ous religious bodies upon the philosophic speculations, religious sentiments, and ethical convictions of the American people. In England there is one Church by law.established, and they who separate from the communion of that Church are all classed together as dissenters. That there should be anywhere on the face of the earth a condition of society where there can be no such thing as a dissenter, is a thought extremely difficult for some good folks here to grasp. But much harder is the other notion, which I presume is familiar enough to Americans, that there should be anywhere no sects. No dissenters, because no predominant or paramount Christian organization that rejoices in the "most-favored-nation" clause. No sects, because no Church recognized as the Church from which the other religious bodies have cut themselves off. That there should be no bigotry and exclusiveness, no odium theologicum, no fierce rivalry, no proselytizing, in America, as everywhere else, is inconceivable. Theological disputants will cease to wrangle when lawyers learn to love one another as brethren and doctors differ without asperity; but among us the situation is extremely embarrassing as between the Church-for with us it is the Church- and the non-conformist, that is, with those who will not subscribe to our Church doctrine, accept our formularies, or conform to our liturgy. Here we have a standard by which we try all other Christian bodies, and we pronounce them more or less orthodox or denounce them as absolutely unorthodox, in proportion as they approach or depart from this standard which is tacitly accepted among us as the established standard. If there were no Church of England by law established, I believe that a vast number of people would find themselves quite dazed, quite lost. To them it would be practically pretty much as if we were all to awake some fine morning to find that the Home Secretary had shut up Greenwich observatory and run away with the key, having previously taken measures to stop all the great clocks in the land. We should all of us be going by our own watches.

Yet somehow in America every man goes by his own watch; and if nobody is right, nobody else is likely to consider himself hopelessly wrong. Here the social position of the clergy of the established Church is something quite peculiar. There is no need to dwell upon the fact, but that it is a fact there can be no

doubt. The result is, that the attitude of the clergy* toward all the religious teachers has always been exclusive; there has never been any cordiality, and very little coöperation. I do not say this is not deplorable; I am concerned with facts only. supercilious tone is so habitually natural to the clergyman when speaking or dealing with the dissenting minister, and a tone of soreness, jealousy, and suspicion on the part of the minister toward the clergyman seems to us so inseparable from their relations one to the other, that we in England can hardly bring ourselves to believe that the Episcopalian and the Independent, the Wesleyan and the Primitive Methodist, could meet on absolutely equal terms, just as officers of two regiments in the same army can meet at mess and fight valiantly side by side against the common foe. Every now and then we get one of those necessary evils, the religious newspapers, sent us by kind friends from America, or we catch a glimpse of an American bishop or Episcopalian popular preacher. Was it only a dream, or have I really, actually, in the flesh, once met with an American archdeacon? But from these exalted personages and their organs surprisingly little is to be learned; and I observe that an ecclesiastic, let him come from where he may, is a shy creature, ready enough to listen, but not to talk. He puts himself on the defensive, and is so very much afraid of committing himself that you are apt to retire into your interior, too; just as I have observed two snails meeting on their evening walk; one at the approach of his brother shuts himself up in his shell, and the other tickles at him with his horns for a little while, but ends by accepting the situation, and shutting himself up also. Result, to all appearance, nothing but two unoccupied snail-shells, inhabitants having retired from publicity.

I cannot believe that even in America the priests of the Roman Church would ever assume any other than a haughty bearing toward all other Christian teachers. Theirs is either the Church, or it is nothing. But how do all the rest behave to one another? Are they all, in point of fact, merely ministers of

*It has been only of late years that any Christian ministers other than those ordained by the bishops of the Church of England have been called "clergymen" among us. The non-conformists were always called "ministers" or "preachers." I find myself driven to use the words "clergy" and "ministers" in the old way, to avoid conveying a wrong impression to my readers.

their respective congregations? How about proselytizing? It is comparatively easy to draw up a constitution that shall keep up a certain amount of discipline among the officers of any force; but it is quite another thing to keep control over the rank and file when they are all volunteers. Such a regiment as that famous one of Artemas Ward's, "composed exclusively of commanders-in-chief," would hardly be found a successful organization in the church militant. Are the clergy of all denominations held by all denominations in equal esteem? Do they "love as brethren," or do they bite and "devour one another"?

