the world hears such opposite views from men who have an equally legitimate status in the Union, it is a little too much for its representatives to put on airs of injured innocence or sublime superiority to criticism, and insist that its character protects it from any suspicion of disloyalty to Evangelical truth. The large majority of Congregational ministers can afford to take this position if they will; but so long as there are in the Union those who avowedly regard the cardinal facts and doctrines of the gospel as unverified speculations, and scoff at the very idea of a supernatural religion, it is impossible for it to remain silent on the plea that the world knows all about us.' While it maintains such an attitude, all that the world can know is that the Union contains two classes of men-the one preaching that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,' and the other asserting that there is no resurrection; that both find a home within its borders, and that the Union, in its great comprehensiveness and liberality, will not even venture to declare itself on either side. What can be the conclusion, except that in a community regarded as distinctively Evangelical, all the truths which have hitherto been held as most certain and most precious have now become open questions? Better a thousand times that the Congregational Union should at once be dissolved than that it should exhibit such a miserable spectacle of impotence, so falsify all the proudest traditions of Congregationalism, and show itself so utterly unable to keep its place in the great works and conflicts of the time.

resolve boldly to confront that pseudo-liberalism which has tolerance for everything but loyalty to the old faith. They must have known that they would be branded as narrow and reactionary; that their orthodoxy would be regarded as decisive proof of their want of learning; and that the assertion of their own liberty would be resented as an invasion of the liberties of others. If they resolved to brave this, what was more, to place themselves in antagonism to brethren for whom they had a high personal respect, and, worst of all, to create such excitement in the Churches, it must have been from a strong conviction that there was a serious evil about which it was necessary to use great plainness of speech.

It might have been said, with some show of plausibility, that their conclusions revealed only the weakness of panic-struck orthodoxy, were it not that the organ of Unitarian opinion expresses the same view. Their hopefulness as to the movement was the counterpart of the uneasiness which was excited in Congregational circles. The Inquirer' frankly says:

The central doctrines of orthodoxy, we have more than once pointed out, are either true or false. If they are true they are tremendous historical realities, in respect to which no indifference can be tolerated.... When the promoters of the Leicester Conference, therefore, proclaimed their new discovery-so old nion is independent of doctrinal agreement,' and familiar to us-that 'religious commuthey affirm that dogmas are of subordinate value; they practically reject the very basis of orthodoxy; and if they continue to use the old traditional phrases-Incarnation, Atonement, Regeneration, and the like they use them in a non-natural sense, wholly alien to both the letter and the spirit of the popular theology with which they have hitherto been

We do not care to discuss whether the possibility of such a state of things being tolerated had created any extensive uneasiness in Congregational circles. A large rep-identified. resentative Committee, carefully selected so as to include men of different schools of thought and from all parts of the country, arrived at the conviction, as expressed in the preamble to the Resolutions, that it had, and the Executive Committee of the Union, after careful deliberation, endorsed the opinion. We defer to such authority. A member of both these bodies has since the debate asserted that there has been an artificially stimulated' panic, but he adduces no evidence to establish it, and it is clear he failed to convince his colleagues on either What possible bias can have induced these representative men to accept inconclusive proof as to the existence of an unrest and distrust which had no reality, it is not easy to see. They could not but foresee the kind of attack to which they were sure to expose themselves, should they

of them.

6

This is simply a repetition, in different phraseology, of what Dr. Mellor said with so much point and force at the meeting of the Union. He was reproached for being severely dogmatic. What will be said of the Unitarian journal which lays down the same principle with the same hardness and precision? We are willing to believe that there were not a few at Leicester whose only fault was that they were carried away by a charity which, if somewhat too effusive, was very amiable and sincere; but when the exhibition of that charity compromises the interests of truth, they must not be surprised if their words and deeds are jealously scrutinized. There are many whose orthodoxy none would dispute who would join them in doing honour to the personal excellence of men whose creed they regard as

