with the religious world of the period; He who was called a drunken man and a wine-bibber—a destroyer of the law, because He came to fulfil the law—a blasphemer against God, because He came out from God. That figure still stands for the deliverance of the ages→→ the figure of One without form or comeliness, whose visage was marred more than the sons of men, yet who 'by His faith and patience won for Himself the name of the Man of Sorrows, and the author and finisher of our faith.'

When I consider the ignorance and bigotry of past ages towards those who have come from God to this earth, blessing and to bless, my heart fails me; for I perceive that this age, like every other, is trying to stamp out the new forms of faith and of knowledge—is trying to silence the men who are rising up, and showing us the wonderful ways of God-men who have opened up for me and for thousands, views of the universe far nobler than ever I thought it possible for man to have. What shall we say to the children of this generation? Shall we turn in sorrow or n anger upon them, as Stephen turned upon the religious world of his day, and cry out in helpless despair and pain, 'Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost. As your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted, and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it?' or shall I look

upon this great city as upon another, though not a New, Jerusalem-this great and unbelieving city-unbelieving in the strictest sense of the word, because it has not known in this its day the things which belonged to its peace; and shall I exclaim, in words more august and more tender than Stephen's, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often '-by the voice of science, and the voice of a new and blessed knowledge, and by the many voices of advanced human experience-'how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!' God grant that the next words may not soon be thundered at the National Church of England: 'Behold, your house is left unto you desolate!'

Bear with me a few moments longer. I have unfolded to you the first principles of liberal theology, in distinguishing between dogma and truth. I have pointed to the methods of inquiry which must arise from accepting that distinction. I have shown the misery and disastrous injustice which has always and must always accompany the neglect of it. In conclusion, I will define my own position as one of the Liberal clergy in the National Church of England.

5. I am under the control of the State. All the clergy of the National Church are under the State, and therefore they ought to obey the State; but they find that their opinions are constantly coming into collision with the formulas which the State put forth for their

guidance at the time of the Reformation. How, then, can they as honest men go on working in an establishment from some of whose formulas they, in common with many of the most educated men in the country, dissent? That is the question I wish to place clearly before you. First, then, brethren, I must try, if I am ruled by the State, to understand the spirit as well as the letter of what the State means. At the time of the Reformation the State put forward a series of Articles and Formularies, which it required its ministers, and, in fact, all its members, to subscribe as members of the National Church. What was the meaning of that movement, prescribing a series of theological tenets and ceremonies? Men were at that time ready to cut each others' throats upon the opposing sides of Protestantism and Catholicism, and the State, in order to protect its subjects, put forward a series of formulas, which people of very different minds and opinions might agree in signing, in approving generally, and in giving their assent to, as a compromise. Now, when the State did that, it no doubt tried to get as near the truth as possible. The Articles were, perhaps, at the time as good and as moderate a statement as could be made of the Christian religion, considering the age of the world, and the social, political, and religious influences of that period. But do you mean to tell me that the State meant to fix these formulas as expressions of truth, beyond which there was no expression of truth possible? Why, that was the very point on which she had separated from Rome. Do you suppose that when the State

denied to the Church of Rome the power to fix dogmatic truth or ceremonies, she arrogated to herself the privilege of doing so simply because she found it necessary to put a good working set of formularies, to which her ministers and people were called upon to assent in the spirit of compromise? I don't believe it for a moment, and for this reason-because the very action of the State, in remodelling the forms of faith, was a protest against the fixedness of such forms. You may say, 'Aye, but it was an assertion of the fixedness of truth— an attempt to return to the old ways corrupted by Rome.'

Well, that was a laudable attempt, but it has accomplished even more than it attempted; for whilst the Reformation only swept away some tenets, and modified a few others, it was a practical admission that the mind of man must be brought to bear, from time to time, upon the subject-matter of his belief, as it is placed before him in his age and country, in order to purify and cleanse that belief, and prevent it from dying down into mere dogma. I can understand the Roman Catholics saying, 'We like dogma; we won't have our doctrines interfered with ;' but in the mouth of a Protestant these words have no meaning. The very essence of Protestantism is that we have protested once, and that we mean to protest again. We claim our right to re

examine and to recommend reform whenever examination and reform are needed. The greatest reexamination of the truth was the promulgation of Christianity itself, and the greatest freethinkers were

the apostles. The reformation of Romanism was a trifle compared to the reform of Judaism by Christianity. Therefore I cannot believe that the State meant to fix for ever the expression of religious truth. But if the State meant to fix the doctrine and discipline of the Church, as from the rubric at the beginning of the Articles it might be argued (and such a design was, considering the prevailing state of knowledge and the heat of party feeling, quite pardonable), yet it would surely be unpardonable, nay, almost inconceivable, now, with the facts of history behind us, with the recent efforts of legislation before us, with the late authorised attempts to stretch and expand the formularies, with the mitigated form of subscription at length granted to the clergy, with the avowed intention on the part of the legislature to permit Dr. Pusey, Professor Jowett, Deans Stanley and Close to dwell together in the unity of the Faith-if not in the bond of peace, I say, with these facts, these ceremonies, these anomalies sanctioned and encouraged by the State of our days, so different from the State of past days, it would be cruel and unfair to assume that the State 'means for evermore to turn a 'deaf ear to the entreaties of no insignificant minority of her clergy and laity, when they ask her to lay aside as a worn-out vesture the 'non possumus' of Rome, and charge herself with the 'Resurgam' of a new Reformation.

'Well,' you reply, 'that may be all very true, but what business have you, under the present fixed order of things, to agitate for a reform however needful? you