incline. I am conscious of having the strongest natural prepossessions in its favour. My human compassion, my own consciousness of sin, and some of the keenest promptings of my Christian sympathy, would combine to make me a Universalist, if this world, being what it is, and men being what they are, other feelings, more solemnly authoritative, and the deepest and most sacred reasons on the other side, did not forbid me to rest in such a conclusion, however pleasant and attractive.'

With Mr. Cox's paper we have already dealt. Professor Mayor is the most dangerous English exponent of Universalism from the quasi-philosophic side. Him we must leave till we reach the concluding chapters of Salvator Mundi. Dr. Allon finds the meeting-point in the hypothesis of Conditional Immortality, which we have given our reasons for rejecting. Canon Birks recapitulates the views proclaimed in his Victory of Divine Goodness-a speculative idiosyncrasy. 'A Layman' appeals forcefully to sentiment; to his appeals the appropriate answer is: we are not called to adjudicate upon individual cases, and we have the fullest and firmest confidence that the Judge of all the earth will do right.

Canon Farrar's 'Reply' makes it more difficult than ever to understand his exact position and the raison d'être of his book. He seems to wish it to

be regarded as a mere protest against unwarrantable popular accretions that have grown round the doctrine. And so it might be, but for its perilous approach to Universalism; which,

having nearly reached, he incontinently turns his back upon, yet still looking longingly towards it over his shoulder. He believes that they who do not repent will suffer an endless penalty,' and apparently that some will never repent; he reminds us that hope is not certainty, is not even faith'; and avows that he came with no compact system, no flawless theodicy. Nor is such to be had.' Possibly in this last sentence we have the index to his creed. Professor Plumptre, indeed, writes: "The want of a formulated system on which second-rate critics have dwelt as the characteristic defect of Dr. Farrar's sermons is to me their chief charm, the witness to a calmness and sobriety of thought underlying all his passionate and glowing eloquence.' The Professor, with unusual lack of insight, misses the gravamen of the complaint. If Dr. Farrar conceives that the Bible declarations are indefinite, confused and contradictory, he should have said so plainly. He is an official expounder of the Written Word. Doctrinal systems abound; every theologian, much more a Doctor of Divinity, is supposed to have one. He attacked a formulated system of the last things'; if his conviction be that systematic eschatology is impossible, and if he speaks at all, especially if addressing the general public, he should declare that impossibility, and that in language to be understanded of the people.'

last. The Chairman was one of the most popular Ministers of the denomination. The great subject for debate, which either excluded or absorbed nearly every other, was the

attitude of the Body with respect to the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. The discussion arose out of the proceedings of a Conference held in Leicester, simultaneously with the Autumnal Meeting of the Union last year, convened by Congregationalist Ministers in conjunction with certain Unitarians, who maintained that religious communion was altogether independent of doctrinal agreement; and that men of different and even conflicting religious beliefs could have spiritual fellowship in spite of the widest doctrinal divergencies. It seems that since that time a vigorous propagandism, both on the platform and in the so-called Christian Press, has been carried on, and that a greater desire has been evinced to abandon doctrine than to promote fellowship, and thus the true issues have been laid bare before the world. This has occasioned a very widespread uneasiness lest the Congregational Churches, through that morbid fear, which has so long haunted them, of any definite standard of belief, should sympathize with this movement, and thus degenerate into inert and vague latitudinarianism. To allay this uneasiness the Committee of the Union, by an overwhelming majority, agreed to submit resolutions at its next meeting declaratory of its belief in certain articles of the faith, deemed by the promoters of the Leicester Conference to be merely speculative and non-essential to the communion of saints. The Assembly was looked forward to with intense solicitude, because of the wellknown leanings of its influential Chairman, and the pertinacity with which the opinions against which the resolutions were framed were being disseminated.

It was a large and splendid gathering. Dr. Allon's magnificent church was crowded in every part. All the leaders of the denomination, both clerical and lay, were there, and the

whole spirit of the meeting betokened the interest with which the subject for consideration was invested. Mr. Baldwin Brown's inaugural address exhibited most of the characteristics of that gentleman's thought and style. In clearness, beauty and force of diction he excelled himself, and masterly was his handling of some theological, social and scientific tendencies of the age. B: it was with no small surprise on the part of many, and no small gratitude on the part of most, that his discourse was mainly taken up with an emphatic and reiterated statement and defence of the vital points of Christian truth which had been called in question.

Mr. Brown, however, laid himself open to grave criticism by his prejudgment of a matter that was not yet properly before the meeting, which was surely a very unusual and impolitic course for a chairman to take, and by the inconsistency of that judgment with the principles on which it was professedly based. Not only did he confess the danger of sceptical tendencies, and again and again insist on the truth of, and the historical basis for, the doctrines of the Incarnation, Atonement and Resurrection of the Son of God, but the necessity of those doctrines to all valid and real Christian communion as well as to social and moral safety and life. Yet his counsel was to let the matter alone, lest the Union should commit itself to a policy of creed subscription. The thing, he argued, would die simply because it could not live. The world knew all about their soundness in the faith, and needed not to be told of it. But this missed altogether the point at issue. When suspicion rests upon a person, it behoves that person to clear himself. Suspicion did rest on the Congregational Churches, and Mr. Brown, as a member of the Union of those Churches, in his noble and eloquent address cleared himself, not as

Dr.

