The worship thus indicated is merely natural, the worship not of a personal Deity, our Father in the heavens, but of an inscrutable and unknown Power. This worship can only become spiritual and heavenly by being directed to the true God as revealed in the Word and manifested in the person of the Christian Saviour. "This is life eternal that they might know Thee, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."

RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL PROGRESS.

THE recent meeting of Convocation has been occupied with questions which have for some time agitated the minds of many of its members. The appointment of laymen, although judges learned in the law, as a final Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical questions, has never been cordially accepted by the High Church party. A Royal Commission was some time since appointed to inquire into the working of the Act appointing this Court of Appeal, and the report of this Commission has been earnestly discussed in the two Houses of Convocation of the province of Canterbury. A series of resolutions on this report were adopted by the Lower House, and forwarded to the Upper Chamber, where they were further considered. The principal discussion arose on the following resolution, which, after some proposed amendments had been rejected, was in the end adopted :-"That in accordance with the constitution of this Church and realm, the right of appeal for the maintenance of justice in all ecclesiastical causes lies to the Crown; but this House cannot acquiesce in the principle of a final settlement of questions involving doctrine or ritual by a lay court, which is not bound in all cases to consult the spirituality. And this House is further of opinion that a decision in respect of such questions, which had not received the sanction of her spiritual authorities, could not be regarded as the voice of the Church."

In the discussion of this question the Bishop of London, speaking in support of the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the final Court of Appeal should consist of laymen, said—" He confessed that he thought the clergy were not so well fitted as laymen to decide such matters as were matters of fact; because they were spiritual persons they were more or less theologians, and they could not help holding their

own theories of doctrine and practice somewhat over and above what the literal words necessarily conveyed, and just so far as they did that they were not such fair judges as unprejudiced laymen, particularly those of legal mind. It was no fault that they did this. They could not help it; it was inherent in human nature, and it was very difficult indeed for a clergyman, even the most moderate, to take an entirely unprejudiced view of the opinions of another, if these opinions differed from his own. Therefore on that ground he did not think they did on the whole make such good judges as laymen. Well, then, as they all knew there were waves and phases of doctrine which were more prominent at one period of the history of the Church than at another, and by these again laymen were less likely to be affected; and on this account, too, the clergy were not so well qualified to judge their brethren as legally-minded laymen. Supposing cases were obliged to be referred to a bench of Bishops in order to be confirmed after decisions had been pronounced, what a different decision would have been given during the primacy of Archbishop Laud or of Archbishop Abbott would the same counsels have prevailed when Sheldon as when Tillotson was Archbishop?"

A novel and most important departure in the constitution and working of the Convocation, was initiated in the adoption of a series of resolutions appointing a "Provincial House of laymen," to be convened and opened by the Archbishop, and to assemble during the session of Convocation. The House is to discuss questions submitted to it by the Archbishop, and to advise the two Houses of Convocation on such subjects as particularly arrest their attention. The object of this movement is to interest the laity in the work of the Church, and to acquaint the bishops and clergy with the feelings and sentiments most active in the minds of the laity. The adoption of this scheme, combined with the vote of the two archbishops and ten of the bishops in support of the Government on the Franchise Bill, “give more hope," in the opinion of the Spectator, "for the future of the Church of England than anything except, of course, the good hard work done by the clergy-which has happened for many years back."

་

Another question which has been for some years before the Convocation, was brought nearer completion by the adoption of a series of resolutions for the institution of a "Board of Missions." In moving the adoption of this Board in the Lower House, Sir James Phillips said that "such a Board could have assisted with its advice in difficulties like that of Pietermaritzburg. It might also help to solve the difficult question of polygamy, which was puzzling so many missionaries. Some of the missionaries thought that a converted heathen should put away all his wives save one; but then what was to become of the other wives? Other missionaries thought all the wives should be retained." The general duties of the Board are to impress on all members of the Church their responsibilities to Foreign Missions, and to set forth the principles which should govern the missionary work of the Church; to direct attention to openings for missionary work; to give counsel and assistance to colonial or missionary churches; to act as referee upon questions which missionary societies may desire to refer to the Board; to collect and tabulate Acts and Canons relating to missionary work; and to undertake any other work which may be entrusted to the Board by the Archbishop or Convocation.

