allow a far wider liberty of action than others. In all cases,
divergences of doctrine and practice are dealt with by personal
influence, tact, and compromise, and _force majeure_ is invoked as
little as possible. In the last hundred years, during which there have
been strong and active movements in various directions in the Church of
England both towards Catholic doctrine and Latitudinarianism, such
synodical and legal action as has been taken has generally proved to be
a mistake. It is hard to justify the system logically and theoretically,
but it may be said that the methods of the Church have at least been
national, in the sense that they have suited the national temperament,
which is independent and averse to coercive discipline. It may, I
believe, be truly asserted that in England any Church which attempted
any inquisition into the precise doctrine held by its lay members would
lose adherents in large numbers. Of late the influence of the English
Church has been mainly exerted in the cause of social reform, and her
tendency is more and more to condone divergences of doctrine and opinion
in the case of her ministers when they are accompanied by spiritual
fervour and practical activity. The result has certainly been to pacify
the intellectual revolt against religious opinion which was in full
progress some forty years ago. When I myself was at the university some
thirty years ago, the attitude of pronounced intellectuals against
religious opinion was contemptuous and even derisive. That is not the
case now. The instinct for religion is recognised as a vital part of the
human mind, and though intellectual young men are apt at times to tilt
against the travesty of orthodoxy which they propound for their own
satisfaction, there is a far deeper and wider tolerance and even
sympathy for every form of religious belief. Religion is recognised as a
matter of personal preference, and the agnostic creed has lost much of
its aggressive definiteness.