are too much afraid of the Act of Uniformity. What is the Act of Uniformity? There is first the Act itself, and next a schedule, and that schedule is the Prayer Book, which, because it has the same force as the Act, people naturally confuse with the Act itself. The terms, however, of the Act are drawn up by lawyers and are in the usual form observed in those documents, each word and sentence having a definite and so limited meaning, or, if it has not it is the duty of the lawyers to give it a definite meaning in consonance with other acts. But the Prayer Book was written on other lines, and not by lawyers, and so we are bound rather to act up to its principles than to its letter. Suppose, then, we do not act according to the exact or the mere letter, who will interfere. The bishop, so long as he finds his clergy loyally obedient to the principles of the Book, will not prosecute unless he is obliged to do so by pressure of the churchwardens and parishioners; and this has seldom, if ever, been the case; or, else, unless some society external to the parish set the courts in motion; and, now that the Commissioners' Report has been issued, we may hope that for the future we shall hear much less of a certain society, which has done so much to hinder the extension and variation of our services, than we have of late years, if, indeed, we hear of it at all. I believe, therefore, that, under present circumstances, many of the clergy might at once, and with impunity, adapt the services more to the special needs of some parishes than they do. We must, it is true, have uniformity in the great principles embodied in the Prayer Book, but this need not prevent our allowing details to vary according to various wants. Indeed, so long as in our variations we keep to the lines on which the Prayer Book was compiled, namely, those of the doctrines and practices of the early Church, we shall attain a greater conformity to the main principles of the Prayer Book than we shall lose in uniformity in mere detail. If we have special needs, and with increase of spheres of work, it is certain that we have such needs, then, so long as we follow those lines in a loyal obedience to the spirit of the Prayer Book, we cannot do wrong in supplying those needs, and should not refrain from mere dread of a misintrepretation by lawyers of the schedule to the Act of Parliament. I believe that in this present awakening of the Church we want greater variety and more earnestness, and more definite expression of doctrine in our services. But for the changes or extensions required to these ends, we need not wait for any new Acts of Parliament to help us, and, therefore, in reply to Canon Venable's question, "When shall we have this power ?" I think the answer is, "We have it now, if it be used wisely."

The Rev. J. HARRY BUCHANAN, Priest in Charge of Holy Trinity, Ilkeston.

I HOPE that the day will never come when family prayer will take the place of daily service, as seemed to be suggested by one of the speakers. In a small country parish of a population of 300, I myself have never missed daily service for five years, except in case of illness, or as the Prayer Book provides, for "other urgent cause;" and to ask me to substitute something else which is purely voluntary, is most unreasonable. I want the Church to go to work on the masses, and people think we ought to take a lesson in this sphere of our work from the Salvation Army. I deny that we can learn anything from the Salvation Army, for everything that the Army has, which is good, they themselves learnt from the Church. Father Lowder came before "General" Booth. Father Lowder knew how to work amongst the masses without indecency of worship. We must use continual and frequent out-door services, and at all places and all times, with any amount of orderly and attractive ceremonial. This mode of reaching the masses is an urgent work, and it is one that we must do. I would extend the number of mission rooms, for there are many who will come to a mission room, but not to the Church; and some people will listen to a layman, who are prejudiced against a parson. We must vary our services, and make use of laymen much more than hitherto has been done, and then we shall find that the Church will readily adapt herself to every class in this country.

OUR subject this morning is "Personal Religion," and I must tell you that there are some changes unfortunately in the list of those who have to speak to you. One name, by some accident, has not been printed in many of the programmes-the Rev. Herbert James, who kindly consented at the request of myself and of the committee, to address you some time ago. Another name, which does appear on the programme, I am sorry to say, you must remove. We can, however, but rejoice that Canon Cadman has duties which call him to Canterbury. Canon Hoare has very kindly consented to take his place. With regard to the conduct of the proceedings this morning, I may remind those who have attended former Congresses, and inform those who have not, that it has been the practice for many years past, to conduct this meeting upon a different plan from that which is adopted in respect of others, and it has been usual to abstain from all expressions of approval and disapproval during the course of it. One reason, of course, for this is, that the subjects which are treated being such as to require great reverence in handling them, it would rather destroy that feeling if there were any manisfestations of approval or disapproval. And I think I should also add, that of course the meaning of it is that no one is committed to any statement made by any speaker or reader: for instance, it is not to be considered that because he does not manifest his disapproval, he is any way committed by his silence. I now ask for your earnest and thoughtful attention to those who are to speak.

