types of character which are produced by the monastic life of the Catholic ‘religious,’ It is increasingly difficult to find, in the lives of those who belong to any one denomination, proofs of marked superiority over other Christians.  Of course, we know little of the real character of our neighbours as they appear in the eyes of God; but in considering a theory which lays so much stress on history as Catholic institutionalism does, we are bound to make use of such evidence as we have.  And the evidence does not support the theory that we cannot be Christians unless we are Catholics.  Nor does it even countenance the view that we cannot be Christians unless we are enthusiastic members of some religious corporation.  Professor Royce seems to have been carried away by the idea which prompted him to write his book; but a little thought about the characters of his acquaintances might have given him pause.

The mechanical theory of devolution which assumes so much importance in some fashionable Anglican teaching about the Church need not detain us long.  The logical choice must ultimately be between the great international Catholic Church and what Auguste Sabatier called the religion of the Spirit.  The religion of all Protestants, when it is not secularised, as it too often is, belongs to this latter type, even when they lay most stress on the idea of brotherhood and corporate action.  For with them institutions are never much more than associations for mutual help and edification.  The Protestant always hopes to be saved qua Christian, not qua Churchman.

A third question which must be asked is whether institutionalism in practice makes for unity among Christians, or for division.  Too often the chief visible sign of the ‘corporate idea’ of which so much is said, is the rigidity of the spikes which it erects round its own particular fold.  The obstacles to acts of reunion (which in no way carry with them the necessity of formal amalgamation) are raised almost exclusively by stiff institutionalists.  The much-discussed Kikuyu case has brought this home to everybody.  But for these uncompromising Churchmen, Christians of all denominations would be glad enough to meet together at the Lord’s table on special occasions like the service which gave rise to this controversy.  Anglicans are well aware that the differences of opinion within their body are far greater than those which separate some of them from Protestant Nonconformity, and others of them from Home.  Allegiance to this or that denomination is generally an accident of early surroundings.  To make these external classifications into barriers which cannot be crossed is either an absurdity or a confession that a Church is a political aggregate.  A Roman Monsignor explained, a propos of the Kikuyu service, that no Roman Catholic could ever communicate in a Protestant church, because in so doing he would be guilty of an act of apostasy, and would be no longer a Roman Catholic.  The attitude is consistent with the Roman claim to universal jurisdiction; for any other body it would be absurd.  The stiff institutionalist is debarred by his theory from fraternising with many who should be his friends, while he is bound to others with whom he has no sympathy.  His theory is once more found to conflict with the facts.