and the entirely cut-and-dried, respectable, middle-class lives of his mundane adherents; all of which is a great deal of trouble and quite unnecessary; and so the High churchman is crazy. He substitutes a quite different God as the object of his worship, he frames his life upon the principle of union with Him, he is abundantly careful to do Him honor by frequent elaborate and appropriate services, lives lived in a carefully preserved state of grace, costly fabrics and furniture as well as a growing good taste in houses of worship; he allies himself with the long-neglected arts, he goes to work for God,-indubitably he is crazy, crazy as he can be. He is a fanatic.

Now it is just this fanaticism for God, like that of the "High" churchman, that seems to be needed. The external evidence is that the lazy and hazy methods have failed every time they have been tried. As far back as history takes us, the cut-and-dried methods of the hidebound religionist like Secker and the fanciful inadequacies of the inexact or semi-believing religionist like Paul of Samosata have failed, as indeed they deserved to fail. Always it is the fanatic who succeeds. David, Mohammed, The Mahdi, Dolling, Savonarola, Wesley, Ignatius Loyola, the Tai Ping group (not to multiply instances)-all these got somewhere in and with their religion. As soon as the fanaticism of the fervent believer-for it is a matter of belief-has evaporated, then haziness or laziness sets in, and there is a letdown, succeeded by formalism, professionalism, decadence, -finally death, quiet, uninteresting, and unmourned.

The lazy come next under our consideration for a brief examination. There is no necessity for a definition. Lazy is lazy. But it is possible for a person to be lazy in part and in part otherwise. A man may be a lazy churchman and a highly successful plumber. Or he may be, in the case of a

minister, of the type of the Fox-Hunting Parson lamented by the late James Anthony Froude. It is something like the latter or his more modern descendant who spends Lent at Atlantic City, I shrewdly suspect, that was in the mind of the author of our jingle. I think he must have meant the kind of churchman who cared so little for his religion that he contented himself with going through the motions, the minimum of motions. I think he had in mind the comfortable, socially presentable, somewhat worldly, easy-going parson; and the comfortable, socially presentable, somewhat worldly, easy-going congregation of that parson. These, he says, are the low.

It is extremely difficult to understand just what the attraction can be in this word "low." It were invidious to suggest comparison of the connotations of this word, the opposite of "high," with the latter's glorious connotations. but in "low" churchmanship there is no suggestion of an oriflamme, of a standard raised, no glory, no noble appeal— in short, no romance. At best, being "low" in churchmanship is a negative position, a set of opinions calling loudly for explanations, for an apologetic. And that apologetic has never been written. Save for fulminations against the "high" based on inconclusive evidence that those so denominated were betraying the Church over to an alien government, and hugely suggestive of panic, and a somewhat nervous sense of fellowship enforced with the broad and hazy, there is no appreciable platform for lowness in the Anglican Communion.

Nevertheless much is to be said for low and lazy individuals. Their laziness is not always of the sitting-andtaking-it-easy kind. Probably the laziness of the "low" today would better be described as an unwillingness to learn how to do things for God, a laziness with respect to

methods. For the "low," like the "high," are believers. So far as their laziness is an intellectual quality, it consists in the complacency with which they hold to the opinions and convictions involved in the Christian Faith, and their inability or unwillingness to put that faith into practice. I have in mind the case of a very prominent Low churchman who answered in the public press some years ago certain attacks upon the Anglican Communion which had been given great prominence and which emanated from a foreign papist at large in this country and coruscating mightily about Henry VIII, Anglican Orders, and other similar controversial matters. The reply was crushing and effective. The learned Paulist was silenced and well silenced, but to accomplish this desideratum the prominent "low" churchman had to write from the "high" standpoint throughout and use "high" arguments. This he did with commendable thoroughness, although he had to leave his work on the Prayer Book Papers Committee to do it. Then he went back to his work on his Prayer Book Papers, a series of publications aimed against the "high" in his own communion, and based upon a point of view which even the Paulist could not have used because it would have been inexplicable to him as a man of some learning, and doubtless an adequate knowledge of the Christian Faith and what that involves.

The "broad" and hazy have somewhat outgrown their haziness. They are, as it were, a group of persons going through a fog. They started from a clear bit of weather into the fog, and were well in when the author of the jingle described them. They are emerging today, but they are coming out on the other side of the bank of fog. The Broad churchman today dislikes the Christian Religion, and seeks to substitute for it something else of his own invention.

The haziness which characterizes him today is the haziness which grows out of a lack of partisan unity, but that haze too is clearing off. The "broad" is getting quite clear in his mind what it is that he wants to substitute for the Christian Religion. This is a kind of complex emulsion which is very pleasant to his taste. It has no very definite taste, for there are too many ingredients, and, being an emulsion, it has to be constantly shaken, lest it resolve itself into its elements again and cease to please the "broad." This shaking process keeps those called "broad" very busy indeed. The emulsion has many ingredients, each purporting to be "Christian," and the "broad" wants to include the "low" and leave out the "high." He is certain that the traditional laziness of the one will cause it to emulsify beautifully, and equally positive that the craziness of the other would make lumps in his pleasant emulsion which he agitates so energetically and sniffs so agreeably.

As in the original little rhyme, it may easily be seen that the High and the Low are contiguous, and the Low and the Broad are contiguous. Laziness and haziness mingle more or less easily, since haziness readily absorbs laziness. Craziness and laziness do not mix so easily. In the nature of the terms, craziness must dominate laziness, because since anything will dominate that which is lazy, and as craziness is a very active quality, a fortiori laziness, the attribute of the "low," must yield. It is an axiom. The question which concerns all three is: Shall the lazy yield to the crazy or to the hazy? The latter is a process about which the lazy need take no thought. They can be enveloped in the haze of that emulsion without any effort, and that way many of them are drifting, since, being lazy, they have little vitality by themselves. But the former would be a stimulating process. It is just that element of fanaticism

which involves hard work and self-sacrifice which would mould the easy-going "lows" into something with fibre, which would electrify a rather spineless school into something that God could use and that God would want to use. And it would be too bad if the "lows" should be too lazy to see this before they are entirely absorbed into the emulsion, for those of them who remain with us believe in the Christian Religion (even though they may not practice it all) just as do the crazy and just as the hazy do not.

In one respect, it is a very good thing for us Anglicans that Pius IX, of fragrant memory, condemned our orders so emphatically. For the Roman controversialist, quaerens quem devoret, is thus substantially estopped from using his best argument against us, i. e., that although we have every appanage of a Catholic Church, we vitiate our position by not putting these to any perceptible use, or, rather, that we have no inherent unity of usage and conduct. Of course, if we have no orders in the Catholic sense, we have nothing; we do not exist as a Church, and the ground is cut from under the feet of the Roman controversialist. And this official Roman view, the hazy, while professing to dislike Rome and alleging that the crazy are Rome's Anglican adherents, asserts himself, specifically, whenever-and it is often-he belittles the orders and standing of his own communion as a valid part of the Church Universal. In this view, the lazy, while he is too lazy to assert it, seemingly acquiesces, whenever-and it is almost always-he lists himself as indistinguishable from one of the Protestant Denominations save for our incomparable liturgy.

It remains for the "high"-and crazy-to hold up the standard of his faith; to assert, in spite of multiform antagonisms without and insidious treachery within, hazily originated, the truth of his position by his conduct. And