PAPERS.

The Rev. E. KING, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology, Oxford.

I HAVE assumed that a paper on the "Spiritual Life" at a Church Congress is not required to state the foundations of the faith, nor to deal primarily with the errors by which those foundations are assailed; and, further, that the cautions and balancing considerations which are required by any short statement on religion need not be expressed. In

short, I have assumed that the object of this paper is to call attention from year to year to one or two points in which the spiritual life of the day appears to the writer to need attention, in order that it may be by God's help raised still higher on the old foundations.

The first suggestions I have to offer are with regard to our relation to faith. In this day of experimental philosophy, when the discoveries in the different branches of physical science are so real, so attractive, so wonderful, so largely beneficial to mankind, we are in danger of supposing that everything that is beautiful, and good, and true, is the result of our own discovery, and is discoverable by the same faculties—we need reminding that we have different sets of faculties. The hand, the eye, and the reason; the heart, the affections, and the will-all have their special work to do in obtaining truth. No improvement in the microscope will enable us to distinguish between good and bad men, no improvement in the telescope will enable us to see God. The mother at her cottage-door, the farm lad following the plough, the mill girl working at her loom, may all have this knowledge if they have the instrument required a pure heart. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." We need then more care to preserve proportion in the culture of our faculties. We need to "exercise ourselves unto godliness;" we need spiritual exercises as well as exercises for the body and the mind-there are difficulties which cannot be overcome except by "prayer and fasting."

Again, do we not need to consider faith on the side of acceptance? This is an age of discovery, an age of discovery of great blessings to mankind, and we are easily led to suppose that we can find out religion for ourselves. This is an age also of freedom, of religious as well as civil liberty. We are free, indeed, as far as our will is concerned, but we forget that this freedom does not imply our independence. We cannot get on without help, help from others; children need someone to take care of them, the arts and sciences need schools and professors. We cannot reach the intended perfection of our capacities without assistance from without. It is the same with faith. We cannot believe by the mere exertion of our own faculties; we need help from without, help from above, help from God. The Eastern world has rather lost itself than found God, the Hindoo in absorption, the Buddhist in extinction-Nirvana. The old Western world felt after God, but could not fully find Him. Not at Athens, nor at Rome, but at Jerusa lem, the knowledge of the one personal living God was made clear to man, made clear and sure to him by offering him a Revelation from above, and thus man's knowledge of God, man's faith in God, is an acceptance rather than a discovery-"by wisdom the world knew not God."

This same conclusion of thought.

may be arrived at by a somewhat different line

Man's knowledge is not simply the result of his experience; he starts in the quest of this knowledge in possession of certain faculties. There is something more in the mind of man than in the phenomena on which his mind is exercised. It was refreshing to read, on the authority of the President of the British Association this year, "That experience is not the proper foundation of mathematical truth; "that"the mind itself contributes something." It was invigorating and a relief to be

