ned that some are to-day incurring the charge of disloyalty--a
charge that they are not careful to answer, if they may be permitted to
minister to a larger spiritual life in the Church they love.

At the same time the development of doctrine is a real mode of
enrichment of the theology of the Church. The devout mind pondering
divine truth will ever penetrate deeper into its meaning. Thus it was
that in the course of centuries the Church arrived at a complete
statement of the doctrine of our Lord's person. And what it could
rightly do in the supreme case, it surely can rightly do in cases of
lesser moment. We need not be afraid of this movement of thought, for
the mind of the united Church may be trusted not to sanction any error.
Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against
the Church. We can trust Him to fulfil His promise. He has also promised
us that the Holy Spirit shall lead us into all the truth. Can He trust
us not to thwart the work of the Spirit by a provincial attitude as of
those who already in the utterances of the Anglican formularies claim to
possess all truth?

IV. There is one other inference to be drawn from what I conceive to be
the Anglican position, and that is one that relates, not primarily to
doctrine but to practice. For many years now the Anglican Churches have
been greatly disturbed by varieties of practice, though it is difficult
to see why varieties of practice should be in themselves disturbing.
But without going into that matter, which would carry us far afield, I
would simply state that the principle already laid down in regard to
doctrine seems to apply here in the matter of practice: that is, the
Anglican has the right to use any practice which has not been explicitly
forbidden by the authorities of the local Church. The Churches of the
Anglican Communion have never set forth any competent guide for the
conduct of worship, and by refraining from so doing have left the matter
in the hands of those who have to conduct services and provide for the
spiritual needs of those over whom they have been given cure of souls.
There is nothing more absurd than to assume that nothing rightly can be
done in these matters except what has been directed by authority; that
no services can be held but such as have formal authorization; that no
ceremonies can be introduced but such as the custom of the time since
the Reformation has made familiar to many.

In such matters authorit