These are some of the questions I find myself continually asking when I turn my thoughts toward the magnificent country and the great nation on the other side of the ocean. I do not believe a man could get any answer to them, satisfactory to his own mind, except by personal observation. He must for a time live among living men, and see them at their daily tasks, to understand their life even a very little. It is too much the habit of travelers to take their theories with them. I, for my part, have none. If I ever carry out the wish of my life, I shall start as a naturalist does who goes to make collections-with empty cases, note-books, and apparatus-not too ready to generalize, but very anxious to learn. The probability is, I shall never go at all. But others more fortunate than I may, perhaps, be able to enlighten my darkness and inform my ignorance, and it may happen that the hints I have thrown out may be suggestive to them.

As to the big cities, with their colossal warehouses and enormous trade, their gigantic hotels and prodigious growth, they possess for me no attraction. There is something dreadful to my mind in losing my personality in a surging multitude and being absorbed in a crowd. To find myself unable to hear my own voice because steam-hammers are pounding all round me, and iron wheels are keeping up a ceaseless din, annihilating articulate speech,- that seems to me horrible. I shrink from these things. I should be found creeping into outof-the-way places, prying into schools and colleges and universities, begging that nobody would notice me, while I might be permitted to notice everybody. Sometimes I should put very impertinent questions about the wonderful endowments that I hear Americans believe in firmly, just when we are beginning to

Sometimes I should even the war -the one war

have lost our faith in their value. venture to inquire about the war that reflected only imperishable glory upon both sides-the one civil war in the world's history that ended with the grandest of all triumphs, freedom to the oppressed, without one single act of vengeance inflicted upon the beaten side. Sometimes-but I am in danger of treading upon perilous ground, in danger of saying too much, in danger of making some one growl out suspiciously, "When you do come, if ever you do, you'd better keep out of my way!"

A few days ago, I was turning over an old volume of "Punch," when I was attracted by a cartoon that may be familiar to some of my readers. A mighty coal-heaver, his day's work done, is leaning against one of the many posts to be found in the region of the Seven Dials, his hands in his pockets, his lips pipeless, his eyes staring at vacancy. By him stands an exquisitely dressed clergyman, tall, slim, gentle, refined, who has blandly laid his extended hand upon the other's brawny shoulder. Says the clergyman, "My friend, I want to go to Exeter Hall." Says the coal-heaver, "Then why the dooce don't you go?" Was it that the good man did not know his way? or was he suffering from a little tightness in the chest?

AUGUSTUS JESSOPP.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONVERSION.

ALL religious people believe in a new life as the condition of spiritual peace and contentment, of that tranquility of soul in which is supreme felicity. Whatever may be their philosophy of the matter, the substantial facts are evident The predominance of desire over duty, of passion over principle, of impulse over disciplined character is before our eyes every day. The distance between the sinner and the saint, between the willful man and the man whose will is consecrated to universal ends, is a gulf which cannot be filled up by any rubbish of ordinary good sense. Many years ago, an extreme rationalist, a Unitarian of the school of Theodore Parker, an advanced transcendentalist, spoke of "sacrifice" as "the all-sufficing joy" in language glowing with emotion. Jonathan Edwards could not have surpassed in conviction this teacher of naturalism undisguised and triumphant. They who have thought much on the subject, have read what the theologians said, have pondered the texts of scripture, have looked at the commentaries, and have analyzed the processes of experience, are little wiser than the rest of mankind. When the professor in the divinity school taught us that the meaning of the Greek word μετανοείτε - which the common version translates "Repent ye" was exhausted by the rendering, "change your minds," a veil seemed to fall from before our eyes. The mystery was withdrawn. The whole "change" was reduced to the level of common experience. The process was a purely mental one, going on within the domain of intellect, and no more inexplicable than other modifications of thought. But a moment of reflection was enough to make it clear that this merely verbal suggestion threw no light into the recesses of the problem. Even Mr. Andrews Norton's substitution of the word "reform" for the language used in King James's version, did not help one out of the difficulty. Nothing is more incomprehensible than