spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life."

The reason why I most deplore the fact of men like you joining the Roman Church in England is that this action assists in the further break up of this unity of spirit and bond of peace in England. Fifty or sixty years ago the division between the Church of England and the various Nonconformists was bad enough. It gave rise to much bitterness of spirit, and hindered cooperation in good works, and thus was contrary to Christian charity and practical utility. But at that time there was hardly any Roman Catholic body in England. At the present day, with their seventeen bishops, their two thousand clergy, their religious orders, and numerous schools and churches, and large body of laity among all classes, and active propaganda, they have added immensely to the religious divisions and bitterness in England. All this increases the separation into distinct camps of the religious life and philanthropic and missionary work of the country, and indeed throughout the whole of the empire. Moreover, this particular controversy has, I fear, led too many of our clergy to

direct their thoughts too much to the ecclesiastical and too little to the ethical side of the religion. I have noticed an increase of this tendency since the recent discussion as to "Anglican orders." This, again, increases the division between the parties in our own Church, so that there is now almost as much separation and absence of co-operation between extreme "High Churchmen" and "Low Churchmen as there is between "High Churchmen" and Roman Catholics. They will hardly even attend each other's churches.

I am certain that the deep divisions between professing Christians, and their bitter attacks upon each other, are largely the cause of the increasing indifference of the practical-minded men of the working classes to all religion. They read in their newspapers, accounts, often spiced with sardonic journalistic comment, of modern religious controversies, and they say, "What good can come out of all this?" and put their trust in purely secular agencies.

And indeed, when after reading our "religious" newspapers on either side, I turn to the Epistles of St. Paul, and meditate upon his lofty and burning words, exhorting Christians to peace,

unity, charity, and concord, and commanding them to hold to the substance of their religion, to put away strife and contention about vain and unprofitable questions, and to regard rites and ceremonies as shadows, I myself feel a profound humiliation and sense of littleness.

Do not be in a hurry to answer this letter; do not answer it at all if you prefer that; but I should some day like to know your reasons for taking this step. I feel discouraged, and troubled, and dismayed by it.-Believe me, yours sincerely,

HENRY HOUGHTON.

This was the next letter:

BROMPTON ORATORY, LONDON, S.W.,

DEAR MR. BEVOR,

28th April 1898.

You will probably hardly remember me as an old school-fellow. My name is Hubert Crosdaile. You were a brilliant oppidan and I a quiet colleger, but we sometimes talked together when we were in the same division in the upper fifth. We have

never met since that time. You went to Oxford, and subsequently into the Diplomatic Service; I to Cambridge, and then into Anglican orders. I cannot now refrain from writing to you to express my joy at the news that you too have been led into the Church. It may perhaps interest you to hear in what way I was guided, by paths doubtless very different to those by which you have reached the Eternal City. After I had taken Anglican orders I worked for some years as a curate in a country parish. But that life did not satisfy my desire to be of service, and I joined an Anglican brotherhood which devoted itself to work in a poor quarter of South London. The work itself was good, and I have not seen elsewhere greater personal devotion than that of my colleagues. Yet before long I began to feel doubts and questionings as to the Church of England which I had never felt in previous days. We taught strong and decided doctrines as to the necessity of belonging to the Church and the efficacy of the sacraments. The more I taught and spoke about these subjects, the more clearly and grandly the ideal of the Church rose before my

imagination, the less well did the theory of a Catholic visible Church of which the Church of England formed part seem to correspond with that ideal. Often in my sermons I said, "The Church says this," or "The Church commands that," and a mocking whisper seemed as often to ask, "What Church?" "Where is the seat of authority?" I and my friends chose our doctrines from the ancient documents and writers of the Church. Low Churchmen chose the doctrines which suited them, and often contradicted ours. We spoke of the Church as if it were visible, concrete, clearly demarcated by common obedience, an embodied and living organism like the British Empire. Often I began to feel that I was cheating myself with words when I spoke of the Roman, Greek, and Anglican Churches as one Church-for we excluded from the term all non-episcopal communities. Was it not like calling the British Empire, the Russian Empire, and the German Empire one State?

About this time I had long conversations with a Wesleyan artisan who was in some doubt as to his own position. I exhorted him not to