the proof of penitence, the insight into simple human needs, the
paternal indulgence combined with gentle authoritativeness. All this is
eminently and profoundly Christian. It is not necessary here to say what
the Anglican does not find in it or at what point it seems to become
inconsistent with reason and liberty. But I desire to make it clear
that what Hugh needed was an emotional surrender and a sense of
corporate activity, and that his conversion was not a logical one, but
the discovery of a force with which his spirit was in unison, and of a
system which gave him exactly the impetus and the discipline which he
required.

It is curious to note that Father Tyrell, whom Hugh consulted, said to
him that he could not receive officially any convert into the Church
except on terms which were impossible to persons of reason; and this is
so far true that I do not believe that Hugh's conversion was a process
of either intellect or reason. I believe that it was a deep instinctive
and emotional need for a basis of thought so strong and vivid that he
need not question it. I believe he had long been seeking for such a
basis, and that he was right to accept it, because he did so in entire
simplicity and genuineness. My brother was not sceptical nor analytic;
he needed the repose of a large submission, of obedience to an
impersonal ideal. His work lay in the presentment of religious emotion,
and for this he needed a definite and specific confidence. In no other
Church, and least of all in Anglicanism, could this be obtained. I do
not mean for a moment that Hugh accepted the Catholic faith simply as a
conscious relief; he was convinced frankly and fully that the Church of
Christ could not be a divided society, but must have a continuity of
doctrine and tradition. He believed that to be the Divine plan and
method. Having done this, his duty and his delight were one. He tasted
the full joy of obedience, the relief of not having to test, to