by comprehension within the religious society. In this relation two influences have made it possible within the Church of England. One is the various tendencies which at different times have prevailed and have developed within it. I have already pointed out three different types of religion, the institutional, the intellectual, the emotional (there are different developments in different societies), and the necessity for the existence of all three types to present religion in its completeness. There has always been a tendency in most religious societies for one of these types to become permanent and then definitely to suppress or drive out the other type; but this has never been possible in the Church of England owing to two causes -the diversity of patronage and the parson's freehold. Neither the will of the people nor the will of the bishop can drive a clergyman out of his living except on adequate grounds which can be tested in a court of law. There are tendencies at the present time which would aim at doing away with this freehold; I am sure the result would be disastrous. It is quite true that there are some disadvantages; it is quite true that it is possible for a clergyman in the Church of England to neglect his duty and remain in his parish. But the number of serious scandals is not great; the vast majority of the clergy at the present day may be of various degrees of capacity and earnestness, but they do their duty to the best of their ability. In this as in other dioceses there are cases where, if it were possible, authority would make a change. But the number of such cases is not serious. Other disadvantages might be prevented by a proper superannuation fund, and if many of the smaller livings could be raised in value more circulation amongst the clergy would be possible. A less cumbrous legal method for dealing with the criminous clerk and a more comprehensive distribution of incomes would help. Some modification of the freehold may be desirable, but to do away with it would make the position of the clergyman dependent on the will of the bishop and the will of the people, and it would in its ultimate result be disastrous. At the present time a

clergyman is free to teach what he pleases within the legal limits of the Church of England. Had this not been the case there would have been no Oxford Movement, and if certain sections of the Church at the present day, and I must add certain bishops, had their will there would be no intelligent study of modern critical questions now. I therefore believe that it is of extreme importance for freedom of thought within the Church of England that the present variety of patronage and the present parson's freehold should be retained.

This freedom has had a remarkable effect. At the present time, as at all times, there are questions of science, of criticism, of philosophy, of psychology with which the truths of religion are intimately concerned. The old methods of representation and statement are in all cases hampered by being delivered through the medium of a philosophy or science which has ceased to be believed. It is necessary that there should be a continuous body of people in the Church ready to approach these questions in a spirit of free enquiry, and I do not think that in that direction at the present time we fail. The Church of England still puts its religious beliefs forward in a way which a cultivated man acquainted with the thought of the day can accept. It is the great service it has rendered to Christendom in the past and a service which it may hope to continue to render.

IV

I come, fourthly, to the mission of the Church of England in relation to the problem of reunion. It has long been recognized that a Church which has affinities in so many different directions with different bodies of Christians is one which is particularly fitted for this work, and it is, I think, directing itself to the task in no unworthy way. I have spoken at length on this subject elsewhere and I will not repeat what I have said there, but what I wish to emphasize is this-that our outlook must be in no way restricted. Even if it might seem more easy to some to ignore the Catholic and link up with the Protestant, or

to others to ignore the Protestant and link up with the Catholic; even if it means that we move more slowly than we hoped to do, even if sometimes our activities in one direction seem to impede our progress in another; yet I believe such a policy would be disastrous.

Now before I conclude let me dwell for one moment on the failure of our Church, the failure of our Church which is also, I think, the failure of the nation. Archbishop Söderblom, whom we have already quoted, suggests where we have failed.

Speaking in an earlier chapter of the conservative reform programme of Erasmus and his congenial spirits in the Church, we saw that the genius of Anglicanism is certainly more comprehensive, but less creative, than the two other views of Christianity-that of Rome (enriched by the passionate Church ideal of the Spanish monk) and that of Wittenberg. In each of these the problem of Church unity has become acute in a different way.

I think there is amongst us a certain insularity and a want of greatness of conception, and this applies both to our political and intellectual life as well as to our religion. It is in some ways a great thing that we should have created an Empire without meaning to do so. But I cannot help feeling, if, for example, I look at our work in India, that while it has been admirable in many directions, there has been a want of sympathy, a want of creative power, a want of bigness of conception about all we have done. If we were to leave India to-morrow, what great mark of our presence should we leave behind? In the years that have supervened since the war the characteristics of the shopkeeper and acute financier have been too apparent. We have gained a certain prestige, but we have hardly used that prestige as much as we might. There is a want of imagination. A few millions spent in this direction or that would have made a profound difference to many countries of Europe and strengthened our own influence enormously. It is the same in other directions.

1 Christian Fellowship, p. 119.

OUR FAILURE

205 We have had interesting schools of music and art, but when have we produced anything really great? We have had a long succession of learned men, but how few creative minds there have been amongst them. Much of our work has been too much that of an amateur. Now I cannot help thinking that in our ecclesiastical and religious conceptions we have been in danger of becoming insular and parochial. We are too much absorbed in the little things of every-day life, and we hardly rise either to the height of constructive genius or creative imagination. Even now we have made a great beginning in the appeal to the Christian Churches of the last Lambeth Conference, but shall we have the courage to carry it out? There will come a critical moment when we must go forward if we will not go back. We have come very near to union in at least three directions. I do not say the time has come yet when we should attempt to drive home what we have prepared; I quite admit that there must be a period of preparation and of solid work; but I am sure that the time will come when we shall have to have the courage of our convictions and go forward in more than one direction, when we must add to the reasonableness of our convictions and to our comprehensiveness and to our moderation some vigorous creative power which will compel men to finish the task.

CHAPTER X

THE ENGLISH CATHEDRAL: EPISCOPAL VISITATIONS

I PROPOSE to divide the charge that I have to address to you into two parts. To-day we shall speak of the nature and purpose of this visitation. At the end of the day's proceedings the Visitation Court will be adjourned, and I propose on the second occasion to speak of the organization and finance of the cathedral and its place in the life of the Church.

First, then, as to the aim and purpose of the visitation of the cathedral. According to old custom it was usual for the Bishop at the time of his diocesan visitation first to visit the cathedral church and afterwards the diocese. I cannot but think that it is a grave misfortune that this custom has fallen so much into abeyance. The right of visitation in this cathedral is partly dependent upon the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop, and partly a special authority which is his under the statutes of the cathedral. According to the ecclesiastical law of this country the Bishop visits his cathedral iure ordinario, and the Archbishop iure metropolitico; and every spiritual person in the diocese is visitable by the ordinary. This includes the Dean, de mero iure, and Chapter and all others who have the Bishop's licence or have been instituted by him.

But besides this general power there is in the case of Gloucester a special power given to the Bishop as visitor under the statutes. I do not think that I need quote them, as they are well known, no doubt, to you. I would only make one observation—that I cannot see that there is anything in the statutes which limits the ordinary power or jurisdiction of the Bishop. In his visitation the Bishop is not concerned merely with those matters specially affecting the cathedral with regard to which regula