present visitation service is not all that can be desired. That we should use more definite prayers for the recovery of the sick.
(2) The Report lays emphasis on the important truth that there must be no banishing of the doctor. Enormous harm has been done by the crude dualism of 'Christian Science'—a theory which, if logically applied, would prevent persons renewing the tissues of their body by food, or removing dirt by soap and water. A doctor's medicine is just as much a prayer, a spiritual thing, when it is properly used, as any formula of consolation inculcated by folk in 'tune with the infinite,' or people who indulge in 'higher thought.'
(3) The Report guards—though perhaps not quite strongly enough—against the modern tendency to lay too much stress on mere bodily health. As Christians and men of sense, we can have nothing to do with a mode of thought that, by exaggerating the value of physical well-being, would cheerfully have condemned to some lethal chamber an Erasmus, a Coleridge, a Stevenson, or a Beardsley.
Now in these three matters the Report does seem to represent the real central body of opinion in the Church of England. No living man, perhaps, better expresses the view of the 'man in the pew' than the Bishop