The question of how to reclaim the masses from the state of heathenism into which so many have fallen, is one which has long occupied, and which still seriously occupies, the minds of many earnest Christian men. The noisy and self-glorifying efforts of popular revivalists secure the attention of those who are led away by the excitement of sensational services, but apart from all movements of this kind, there are many who are anxiously seeking "a more excellent way" to raise the fallen, instruct the ignorant, and restore those who are out of the way. Public attention was called to this subject in a forcible sermon by Archdeacon Farrar on Sunday, June 29, in Westminster Abbey. "Let me say plainly," he remarks, "what I think. Side by side with the old existing agencies we need new methods, new forms of self-denial. We want more elasticity, more force, more power of adapting ourselves to conditions." He narrates the action of a humble priest who devoted himself, with great self-denial, to an effort to instruct and Christianize

an utterly neglected body of miners in Wales. The priest threw himself into their midst, shared their homely fare, attracted them by his sympathy, and zealously instructed them in the doctrines of his Church,-the Roman Catholic,-to which these miners, who were Irish immigrants, nominally belonged. "But," continues Dr. Farrar, "let it be said at once that work like this cannot be for the majority. We have not the powers for it; not the gifts; not the opportunities; not even the call. We are not worthy of it; we are not good enough for it. Are we exempt then? Not so. It is the one plain positive duty of every one of us to be engaged in some effort to do good to our neighbour." A new order of clergy is suggested by the Archdeacon, of a mediæval type, that will scarcely find acceptance in Protestant communities. "But," he continues, "the day has also come when the laity must feel that the clergy do not exist merely to save them from all trouble in matters which affect the bodies and souls of men. The day has come when the laity must feel that they can no longer discharge their duty to their brethren, for whom Christ died, by proxy, and that they are priests of God no less than we. A strong clergy may mean only a very weak Church. An active clergy may mean a remiss, an indifferent, a careless Church. . . . Only by the clergy and laity combined can the work of the Church be recovered and continue. Recovered for hundreds of thousands of those who most need our aid, for this city alone yearly adds 50,000 to its population, and if they be left uncared for the problem of London will soon become fatal and insoluble. There are persons among us intensely eager to spend hundreds of pounds for plates painted with cupids and satyrs, to pour out of their purses £94,000 in two days for dishes and goblets. It may be quite right; I judge them not: but shall it be said that in the same city neither these nor thousands of others whom God has blessed with ample wealth, nor hundreds and thousands of others who now give nothing, but might at least give something out of what they squander on personal vanities and needless self-indulgences-shall it be said that we have so much for ourselves, so much for ornament, luxury, pleasure, amusement, drink, gluttony, ostentation, carriages, china, plate, while yet we leave our orphanages to languish, our hospitals to close their wards for lack of funds,

our Christian work to struggle and to starve, our Christian charity to be like one of the summer brooks which throb with a feeble and intermittent spring, and run dry when they are needed most? Oh, rather let that charity be as a place of broad rivers and streams; waters to swim in; a river that cannot be passed over."

We only add to this eloquent appeal for funds, that, important as is the devotion of wealth to this great work, it will accomplish very little without sympathy and co-operation. United with kindly instruction and living sympathy, it is powerful; separate from these it is feeble. In all good works these several elements of strength and use need to be combined.

Prevention, we are often told, is better than cure. Well, there are many societies instituted to save the young from sinking into those deplorable conditions which excite so much anxiety and alarm. One of these is the Girls' Friendly Society, founded in 1875, which numbers more than 104,000 members or associates. This Society makes good character a sine qua non, and has succeeded in preventing a great amount of evil. Its greatest means of operation is commendation. It aims to bring the several classes into friendly association, and to interest them in the wellbeing of each other. In this effort it has found work for thousands of women of the upper classes, who, apart from the good they do to the working classes, must unconsciously influence numbers of their own rank by their example of sympathy and usefulness. The Society, we are told, has lessened much the bitter feeling of class distinctions. Wealthy members have invited overworked town members to their country homes. But still better than this, working women have done the same. Girls have clubbed together to invite a town girl for a fortnight's holiday in their country village; two hundred such invitations have been sent in the London diocese, besides £225 collected for the sick fund. At the conference of two hundred and fifty branch secretaries of the Society, Canon Nesbit said "he had been appointed by the Bishop of London to inquire how far young women were cared for in large houses of business. The result of his inquiries were most satisfactory. He found considerable interest in the subject on the part of