously as we poor wretches quarrel over our share in the rewards of sin ?”

Surely, brethren, these things must not be. There is nothing so hateful in God's sight as dissension. among Christians. The world needs an example of the right way to compose differences. I ask you, is the Church so untrue to its high mission that it cannot give such an example when called upon to do so?

I have spoken about the general aspect of affairs in the Church. It was impossible for me not to do So. But it is not a subject fitted for general discussion. The general position of the Church suggests questions which require answers, but Christian life still runs its usual course, and practical endeavours are not checked. Many a clergyman has said to me, "I read in the newspapers of a crisis in the Church, but it does not affect me or my parish". That is quite true. The general system may be somewhat out of gear, but its separate parts may work smoothly enough themselves. But do not let us suppose that that can be always so, or make that our excuse for mental indolence. While great questions are being discussed, we still have to live our daily life; and

sometimes we find in it greater refreshment, because of the confused shouting which fills our ears outside. Certainly there is no lack of suggestiveness in the subjects which have been proposed for our discussion in this Conference. They cover a wide field, and remind us of the vastness of the activity of the Church, and its close connexion with the national life. They show how much energy is applied to the consideration of its organisation and to the amendment of many points in its practice. Year by year the Church of England becomes larger and more important. Never, I think, did she engage in her service more of the earnestness and devotion of her children.

248

THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.1

It is well that I should begin my remarks by making clear to you the exact object which I have in view. I can do so best by telling you how the subject on which I propose to address you was suggested to my own mind. I was talking to a candidate for Ordination, who was going out to work in the Mission Field in India. He said to me: "I wish that I had a clear answer to the question, 'What is the position of the Church of England in Christendom?' I know the claim of the Church of Rome-that it is a universal and divinely appointed institution, to which all men must belong. I know the claim of the Greek Church, that it preserves the Catholic Faith, and sets it forth in ancient forms, intelligible to simple people. I do not know any corresponding formula to describe the position of the Church of England."

It may seem to you odd that such a question should be asked, or that there should be any difficulty in supplying an answer. But the English mind is not fertile in definitions, and we are apt to rejoice in our freedom from the restraints of mere logic. The test of our institutions is their general adaptability to the work which they have to do. We judge them by the

1 Address given to the Ruri-Decanal Conferences, in the diocese of London, 1899.

way in which they satisfy our own needs, not by the ease with which we can explain them to others. There is no ready definition of the British Constitution, nor, indeed, of any part of our national institutions. The Church of England has never undertaken to define its relations to other bodies, or to put forth any claims for universal acceptance. It was in the first instance avowedly an expression of the religious consciousness of the English people; and its position in the world depends upon its power of educating that consciousness to a true sense of its destiny.

In attempting to set forth the principles of the Church of England, I will use the plainest and least technical language. I may say at once that I repudiate all inferences which may be drawn from my phraseology. I am simply trying to discover the distinguishing features of the English Church as contrasted with other forms adopted for the organisation of the Catholic Church. They all have in common the great truths of the Christian Faith; they are all one in the Unity of the Spirit. There is unity between them, but it is not structural unity. It seems to me that a good understanding will best be attained by abandoning all attempts at reaching in any measurable time, and by any definite means, a unity of structure, and by a dispassionate comparison of the modes of working and of the objects pursued.

However much men may agree about the fundamental truths of the Christian Faith, we must expect them to differ about the methods of teaching these truths and the way, in which they are best brought home to individual souls. As a matter of fact differ