full of error; but it is a long step from | alists are agreed; they do not mark out the this to proclaim to the world that relig- points which differentiate their system from ious communion is independent of doctrinal those of other Christian communities; they agreement.' That Congregationalists should do not even suggest that assent to the truths become anxious when they found even a laid down should be enforced on all memsmall section of their ministers subscribing bers of the Union. They are an historic to a principle like this, is certainly not won- testimony as to what Congregationalist derful. It would have been not only a marvel, Churches have taught in the past on the but a cause of sorrow and distress, if it had points named, and a declaration that they been otherwise. We go further, and say hold the same position to-day. Yet even that if the apparent catholicity of the move- the Chairman speaks of them as a creed, ment had cast such a glamour over the and acting upon this view of his own charChurches generally that they failed to per- acterizes them in the following not very receive its real character, it would have been spectful terms: 'I am but a poor dogmatic the solemn duty of all who felt the gravity theologian, and my opinion may not be of the circumstances to arouse them from worth much, but it strikes me that I have so strange an indifference. But there has rarely read such a helpless theological docubeen no occasion for such appeals. The ment as these resolutions.' This was not appreciation of the tendencies of the Leices- very complimentary to those by whom the ter Conference has been much more general document was drawn up, men whom Mr. and intelligent than is supposed by those Brown recognizes as friends, and whom he who so glibly assert that Congregationalists knows to be not so absolutely destitute of have taken little heed of it. The persistent acuteness and intelligence that they could efforts of its advocates have had the very not measure the real value of resolutions opposite effect to that which was intended, which they were throwing down for the and have only served to extend and deepen criticism not of the assembly only, but of the feeling of distrust. The great danger the world at large. Mr. Brown could was that the spirit of reaction might be- hardly suppose that they needed him to recome too powerful, and if this has been mind them that their document would be prevented it is due to the firm and yet mod- scanned keenly by practised eyes, and erate action of the Union and its Commit- scanned quite as closely for what it does tee. Had their proposals been rejected, we not say as well as for what it does say.' have no hesitation in saying that there They may possibly have calculated, howwould have been an outburst of feeling ever, that any critic who really wished to which would have astonished those who deal fairly with it would have been careful, have given such confident assurances that before pronouncing on its merits, to conthere was no feeling of uneasiness abroad. sider what it actually professed to be, and Certain it is that there is far too much vi- to judge it accordingly. In this they may tality and earnestness in the Congregational have been mistaken. It may be that the Churches of to-day for them to drift quietly second resolution will be regarded everyinto practical Unitarianism, or rather into a where as a creed, and consequently that it will desert region of Agnosticism, far beyond provoke a verdict very unfavourable to the the confines of Unitarianism. theological reputation of Congregationalism. Be it so. If there are critics who determine to assert that a document is what its authors say it is not, and what on the face of it it was clearly never intended to be, and then proceed to condemn its authors for doing so helplessly what they never intended to do at all, there is no remedy for it.

The only appeal lies to the dispassionate common sense of those who can be fair enough to judge these Resolutions for what they are, and not for what their critics insist they were meant to be.

The real intent of the Resolutions, passed by a majority of the Union so overwhelming that The Inquirer' may well doubt if the small minority on the heterodox or open communion side can be called a party,' has been variously represented, or we may rather say, after the clear and reiterated explanations which were given by their advocates, misrepresented. The most common suggestion is that the object of the Committee was to formulate a creed. We can hardly understand how any one who has carefully studied them can have ar- No doubt the silences are significant,' as rived at such a conclusion. There is hardly was more than once asserted in the course a single feature in them which resembles a of the debate, but their significance consists creed. They do not profess to be a com- in the proof which they furnish that the plete exposition of Christian doctrine; they document was not meant to be (adopting do not give even in bare outline a summary once more the Chairman's words) a popuof the principles on which Congregation-lar compendium of Evangelical doctrine for

that Mr. Ripley had separated himself from the Liberal party. Why should not the same law apply to a great religious society? Our liberal' friends ask too much when they demand not only liberty for the propagation of their own opinions, but the right to remain in a private and voluntary association, constituted for the distinct purpose of advancing views to which they are in deadly antagonism, and to use the position which they thus secure for the purpose of undermining the foundations of the society itself. Such an idea of liberty would be scouted in relation to any body except a religious one, and we see no reason why it should be more favourably regarded there.

these suspicions by their action it is because | lished Church, and if such an individual was the leaders are too worldly-wise to go so on its roll of membership, could not be acfar. We will not stoop to answer such cused of persecution if it expunged his criticism, which can damage those only name. It was felt by all unprejudiced men who have recourse to it. But we must that the Reform Club did right when it sepaenter our emphatic protest against the sug-rated itself from Mr. Ripley, on the ground gestion that the Union would be guilty of any injustice, or would be using any engine of repression,' if it should exclude from its fellowship men who have renounced its fundamental principle. There has not been even a hint of such an intention, and as the parties concerned are honourable men, the necessity for action of the kind ought not even to be contemplated. But should circumstances render it imperative for the Congregational Union to exercise the extreme right which must belong to it, in common with all other bodies, of withdrawing the privileges of membership from some who have distinctly violated the conditions of membership, there would be nothing in this which could fairly expose it to a charge. of persecution. If, indeed, it invented some novel and severe conditions which it sought to impose upon its members, or if it was too subtle in its definitions, or too severe in its application of those already existing, it might be open to the imputation of harshness and narrowness, but in the present instance there can be no room even for such a suggestion as this. There is no historical fact more certain than that the Congregational Union has always held the doctrines which the Resolutions contain; and they are so far from being set forth in exact scientific phraseology, which might have seemed to be a net for tender consciences, that the allegations against the Resolutions are that they are raw and ill-chosen,' and that they leave out much that ought to have been included.