exception of the speech of the Rev. Mark Wilks, were treated with extreme feebleness by the 'advanced guard of modern thought.' Raleigh claimed for the Union the liberty of honest testimony. If they stood where their fathers stood, let them say so. Dr. Dale agreed with Mr. Picton on the 'selective action of spiritual affinities;' but asked why they should leave those affinities in the dark? If any one were drawn to him, it was his duty to hide nothing. After strongly insisting on a frank statement of what they believed, he would leave others to say whether their selective affinities' still attracted them to him. Dr. Dale thought it was come to something' when, as was contended, the affirmation of belief in the things most assuredly held by the Christian Church in all ages was pronounced a burden too heavy to be borne; and he closed by contending that it was an act of audacity to ask them to restrain their testimony in order that certain persons might remain with them. Dr. Kennedy, with great force and fervour, said he dreaded nothing more than that men, as Pastors of Churches, should use such expressions as 'Word of God,' 'Spirit of God,' and 'Cross of Christ,' in a loose, flexible and non-natural way. He also asked if it were not childish to admit that the Chairman and any member of the Union might say credo, and then to deny that they all might shout credimus.

The Rev. J. Guinness Rogers, in a masterly speech, showed that the promoters of the Leicester Conference had made out a case for the resolutions.

They had acknowledged a very extensive spirit of doubt, especially among the young.

How was that spirit to be met? By leaving those whom it was agitating in the dark as to whether their teachers held the Christian verities to be true or not? By patting men, who professed to doubt, on the back as great

thinkers; and by telling those who had almost or quite rejected the Gospel that it did not matter? The Leicester Conference was a challenge to the Union; and they were there to meet that challenge. The meeting was then enlivened by the humour, unction and Welsh fire of the Rev. Herber Evans. If they in England would not pass the resolutions, they would pass them in Wales, and then put up a notice: 'No connection with the firm over the way that dilutes the milk.' If they had outgrown Dr. Owen and Matthew Henry, so much the worse for them. Mr. Picton had said that he felt the Union was his home; but would they drive others away from it who were quite as important? He was not one of those men of science who baked the Bread of Life with German barm and changed diamonds into gas. The Chairman had spoken of certain who had doubts and difficulties as 'the more thoughtful amongst us.' Mr. Evans did not profess to belong to that number; he could only say with one Paul, Jesus Christ, and Him crucified,' and he had always thought that Paul was " one of the more thoughtful amongst us.'

Mr. Edward White could not reconcile Mr. Picton's speech with his writings, in which he denied Inspiration, and ignored the authority of Christ. This led the speaker into some very just, though very severe remarks on the semi-infidelity diffused through the columns of a so-called Christian newspaper. In this he was supported by the warm applause of the audience. Dr. Mellor finally rose to reply. Referring to the glorification of doubt he said: 'I have not come to my conclusions by rule of thumb; I have not leaped into them; and, although I have not whined about the world concerning my doubts and my fears and my hesitation, there have been years when I have been in suspense, and

I have had to read much, and pray much, but I have not communicated them to my nearest friends; and I do not think a man doubts the less profoundly because he can keep the secret of his own doubts.' A young gentleman who had ventured to cast some reflections on him was answered in a manner that must have sent that gentleman away a wiser but a sadder man. After a brief notice of arguments and misconceptions, Dr. Mellor resumed his seat. The Chairman then put Dr. Parker's amendment, which was supported by less than fifty votes. Then the resolutions were carried with overwhelming enthusiasm by the whole assembly, with the insignificant exception of about twenty hands. It was a grand sight to see that assembly of great Preachers, scholars and thinkers stand up and bear testimony before God, the Churches and the world, that it had no intention of throwing

away its faith. This result was expected.

Thus closed a meeting and a debate the result of which has been and will be received with profound gratitude among all sections of Evangelical Christendom. An article, however, in the Daily Telegraph, the inspiration of which it is easy to trace, sneers at the debate, and with its usual obliquity relegates Independency to the category of creedbound Churches. The Jewish World is contemptuous, and the Christian World infuriate; while the Unitarian Inquirer admits the consistency of the course taken by the Union, and asks Messrs. Wilks and Picton

whether they are now going to boldly avow their convictions by taking a new point of departure, after the very significant hint which has been thrown out. The Evangelical journals, however, welcome the result with unmixed thankfulness and joy.

THE third lecture, on The Nature of the Evidence, offers comparatively few passages suitable for extracts. We must, however, give our readers the benefit of the passages which follow, though, in so doing, we detach them from their context.

'Where does this all-pervading harmony exist, to which every atom of matter, every moment of life bears witness? Not in our minds, for we have but slowly and partially deciphered its alphabet. Letter by letter we are continually spelling out its lessons; but we are as yet unable to grasp its entire scope, its fundamental principles or its central idea; and we know that it must have existed incalculable ages before the intellect of man had birth. It is more real than all reality, for by virtue of it the universe is what it is an intelligible whole, and not a chaos of aimless forces. Yet it is ideal, capable of existing only in

thought; at all events inconceivable by us in any other way.

Only one theory of these facts is intellectually possible. We may chain our intellect to the facts themselves, arbitrarily forbidding it to step or look beyond them. But if we draw from them any conclusion at all, but one conclusion is possible. There must be A MIND to which all the facts of nature have been known from the begin ning, which holds the keys of its mysteries, controls the relations of its elements and forces and possesses the ideal pattern of that harmony which those elements and forces are every instant busy in realizing.

'At this point we are encountered by a formidable objection,-in fact, as I have before said, the only really formidable objection we have to deal with; drawn from the supposed limits of human knowledge, and directed not against any detail, but against the whole range and method of our argument.......

The objection in question is, that we are