raised above the depressing influences of materialism to be referred to Kant and Sir W. R. Hamilton, and to the answer of Leibnitz, "That there is nothing in the intellect which was not first in sensation except the intellect itself." The same is our true position towards the foundation of the spiritual life, faith in God. We start with the idea given, and more or less defined through the consciousness of our own existence : we go out from ourselves and find a world, physical, intellectual, moral, with a history, all full of corroborating considerations, and a revelation countersigned by Divine acts and men's satisfied wants, and we believe in God, but our belief is of the nature of an acceptance, rather than a discovery, for we are conscious of using powers at the beginning which we did not make, and of receiving help at the conclusion which came from above. Thus, we are indeed free, and, therefore, more responsible than we often like to remember, but not independent. Our faith is not the creation of our own reason, but is the "gift of God." "Christian truths are not (as has been well said) a human climax, but a Divine boon." "Faith (Dr. Liddon has told us) by which the soul lives, is mainly passive at least, in respect of its intellectual ingredients." (The believing soul may or may not apprehend with scientific accuracy that which its faith receives. The "Word of Knowledge, that is the power of analysis and statement which is wielded by theological science, is thus a distinct gift, of great value to the Church, although certainly not of absolute necessity for all Christians. But without faith itself, it is impossible to please God.") Bishop Pearson had said the same, "Faith is the gift of God, not only in the object, but also in the act." Christ is not only given unto us in Whom we believe, but it is also given us in behalf of Christ to believe on Him. (This gift is a gift of the Holy Ghost working within us an assent to that which by the Word is propounded to us.) Thus, he adds, "as the increase and perfection, so the original or initiation of faith is from the Spirit of God (not only by an external proposal of the Word, but by an internal illumination of the soul)." This is indeed nothing but the reassertion of the statement of St. Augustine and the second council of Orange, when they maintained against the Pelagian and the semi-Pelagian errors, "that the beginning of faith was not from us, but from the grace of God," and quoted the texts from the Scripture "To you it is given not only to believe in Him; " "Through grace ye are saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. ii. 8), thus maintaining that "man's spiritual activity depends throughout on grace as originating, assisting, and sustaining it to the end." Thus then our relation to faith implies a surrender; we cannot fully find Him-we give up the method of independent discoveryour faith is of the nature of an acceptance-we accept the object, and assistance in the act of faith. This was Sailer's conclusion, in Germany, at the beginning of this century-Aufzugeben, annehmen, glauben-first the idea given, then the surrender, then the acceptance, then faith.

3. Another aspect of faith which needs our attention is the fulness of the act on our part. As faith is not a discovery of the intellect, so neither is it the bare assent of the intellect. It is rather a three-fold act, involving the intelligence, the heart, and the will-a surrender of the whole self-this is why perhaps we are so afraid of the terror of unbelief, of losing our faith, and falling from God, because we try to limit faith to an act of the intellect, and to lay hold on God merely

by the reason. This is to require of reason more than she was intended to do. God made us for Himself. He requires us completely, wholly. "My son, give Me thine heart," means the gift of all that is most inward, most central, most essential to man. If we could hold on to God merely by our reason we might be tempted to do this as a prudent refuge for a future day, and meanwhile give our hearts and our bodies to some other. Thanks be to God, the alarm of unbelief, the fear of losing our hold on God, has made us see now more clearly the fulness of the act of faith, and so we are each of us brought back to understand the words of our Catechism. My duty to God can only be accomplished by the dedication of all my heart, all my mind, all my soul, all my strength. It is not the fear of falling into the hands of the living God that is doing this now, but rather the more awful fear of falling out of them-the losing God, the being without God, ie, lost.

A fourth consideration seems to follow. The end of our faith is not knowledge, but worship. We are so often occupied, and rightly, in contending for the very existence of God, that we are in danger of thinking our duty over when we are convinced that He is. This leaves our faith barren, useless, practically contradicted. The discoveries of science rightly end in admiration, the vision of God in adoration. “We admire the finite, we adore the Infinite." The adoring soul bends thought and heart and will before the footstool of the One selfexisting, all-creating, all upholding Being. Adoration may or may not be accompanied with the prostration of the body; in its essence it is the prostration of the soul. It is this trustful, restful casting of our whole personality on the Person of God that so many of us need-in one word, worship-"Casting down their golden crowns;" it is this to which that great bulwark of the Christian faith would lead us (the Athanasian Creed), when, after the fullest exposition of the doctrine of the mystery of the Blessed Trinity that the Church possesses, we are reminded that the end is not simply knowledge, not exact theological definition, but worship; "so that in all things as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped."

The practical outcome of this on our spiritual life should be, first, a more simple humility. Our faith, our all in all, is of the nature of a surrender, an acceptance, a gift. "What hast thou that thou didst not receive ?" And then, secondly, a more indestructible peace. God made us for Himself, and neither the head nor the heart can find any real rest apart from Him-with Him in the simple village church, with Him in the family worship in the cottage home, with Him alone away at sea, with him in the crowded solitude of the young apprentice's lodging, with Him there should be the evidence of a peculiar humility and a peculiar peace. This contribution to the evidences for Christianity I would earnestly ask at your hands. It is a contribution in which all may join, rich and poor, learned and unlearned-the evidence of restful, peaceful, happy, upward-looking, worshipping lives, the proof that what the theologian maintains to be true is what the man

wants.

To these few remarks on our present relation to faith, I would add a few more on our relation to love.

We should all probably agree that the "love of God and the love of man are man's perfection." But the practical problem is, How are