We have said this, not because we have the most remote expectation that the occasion for such proceedings-which indeed the best friends of Congregationalism would most earnestly deprecate-is at all likely to arise, but because we feel it desirable to expose the fallacy of much loose talk that is prevalent on the subject, and which seems to us to arise from a confusion between a voluntary society, which has a perfect right to lay down its own lines and adhere to them,, and a national institution, in which all citizens should have equal rights. The Women's Suffrage Association would not be guilty of persecution if it refused to accept Mr. Smollett, with his present views, as one of its members, were it possible to fancy him. seeking admission into its fellowship. The Liberation Society would not tolerate in its ranks a determined supporter of the Estab

If, however, the Resolutions were intended to prepare the way for the expulsion of any members of the Union, they are singularly ill-constructed. What facilities they give which did not previously exist, we are absolutely unable to perceive. They may be called a 'test,' but they are only such a test' as every society applies when it defines its constitution or its aim, or even assumes a name which is fairly descriptive of its object. They are an appeal to the honour of the members, and that appeal ought to be sufficient. They have, in fact, distinctly affirmed the entire relation of the Union to certain of its members. Before, the Union might be supposed to have a certain degree of responsibility for these individuals. Now, if they continue in its fellowship, they have to take their share of responsibility for these Resolutions of the Union, and all outsiders have a right to assume that they do, in a true sense, accept the doctrines, faith in which has been declared by so large a majority of the Union to be an essential condition of its fellowship. We have no desire to abate that significance, or conceal the fact that they are intended to assert that the Congregational Union is not meant to be the home of a Rationalism which sets aside the facts and doctrines of supernatural religion. But so far from pointing in the direction of penal proceedings, they seem to us designed rather to save the Union from the painful necessity of having to undertake such unwelcome action.

There is one other assertion of the Unitarian critic which demands an emphatic denial. It is not true in any sense that Congregationalists still cling to the old

that they show a narrow and reactionary tendency. So far from assuming to have any more authority than the declaration,' the resolutions are far less formal, as was to be expected from the purpose they were intended to serve. What novelty is to be found in them, it puzzles us to perceive. Not in their substance, for no one can doubt that the truths they enunciate are those which it has been the glory of Congregationalists from the very beginning of their history to maintain. Not in their form, for, as we have just seen, they are, though less precise and definite in character, a docu

ment the same in kind as that which the founders of the Union thought it necessary to adopt. The only novelty about them is the extent to which they stretch the bounds of comprehension. They may fairly be taken as a delimitation of the Union, and so regarded they are the broadest statement of fundamental Evangelical doctrine which any Christian Church has ever adopted. If this be reaction we need a new vocabulary. The resolutions have indeed been represented as a feeble bulwark of the truth, hastily and loosely erected in a moment of

We know not that the action of the Union needs more justification than is supplied in this statement of a decided but fair and honourable adversary. There is something attractive in the idea of good men of differing opinions, uniting in a common religious fellowship, but if that fellowship is to have any reality, those differences must not touch the points which both regard as vital. There can be no true communion between men one section of whom regards the things which the other holds as precious truths as old-panic. It would be much more correct to world fables and superstitions-a belief in which dishonours God and degrades man.

If this, the crucial point of the controversy, had not been so systematically overlooked or misrepresented, the discussion would not have become so embittered, and

6

we should have been saved from a host of
fallacies by which the real issue has been
concealed. For example, we have heard a
good deal about a new departure' for Con-
gregationalism; while on the other hand
we have been told, and sometimes by the
same people, that the Resolutions mark a
policy of reaction. A new departure'
which should also be a 6
reaction' would
be rather curious, for the one suggests that
we are leaving the old lines, while the other
implies that we are going back upon them.
After all, the merits of important proposals
are not to be summarily decided by a cant
phrase. A movement is not necessarily
wrong because it is a
new departure,' nor
even because it is a reaction.' We are
unable, however, to see that the action of
the Union is correctly described either by the
one term or the other.

A declaration of faith is no new thing in the Union, as the document adopted in 1833 sufficiently proves. If the resolutions were to be regarded as a fresh declaration,' it is impossible to compare their few simple statements of fundamental truths with the elaborate definitions of the long schedule of doctrine in the earlier document, and say

speak of them as a defence of liberty against the excesses of professed friends, whose zeal outruns their wisdom. They guard it even by insisting that these are essential truths, about which there must be unity, thus meeting the anxieties of many who

fear that liberalism means unbelief.

In nothing, perhaps, has the unwisdom of pseudo-liberals been more apparent than in the resolution to drag the doctrine of Conditional Immortality and its supporters into the controversy. The opportunity for a retort upon advocates of that view, who were at the same time defenders of the policy of the Union Committee, was tempting, but a true friend of liberty would have resisted it. The allusion was in miserable taste, but it was even worse in point of tactics than of feeling. It may serve the purpose of Ultramontanes to teach the world that there is no resting-place between Agnosticism and an absolute submission to authority, but the friends of rational freedom could commit no more fatal mistake than to imitate such an example. If the principle underlying this reference to the tolerance granted to the propounders of the new theory about immortality be accepted, the result would certainly be the enforcement of a rigid uniformity everywhere. For let it be once understood that if liberty be granted at all, it must in consistency be so extended as to include those who regard the gospel itself as an effete superstition, and it is not difficult to